A half-yearly look at DRDO's ongoing missile projects

[TimeToScoot]

As we approach the end of the first half of 2014, it is worthwhile to look at how the year so far has been for indigenous research and development (R&D) in the defence sphere. We will of course also take a look at what else the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) has lined up for the remainder of 2014.

Read more here Saurav Jha's Blog : A half-yearly look at DRDO's ongoing missile projects

 

[Indo-guy]

As we approach the end of the first half of 2014, it is worthwhile to look at how the year so far has been for indigenous research and development (R&D) in the defence sphere. We will of course also take a look at what else the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) has lined up for the remainder of 2014.

Read more here Saurav Jha's Blog : A half-yearly look at DRDO's ongoing missile projects

Well Saurav Jha has not mentioned the 2 big tests that happened in January 2014 that is the test of Agni IV which makes it fully operational. and third consecutive successful test of Agni V .

 

[Capt.Popeye]

As we approach the end of the first half of 2014, it is worthwhile to look at how the year so far has been for indigenous research and development (R&D) in the defence sphere. We will of course also take a look at what else the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) has lined up for the remainder of 2014.

Read more here Saurav Jha's Blog : A half-yearly look at DRDO's ongoing missile projects

Add to that; a steady upgrading improvement in the existing missile armory esp in the areas of propellant and warheads. More punch and less weight; which will show its resultant benefits.......

 

[Indo-guy]

As we approach the end of the first half of 2014, it is worthwhile to look at how the year so far has been for indigenous research and development (R&D) in the defence sphere. We will of course also take a look at what else the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) has lined up for the remainder of 2014.

Read more here Saurav Jha's Blog : A half-yearly look at DRDO's ongoing missile projects

The last big one of the line up remaining is Nirbhay ...

But an eerie silence over Nirbhay test remains ....Hopefully it will be tested successfully soon .

@Dillinger Good to hear that indigenous engine for Nirbhay may be ready and will be used to power future Nirbhay missiles ...

( if we are to believe Mr Saurav jha's account )

 

[Dillinger]

The last big one of the line up remaining is Nirbhay ...

But an eerie silence over Nirbhay test remains ....Hopefully it will be tested successfully soon .

@Dillinger Good to hear that indigenous engine for Nirbhay may be ready and will be used to power future Nirbhay missiles ...

( if we are to believe Mr Saurav jha's account )

I don't know who's account to believe. While I agree that Sandy's (that while existing configurations of foreign engines, short of the Tomahawk's power-plant, do not satisfy the technical parameters we require, IT is possible to use them after addressing said performance attributes in house with the help of the OEM or independently) explanation on that thread met all the technical parameters. We have Mr. Chander's statement which openly states that some foreign nation has acted in violation of the MTCR (we are not signatories but all the nations which possess that kind of technology other than the PRC are indeed signatories), on top of that we have allegedly modified a foreign engine to meet our criteria but only for a solitary test or two although we either already have or are developing an engine for the same purpose (depending upon whether the GTRE and ETBRDC release is to be believed). Using a foreign engine for tests and then switching over to an indigenous one would make sense if the latter was a few years (lets say half a decade) away from fruition, on the other hand if valuable time and money has been sunk in to a foreign engine's modification (since I still stand by my technical argument that foreign options available to us in their operational configurations do not match our criteria and therefore will have to be modified for our use) then I don't see why we would discard said foreign engine after a test or two, it would make economical sense to continue with it as the operational power-plant itself since so far no one seems to be on our case for it (wrt MTCR).

I will be waiting for more substantial information being released after any subsequent test.

 

[Mike_Brando]

I don't know who's account to believe. While I agree that Sandy's (that while existing configurations of foreign engines, short of the Tomahawk's power-plant, do not satisfy the technical parameters we require, IT is possible to use them after addressing said performance attributes in house with the help of the OEM or independently) explanation on that thread met all the technical parameters. We have Mr. Chander's statement which openly states that some foreign nation has acted in violation of the MTCR (we are not signatories but all the nations which possess that kind of technology other than the PRC are indeed signatories), on top of that we have allegedly modified a foreign engine to meet our criteria but only for a solitary test or two although we either already have or are developing an engine for the same purpose (depending upon whether the GTRE and ETBRDC release is to be believed). Using a foreign engine for tests and then switching over to an indigenous one would make sense if the latter was a few years (lets say half a decade) away from fruition, on the other hand if valuable time and money has been sunk in to a foreign engine's modification (since I still stand by my technical argument that foreign options available to us in their operational configurations do not match our criteria and therefore will have to be modified for our use) then I don't see why we would discard said foreign engine after a test or two, it would make economical sense to continue with it as the operational power-plant itself since so far no one seems to be on our case for it (wrt MTCR).

