Nirbhay Cruise Missile Development

[lupgain]

As I have posted earlier every system ( Booster/Guidance & Control / Navigation) are independent system integrated together into missile body, I am wondering didn't they perform tests for individual systems before integration???? Or do we lack the facility ???

 

[ezsasa]

Don't think this is a mechanical failure.

It's better they put off next year's test, and rewrite the code from scratch. But this time add a component of simulator tests in all sub-components. Similar to what ADA guys did to Tejas, they had built a whole test rig only for simulator tests to validate code, which is probably the reason Tejas as a system worked fine from the start.

I am arguing for re-write of the code is because some of the basic components would have been written more than 5 years ago.

 

[Blackwater]

“I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.”
― Thomas A. Edison

Stop being drama queens.

“I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.”
DRDO

:biggrin2::biggrin2::biggrin2::bounce::bounce::bounce:

 

[Chinmoy]

The failure is not there in Navigation or in code as far as its recent test goes. We are forgetting a basic concept of missiles, esp cruise missiles here. For any short of navigation to take place at first stage, you need stability. This time the missile had veered off 2 mins after take off. So if we start to do a dissection of events from first--

1- Lift off was normal, means no problem with rocket booster.
2- Seems missile had taken the pre programmed angle for flight after lift off. So no problem in first line of navigational code.
3- It veered off immediately into its cruise flight. Seems problem is there in that stage. So if we look into this part, it should have attained a speed of 0.7 to 0.8 Mach or we could safely say that it might have attained a speed of 900 km/h by this time. At this rate it would have covered around 15 km max in these 2 mins or we could say 45000 feet at max.
Now in INS, during these first few kms, the missile follows the initial flight altitude and path and navigation doesn't play any role in it. The basic equipment which keeps the missile on the straight path during this time is its gyroscope. If it had veered off from its intended flight path in this initial stage itself, then the problem is not there with its code or its navigation system AFAIK. The problem is there with its Gyroscope which might have been unable to provide stability to its initial flight path.

 

[Chinmoy]

Actually nobody knew we were doing a Nirbhay test today before Hemant Rout reported it . Yesterday he reported about the preparation of ITR for Nirbhay test and then others started reporting it.
He also is the first one who said we are soon going to do an Agni-V test within a month or so then others started reporting it.
This itself proves either all the missile test were lies or DRDO ITR only trusts this guy for regular tests. This proves DRDO dosen't have an official press team for reporting .
Bro I want this test to be successful but lets not become like Pakis or Chinese who lie about their tests.

The Babur test recently done was probably a reply for today's Nirbhay as India would have informed them beforehand of Nirbhay test so Pakis tested their reverse engineered Tomahawk BGM 109A aka Babur.

I can't even think of going the Chini or Paki way. If its a failure, its a failure. But at times I get skeptic towards our media reporting. Everyone starts reporting what one does and each and every time they do come up with some unmanned source instead of official claim and start building up stories on their own. This is what irks me a lot about these journos.

 

[sayareakd]

Something strange is observed, Rout reports whats happens in the test, he has no idea if he understands it or not.

If i was DRDO high up and he reported like he used to, he would have been barred from DRDO premises and talking to my guys. But it appears that he too being used by very same persons who want us to fail and rely on foreign weapons.

 

[piKacHHu]

Nirbhay Failure: Why It’s Important For The Government To Support The Cruise Missile Project
The fourth test of the Nirbhay cruise missile, conducted on 21 December 2016, ended in yet another failure, the third in a total of four tests. This must undoubtedly be demoralising to the team of Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) scientists, who worked on the project and represents something of a blot on the agency’s record as in missile development. Moreover, it is an unfortunate fact of Indian defence reporting that rather than any analysis or nuance in coverage, there will be an outbreak of “DRDO-bashing” (ADE being a Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) establishment) and much uninformed speculation. While criticism is necessary, and introspection and review desperately needed, any orgy of self-flagellation will be completely counterproductive.

