Indian Missile News And Discussion

[osman]

[quote name='gangajal1' date='05 May 2012 - 09:52 AM' timestamp='1336191264' post='114803']

The FBF design used by BARC is sufficiently simple (adding a layer of LiD around the fission core, that we know works, and immersing it in Tritium gas) that it will work. What is not clear is how they can be so confident that their weaponized FBF will yield 300 kt. After all they have not tested any FBF design that is even close to 300 kt. What they have tested has an yield that is only about 5% of the 300 kt figure. Moreover, Chidambaram has said that BARC can design nukes with yields up to 200 kt. So was Chidambaram understating BARC's capacity?

[/quote]



http://books.google.com/books?id=nITHBdQ...kt&f=false



Here is the statement and the weapons available to us according to Indian Defense Review. I can't find a one to one correspondence to the tests with the weapons listed as available weapons. What I do note is a reference to a fusion boosted fission weapon with a yield of 150 to 200 kt made from reactor grade as opposed to weapons grade material. It fits in well with the fact that our weakest element in the entire fuel supply cycle until four years ago was enrichment. It's the weapon of choice given the cost and availability of material. It also provides us with a bigger arsenal close to china's arsenal of 2500 weapons. This weapon was also a dud in our tests according to Bharath Karnad. I find that plausible, he stated it did not give out as much as we expected it to give out. So I would assume with a corrective measure applied the yield is likely to increase to 300kt and at worst it will still give us 200kt. (This of course being the 12-15 kt s3 test which Santhanam claims should have produced a 25kt bang.)



(The duds were duds but not from the perspective given by wallace et all. They produced the 56kt as reported however they were not designed to be 56kt but much more, (more than 30) + 25 + 12 = north 67 kt, instead they produced 55kt or so reported (43? + 12 + .3?). (The exact breakup was the lie. The sum total wasn't a lie but the individual yields were not the right ones and it's impossible to verify except for santanam's statement that he was looking for a 25k bang.)The boosted fission was expected to be 25 kt. All the secondaries were empty/only enough to proof the fusion. These tests were proof enough that the secondary worked but not to the extent we expected them to pop. Inefficient yes, making miniaturization difficult with sufficient confidence. The MIRV warhead is stated to be 500kg each with a yield of 200kt(?). This is probably a sacrifice in weight to be get a more assured warhead. A dial-able warhead is one where we have the least confidence. Could also explain the 11 different configurations waiting tests.



Indian Defence Review: Jul-Sep 2010 has another article on the Shakti test series where the shakti 1 shot is reportedly as being a third generation device with a dial-able yield of 50kt, 150kt or 500kt. Deutrium-Deutrium-Lithium weapon.



If indeed the test attempted was such a 3rd generation test and radio chemical analysis produced shows there was fusion in s1 with a hollowed out secondary, we may have all the data we need to have a reasonably secure thermonuclear device. However all of this as Bharath Karnad and a lot of other folks feel is a simulated deterrent as opposed to a demonstrated deterrent. Our entire nuclear program right now is in simulated deterrent mode and all the weapons fielded are simulated weapons with a few correctives. The only weapon we really did perfect was the 1974 test of a simple fission weapon.



The sub kiloton tests 3 of them were significant and possibly Chidambaram who prefers simulations fancies the data is enough to create u-233 devices as well when the time is right. A large number of these tests seem to be centered around our primary problems we had until a few years ago with ramping up enrichment to an industrial scale. This as suggested explains the delays in the thermonuclear weapons for MIRV. We are just as slow progressing from Agni I to Agni V as we are on enriched fissile material weapons deployment.



Our sense of betrayal on the nuclear deal with ENR also stems from this aspect. The nuclear establishment is looking towards ENR to really push us through to the third stage of the nuclear program as opposed to weapons production. India possibly plans to field more weapons which are obtained without enrichment as opposed to highly enriched weapons. This could also explain India's stand on fissile material cut off treaty. Indian fissile material is the third largest or at least the fourth largest in the world if what I have posited is true. There may never be another test for a decade or more.



