Indian Missile News And Discussion

[Rudra]

[quote name='Chandragupta' date='12 May 2010 - 06:09 PM' timestamp='1273667467' post='106338']

Ramana,



What I have realised is that,Nirbhay-MKI will be mass produced to give an upper hand for IAF,IA in terms of precission attack.Strategic thinkers are putting their money on Nirbhay-MKII.Be it due to its extra range or could be its purpose built for nuclear strike role.But for IAF,I heard it is getting one more extra precision guided weapon apart from Nirbhay-MKI.Some circles have been saying that the first test is due 2013 for such air to ground munition with some 800-1000km range.What is more interesting is that IAF is envincing more zeal and interest on desi precision guided weapons.

[/quote]



Thank you very much for the updates Chandragupta. Do you have any update on Agni-II AT?

[emperor]

[quote name='Rudra' date='14 May 2010 - 12:43 AM' timestamp='1273815328' post='106365']

Thank you very much for the updates Chandragupta. Do you have any update on Agni-II AT?

[/quote]

Should I spill the beans? <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

An unfortunate thing has happened. Maybe I better backoff from spoiling the party.

[Guest]

[quote name='Chandragupta' date='14 May 2010 - 06:25 AM' timestamp='1273839436' post='106366']

Should I spill the beans? <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

An unfortunate thing has happened. Maybe I better backoff from spoiling the party.

[/quote]



CG, if the info. could possibly be sensitive, one should avoid posting it online. Already, a lot of info may be deduced from open source info: some days back, Dr. V. K. Saraswat mentioned that after A-V, a canisterized A-II class missile would be developed. If this is the case, A-IIAT as shown by Arunji may not have enough resources dedicated to it. Given this, I would not be surprised if A-IIAT has been cancelled. There are not enough resources for a large number of programs: probably A-III induction, A-V, A-II fixing etc would have priority at this stage.



Also, read DRDO newsletter. Talks about a new test facility for solid motors....upto 1.5m dia and 100t thrust...Arunji, comments ?



Regarding Nirbhay, it was to be tested in 2009. Still no signs of any testing. When will it be tested ? any rough idea ?These missiles could be possibly tested with greater secrecy than BMs. Taiwan or South Korea (dont remember which one) tested a 1000km CM in a 25km long range by making it go up and down 40+ times....

[Arun_S]

[quote name='Chandragupta' date='14 May 2010 - 05:55 PM' timestamp='1273839436' post='106366']

Should I spill the beans? <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

An unfortunate thing has happened. Maybe I better backoff from spoiling the party.

[/quote]

That statement lights up anxiety in readers, just like lighting up a slow blow fuse in Diwali atom bum fataka.

[emperor]

[quote name='Kritavarma' date='14 May 2010 - 10:12 AM' timestamp='1273849467' post='106368']

Regarding Nirbhay, it was to be tested in 2009. Still no signs of any testing. When will it be tested ? any rough idea ?These missiles could be possibly tested with greater secrecy than BMs. Taiwan or South Korea (dont remember which one) tested a 1000km CM in a 25km long range by making it go up and down 40+ times....

[/quote]



correction,Nirbhay MKI will take strategic role,untill MKII rolls out.There is no point of publicising the development and testing efforts of the same.In any case,it appears much better to let the enemy at the borders guessing by creating a high level of uncertainity of the posession of the weapon system.

Donno how this 1000km range popped up into the public when no such number was on paper <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Better to consider the low side? <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Currently there is no shortage of manpower for strategic systems.Work is going on at a wartime pace.There were numerous other systems under development,which a citizen with just a right to vote can hardly know.Many ABM project like shocks to the defence enthusiasts are on the way.

[vasu_ray]

on the ABM topic are they building any pulse firing weapons that can be ship mounted?



and any anti torpedo weapon like a CIWS that can penetrate water surface?

[Raj Malhotra]

I have been reading about Indigenous cruise missiles since mid nineties but nothing seems to be in service yet. Anyway the effective range of cruise missile is around 40-60% of its maximum range. Now if Nirbhay MK 1 is 1200km max then its effective range should be around 500-600km and for Mk2 around 1000-1500km.