I will be waiting for more substantial information being released after any subsequent test.

Bro do you remember that recently some DRDO heavy weight claimed that we have already successfully increased the range of the existing Brahmos missile to more than 500 kms.I mean can we really do that considering the fact that it's a J-V between us and the Russians and Russia being a signatory of MTCR agreement would have most probably stopped us from violating the agreement.So what's your take in this matter?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Bro do you remember that recently some DRDO heavy weight claimed that we have already successfully increased the range of the existing Brahmos missile to more than 500 kms.I mean can we really do that considering the fact that it's a J-V between us and the Russians and Russia being a signatory of MTCR agreement would have most probably stopped us from violating the agreement.So what's your take in this matter?

Even if they are partners in a JV; if a partner (independently) works on improving some aspect; that may well slip under the Radar.
In the first place, even the declared range is not likely to be exactly correct.

 

[Mike_Brando]

Even if they are partners in a JV; if a partner (independently) works on improving some aspect; that may well slip under the Radar.
In the first place, even the declared range is not likely to be exactly correct.

Sir are you saying that even the current Brahmos missiles have a range greater than the official 290 km as stated by both the J-V partners?I mean that would be a gross violation of the existing MTCR agreement and the signatories would never let the matter pass without making some fuss,would they?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Sir are you saying that even the current Brahmos missiles have a range greater than the official 290 km as stated by both the J-V partners?I mean that would be a gross violation of the existing MTCR agreement and the signatories would never let the matter pass without making some fuss,would they?

290 km is a nice conveniently round figure to quote. There is no way of knowing whether its 289 km or 299.9 km or something else altogether.
Till it gets fired in anger; then it will not even matter any which way.........

 

[Dillinger]

Bro do you remember that recently some DRDO heavy weight claimed that we have already successfully increased the range of the existing Brahmos missile to more than 500 kms.I mean can we really do that considering the fact that it's a J-V between us and the Russians and Russia being a signatory of MTCR agreement would have most probably stopped us from violating the agreement.So what's your take in this matter?

That's not exactly illegal, considering that in a JV with a foreign OEM it is difficult to ascertain in legal terms which component or advancement is indigenous, as long as India can, if pushed, "show" that any range increment was a result of our own tweaking its all cool. This is precisely why the the BrahMos is never referred to as a Russian article and even prospects of any sale to a third party always end up in the hands of the BrahMos Corp. and as a joint decision between the two nations. The MTCR is a treaty and therefore deals with established criteria for what is a violation and what is not, if you can keep skirting them then there is not much the signatories can do against the violating nation or the receiving nation.

This is the same loophole the US seeks to utilize with ROK, where the decision to aid ROK with long range munitions and UAVs will be sold as a cooperative effort in aid of ROK's indigenous development rather than a straight up transfer of technology (refer to Jeffery Lewis's piece on the same titled "Missiles Away", but you'll probably need a FP.com subscription/registration- Missiles Away!). We may have endeavored to do the same, in such a scenario despite any assistance we would still be compelled to call it an indigenous development and not openly reveal (as Mr. Chander seems to have done in an interview) the power-plant's origin or at least the identity of the OEM/country aiding us, lest we wish to put said country in the spotlight (given that unless it was the PRC, any other nation capable of helping us in this matter is going to be an official signatory of the act).



There is a reason, the above, that India has always considered the MTCR to be discriminatory and therefore refuses to sign it.

 

[Dillinger]

@Mike_Brando

Here is an excerpt

Then there is the broader erosion of our efforts to curb the spread of ballistic missiles. The MTCR is a voluntary regime. Carving out exceptions is dangerous business, given that virtually every country wouldn't mind an exception or two, especially if there happens to be a multi-billion dollar arms sale on the table. The Obama administration will surely argue this is not, strictly speaking, an exception to the MTCR because South Korea is developing these missiles indigenously. (Amazingly, South Korea has now announced that an 800-kilometer missile has been in development all along and will be ready for deployment in a few years.) But South Korea's missiles are based in large part on U.S. assistance provided over many years*, assistance provided largely on the expectation that South Korea would constrain its missile program. And South Korea joined the MTCR largely on theexpectation that participation would make it easier for Seoul to import relevant technologies.

*Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States