Edits: Refined thoughts on the breakup issue of S1, S2 and S3.

[osman]

On a more optimistic note compared to the we must test post above. We can also delay the test and move ahead with the IUCNA by testing ICBMs of greater which can pepper the world, increasing the number of Submarines. Saudi Arabia can't threaten America with a blockade thanks to ICBMs. The same will apply to India with ICBMs and foreign reactors with foreign fuel. The problem still remains if as Arun suggests we can't have an operational Arihant tip.In the absence of further tests India has no choice but to project power through ICBMS with single digit CEP's reaching the corners of the earth in numbers close to those deployed by America and Russia. This could also explain our favorite weapon of choice FBF, reactor grade.

[gangajal1]

The problem is that except for ignorant Indians no one will accept the 300 kt figure for FBFs. All we know is that India has exploded a single FBF of 15 kt yield. One can not scale up the yield by a factor of 20 and then without any test claim that your scaled up FBF will yield 300 Kt. This is simply not believable. Even accurate ICBMs will not help because no one will have any confidence in the warheads.



All one can say about the 300 kt FBFs is that something will happen. No one can say with confidence the yield of such an untested weapon. Then there is the age issue. We do not know the yield of a newly fabricated '300 kt FBF'. We are even more in the dark about how the yield of such a weapon will change with age. I myself believe that BARC can probably fabricate with some confidence 50-60 kt FBF based on the 15 kt FBF tested. I am very skeptical about the 300 kt yield.



It would have been more honest to simply say that we are unable to test because of the world political situation.

[osman]

[quote name='gangajal1' date='06 May 2012 - 09:04 PM' timestamp='1336318009' post='114807']

The problem is that except for ignorant Indians no one will accept the 300 kt figure for FBFs. All we know is that India has exploded a single FBF of 15 kt yield. One can not scale up the yield by a factor of 20 and then without any test claim that your scaled up FBF will yield 300 Kt. This is simply not believable. Even accurate ICBMs will not help because no one will have any confidence in the warheads.



All one can say about the 300 kt FBFs is that something will happen. No one can say with confidence the yield of such an untested weapon. Then there is the age issue. We do not know the yield of a newly fabricated '300 kt FBF'. We are even more in the dark about how the yield of such a weapon will change with age. I myself believe that BARC can probably fabricate with some confidence 50-60 kt FBF based on the 15 kt FBF tested. I am very skeptical about the 300 kt yield.



It would have been more honest to simply say that we are unable to test because of the world political situation.

[/quote]



I agree on the we need to test. I am just looking at solutions without testing and a confidence interval we can hope for. Even the S1 test is a three part test, fission, boosted fission and a thermonuclear part.



If we are fielding FBF's with reactor grade fuel scaled up to 300 kt the issue will be more about the delivery weight. If we assume deterioration of yield is due to radioactive decay.(Please feel free to add correctives as I am no nuclear scientist.) Reactor grade fuel is less prone to decay and hence yield with age problem is also a problem which can be identified and investigated using controlled nuclear reactions in nuclear reactors. The other element which prevents FBF's being a preferred nuclear weapon for most other states revolves around the tritium production, replacement and cost.

[osman]

My refined thoughts on Agni, Nuclear deterrence and geopolitics.





I have indicated the statements supported by DRDO or other press releases directly with (s) and indirectly or with extrapolation with (i). Unverified,(?).