Apart from super dooper tech marvels it will be better if some NEW bread & butter stuff is also approved for R&D like pistols, rifles, sniper rifles, anti material rifles, RPGs, mortars, cannons etc all of which are proposed to be imported

[Raj Malhotra]

The bits and pieces that have appeared on Indian Air lauched ground attack missiles and PGM programme is as follows:-





1. Laser guided bomb kits but details unknown

2. There seems to be ongoing programme for air dropped PGM kits but whether this is the same programme as LGB above or full family of PGMs like AASM or family of glide bomb kits + data links, booster or wing kits etc, is not known

3. Nirbhay (light and Heavy??)

4. Anti radiation missile – details ??

5. Now if there is a new 1000km range missile mentioned by Chandragupta then my guess would be something like Kh-31 ramjet powered missile



So our R&D in missile family is:-



SAMs:-



Manpads – Igla equivalent – Nil

VSHORAD – Mistral equivalent – Nil

SHORAD – presently – NIL

Mid or long range - Akash & Barak-2 family

BMD – AAD & PAD family



Ground to Ground:-



Pinaka 1 & 2

Prithvi family – what will replace it ? in conventional role? Brahmos?

Agni family

Shaurya

Brahmos



Naval missiles



Nirbahy 1 & 2

Brahmos

Light Ramjet equivalent to Kh-31 – as per open sources Nil

Light and heavy (elec & thermal) torpedoes



Air to Air



WVR follow on to ASRAAM 132

BVR Astra

Long ranged BVR – KS 172 ?



ATGMs



RPG- Nil

Nag

Air launched long ranged Nag

Man portable Nag

LAHAT derived series man portable and cannon launched



Loitering PGM



Some talk but no open source info. Though I wonder why Nishant or Nirbhay/Laksya cannot be converted to loitering ammo "easily"





UAVs



Mini from israel



Nishant



NRUAV



Rustom



Talk of Hale but no info



LCA based UCAV also talked about



Unmanned Ground vehicles - full family of Daksh upto BMP size



Under water - there is one but cannot remember



Over water - Nil

[Arun_S]

[quote name='Raj Malhotra' date='15 May 2010 - 06:17 PM' timestamp='1273927192' post='106377']

Apart from super dooper tech marvels it will be better if some NEW bread & butter stuff is also approved for R&D like pistols, rifles, sniper rifles, anti material rifles, RPGs, mortars, cannons etc all of which are proposed to be imported

[/quote]



I was sharing similar sentiments with a friend few days ago.



While IAF has no basic trainer to train its pilots, and hawks coming in at their own slow pace, MM Singh and his US friends are thrusting C17 down IAF throat.



Talk about mischievous misplaced priories that fringe on treasonous acts.

[Arun_S]

• [url="http://expressbuzz.com/nation/agni-ii-set-for-3rd-trial/173701.html"]Agni-II missile likely to be test fired tomorrow[/url]

STAFF WRITER[color="#f47622"] 11:28 HRS IST[/color]Balasore (Orissa), May 16 (PTI)



[url="http://expressbuzz.com/searchresult/hemant-kumar-rout"]Hemant Kumar Rout[/url] [url=""]Express News Service

[/url]16 May 2010 09:48:02 AM IST

BALASORE: After two failures and problems rectified, the nuclear-capable intermediate range surface-to-surface missile Agni-IIis all set for a takeoff from the Wheeler Island off the Orissa coast on May 17. The flight test would be conducted by a team of the Strategic Forces Command (SFC) while the DRDO scientists would provide the logistic support, sources said.This year, India has already tested 3,500-km range Agni-III in February and 700-km range Agni-I in March.``This will be a user trial of Agni-II and it has been scheduled to be carried out on May 17. After the twin failures, the test will be conducted to reestablish the confidence among the user (Army) and confirm the missile’s readiness,” said a defence official atthe Integrated Test Range. On November 23 last year, the Army had tested Agni-II at about 7.50 pm. For the first time, a missile was tested after sunset, but it failed to deliver results.Agni-II can neutralise a target at over 2,000 km range. It can carry a payload of around 1,000 kg and its range can be increased to 3,000 km depending on the payload. The missile will be used by 555 Missile Group of the Army. The two consecutive trials of the 2,000 km-plus range missile failed due to snags in the second stage separation, sources added. The DRDO drew flak and the defence analysts raised concern about its deployment during war. However, the DRDO denied any design problem in the missile and ratherpointed finger at the quality of the material used in the missile for its failure.A fact-finding committee, headed by G Madhavan Nair, former chairman of ISRO, was formed to go into the reasons behind the missile’s recurring failure. “The problem has been fixed and rectified too. Hope this time the mission would be successful,” said the official.

