PressTv

The 20-meter Agni-II is capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to targets within a range of 2,500 kilometers (1,560 miles).

India’s nuclear-capable, medium-range ballistic missile has proved unsuccessful during its night-time test fire.

The army test-fired the surface-to-surface Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM) from the Integrated Test Range (ITR) from Wheeler’s Island, Bhadrak district, around 7:50 pm (1420 GMT).

“The liftoff and the first stage separation was smooth. But it faltered just before the second stage separation and behaved erratically, deviating from its coordinated path,” ‘the Times of India’ quoted a Defense Ministry official as saying on Tuesday.

“Further analysis to ascertain the cause is ongoing,” he said on condition of anonymity.

Sophisticated radars, telemetry observation stations, electro-optic instruments and a naval ship tracked the entire trajectory of Monday’s test fire.

The launch, originally scheduled earlier this month, had been postponed due to some technical problems in its pneumatic system.

Agni-II, which can deliver a nuclear warhead to targets within a range of 2,500 kilometers (1,560 miles), measures 20 meters in length, one meter in diameter.

The missile, first tested on April 11, 1999, has a launch weight 16 tones and can carry a 1,000 kg conventional or nuclear payload.

The user training test was the first night-time launch since the beginning of a missile development program by the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO).

India already has the nuclear-capable 3,000-kilometer range Agni-III missile while unconfirmed reports suggest it is building an Agni variant with a range of 5,000 kilometers.

According to statistical data available from multiple sources the Indian Air Force (IAF) has the dubious distinction of having the highest crash rate in the world. No other Air Foce comes close.Bharat has a tender bid open to purchase 126 brand spanking new Aircrafts from some of the best plane manufacturers in the world. Delhi has been able to maintain the ignominious distinction of having the worst track record in the word. If the current crash rates continue, it can crash all of its new hardware in 5 to 10 years.

An anonymous American analyst said the following “This is really unacceptable. Some heads should roll over this, and frankly this insane crash rate is making the IAF the laughing stock of airforces around the world.“

Some salient facts about the crashes with references.

• India, using mostly Russian aircraft, has an accident rate of 6-7 per 100,000 hours flown (compared to 4-5 for all NATO air forces.)
• The Indian rate had been over ten for many years, and it is still that high, and often higher, with other nations (including Russia and China), that use Russian aircraft designs.
• F-15s and F-16s have an accident rate of 3-4 per 100,000 flight hours.
• World Record: 500th Flying coffin crashes
• 1970-2005: IAF has recorded around 700 crashes since 1970, with around 180 pilots and scores of civilians on the ground losing their lives Publication: The Times of India, Date: Monday, September 4 2006
• 1970-2005: f the 793 MiG-21s progressively inducted inIAF since 1963, 330 have been lost in accidents. The Times of India, Date: Monday, September 4 2006′

Most of the crashes have been attributed to pilot incompetence and a lack of training. Another major factor pointed out by the Russians is the fact that Bhrat insisted on using poorly manufactured local parts. After several hundredMigs had crashed, the IAF blamed the manufacturer of a faulty fuel pump. According to the IAF the breakdown in 2005 is as follows. 40%; human error (servicing) 2%; technical defects 41%; bird hits 9%; unresolved 6%; and others 2%.

Bangalore: Three Indian Air Force (IAF) test pilots died on Friday when the prototype aircraft Saras of the state-run National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL) crashed near Bidadi, about 30 km from Bangalore, IAF sources said. Sify News. 2009-03-06 18:01:36, Last Updated: 2009-03-06 18:04:26

Recentlythe IAFpilots managed to crash one of the most advanced fighters, the pride and joy of a Resurgent Russia, theSukhoi 30. Chinese pilots using the same aircraft have hundred of fighters but their track record is a lot better than that of theIAF.

An Indian Air Force pilot was killed and another injured in the first crash of an Su-30 MKI near Pokharan today, prompting the IAF to temporarily ground its most advanced fighter. Indian Express. Manu Pubby, Posted: Friday , May 01, 2009 at 0250 hrs ISTl

An internal investigation of the SU-30 crash will “discover” the following again. Everything will be blamed on “Pilot Error” and the file will be closed, ’till the next crash.