Agni V, from the DRDO press releases will be the first IRBM (s) (a misnomer for an ICBM(i)) to carry MIRV (s) war heads. MIRV being progressively ported back to Agni iii by 2015(s). An MIRV missile with four 500kg warheads is one of the preferred configurations DRDO is working on(s). The current preferred weapon of choice at least as of 2006 was FBF with a yield of 250-300 kt(s) weighing close to a ton (s). Agni series payload capacities disclosed by DRDO are interesting in light of this disclosure(s). Agni III will be MIRV capable(s). Agni VI, all composite missile(s) will also be MIRV capable with a higher payload(i). The range of a ballistic missile increases disproportionately after the initial intercontinental velocities are reached in a test with moderate increases in fuel and weight, given that circumnavigation at 600km altitude is less constrained by gravity, air turbulence and air friction. Agni V with a "non-preferred" 500 kg war head can reach any corner of the globe(i). Agni VI(?) all-composite missile is merely an extension of the MIRV capability to the global theater.(i)



Shakti nuclear tests are designed to give India the ability to field sub-kiloton, fission, fusion boosted fission and thermonuclear warheads according to a statement made by the GOI on the floor of the house in 2000, two years after the test(s). The current preferred weapon of choice at least as of 2006 was FBF with a yield of 250-300 kt(s) weighing close to a ton(s). The FBF 250-300kt weapon is a reactor grade fuel weapon(?) (s). {Indian Defense Review 2002 on weapons available as presented by GOI in 2000 in the parliament}. India unlike the p5 has access to cheap tritium (s) which makes FBF the weapon of choice(i). The use of reactor grade fuel FBF as a weapon of choice is driven by the economics(i), extant supply of fissile material(s), extant enrichment constraints(s) and numerical sufficiency(s). U-233 bombs(s) as a future replacement candidate(i). The thermonuclear weapons on the other hand require significant investment in enrichment capacity which at present is tilted towards fueling our upcoming submarine fleet(i). MIRV warheads are presumably thermonuclear weapons based on the weight being quoted(i). A nuclear test to verify the designs is unlikely(s). The nuclear tests will have to wait until we have enough MIRV capable missiles in sufficient numbers(i)



The Indo-US civil nuclear deal was an attempt to emasculate the Indian deterrence by limiting tests(s). When the Americans realized their folly on emasculating India solely on the assumption that the thermonuclear tests failed and preventing future tests will cap Indian nuclear weapons they initiated the present series of ENR technology denial(s). Indian interest in ENR(s)(i) was one of the prime motivators in the nuclear deal in addition to fuel supply access(s). ENR civilian access is critical in reducing the lead time to a thorium economy(s). India has been largely unsuccessful in lobbying against the ENR technology denial regime, which is critical to our nuclear energy security and as opposed to nuclear strategic security(i). India has reconciled itself to ENR technology denial regime from the statements made by krishna menon in October(s). The ENR technology denial regime is an attempt to prevent the rise of an energy independent India by emasculating it's nuclear energy security by creating a saudi-us relationship between India and the NSG fuel supply members(i). India will be subject to nuclear fuel supply cutoffs(i). The ENR technology denial regime restricting ENR (i) is designed with an assumption that it will limit India to the India-China regional equation over the next decade(i). The G2 dependency of America might force India to project power globally and not just regionally(i). We cannot rule out the possibility of a repetition of the 1970's India China trade-off(i). A strategic response to this threat is the deployment of ICBM's which can target all corners of the globe with MIRV war heads(i). This preempts economic warfare through nuclear supply cutoffs(i). This could also be the only logical course on the table for India which has traditionally been reluctant to project power(i) to an overt military bully over the course of the next decade.

[Arun_S]

Regarding Indian weapons based on RGP versus WGP.

As one of my dear friend used to say "Why would a goat eat husk-feed when there is green grass all around?"