[Arun_S]

[url="http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1621/1"]India’s missile defense/anti-satellite nexus[/url]

by Victoria Samson

Monday, May 10, 2010

While China’s 2007 anti-satellite (ASAT) test and its missile defense intercept test earlier this year have attracted much attention and concern, another emerging space power has also been expressing its interest in developing those capabilities yet attracting very little notice: India. Given enthusiastic statements by Indian officials about what they see as the need for ASATs and the country’s continued missile defense efforts, this could be worrisome. Though most of the rhetoric can be chalked up to regional rivalry, and much of the grandstanding downplays the level of technical capacity that still needs to be developed, India’s plans for missile defense and their relationship to space security bear further monitoring.



India has been working on a missile defense system that is primarily indigenously built for several decades, but it wasn’t until relatively recently that successes were repeated during testing. India held missile defense intercept attempts in November 2006 (a test where the intercept occurred outside the Earth’s atmosphere, or was exoatmospheric), December 2007 (a test where Indian officials claimed that the intercept occurred inside the Earth’s atmosphere, or was endoatmospheric, despite video footage implying that the interceptor missed the target), March 2009 (an exoatmospheric test), and March 2010.[sup]1[/sup] During the last test, the modified Prithvi target missile did not follow its scheduled flight path and thus the interceptor missile, called the Advanced Air Defense (AAD) missile, was not launched.[sup]2[/sup] Indian officials have indicated that they want to deploy a working missile defense system by 2012. Defense Research and Development Organization Director General V.K. Saraswat stated last October that the “[o]nly part that remains to be developed is the interceptor missile;”[sup]3[/sup] the US Missile Defense Agency’s experience in developing interceptors might demonstrate to him how much work India might have ahead of itself. Per Saraswat, there are two phases to India’s intended ballistic missile program: the first phase is planned to intercept target missiles with ranges of up to 2,000 kilometers via “exo-atmospheric, endo-atmospheric and high-altitude interceptions,” while in the second phase, India will strive to be able to intercept target missiles with ranges of 5,000 kilometers, which potentially could give India the ability to intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles.[sup]4[/sup] Saraswat also proudly noted after China held its first missile defense intercept test attempt in January 2010, “This is one area where we are senior to China.”[sup]5[/sup]



Dr K. Kasturirangan, former head of the India Space Research Organization (ISRO), said in September 2009, “China’s ASAT capabilities displayed a few years ago was to show to the world that they too can do it. That China can do what it wants to do and demonstrate that it can do even more… to supersede the best of the world, that is the US.”[sup]6[/sup] He also stated, “Obviously we start worrying. We cannot overlook this aspect.”[sup]7[/sup] Kasturirangan, sounding very similar to some parts of the US national space community, asserted that “India has spent a huge sum to develop its capabilities and place assets in space. Hence, it becomes necessary to protect them from adversaries. There is a need to look at means of securing these.”[sup]8[/sup]



In January 2010, Saraswat tipped India’s hand further when he told reporters, “India is putting together building blocks of technology that could be used to neutralize enemy satellites,” and that “We are working to ensure space security and protect our satellites. At the same time we are also working on how to deny the enemy access to its space assets.”[sup]9[/sup] This last part is very similar to statements made by some US officials charged with protecting US space assets. Saraswat did acknowledge, “Basically, these are deterrence technologies and quite certainly many of these technologies will not be used.”[sup]10[/sup] If that last part is true, it does raise the question of how much of a deterrent these technologies may actually provide, since the Indian government claims not to intend to use them.



Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik gave in February 2010 perhaps the real reason why India has expressed any interest in an ASAT program in his explanation, “Our satellites are vulnerable to ASAT weapon systems because our neighborhood possesses one.”[sup]11[/sup]



Clarifying his statements from the previous month, Saraswat announced in February 2010, “In Agni-III, we have the building blocks and the capability to hit a satellite but we don't have to hit a satellite… If you hit a satellite, the repercussions are that we will have debris and they will be detrimental to objects in space and it will remain in there for many years.”[sup]12[/sup] This was a welcome acknowledgement by an Indian military official of some of the negative consequences of actively testing an ASAT program. Instead, Saraswat said that India “will validate the anti-satellite capability on the ground through simulation,” emphasizing that “there is no program to do a direct hit to the satellite.”[sup]13[/sup] Conflating India’s successes thus far with its ballistic missile arsenal development and its plans for a ballistic missile defense system, he went on to say, “With the kill vehicle available and with the propulsion system of Agni III, that can carry the missile up to 1,000 kilometers altitude, we can reach the orbit in which the satellite is and it is well within our capability.”[sup]14[/sup]