The IAF’s track record in the past decade is dismal by any standards: In the ’90s, according to its own submissions in Parliament, it lost 80 pilots and 185 aircraft. Which makes it almost a squadron a year or a fourth of its entire fleet in the past decade alone. And the estimated loss: Rs 6,800 crore.Sify News. 2009-03-06 18:01:36, Last Updated: 2009-03-06 18:04:26

For the second time in a month, a U.S. Air Force F-22 suffered a “Class A” accident (one causing over a million dollars of loss). This one was the result of an F-22 colliding with a Canadian CF-18 while taxiing at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. This is the fifth F-22 Class A accident in the last six years. The last one was a crash, in which the pilot was killed. The only other crash did not result in the loss of the pilot.

ItÂ’s easier to have a Class A accident for an F-22, as the construction cost of the aircraft is over $140 million. The damage to the F-22 in the most recent accident was described as minor, but costing just over a million dollars to fix. The damage to the CF-18 will cost much less to repair.

So far, the air force has received 136 F-22s, and the aircraft entered service two years ago. With the recent crash, the F-22 an accident rate is about 7 per 100,000 hours. F-15s and F-16s have an accident rate of 3-4 per 100,000 flight hours. India, using mostly Russian aircraft, has an accident rate of 6-7 per 100,000 hours flown (compared to 4-5 for all NATO air forces.) The Indian rate had been over ten for many years, and it is still that high, and often higher, with other nations (including Russia and China), that use Russian aircraft designs.

The B-52 has the lowest accident rate of (less than 1.5 per 100,000 flying hours) of all American heavy bombers. The B-1s rate is 3.48. Compared to the supersonic B-1 and high-tech B-2, the B-52 is a flying truck. Thus the B-52, despite its age, was the cheapest, safest and most reliable way to deliver smart bombs.

New aircraft always have higher accident rates, which is how many hidden (from the design engineers and test pilots) flaws and technical problems. The F-22 is expected to eventually have an accident rate of 2-3 per 100,000 flight hours. The higher initial accident rate is part of a trend typical of new aircraft. The most recent accident, at Tyndall, appears to be human error or, at most, the failure of one of the less complex systems on the aircraft (like the ground steering or brakes.)

Much of the problem relates to the ageing MiG-21 which accounts for 62 per cent of the crashes. The aircraft, which this year completes 39 years with the IAF and still remains its backbone, is beset with problems. All the 22 MiG-21 squadrons are at least two-decades old. A third of the fleet is believed to be grounded for the lack of confidence in their ability to keep airborne without a glitch. The IAF loses one MiG fighter every 2,500 flight hours, making it one of the most vulnerable machines in service with any force in the world.

Most MiG-21s crash because of engine burnouts immediately after take-off and stress fractures to the airframe. The burnouts are often a result of poor engine maintenance and inadequate supply of spare parts especially of the critical blades of the engine that provide the thrust. But as a senior officer commanding MiG-21 squadrons points out, “Since nearly 22 of the IAF’s 35 squadrons comprise of the MiG-21s, it is bound to reflect in the accident rate as well. Do not forget that as many as 17 Jaguars have crashed and we have only four Jaguar squadrons in the air force.”

Part of the blame for the high rate of crashes lies with the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the IAF. They did not act fast enough to induct the planned MiG-21 upgrade which was expected to enter service after a comprehensive refit in 1999. The refit has now been delayed by at least three years — first, because the government could not decide the contract between Israel and Russia; and secondly, owing to lethargy on the part of the Russians. Instead of upgrading the entire MiG-21 Bis fleet, all that has been achieved so far is flight-testing of two MiG-21s in Russia.

Ageing MiGs are only one aspect of the problem. “There are two reasons for the IAF’s poor air safety record,” says Air Commodore (retd) Jasjit Singh, director IDSA. “The first is a 16-year delay in procurement of the Advance Jet Trainer (AJT). The second is the consistently poor quality of spare parts that are needed to keep the fighter planes airworthy.” With the AJT absent, Indian fighter pilots do not get sufficient training to equip them to move from basic aircraft, such as the Kiran Mark II, to the most advanced ones like the Mirage 2000.