As for FBF weapon its often so loosely used that very different conclusion is reached. Those who know also know the difference between

1. Mere boosting (gas boosting) where fusion yield portion is very insignificant (solves the problem of predetonation and somewhat increase in fraction of fission fuel that actually fissions).
2. High yield Fusion design, where significant portion (~20%) of the yield is from fusion (Lithium), and the fission fuel is thoroughly consumed. Also sometimes referred to as Sloika Thermo-nuclear weapon (different from 2 stage or 3 stage fusion design that S1 shot was (In Shri. K Santhanam's writing he refers to as the S2 shot)). This type of design is much more resilient and robust

Most current Indian weapons of the latter kind and yield of between 150kt and 250kT. Yes it have not been demonstrated for unambiguous yield and deterrence, but given Indian capability, equipment and design resilience, it does not leave any doubt in calculation of any potential adversary. And yes these ones dont weight 1 tonne.



The 1 tonne types are for a special customer.



[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_4"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_4[/url]

[Arun_S]

[url="http://www.samachar.com/Indias-missile-defence-shield-ready-DRDO-chief-mfgvKBfbaae.html?source=recommended_news"]India's missile defence shield ready: DRDO chief[/url]

May 06, 2012, 20:41

New Delhi: India has developed missile defence shield which can be put in place at short notice to protect at least two cities, bringing the country on par with an elite group of few nations.



The shield, developed by DRDO, has been tested successfully and an incoming ballistic missile with the range of up to 2,000 kms can be destroyed. The system is to be upgraded to the range of 5,000 kms by 2016.



"The Ballistic Missile Defence shield is now mature...We are ready to put phase one in place and it can be put in very short time," DRDO chief VK Saraswat told PTI here in an interview.



He said the shield, as part of phase one of the programme, can be put in place at two places in the country, where the infrastructure is available.



However, the two places have not yet been identified and the selection will be made at the political level.



The DRDO used variants of Prithvi missiles as simulated targets and successfully intercepted missiles in test-firings.



"We have carried out six successful launches and demonstrated the capability for 2,000 km targets...We have demonstrated it in two layers that is endo-atmospheric (inside the Earth's atmosphere) and exo-atmospheric (outside the Earth's atmosphere)," Saraswat said.



He said all the elements such as long-range radars and tracking devices, real-time datalink and mission control system required for the missile system have been "realised" successfully.



Under the phase two of the project, the premier defence research agency would upgrade the system to handle ballistic missiles with range of 5,000 km. This phase is expected to be ready by 2016.



The system required for phase-II of the project is being developed, he said, adding that for this purpose, ships are being built from where the target missiles would be launched.



The DRDO chief said the phase two of the project is expected to be completed by 2016. Talking about the advancement of the system, Saraswat said the missile defence shield has been "automated" to an extent where human intervention would be required only if the mission has to be aborted.



The DRDO chief said the Indian missile defence system is comparable with the US Patriot 3 system, which was successfully used during the 1990 Gulf War against Iraq.



As part of its efforts to protect itself from enemy missiles, India is developing this two-tier BMD which can intercept enemy missiles at altitudes of 80 km and 150 km.



The DRDO is thinking of intercepting the missiles at higher altitudes as it would give it more response time in case the first attempt is a miss and the second layer of the system can be put into action.



The system was first test-fired in November 2006 elevating India into the elite club of countries to have successfully developed an Anti-ballistic missile system, after United States, Russia and Israel.



PTI

[Arun_S]

[quote name='Shaurya' date='01 May 2012 - 02:56 AM' timestamp='1335820698' post='114771']

Arun, came here to say Hi to you and also a question.



Is Shourya's payload going to be nuclear, conventional, either or do not know?



Please shed some light. I am presuming K15 that would go into the Arihant is Nuclear only.

[/quote]

Sorry, I missed your post.



Just IMHO following assessment:

1. Since K15 will be first operation missile to carry the weight of 3rd leg of deterrence, its clear that it will carry deterrence role.
2. Shourya (land based) on the other hand is special breed, for the great value it brings to bear because it is a hypersonic glide vehicle (and does not need to fly ballistic), it does not need to notify anyone for test or excercise purpose (which is required for BM). Thus will likely be used with conventional warhead to allow caliberated escalation, without risking rapid escalation. And its max range ~1900 km. So useful to interdict Chinese depots in central China/east Tibet. As well as to keep ambitions of gulf nations in check (if need be).
3. As already reported, PAD was a stopgap and will be superceded. Similarly Prithvi for battlefield will be superceded by BrahMos and Shourys batteries for IA and IAF.
4. Land based deterrence will be delivered via BGRV/MaRV atop Agni-2Prime, A3, A5, A6 series.