Part of why India may be interested in developing an ASAT capability is that it wishes to use it as a way to enhance its missile defense program and, to a lesser extent, its domestic science and technology skills. This is latter is seen even in the United States, which has a much longer history of space activities, where some of the strongest proponents for continuing with space exploration (for example) couch their arguments in the need to maintain and expand an intellectual industrial base for space technology know-how. An ASAT capability requires, if one is using kinetic kill vehicles and not relying on the destruction from an electromagnetic pulse or a nuclear-tipped warhead, very solid and reliable hit-to-kill capabilities. India has explicitly expressed its interest in developing more or less indigenously its own missile defense system and has been working assiduously on such a program for some time; thus, an ASAT program, as it were, would also be a technology demonstration program for a missile defense system. This highlights the similarities between missile defense and ASATs. Interestingly enough, India seemed a few years ago like it was more interested in purchasing parts of the Arrow Weapon System, a missile defense system co-developed by the United States and Israel. It apparently has since decided that it would rather build its own and gain the skill set such a system would require.



But primarily, as can be seen by statements by Indian officials, not ceding ground to its political regional rival, China, is mostly grandstanding by India. The Indians see China as their main competitor and nation of concern (regarding space capabilities) in the region. So these statements by Indian officials partially can be explained as bombast to assure domestic audiences that India is a peer of China or even ahead of it. However, there is another explanation: these statements indicate that India is interested in being able to reach China. The Indians may have decided that they should be able to cover all contingencies for future conflicts. The Pakistanis are already well within range of Indian ballistic missiles, and by developing this long-range missile capability, the Indians will be able to counter China as well. They can point to the 2007 Chinese ASAT test as an example of the pressing need for reciprocal capability; again, this mirrors some of the debate within the United States for why American space assets may be endangered. And since China reportedly held its own hit-to-kill missile defense test in January 2010, this just adds more justification to those who feel that India must have a missile defense system in order to keep up with regional capabilities.



There are lessons learned from previous arms control debates that have probably affected India’s decision to seek a missile defense/ASAT capability. One strong one is that Indians remember well that the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) made a concrete division between the nuclear haves and the have-nots. This partition was largely based on who had held a nuclear test prior to the treaty’s creation. India missed becoming an official nuclear weapon state by six years by having its first nuclear test—or, as India termed it, a “peaceful nuclear explosion”—in 1974. There are some within India who have taken that lesson to heart and want India to develop an ASAT capability so that India would be grandfathered in, should any future treaty or international agreement ban ASATs. This is probably to gain the prestige of being one of a select few states and the wish to avoid being hemmed in, should future Indian military officials decide that an ASAT capability is needed for their national security needs.



India’s interest in developing this missile defense/ASAT capability also could be seen as an unintended consequence from the October 2008 US-India nuclear deal. In it, the United States agreed to lift its ban on nuclear trade with India, despite India’s not having signed the NPT and actively flouting the spirit of that treaty by holding nuclear weapon tests. The nuclear deal put India in a unique position relative to other non-conforming states to the NPT, thanks to its now special relationship with the United States; [color="#0000ff"]India may think that its benefactor will quietly look the other way while it develops ASATs. Furthermore, as noted earlier, many of India’s justifications for pursuing ASATs are quite familiar to those following the debate being held in the United States about how best to protect US space assets.[/color]



Along those same lines, while there was much criticism of the debris created by China’s 2007 ASAT test, international approbation was about all that China was subjected to. There were not any military responses, economic embargoes, or even technological limitations (beyond what the export controls that the United States already had in place). Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe very delicately called the test illegal with this statement to the Japanese Diet: “I believe it would not be in compliance with basic international rules such as the Outer Space Treaty.”[sup]15[/sup] (Article IX of the 1967 OST calls for prior international consultation if a state believes its planned space activities may be harmful to others.)[sup]16[/sup] So perhaps India figures that despite the unpopularity of developing ASATs, there are not going to be any tangible consequences to doing so.



Now, if India were to actually test an ASAT, that might prove to be a different story, but as can be seen by the Indian officials quoted above, they probably realize that as well and have opted not to cross that line. Also, perhaps maintaining ambiguity around its ASAT plans serve India better than holding an actual test and removing all doubt as to whether it actually has that capability.