The IAF depends on the oldest version of the MiG-21 — the MiG-21 FL — for training but found the craft unsuitable because it is essentially a fighter-interceptor and does not incorporate any features of a trainer jet. Analysts say that bad training results in fatal errors of judgement at high speeds and these often lead to crashes. Says former air chief S.K.Kaul, “The government’s lack of action on the AJT is nothing short of crass disregard for the force’s vital needs.” Even the present chief, Air Chief Marshal A.Y. Tipnis, at a commanders’ conference in June 1999 blamed poor training for the high number of air crashes.

A decision on the AJT though may at last be on hand. A French team visited Delhi last week and an English one is expected over the next two weeks to hammer out a deal. Even when the AJT is acquired indications are that India may go in for only 60 such aircraft. Air forces with comparable force structures, such as the UK and France, have opted for 150 aircraft, including about one squadron in reserve. So the problem of lack of training may persist.

Another major cause for the alarmingly high rate of IAFaccidents is the lack of spare parts. In the mid ’90s, a committee appointed to look into the air crashes pointed out this problem and pinned part of the blame on the spares madeby the public-sector Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. As for the spares from Russia, sources say that though they are now supplied on time, the costs since 1991 have skyrocketed, in some instances by as much as 400 per cent. Given the fact that 70 per cent of Indian fighters are of Russian origin this has a negative impact on procurement of crucial components.

Each of the major reasons for the increasing number of crashes – poor training, ageing fleet, pilot error, defective spare parts – are problems that can be addressed if the IAFand the mod get down to brasstacks quickly. Otherwise, most of the fighters would have to be nicknamed “widow makers”.Courtesy: India Today [7 February 2000]. IAF: The Widow Makers. By Ninad D. Sheth

The Dud Report

The CAG Report

One sample of Indian Missile Failure report

Who is responsible for the duds in the Bharati Defense establishment

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

All of Indi’a Rockets have failed. 1) Agni 2) Pirthivi 3) Akash 4) Trishul and 5) Nag 6) Agni consisting of surface to surface surface to air and anti-tank systems.

Prithvi: Failure: To date the only reliable delivery system inducted is the Pirthvi missile with a range of 300 kilometres. The subsequent versions of this missile are still undergoing tests. The pride of India the Agni missile tested last time landed 200 kilometres off target.

Akash: Failure: After several years of testing has been shelved for reasons best known to the Indians. Akash was meant as a substitute for Pechora. On the Akash missile, which was the subject of the DRDO media conference here on Tuesday, former air chief S. P. Tyagi said:“Akash was to be ready at a certain time, but it wasn’t. I had to change everything to make up for the delay.” Both missiles were part of a programme to develop indigenous weapons, which began in July 1983, with plans for Agni, Prithvi, Trishul, Akash and Nag missiles.

Trishul: Failure: Trishul is being replaced by Israeli Barak and Russian systems.

The IAF, for instance, has aging Pechora, Igla-1M and OSA-AK missile systems, and that, too, in woefully inadequate numbers.

While Trishul was to replace its OSA-AK weapons system, Akash was meant as a substitute for Pechora.

But both the Trishul and Akash air defence missile systems, which are part of the original Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme launched as far back as 1983, have been dogged by development snags in their “command guidance and integrated Ramjet rocket propulsion” systems.

Trishul, for instance, has been tested over 80 times so far without coming anywhere near becoming operational. It was, in fact, virtually given up for dead in 2003 after around Rs 300 crore was spent on it, before being revived yet again.

Trishul’s repeated failure, in fact, forced the Navy to go in for nine Israeli Barak anti-missile defence systems for its frontline warships, along with 200 Barak missiles, at a cost of Rs 1,510 crore during the 1999 Kargil conflict. The Navy is now inducting even more Barak systems due to Trishul’s continued failure.