[Arun_S]

[quote name='Chandragupta' date='01 May 2012 - 07:56 AM' timestamp='1335838732' post='114773']

Why is that many people comparing the CEP in BM role to that of an ASAT role?



Isnt it the diff between oranges and apples?



For BM role, since our phizzile nukes comes into equation and so we have to worry about accuracy in delivering what we have got, while for ASAT role, the sat will be orbiting say 20,000kmph at 600km LEO even a tiny frag will be deadly for the sat survival. So technically there is no need of having a single digit CEP for ASAT role. A blast fragmented directional warhead will do the job <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



I see A-IV as the most likely candidate for ASAT role rather than A-V. One cost being the primary factor with almost 10-15 crores diff between the two.



Ans since, A-II production has been standardized and is in serial production stage,A-IV might take over utilizing the same infra/tooling with only difference being more composite motors/maraging steel.

[/quote]



ASAT missile are much less challanging than ABM system for IRBM class missiles. Satellites are sitting duck, because of their high altitude, repetitive orbital motion, as well as they present a very clear optical and RF target. All that is required is using a large motor of BM to carry ABM upper stages.



Agni-2 Prime (A4) can take down sats in 2500 Km orbit, while A-5 based interceptor can take down 8500 km orbit sat.

[Arun_S]

[quote name='RomaIndian' date='23 April 2012 - 11:15 AM' timestamp='1335159466' post='114725']

I listened in Radio and read on Internet that India tested Agni V succesfully, a intercontinental missile, im glad for it. Congrats Mother India.

[/quote]



Rejoice O children of Mother India, spead on all corners of earth.



Truth is that which is eternal, and the radiance of Indian genius is eternal truth too.



Roma people have crried a heavy burdan of the Lord's Leela (play). Thanks for remembering and pitching in.

[shyam1]

[quote name='Arun_S' date='07 May 2012 - 07:56 AM' timestamp='1336357133' post='114814']

Sorry, I missed your post.



Just IMHO following assessment:

1. Since K15 will be first operation missile to carry the weight of 3rd leg of deterrence, its clear that it will carry deterrence role.
2. Shourya (land based) on the other hand is special breed, for the great value it brings to bear because it is a hypersonic glide vehicle (and does not need to fly ballistic), it does not need to notify anyone for test or excercise purpose (which is required for BM). Thus will likely be used with conventional warhead to allow caliberated escalation, without risking rapid escalation. And its max range ~1900 km. So useful to interdict Chinese depots in central China/east Tibet. As well as to keep ambitions of gulf nations in check (if need be).
3. As already reported, PAD was a stopgap and will be superceded. Similarly Prithvi for battlefield will be superceded by BrahMos and Shourys batteries for IA and IAF.
4. Land based deterrence will be delivered via BGRV/MaRV atop Agni-2Prime, A3, A5, A6 series.

[/quote]

If it does carry an N Capability don't you think adversary will respond and won't take the chance that shourya is carrying non nuclear warhead onlee before shourya reaches target. How will you communicate such matters? Via red telephone perhaps?

[Arun_S]

[quote name='shyam1' date='07 May 2012 - 04:22 PM' timestamp='1336387467' post='114823']

If it does carry an N Capability don't you think adversary will respond and won't take the chance that shourya is carrying non nuclear warhead onlee before shourya reaches target. How will you communicate such matters? Via red telephone perhaps?

[/quote]

Enemy with good long range radar coverage knows that land launched Shourya will arrive from certain direction, while that launched from submarine carrying fusion comes from sea side.