At the outset, it is pertinent to consider what the Nirbhay is supposed to be. It is India’s first strategic cruise missile with a range exceeding 1,000km with a speed of between 0.8 and 0.9 Mach (speed of sound) with a launch weight of 1,500kg and a length of 6 meters. The payload size of the missile is not yet known but there is speculation that it would be capable of carrying either conventional or nuclear warheads of 24 different types. It is intended to fly at very low altitudes of 20 meters or less to evade radar detection, using a terrain-following function, which enables it to use mapped contours of the ground for both concealment and updating its inertial navigation system.

In contrast to ballistic missiles, cruise missiles can be cheaper, are much slower and use a different flight path entirely. They are also more flexible as, in the South Asian context, ballistic missiles are inextricably linked to nuclear weapons and as such cruise missiles attract much less attention, making them useable weapons for the delivery of conventional warheads while retaining the ability to carry a nuclear payload.

Compared to the Brahmos missile already in service, the Nirbhay is longer-ranged (1,000 km+ vs 290km) but slower and the Brahmos is considerably longer (8.4 meters) and heavier (3,000kg). However, while the Brahmos is intended to cruise at higher altitudes and then complete its terminal run to target at a very low altitude of 10-15 meters, the Nirbhay can complete much of its flight at these lower altitudes. The Nirbhay also has the ability to loiter and to pick out and engage a specific target in a multiple target environment. In addition, it is very unlikely that the Brahmos has, at this stage, any ability to carry a nuclear warhead – its manufacturers specify a conventional payload only – although there has been some informed comment to the contrary.

The Nirbhay has been tested four times to date with three tests being failures and other being termed either a partial or complete success depending on which report is read:

The First Test

On 12 March 2013 when the missile took off from the launch pad successfully and reached the second stage of propulsion, travelling 15 minutes along its predicted path, covering 30 per cent of its intended 1,000 km at a speed of 0.7 Mach. It then veered away from its trajectory forcing the missile to be destroyed in mid-flight. On this occasion, it was suggested that the fault was a defect in the inertial navigation system.

The Second Test

On 17 October 2014, the second test of the missile was much more successful. All the test parameters were purportedly met and the missile completed all 15 way-points. The missile covered a distance of more than 1,000 km in a flight that lasted for over 1 hour and 10 minutes. It is to be noted, though that the missile did not manoeuver as desired at low altitude. While the missile test was, therefore largely successful, it was not an unqualified success and should have raised questions about the missile’s low-altitude performance.

The Third Test

The third test of the missile took place on 16 October 2015. The missile was to be tested for its low flying capability being brought down from 4,800 meters to 20 meters gradually and in stages. All initial critical operations such as booster ignition, booster separation, wing deployment and engine start were successfully executed and Nirbhay reached the desired cruise altitude. However, 11 minutes into the flight, after covering only 128km, the missile crashed into the Bay of Bengal.

The Fourth Test

The fourth test of the missile took place on 21 December 2016. The once again, there was a successful booster ignition and launch. Less than four minutes after lift-off, the missile veered off its intended trajectory and outside the safety zone, leading to it being destroyed in flight. Initial reports suggest the flight control hardware and software failed to actuate the missile control services and that the engine lost thrust two minutes after take-off.

With only one test in four being anywhere close to successful, the Nirbhay project has been one of the least successful of DRDO’s missile programmes. In part, this may be because it was handled by the ADE, which has only had limited experience in developing Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), besides its experience in supporting the Tejas programme. A cruise missile project represents a quantum leap in technology and a very steep learning curve for a laboratory that has thus far produced only a few UAV designs.

In light of this, the most disturbing aspect in the lead-up to the fourth test of the Nirbhay were informed reports – spearheaded by some excellent reporting by Hemant Kumar Rout of The New Indian Express – suggesting that problems with the flight control and navigation software had not been adequately rectified prior to the test with the software designers advising against the test. Moreover, quality control issues need to be examined as two user trials of the Agni-2 failed not for any defect in design but due to component failure and this is one aspect, which could have contributed to the failure of the fourth test. It was also reported that there were issues with the fuel tank not having cleared environment stress screening tests. If this is so, the scientists who assured the government of a successful test should be called to account. Indeed, after the third test, a team headed by the National Aerospace Laboratories director, Shyam Chetty, had recommended further testing only after all defects and snags were rectified.