Speaking of the Trishul surface-to-air missile that has now been termed a technology demonstrator, former naval chief Sushil Kumar said:“It was a national embarrassment. DRDO made fake claims for 25 years. In the 1999 Kargil conflict, the navy was vulnerable to attacks from Pakistan’s Harpoon.

“Finally the project was scrapped when the navy went in for the Israeli Barak missiles. The Prithvi’s naval variant, Dhanush, is also flawed and ill-conceived, which is being inflicted on the navy.”Indian missile system started back in the 50s on a five folder programme namely:

Nag: Failure: The Nag proved to be as deadily as the Holy Cow.

Agni: Failure: The Agni-I (range 700 to 800 kilometers) and Agni-II were both products of India’s space program and connected to its Integrated Guided Missile Development Program (IGMDP), itself launched in 1983. Originally, their design used a satellite space-launching rocket (SLV-3) as the first stage, on top of which was mounted the very short-range (150 to 250 kilometers) liquid fuel-propelled Prithvi missile.

The Agni-III’s brand new design, in which both stages use solid propellants, was to enable it to carry a payload weighing up to 1.5 tons and deliver it to targets as far away as Beijing and Shanghai. At present, India lacks an effective nuclear deterrent vis-a-vis China, based on a delivery vehicle carrying a nuclear warhead. Agni-III was meant to fill the void.

The failure of the Agni III was in some ways more serious because it exposed the political limitations of India’s attempts, despite its ambitions, to pursue a military capability which is truly independent of the US’s strategic calculations.

The surface-to-surface ballistic missile, designed to have a range of 3,500 kilometers, took off in a “fairly smooth” manner at the designated hour. But “a series of mishaps” occurred in its later flight path.

The Agni-III was originally meant to be tested in 2003-04. However, the test was postponed owing to technological snags. After their rectification, said reports, the missile’s test flights were put off twice largely for “political reasons”, so as not to annoy the US.

Earlier this year, India decided to postpone the missile test out of fear that a test could hamper US Congressional ratification of the India-US nuclear cooperation deal. Publicly, the Indian defense minister cited “self-imposed restraint” to justify the postponement.

The Indian missile met a disaster as it could not attain the altitude where the first stage is over or the second is even ignited.

He disputed the Indian claim, saying that with the range of 3,500 km, the missile had to go above about 800-900 km while the second stage had to be ignited at 28 to 30 km.

‘If the missile fell from the height of 12 km, it establishes that either it’s motor rocket, the basics of the missile proved failure or the guidance and control system was faulty. In both the probabilities, Indian technology has been exposed in clumsy manners.’

‘It is interesting to watch that Indian missile programme that was initiated by French and US assistance and later New Delhi also borrowed Russian technical support has been facing tragedies from the beginning,’ the newspaper quoted him as saying.

APPENDIX A

India exposed by missile failure By Praful Bidwai

NEW DELHI – The failure in rapid succession this week of a satellite launcher and a new ballistic missile have shown up the technological and budgetary difficulties faced by India’s space establishment – civilian and military.

Hours after the US$50 million geosynchronous satellite launch vehicle (GSLV) with a communications satellite on board was ordered to self-destruct – as it veered off course soon after liftoff on Monday – authorities at the civilian Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) said one of its four strap-on rocket motors had failed.

Like the GSLV, a new intermediate-range ballistic missile “Agni III” that was launched by the secretive Defense Research Development Organization (DRDO) failed soon after liftoff on

Sunday and crashed into the Bay of Bengal, less than 1,000 kilometers away from the launch site.

The failure of the Agni III was in some ways more serious because it exposed the political limitations of India’s attempts, despite its ambitions, to pursue a military capability which is truly independent of the US’s strategic calculations.

The surface-to-surface ballistic missile, designed to have a range of 3,500 kilometers, took off in a “fairly smooth” manner at the designated hour. But “a series of mishaps” occurred in its later flight path.

The Agni-III was originally meant to be tested in 2003-04. However, the test was postponed owing to technological snags. After their rectification, said reports, the missile’s test flights were put off twice largely for “political reasons”, so as not to annoy the US.