TSP OTOH IMVHO does not have capabelity to detect and catagorise Indian missiles.



Even many hours after it gets hits by a nuke, will not know if US hit it or China? or for that sake Iran or Israel? Much less the type of missile that carried the lotus bud, even much more less in real-time. Thus the oft repeated threat of first strike, because after absorbing a strike TSP nukes are useless duds whose bluff is called and may not deliver the promised yield/kahar. So the threat is more powerful then teh weapon itself.

[shyam1]

[quote name='Arun_S' date='08 May 2012 - 01:19 PM' timestamp='1336462914' post='114829']

Enemy with good long range radar coverage knows that land launched Shourya will arrive from certain direction, while that launched from submarine carrying fusion comes from sea side.





TSP OTOH IMVHO does not have capabelity to detect and catagorise Indian missiles.



Even many hours after it gets hits by a nuke, will not know if US hit it or China? or for that sake Iran or Israel? Much less the type of missile that carried the lotus bud, even much more less in real-time. Thus the oft repeated threat of first strike, because after absorbing a strike TSP nukes are useless duds whose bluff is called and may not deliver the promised yield/kahar. So the threat is more powerful then teh weapon itself.

[/quote]

Thanks. what about our north eastern neighbour who possess the capability to get direction of missile? Will they wait and find out if shourya is carrying the N warhead or will they fire their reply as soon as they are confident that it is a nuclear capable missile. I know we have NFU, but that is just a piece of paper as far commanders are as concerned. I think this issue will be on every commanders mind.



Think about it, if you are a commander I dont think he will use shourya unless there is an escalation by other side as you don't want to cause a nuclear conflict.



Also, I know IA was practicing absorbing a nuclear strike by TSP when practicing CSD a few years ago. Glad they are drilling this. IMO I think TSP will only use their N warhead if IA takes over a lot of territory and likewise in 2001 or Kargil, Agni was deployed in the north east to send the message to Beijing to back off. These weapons are last case resort when suffering a big territorial loss.



There is a theory that merely possessing second strike capability is enough to deter most adversaries.



Arun ji, if time permits, can you also educate us more about why we didn't strike after 26/11 and why we stuck to dossiers?

[osman]

[quote name='shyam1' date='08 May 2012 - 10:26 PM' timestamp='1336495709' post='114830']

Thanks. what about our north eastern neighbour who possess the capability to get direction of missile? Will they wait and find out if shourya is carrying the N warhead or will they fire their reply as soon as they are confident that it is a nuclear capable missile. I know we have NFU, but that is just a piece of paper as far commanders are as concerned. I think this issue will be on every commanders mind.



Think about it, if you are a commander I dont think he will use shourya unless there is an escalation by other side as you don't want to cause a nuclear conflict.



Also, I know IA was practicing absorbing a nuclear strike by TSP when practicing CSD a few years ago. Glad they are drilling this. IMO I think TSP will only use their N warhead if IA takes over a lot of territory and likewise in 2001 or Kargil, Agni was deployed in the north east to send the message to Beijing to back off. These weapons are last case resort when suffering a big territorial loss.



There is a theory that merely possessing second strike capability is enough to deter most adversaries.



Arun ji, if time permits, can you also educate us more about why we didn't strike after 26/11 and why we stuck to dossiers?

[/quote]



Why we did not strike after 26/11.

Nobel ambitions of MMS. Unkil pressure not to divert Pakistani attention due to Afgan War. Unkil assurances. Noo-Clear Deal. MMS legacy.

[shyam1]

[quote name='osman' date='09 May 2012 - 06:04 AM' timestamp='1336523162' post='114833']

Why we did not strike after 26/11.

Nobel ambitions of MMS. Unkil pressure not to divert Pakistani attention due to Afgan War. Unkil assurances. Noo-Clear Deal. MMS legacy.