Where does this leave the Nirbhay project? At the outset, any suggestion that the project should be wound-up or cancelled is nonsensical. Failures will be part of any programme. What is unfortunate is that a dynamic trial was undertaken without rectifying defects from the previous one. The ADE Nirbhay project team must not be rushed into premature testing of the missile and should be encouraged to resist any pressure to do so. This project is about mastering cruise missile technology as much as it is about delivering a useable weapon to the armed forces. To this end, it behooves the government and the military to support the Nirbhay project even if it is delayed.

Source: http://swarajyamag.com/defence/nirb...ernment-to-support-the-cruise-missile-project

 

[Brood Father]

“I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.”
DRDO

:biggrin2::biggrin2::biggrin2::bounce::bounce::bounce:

I have not failed , but have found 100000000 ways not to succeed :bounce::bounce:

DRDO in 2050 after another Nirbhay failure

 

[Adioz]

@Brood Father @Blackwater Stop trolling around in this thread. Leave here if you cannot contribute anything worthwhile for this thread. Or better yet, open a new thread where you can rant about DRDO as much as you want.

The failure is not there in Navigation or in code as far as its recent test goes. We are forgetting a basic concept of missiles, esp cruise missiles here. For any short of navigation to take place at first stage, you need stability. This time the missile had veered off 2 mins after take off. So if we start to do a dissection of events from first--

1- Lift off was normal, means no problem with rocket booster.
2- Seems missile had taken the pre programmed angle for flight after lift off. So no problem in first line of navigational code.
3- It veered off immediately into its cruise flight. Seems problem is there in that stage. So if we look into this part, it should have attained a speed of 0.7 to 0.8 Mach or we could safely say that it might have attained a speed of 900 km/h by this time. At this rate it would have covered around 15 km max in these 2 mins or we could say 45000 feet at max.
Now in INS, during these first few kms, the missile follows the initial flight altitude and path and navigation doesn't play any role in it. The basic equipment which keeps the missile on the straight path during this time is its gyroscope. If it had veered off from its intended flight path in this initial stage itself, then the problem is not there with its code or its navigation system AFAIK. The problem is there with its Gyroscope which might have been unable to provide stability to its initial flight path.

INS failure was also the cause for the first failure.
INS is designed by RCI (Research Centre Imaarat) Hyderabad, which also designed the INS for Agni V. Maybe we should have CSIR make a new INS for Nirbhay?
Question: the Nirbhay does use Ring Laser Gyro in the INS right?

However, the reason the missile veered-off could be 'cause it lost power........endless possibilities. Lets keep our hopes up for the fifth test.

 

[Screambowl]

these problems persists because DRDO cannot use ISRO's technology.

 

[Chinmoy]

@Brood Father @Blackwater Stop trolling around in this thread. Leave here if you cannot contribute anything worthwhile for this thread. Or better yet, open a new thread where you can rant about DRDO as much as you want.

INS failure was also the cause for the first failure.
INS is designed by RCI (Research Centre Imaarat) Hyderabad, which also designed the INS for Agni V. Maybe we should look for CSIR to make a new INS for Nirbhay?
Question: the Nirbhay does use Ring Laser Gyro in the INS right?

However, the reason the missile veered-off could be 'cause it lost power........endless possibilities. Lets keep our hopes up for the fifth test.

Actually Gyro has nothing to do with INS in first place as popularly believed. The primary job of Gyro is to provide stability and to keep any body fixed in its axis.
INS does work in tandem with Altimeter and Odometer to guide the body. As we all know, maneuvering parameters are pre feed into body and based on its reading in altitude and distance traveled, INS helps in navigating the body. Gyro as of their own can't guide a body nor could control its direction. It simply does provide a idea of its position at any particular given time. So if you have a failed gyro at the first place, your missile would immediately loose its sense of stability and start deviating from its path.
I think this is what had happened this time around.

 

[Chinmoy]

these problems persists because DRDO cannot use ISRO's technology.