Earlier this year, India decided to postpone the missile test out of fear that a test could hamper US Congressional ratification of the India-US nuclear cooperation deal. Publicly, the Indian defense minister cited “self-imposed restraint” to justify the postponement.

However, last month, General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US military, visited India and declared that “I do not see it [a test] as destabilizing” or upsetting the regional “military balance” since “other countries in this region” (read, Pakistan) have also tested missiles.

Following this “facilitation” or clearance, and after indications of favorable votes in US Congressional committees on the nuclear deal, India’s stand changed. A week later, the DRDO announced it was ready to launch Agni-III.

This is the ninth missile in the Agni series (named after the Sanskrit word for “fire”) to have been tested. The first was tested in May 1989. The last test (Agni-II) took place in August 2004.

Unlike major powers like the US, Russia or China, which test the same missile 10 to 20 times before announcing that it is fully developed, India considers only three or four test flights to be enough for both producing and inducting new missiles.

This is not the first time that the test of an Agni series missile has failed. In the past, some tests of the shorter range Agni-II (range 2,000 kilometers-plus) also proved unsuccessful.

But what makes the Agni-III’s failure significant is that unlike its shorter-range predecessors, it was a wholly new design, developed with the specific purpose of delivering a nuclear warhead.

The Agni-I (range 700 to 800 kilometers) and Agni-II were both products of India’s space program and connected to its Integrated Guided Missile Development Program (IGMDP), itself launched in 1983. Originally, their design used a satellite space-launching rocket (SLV-3) as the first stage, on top of which was mounted the very short-range (150 to 250 kilometers) liquid fuel-propelled Prithvi missile.

The Agni-III’s brand new design, in which both stages use solid propellants, was to enable it to carry a payload weighing up to 1.5 tons and deliver it to targets as far away as Beijing and Shanghai. At present, India lacks an effective nuclear deterrent vis-a-vis China, based on a delivery vehicle carrying a nuclear warhead. Agni-III was meant to fill the void.

The causes of the failure of the test flight are not clear. Scientists at the DRDO, which designed and built the missile, have been quoted as saying that many new technologies were tried in the Agni-III, including rocket motors, “fault-tolerant” avionics and launch control and guidance systems. Some of these could have failed. Other reports attribute the mishap to problems with the propellant.

“The DRDO isn’t the world’s most reliable weapons R&D agency,” Admiral L Ramdas, a former chief of staff of the Indian Navy, told Inter Press Service. “The Indian armed services’ experience with DRDO-made armaments has not been a happy one. Their reliability is often extremely poor. We often used to joke that one had to pray they would somehow work in the battlefield.”

The agency has a budget of Rs30 billion (US$670 million), which is of the same order as the annual expenditure of the Department of Atomic Energy which is responsible for India’s civilian and military nuclear programs.

“This figure is extremely high for a poor country like India, with a low rank of 127 among 175 countries of the world in the United Nations Human Development Index,” said Anil Chowdhary of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace. “Yet the DRDO has delivered very little.”

None of the three major projects assigned to the DRDO has been completed on time or without huge cost-overruns. These include the development of a Main Battle Tank (MBT), a nuclear power plant for a submarine, and an advanced Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), all involving expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The MBT project was launched in 1974. But the tank has failed to meet service requirement tests. It is reportedly too heavy and undependable to be used in combat operations. The Indian Army prefers imported Russian tanks over the indigenous MBTs and says it will use the MBTs for training, not operations.

The nuclear submarine project, launched 31 years ago, is not yet finished despite the almost $1 billion spent on it. The LCA project, launched in 1983, is still in the doldrums: the DRDO has failed to develop the right engine for it. Even with an imported engine, the plane is unlikely to enter service anytime soon.

“The primary reason for these shocking instances of underperformance and inability is lack of public accountability and oversight of the DRDO,” says M V Ramana, an independent technical expert attached to the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development, Bangalore.

“The DRDO, like all of India’s defense and nuclear service establishments, is not subject to normal processes of audit. It has used ’security’ as a smokescreen or shield and refused to be held to account,” he adds.