[/quote]

Surely not. I am sure they were ready and waiting for us to hit. ISI is not stupid to do something this big. They Wanted us to react. So we need to be extra careful.

[osman]

[quote name='shyam1' date='10 May 2012 - 02:05 AM' timestamp='1336595227' post='114836']

Surely not. I am sure they were ready and waiting for us to hit. ISI is not stupid to do something this big. They Wanted us to react. So we need to be extra careful.

[/quote]



Well I am not sure how ISI figures in the Indian decision not to pursue a military intervention. However what it did signal and there have been many others since then at sharmel-e-sheik, the Indian embassy building not being targeted in the recent Afghan attack, the statements on Siachin from Pakistan, the Indian governments lack of a direct rebuttal to the tirade on Siachin,a move to "gift Siachin", Indian political push for diesel loco sales to Pakistan in spite of domestic supply constraints and a push for trade with a debilitated Pakistan indicates a political settlement has been worked out.



Now you can look at these unconnected issues differently. ISI might have wanted us to react with a military buildup. Unkil made sure we did not. These are facts. Unkil promised action because it's citizens were killed. They hedged until India forgot about it. The NOO-Clear deal was also in the hedge bets. It's the way India is. We forget things and move on. We were lulled by these promises or the unequivocal personal desire for peace at all costs of certain individuals. It's your take. I have posted my take on this as succinctly as I could.



There are other carrots Unkil could have dangled. UN Security council permanent membership support in exchange for chota sa Kashmir sellout. It was announced not too long back too. All carrots. Unless we bang the door in and enter the UN security council seat with thermo nukes, MIRV missiles, power projection capability and a large indigenous weapons design and development capability we will be given a second class seat even there.I usually like to be civil about third rate leaders who beg instead of barge in when the time is right. We have very few of good leaders.

[osman]

Defence Research and Development Organisation plans to equip Agni-V with multiple warhead



New Delhi: Agni-V, India's most powerful ballistic missile with a strike range of over 5,000 kms, is set to get substantially higher destruction capabilities as the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) plans to equip it with multiple warheads.



Comparing Agni-V missile to the best in the world, DRDO chief Dr VK Saraswat said, "It is a game changer missile... It has taken the missile technology to the highest level and matches with the best and the current world standards. We are working in this area. It will take time for us to develop but our work is on."



Known as the Multiple Independently Targeted Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV), the missile would be capable of carrying multiple warheads to destroy several targets.

Asked about the plans in that regard, he said, "Basic vehicle (missile) will remain the same. The first three stages will also remain the same and only the kill vehicle or the payload delivery system will need changes."

Also Read

India's missile defence shield ready: Defence Research and Development Organisation

Light Combat Aircraft 'Tejas' to be inducted in Air Force this year: DRDO chief



Terming it as a "force multiplier", the DRDO chief said, "If I am able to do force multiplication with this... where I was using four missiles, I may use only one missile. So it becomes a force multiplier given the damage potential."



Such a capability exists only with a select few countries such as the US, Russia and China.



MIRV missiles are equipped with small on-board rocket motors and computerised inertial guidance system which manoeuvres.

[osman]

Does this mean the conical third motor will remain the same? The kill vehicle is the MIRV housing? Does the kill vehicle re-enter and then disperse the warheads? Will each MIRV warhead have the composite shield and re-enter separately withstanding 5000C on re-entry?



Each missile getting the 250 gram inertial guidance ABM avoiding SOC and rocket motors? (The last sentence seems to indicate this goodie.)

[Arun_S]

The third motor remains. The payload adapter will host itself as bus that is responsible for safe seperation of MIRVs. Unlike other ICBMs (that were all developed for dumb ballistic MIRVs) Indian ICBMS will not have MIRV bus do the job of imparting correct velocity correction for each warhead (bus will just separate the payload and decoys correctly) and each MIRV has navigation and vecocity correction package to therafter go their own way and correct any missile insertion velocity error. BTW MaRV have the same characterstic, just that MaRV also have in atmosphere manuvering capabelity.