DRDO does use ISRO tech in its ballistic missiles, but same can't be said and neither feasible when Cruise missiles are concerned. IMO HAL would be more helpful in this regard.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

these problems persists because DRDO cannot use ISRO's technology.

The work ISRO does is way more easier than turbofan and aero engines for cruise missiles and aircraft. Making rocket engines for just ballistic missiles and rockets is a simpler task.

DRDO also has stellar record in making ballistic missiles. In fact, DRDO would be capable of making more powerful rockets than ISRO.
Problem is there in technologies in primitive stage in our country.

 

[Adioz]

Actually Gyro has nothing to do with INS in first place as popularly believed. The primary job of Gyro is to provide stability and to keep any body fixed in its axis.
INS does work in tandem with Altimeter and Odometer to guide the body. As we all know, maneuvering parameters are pre feed into body and based on its reading in altitude and distance traveled, INS helps in navigating the body. Gyro as of their own can't guide a body nor could control its direction. It simply does provide a idea of its position at any particular given time. So if you have a failed gyro at the first place, your missile would immediately loose its sense of stability and start deviating from its path.
I think this is what had happened this time around.

AFAIK, Gyros provide an inertial frame of reference to the INS. Without gyros, its true that the missile will immediately loose its balance. But that does not mean its I/P is not required during guidance and direction control. I may be wrong. I mostly tend to understand INS in terms of the earlier gimballed gyrostabalised platforms, like the ones in the Jaguar's older avionics.

Anyhow, the loss of power could very well be behind this failure. Or maybe some problem with the fuel supply system. I think.

 

[Rchauhan]

Hey Guys ,,,,, a Secular News channel says that the test failed .... is this true ?? http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/drdo...se-missile-nirbhay-fails-another-test-1640500

 

[Rahul Singh]

I have not failed , but have found 100000000 ways not to succeed :bounce::bounce:

DRDO in 2050 after another Nirbhay failure

Somehow you don't know or just ungrateful to acknowledge that the same DRDO (ADA) has developed Fly-by-wire controls for Tejas which has given it near flawless flying for over a period of 15 years, a technological feat still unmatched by SAAB in it's Gripen range of fighter jets.

Like to repeat with peanut one only deserves a monkey. Yet on more than one occasion DRDO has delivered a stallion for just peanuts.

With just 2% of total defence budget you can't ask for whole world. Especially, when you choose to spend ~40 million for upgrading 30 year old air frames of Mirage 2000H without engines, when same 40 million buys a brand new Tejas.

 

[Brood Father]

Somehow you don't know or just ungrateful to acknowledge that the same DRDO (ADA) has developed Fly-by-wire controls for Tejas which has given it near flawless flying for over a period of 15 years, a technological feat still unmatched by SAAB in it's Gripen range of fighter jets.

Like to repeat with peanut one only deserves a monkey. Yet on more than one occasion DRDO has delivered a stallion for just peanuts.

With just 2% of total defence budget you can't ask for whole world. Especially, when you choose to spend ~40 million for upgrading 30 year old air frames of Mirage 2000H without engines, when same 40 million buys a brand new Tejas.

The failure is not once but four times ..the cruise tech is two decades old ..This is one space in which Pakistan lead us considerably
Whatever you said is right but multiple failures shouldn't be tolerated .

 

[Vayuputra]

Our entire media as expected gloating on motherland's failure. Basxxxds.

 

[Bornubus]

DRDO must be liquidated if such failures continue. These are the vestiges of Licence Raj era like Planning commission with zero accountability.


By the time many of DRDO's projects inducted they become close to obsolete since it took decades of development.

Arjun, Tejas etc once hailed as a symbol of Indian tech prowess are not even inducted in good numbers let alone becoming the backbone.

 

[BON PLAN]

With just 2% of total defence budget you can't ask for whole world. Especially, when you choose to spend ~40 million for upgrading 30 year old air frames of Mirage 2000H without engines, when same 40 million buys a brand new Tejas.

Mirage 2000 is war proven.
Tejas not. And need some more years to.
This is a small but crucial difference.