The DRDO says it will try to rectify the faults in Agni-III. Whether or not and whenever that happens, India’s missile development program, with future plans to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of 5,000 kilometers or more, has suffered a major setback. (Inter Press Service)

APPENDIX B

Agni Missile designers are incompetent: Pakistan scientist Daily India ^ | 7/9/06 Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 7:20:03 AM by maxypane

Islamabad, July 10 (IANS) The failure of Agni-III reflected ‘incompetence’ of the Indian missile designers and planners, said an eminent Pakistani scientist.

They would need to go back to the drawing board and take two to three years, unless ‘they borrow something from abroad,’ said Samar Mubarikmund, chairman of Pakistan’s National Engineering and Science Commission (Nescom).

Claiming that Israel was involved in developing India’s missile programme, Mubarikmund said Pakistan, which had an indigenous programme of its own, retained superiority over all others in the South Asian region.

Mubarikmund told The News Sunday that the circumstances narrated by the Indians for the failure of the missile test were ‘not acceptable.’

The Indian missile met a disaster as it could not attain the altitude where the first stage is over or the second is even ignited.

He disputed the Indian claim, saying that with the range of 3,500 km, the missile had to go above about 800-900 km while the second stage had to be ignited at 28 to 30 km.

‘If the missile fell from the height of 12 km, it establishes that either it’s motor rocket, the basics of the missile proved failure or the guidance and control system was faulty. In both the probabilities, Indian technology has been exposed in clumsy manners.’

‘It is interesting to watch that Indian missile programme that was initiated by French and US assistance and later New Delhi also borrowed Russian technical support has been facing tragedies from the beginning,’ the newspaper quoted him as saying.

The newspaper also quoted from official sources to take pot shots at Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

‘In fact he (Manmohan Singh) attained high moral ground for his country just to provide cover to constant failures of his country’s scientists engaged in developing long-range missiles and they were hesitating from testing the missile,’ the sources said.

Pakistan is still maintaining its superiority in missile technology in whole South Asia as it has successfully tested number of missiles with various ranges including Shaheen-II that has the range of the 2,500 km with all remarkably accurate parameters.

These parameters proved in the presence of international neutral empires when the missile hit the target to extent of centimetres accuracy in the Indian Ocean, the sources said.

APPENDIX C

Indian missiles far from being operational despite repeated tests IRNA – Islamic Republic News Agency

New Delhi, July 24,IRNA — The Trishul “quick-reaction” surface-to- air missile was again tested on Sunday, but just like its sister Akash missile it is still far from being inducted into the armed forces.

The frequent time, cost, technical and operational slippages in the nine-km-range Trishul and 25-km-range Akash surface-to-air missile programs have meant that the country’s air defence cover continues to have gaping holes.

Pakistan, in sharp contrast, has always accorded high priority to its air defence management, with its multi-tier surveillance cover, air defence fighters, quick-reaction, short-range missiles and an integrated control and reporting system.

The Indian Armed Forces, however, continues to make do with its obsolete air defence systems, said an Asian Age report here today.

The IAF, for instance, has aging Pechora, Igla-1M and OSA-AK missile systems, and that, too, in woefully inadequate numbers.

While Trishul was to replace its OSA-AK weapons system, Akash was meant as a substitute for Pechora.

But both the Trishul and Akash air defence missile systems, which are part of the original Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme launched as far back as 1983, have been dogged by development snags in their “command guidance and integrated Ramjet rocket propulsion” systems.

Trishul, for instance, has been tested over 80 times so far without coming anywhere near becoming operational. It was, in fact, virtually given up for dead in 2003 after around Rs 300 crore was spent on it, before being revived yet again.

Trishul’s repeated failure, in fact, forced the Navy to go in for nine Israeli Barak anti-missile defence systems for its frontline warships, along with 200 Barak missiles, at a cost of Rs 1,510 crore during the 1999 Kargil conflict. The Navy is now inducting even more Barak systems due to Trishul’s continued failure.