Finally, it is important to put India’s missile defense/ASAT ambitions within the proper context. [color="#0000ff"]India does not have the indigenous space situational awareness capability needed for an ASAT system. [/color]India is working to improve this but, as the US missile defense systems’ trials and tribulations have shown, it is not something that can be developed rapidly, even if given great leeway in its development and a relatively blank check. While a dedicated satellite network is not a necessity, it does raise the question of how India intends to be able to detect and track missile launches. The United States’ experience in shooting down the de-orbiting satellite USA 193 in February 2008 with a modified Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) interceptor demonstrated that missile defense radars often do not have the capacity to keep up with a satellite target, since the Aegis system’s radars were unable to track at the very fast speed that the satellite was travelling. Finally, while it is true that, generally speaking, a ballistic missile is expected to be able to reach an altitude of about half its range, this does not mean that this automatically translates into being able to reach that altitude while simultaneously serving as a missile defense interceptor. The Agni-III or -V may be powerful ballistic missiles, but they cannot be scaled down and just swapped into the Indian missile defense network in order to have a missile defense capacity; thus claims about their effectiveness equaling an enhanced ASAT or missile defense capability should be taken with a grain of salt.



[color="#0000ff"]India’s ASAT plans are worrisome because in the Indians’ anxiety to keep up with China, they may unexpectedly create the exact thing that they are trying to avoid: a conflict in or about space.[/color] If their statements are misunderstood or if they ratchet up the rhetoric, they may thrust India into the position of having to hope that its missile defense interceptors do, indeed, serve as able ASATs.





References

[sup]1[/sup] Martin Sieff, “BMD Watch: India plans Agni III test, new ABM super-interceptors,” UPI, Jan. 14, 2008; Raj Chengappa, “The New Shield,” India Today, Dec. 24, 2007; Wade Boese, “More States Step Up Anti-Missile Work,” Arms Control Today, January-February 2008; Vivek Raghuvanshi, “India Strives To Field Missile Defense by 2012,” Defense News, March 30, 2009



[sup]2[/sup] “'Coordination problem' grounds India's interceptor missile,” via BBC Worldwide Monitoring, March 15, 2010



[sup]3[/sup] [url="http://www.india-defence.com/reports/4267"]“Missile Defense System Phase 1 to be Ready by 2011-2012: DRDO,”[/url] Oct. 3, 2009



[sup]4[/sup] “Sri Lanka: India's Ballistic Missile Defence programme is more,” Right Vision News, Feb. 14, 2010



[sup]5[/sup] [url="http://expressbuzz.com/nation/%e2%80%98india-senior-to-china-in-missile-programme%e2%80%99/147431.html"]“‘India senior to China in missile programme’,”[/url] Press Trust of India, Feb. 11, 2010



[sup]6[/sup] “Ex-ISRO chief calls China's A-SAT a cause for worry,” Press Trust of India, Sept. 14, 2009



[sup]7[/sup] Ibid



[sup]8[/sup] Ibid



[sup]9[/sup] Sagar Kulkarni Thiruvananthapuram, “India readying weapon to destroy enemy satellites: Saraswat,” Press Trust of India, Jan. 3, 2010



[sup]10[/sup] Ibid



[sup]11[/sup] Bharath Gopalaswamy and Harsh Pant, [url="http://news.rediff.com/column/2010/feb/09/does-india-need-anti-satellite-capability.htm"]“Does India need anti-satellite capability?”[/url] Rediff News, Feb. 9, 2010



[sup]12[/sup] “India has anti-satellite capability: Saraswat,” Press Trust of India, Feb. 10, 2010



[sup]13[/sup] Ibid



[sup]14[/sup] [url="http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?id=319638&option=com_content&catid=35"]“Agni V to reach all China,”[/url] Feb. 10, 2010



[sup]15[/sup] Richard Weitz, [url="http://wmdinsights.com/I13/I13_EA1_SP_PRC_ASAT.htm"]“Special Report: Chinese Anti-Satellite Weapon Test – The Shot Heard ‘Round the World,’”[/url] WMD Insights, March 2007



[sup]16[/sup] Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly2222 (XXI), [url="http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/en/SpaceLaw/gares/html/gares_21_2222.html"]Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies[/url]



Victoria Samson is currently the Washington director of the Secure World Foundation, an organization that focuses on the sustainable use of space. She was previously a senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information, focusing on missile defense and space security issues. She started out working on missile defense wargaming scenarios for what was then the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, now the Missile Defense Agency. She is the author of American Missile Defense: A Guide to the Issues(Praeger Security International, 2010).