This public press report gives first inking to the Indian MIRV payload being MaRV.

[osman]

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ar...332940.ece



An old report which was not posted here. Apologies if it's already been discussed.



In Wheeler Island, a perfect mission sparks celebrations

T. S. Subramanian Y. Mallikarjun



Scientific advisor V K Saraswat being given an ovation by fellow scientists after the announcement of the successful launch from the Wheeler Island. Photo: V.V. Krishnan



The atmosphere in the Block House on Wheeler Island turned electric with celebrations on Thursday when it became clear that the Agni-V mission was a resounding success.



Bursts of applause and shouts of ‘DRDO Zindabad, Hip Hip Hooray' filled the air, as young scientists lifted up V.K. Saraswat, Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister; Avinash Chander, Chief Controller (Missiles and Strategic Systems) DRDO; and V.G. Sekaran, Director, Advanced Systems Laboratory and chaired them around.



The mission was so perfect that the missile's re-entry vehicle hit the waters of the Indian Ocean in the targeted area with an accuracy of a few metres. Dr. Saraswat said the entire mission was monitored by three ships stationed down range, telemetry and radars along the coast. The data indicated that the mission objectives were fully met. The fireball created by the explosion of the dummy payload was recorded by cameras onboard the ships



Agni-V is such a versatile missile, incorporating as it does several new technologies, that Dr. Saraswat called it “a technological marvel.” “This missile belongs to the 21st century not only in timeframe but in technological capability.” In terms of deterrence, the missile would be “a game changer,” said Dr. Saraswat, himself a missile technologist.



Mr. Avinash Chander stressed that the three-stage missile had several new technologies that contributed to the mission's success. These included rocket motor casings made up of carbon composites, the motors contoured to suit the missile's shape, high-performance navigation, guidance and control systems and rail/road mobile launcher. All the sub-systems fabricated by the DRDO were fully validated.



“This gives us the confidence to go in for larger number [of missiles] and longer ranges. But a longer range is not the issue. Our main focus is on induction [of the missile into the armed forces],” Mr. Chander stressed.



Mr. Chander, who also acted as Programme Director, Agni-V, said: “With Agni-V, we can reach all targets of interest from deep inside India. The same system allows you to reach the farthest corners where you want to exert your influence while providing sufficient protection for yourself.” Since it could be launched from a road mobile launcher and a canister, it was difficult to intercept the missile and defeat it while being launched.



V.G. Sekaran, Director of Advanced Systems Laboratory (ASL), Hyderabad, said: “A great advantage in the configuration of Agni-V is that we can further enhance and expand its range. We could upscale Agni-III with a range of 3,500 km to Agni-V in a short time. On similar lines, we can go beyond Agni-V. That is the beauty of Agni-V's configuration. Its up-scaling and mobility is high.”



The ASL designed and developed Agni-V.



Dr. Sekaran, the chief designer of the missile, stressed that the rocket motor casings made up of carbon composites gave the missile a better performance.



G. Satheesh Reddy, Associate Director, Research Centre Imarat, said the missile's two navigation systems, on-board computers, control actuator systems and mission interface units used the latest technology. During the mission, the on-board computer estimated the trajectory every few milliseconds and made the missile system follow that path. Besides the propulsion, Mr. Reddy said, both the navigation systems worked perfectly, giving accuracy of a few metres.



The most important technology of inertial navigation, guidance and control systems, which went into the missile, was the brainchild of Research Centre Imarat (RCI), its Director S.K. Chaudhuri said. It was redundantly configured with state-of-the-art systems. All the systems were validated by advanced simulation at the RCI.



Tessy Thomas, Project Director, Agni-V Mission, said: “We had an excellent mission, meeting all objectives from the lift-off to the impact. Three stages of guidance, which were new, could meet the mission objectives fully.”