The Defence Research and Development Organization, for its part, contends the seven Trishul trials so far this year, including a flight test with enhanced range of 11.5km against a remotely piloted aircraft, have “met all mission objectives.”

Trishul can engage targets like aircraft and helicopter, flying between 300 meters and 500 meters, by using its radar command-to- line, of-sight guidance system, it says.

The report card for Akash, tested 16 times since January 2005, is even better since it has completed all its development trials.

“On January 28 this year, interception of two moving targets by two Akash missiles with live warheads was successfully carried out,” said an official.

“Akash has multiple-target handling capacity with a digitally coded command guidance system. Its user trials are now in progress,” he said.

The missile’s `Rajendra’ radar, a multi-function phased array radar which carries out surveillance, target-tracking, missile acquisition and guidance, can simultaneously track several aircraft within a range of 40 to 60 kilometers. 2160/2321/1414 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/india/2006/india-060724-irna04.htm)

APPENDIX D

Pakistan missile project ahead of India’s’

NEW DELHI, Jan 9: India’s missile scientists have said that the country’s indigenous missile programme is flagging and needs foreign assistance to revive it.

The embarrassing admission came amid claims by Indian analysts that Pakistan’s missile programme had proved to be more robust and surefooted than India’s. The Mail Today newspaper on Wednesday quoted the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) as announcing that it would scrap its 25-year Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP) by the end of this year.

“Plagued by cost overruns and repeated failures, the announcement is a virtual admission of failure,” the newspaper said.“In fact, some former chiefs of the different services said as much on hearing the news.”

Speaking of the Trishul surface-to-air missile that has now been termed a technology demonstrator, former naval chief Sushil Kumar said:“It was a national embarrassment. DRDO made fake claims for 25 years. In the 1999 Kargil conflict, the navy was vulnerable to attacks from Pakistan’s Harpoon.

“Finally the project was scrapped when the navy went in for the Israeli Barak missiles. The Prithvi’s naval variant, Dhanush, is also flawed and ill-conceived, which is being inflicted on the navy.”On the Akash missile, which was the subject of the DRDO media conference here on Tuesday, former air chief S. P. Tyagi said:“Akash was to be ready at a certain time, but it wasn’t. I had to change everything to make up for the delay.” Both missiles were part of a programme to develop indigenous weapons, which began in July 1983, with plans for Agni, Prithvi, Trishul, Akash and Nag missiles.

The IGMDP, which was aimed at achieving self-sufficiency in missile development and production, comprises five core missile programmes — the strategic Agni ballistic missile, the tactical Prithvi ballistic missile, the Akash and Trishul surface-to-air missiles and the Nag anti-tank guided missile.

The Mail Today quoted S. Prahlada, chief of the Control Research and Development, DRDO, as saying that development and production of most of the futuristic weapon systems would henceforth be undertaken with foreign collaboration.

With regard to the nuclear-capable Agni series, comprising I and II, the newspaper quoted army sources as saying while they had been tested five times each “a handful of tests are not enough to prove a missile’s worth”.

There were different problems with other systems too.

“Pakistan has always been one step ahead of India in its missile programme,” the newspaper said, adding that Islamabad has “a much more robust missile force than India, one capable of launching nuclear weapons to any part in this country.”

Unlike Indian missiles, which were declared “inducted” after a few tests, the Pakistani projectiles have always been thoroughly tested. http://www.dawn.com/2008/01/10/top16.htm

APPENDIX F (the spin on the stopping the program)

India defense budget may be just 2.5 percent of it’s GDP (Rs 96,000 crore, an increase of 11 percent over last year in money terms) and out of this the allocation for research and development just Rs 5887.22 crore (6.13 percent of the total defence budget) but the DRDO (Defense Research and Development Organisation) has had a big success this year!!

They have developed a high-speed interceptor missile (a missile which intercepts another midway) and what is creditable is that it’s a completely indigenous development. As they say here:

The AAD used Sunday was a new missile and not a derivative or an update of any existing missile. It was specially designed and developed by (DRDO) for this role, the defence sources said.