[Rudra]

[quote name='Chandragupta' date='14 May 2010 - 05:55 PM' timestamp='1273839436' post='106366']

Should I spill the beans? <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

An unfortunate thing has happened. Maybe I better backoff from spoiling the party.

[/quote]



Chandragupta, I don't want to ask you about the unfortunate thing. But, for two day it is eating my brain and i couldn't resist. Atleast, please tell me whether Agni-IIAT is on track? will it see the light? when you think it will be tested?

[Guest]

[url="http://www.hindustantimes.com/Agni-II-missile-successfully-test-fired/H1-Article1-544345.aspx"]Agni-II missile successfully test-fired[/url]

Nuclear-capable Agni-II missile, with a range of 2000 kms, was on Monday successfully test-fired by the Army as part of user trial from the Wheelers Island off Orissa coast.



The trial was conducted from a[color="#FF0000"] rail mobile system[/color] in Launch Complex-4 of Integrated Test Range (ITR) at around 9.15 am, defence sources said soon after the versatile surface-to-surface missile blasted off.



Data relating to various parameters of the mission's objectives was being analysed, the sources said.



Agni-II Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM) has already been inducted into the services and today's test was carried out by the Strategic Forces Command (SFC) of the Army with logistic support from various laboratories and personnel of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

A DRDO scientist said it was a training exercise to familiarise the end-users with different operational conditions.



The entire trajectory of the trial was tracked by a battery of sophisticated radars, telemetry observation stations, electro-optic instruments and a naval ship located near the impact point in the down range of Bay of Bengal.



The 20-metre long Agni-II is a two stage, solid-propelled ballistic missile. It has a launch weight of 17 tonnes and can carry a payload of 1000 kg over a distance of 2000 km.

Agni-II was developed by Advanced Systems Laboratory along with other DRDO laboratories and integrated by the Bharat Dynamics Limited, Hyderabad, the sources said.



The missile is part of the Agni series which includes Agni-I with a 700 km range and Agni-III with a 3,500 km range, they said, adding that Agni-I has already been inducted and Agni-III is in the process of induction.



The first trial of Agni-II was carried out on April 11, 1999. Though some of the subsequent trials were successful, the user trial conducted on May 19, 2009 and the first night trial on November 23, 2009 from Wheelers Island could not meet all the parameters, they added.

[Arun_S]

ToI:





[url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Nuclear-capable-Agni-II-missile-test-fired-successfully/articleshow/5939276.cms"]Nuclear-capable Agni-II missile test-fired successfully[/url]

PTI, May 17, 2010, 09.58am IST

[Arun_S]

Last three Agni-II test did not release the picture of the missile. Makes me suspect its is another story of Shourya being tested under teh guise of Prithvi test. This time it could be the other new AT missile.

[sai_k]

It says it lasted for 11 minutes. Earlier A3 walas that went successful was for 15 mins. And the A1? was around 8 min.

[ramana]

Saik, The connundrum of the Agni series is that the rentry vehicle is a boost glide vehicle and not plain old ballistic re-entry vehicle. What this means is the RV re-enters at a significant distance from the target and travels to the destination taking evasive moves. So to use a ballistic trajectory program to calculate the RV trajectory causes gaps in understanding the flight.



All I would take away from current data released is the appogee was 230km and re-entry velocity was 3.5km/sec and the total time of flight was 660sec. Someone can figure out what was the time to re-entry ie to fly to 150 km. And the difference is the re-entry boost glide path time.

[Arun_S]

[quote name='ramana' date='18 May 2010 - 10:54 PM' timestamp='1274202978' post='106433']

Saik, The connundrum of the Agni series is that the rentry vehicle is a boost glide vehicle and not plain old ballistic re-entry vehicle. What this means is the RV re-enters at a significant distance from the target and travels to the destination taking evasive moves. So to use a ballistic trajectory program to calculate the RV trajectory causes gaps in understanding the flight.



All I would take away from current data released is the apogee was 230km and re-entry velocity was 3.5km/sec and the total time of flight was 660sec. Someone can figure out what was the time to re-entry ie to fly to 150 km. And the difference is the re-entry boost glide path time.