This missile, called Advance Air Defence (AAD) was tested on the second of December over the Bay of Bengal and in this mock trial, a simulated electronics target was first fired from Orissa (Chandipur area). One is not sure if this new missile is part of the IGMDP (Integrated Guided Missile Development Program) which is for the development of a comprehensive range of missiles. Examples: Agni, Prithvi, Akash, and Trishul, which alongwith some others are in different stages of development and deployment.

However, scientists have been working on developing anti-missile technology for some time. In November last year they had successfully tested an “exo-atmospheric interceptor missile PAD-01” which in a mock trial had destroyed an incoming Prithvi missile at an altitude of 50 km.

The missile launched this month is a is a variant of the one launched last year but Defense sources claim that this newly tested (not yet named) is a totally new missile and not a “derivative or an update” of any existing missile.

Interestingly, India will be building it’s first indigenously-built nuclear submarine by 2009.

A brief overview of military spending in the region
However we do not produce too much of indigenous work and one of the reasons could be that we spend too little on defense. India may be the fourth largest military in the world, but our defense expenditure is very little compared to our neighbours, just 2.5 percent of our GDP. Pakistan’s military budget is around 4 per cent of GDP. China’s military budget is higher, at around $44 billion (believed to be one-third of the actual). China increased it’s military budget by about 18 percent this year. Some rapid arms buildup is going on in China! And why do we have to care about what China is doing? You can read about why India needs to be wary of China here.

Although India has increased defense spends from Rs 86,000 to Rs 96,000 crore, this increase is considered almost nothing as it just about takes care of inflation.

Who in the world spends the most on defense?
Well, it’s no big secret that it’s the United States. It says here:

In 2007, the official outlay by the top 76 biggest national spenders reached USD1.3 trillion dollars with the US alone providing nearly half the global total. Outside the US, around 80 per cent comes from just 20 countries: seven in Europe (UK; France; Germany; Italy; Spain; Netherlands; and Greece); six in the Asia Pacific (Japan; China; South Korea; India; Taiwan; and Australia); three in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia; Israel; and Turkey); two in South America (Brazil and Colombia); and Russia in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Each region has it’s dominant defense spenders. Europe has UK and France. Asia Pacific has Japan and China. The Middle East has Saudi Arabia. And then there’s Russia…

However, when it comes to growth in defense budgets, Asian budgets are believed to be on the rise. At present at least India is not showing any significant growths inspite of a growing economy. L. K. Behera (Associate Fellow, Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses) has given a reason as to why the defense budget is more or less stagnant in an article here:

A perusal of the Defense Services Estimates (DSE) reveals that the Armed Forces have surrendered nearly Rs, 40,000 crore in the past decade…As the Services’ record of spending allotted funds is not displaying any improvement, the Ministry of Finance did not grant more funds…this aspect is the most crucial factor that justifies the mismatch between (India’s) robust economic growth and a relatively lower growth in the defense budget

Well, I hope the services get their act together on this one….and I also hope that the government allocates a higher budget to the DRDO. If we can develop more indigenous technology it means decreasing dependence of foreign powers. It’s not just the cost, but also availability of spare parts at short notice. Not to mention the pride that comes with it all.

(Photo is from the wiki and linked to the original. It is of the Agni missile, not the newly launched missile.)

Note: A blogger friend Vishal sent me the article on the launch of the high-speed interceptor missile. Once I read it, it led me on a an interesting exploratory path. Thanks Vishal.

Related Reading: Why India needs to be wary of China.

Share this post:digg it|kick it|Email it|bookmark it|reddit|liveIt

Anil Iqbal, an alleged sharp shooter and member of India’s most wanted fugitive Dawood Ibrahim’s gang, has been arrested in the capital, police officials said Tuesday.

Iqbal was arrested late Monday after the police were tipped off that he would come to south Delhi to meet his acquaintances.

‘We have arrested Iqbal and are interrogating him at length,’ Deputy Commissioner of Police (south Delhi) Anil Shukla told IANS.

Among many other crimes, Dawood is accused of having masterminded the 1993 Mumbai serial bombings that killed 257 people, one of India’s worst terror attacks.