[/quote]



Here is one configuration that has re-entry velocity of 3.5Km/sec (relative velocity, as against inertial velocity) and apogee of 230 Km. Note that time to re-entry altitude of 120 km is only 485 seconds.



Pure ballistic flight time would be only 561 seconds and range of 1,577 km.



So for 660 seconds it was a non ballistic trajectory and has to be hypersonic glide trajectory.



Connect the dots.

Rocket Ballistic Simulator results

Launch Direction = 60 degrees-North, Launch Latitude = 30.00 degrees



Stage Event Time-Sec Time-HH:MM:SS Range Altitude LOS-Range LOS-Azimuth LOS-Elevation Velocity V-angle rVelocityMag rVeloElevation-angle rVeloAzimuth Accn A-angle Force F-angle Effective-G Lat Long EnergyTotal EnergyKinetic EnegryPotential Drag AirSpeed MachOne MachNumber Cd



Stage1 BURNOUT 49.50 0:0:49 24,841.109 19,977.437 31,721.367 60.204 38.228 1,737.255 32.442 1,446.237 40.263 60.227 11.5114 -80.466 9,207.932 -80.466 11.0163 30.111 77.429 1.7041455 E+6 1.5090281 E+6 1.9511740 E+5 2,000.14 1,446.2 295.1 4.901 0.253



Stage2 BURNOUT 89.50 0:1:29 102,964.176 66,995.877 123,132.423 60.614 32.333 3,795.933 24.437 3,452.250 26.911 60.666 84.4702 20.462 23,686.141 20.462 -31.3719 30.457 78.302 7.8541220 E+6 7.2045541 E+6 6.4956790 E+5 19.51 3,452.3 305.3 11.308 0.252



PostBoostVehicil BURNOUT 289.75 0:4:50 714,710.545 234,459.570 764,126.632 63.969 14.606 3,580.374 1.979 3,212.643 2.238 64.422 9.1147 -89.978 1,877.820 -89.978 7.1785 32.995 84.869 8.6252062 E+6 6.4095380 E+6 2.2156682 E+6 0.22 3,425.2 269.5 12.712 0.252





PAYLOAD ON-PEAK 306.75 0:5:7 768,107.207 235,505.059 816,323.260 64.286 13.265 3,577.672 -0.003 3,209.434 0.029 64.787 9.1122 -89.992 1,859.627 -89.992 7.1769 33.201 85.458 8.6250672 E+6 6.3998699 E+6 2.2251973 E+6 0.22 3,425.2 269.5 12.712 0.252



PAYLOAD ON-REENTRY [color="#800080"]485.75[/color] 0:8:6 1,329,293.105 [color="#800080"]119,710.697[/color] 1,344,626.710 67.849 -0.903 3,865.819 -19.618 [color="#0000ff"]3,525.105[/color] -21.572 68.918 9.4389 -89.992 1,926.301 -89.992 7.3984 35.186 91.808 8.6235338 E+6 7.4722778 E+6 1.1512561 E+6 0.22 3,425.2 269.5 12.712 0.252



PAYLOAD ON-TARGET 561.50 0:9:22 1,577,761.838 -131.279 1,573,763.325 69.552 -7.102 4,153.087 -26.712 3,836.502 -29.085 70.888 9.7964 -89.992 1,999.275 -89.992 7.6389 35.953 94.701 8.6227816 E+6 8.6194946 E+6 3.2869299 E+3 0.00 3,836.5 339.0 11.317 0.252

[Guest]

Ramana-ji,

Two points.

1. The Agni 1 RV does not have fins as compared to the Agni 2 RV which as small fins.

2. I think that the RV are intended more towards maneuvers to avoid ABM measures, rather than any dramatic course changes.



Gurus might further elaborate / discuss.

[Arun_S]

How is course change different (divorced) from robustness against ABM? ; which is first predicated on not being able to predict before hand where is the vehicle going to actually land, and secondly trying to intercept a RV that is gliding in upper atmosphere is in addition as difficult to engage compared to a maneuvering RV, but whereby the reaction time to ABM is always lesser than a ballistic trajectory but maneuvering RV.





BTW fins are not the only way to make the RV glide. So unless a potential challenger can detect Agni-1 RV maneuvering during a test launch it will not know how to deal with Agni-1, except to assume the worst I.e. it has a maneuvering/gliding RV.