Indian Missile News And Discussion

[Guest]

[RomaIndian]

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

[Arun_S]

BTW in Mudy's post, all the above are re-rendering from my web articles, and drawings.

[Arun_S]

BTW Agni-3 booster was composite case from day one; and Agni-V uses the same booster as Agni-3. There is no doubt that all 3 stage of Agni-V are composite. It clear that the upper stage is not only composite but carbon composite. That makes for small size missile with disproportionally large payload impulse.

[Arun_S]

Bharat Karnad got this one right now.



A little education by people who know the subject matter helped correct the understanding, and assessment.







[url="http://www.asianage.com/columnists/india-s-missile-bamboozle-287"]India’s missile bamboozle

[/url] By editor Created 26 Apr 2012 - 00:00 [url="http://www.asianage.com/bharat-karnad-067"][/url] [1][url="http://www.asianage.com/bharat-karnad-067"]Bharat Karnad[/url] [1]



There has been needless confusion and obfuscation about the Agni-V missile test-fired on April 19. First was the delay in the launch by some 11 hours. For a missile touted as “all weather”, a bit of lightning shouldn’t have frightened off the DRDO brass. More likely, the reason was last minute jitters about a missile whose launch had been turned into a media circus.

What is less comprehensible was the persistent description in the media, no doubt at the DRDO’s prompting, of the Agni-V as an “Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile” (ICBM) when, given its stated range of around 5,000 kms, Dr V. Saraswat, DRDO boss and scientific adviser to the defence minister, identified it correctly for television cameras as an Inter-mediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM). The first hint of Agni-V’s ICBM status was dropped by the minister of state for science, Ashwini Kumar, when he referred to the missile re-entering the atmosphere at “24.4 times the speed of sound”. Depending on the altitude, this works out to roughly 7.2 to 7.7 kms per second as terminal velocity, making it unquestionably an ICBM, compared to 6.2 to 6.5 kms per second re-entry speed of Agni-IV, which is IRBM performance. Obviously, Agni-V was fired in a high-parabolic trajectory to depress the distance it travelled, which may be why Chinese military sources have claimed that Agni-V’s 8,000-km range is being covered up. The Agni has to have a minimum range of 10,000 kms to be considered an ICBM. But why did the DRDO not publicise the missile’s full capability?

The reason was to mollify the Manmohan Singh government that has always been fearful of spooking the US. Washington has insisted that India restrict its missile capacity to cover China without tripping into the ICBM range lest that leads to India being perceived as a threat, resulting in American counter-measures. While the Bharatiya Janata Party-led NDA government’s minister for external affairs (MEA), Jaswant Singh, denies he had cut any deal during his 19 rounds of “strategic dialogue” with Strobe Talbott, former US President Bill Clinton’s deputy secretary of state, in early 2000 to cap Indian missile capability at the IRBM level, the Congress coalition government has adhered to this restriction, which is reflected in the DRDO’s programmatic thrust.

Indeed, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s reluctance to offend Washington was stretched to a point where he reportedly kept delaying the approval of the first test of Agni-V until defence minister A.K. Antony put his foot down around mid-2011, and compelled Dr Singh to approve the launch. The government tried to soften any negative reaction by scheduling foreign secretary Ranjan Mathai’s speech extolling India’s spotless nuclear and missile technology non-proliferation record at an MEA-sponsored seminar on the same day as the missile test.

The DRDO’s fear of the government disallowing sustained testing of critical strategic technologies, backed by an equally nagging apprehension about reduction of funds for strategic technology development, is why the DRDO resorted to over-the-top publicity. The DRDO’s strategy was to thwart moves by the government to curtail activity in the missile field by creating huge public support for Agni-V and follow-on ICBM. It resembles the decision by nuclear scientists to simultaneously trigger three devices (which produced mixed, suboptimal results) on May 11, 1998, because of the fear that under foreign pressure the government would terminate testing after the very first explosion if a series of separate single underground tests had been resorted to.

The hullabaloo over the untested MIRV (Multiple Independently Re-targetable Vehicles) technology, enabling one missile to engage three to eight different targets that Agni-V is configured to carry, was also for the same reason. So much public hype about the MIRV technology, awaiting government permission to test for the last eight-odd years, means that Dr Singh cannot now stop its testing in the second launch of Agni-V.

The other stellar attributes of the Indian IRBM not talked about, but worth mentioning, are the chip-embedded guidance system and the servo-mechanisms for thrust control to permit mid-flight manoeuvring.

Were the Indian government strategic-minded, which it is not, it would push through an accelerated programme of testing and induction into service of Agni-V and, in parallel, quickly develop and test-fire over Antarctica a genuine ICBM by replacing the first stage made of steel on the IRBM with lightweight composites to accommodate more fuel. What an ICBM does is allow Chinese targets to be hit from virtually anywhere, thereby immeasurably enlarging the space for manoeuvre by Indian firing platforms outside Chinese satellite coverage. Further, the production rate of Agni-IVs and Agni-Vs needs rapid ramping up to keep pace with even a minor adversary — Pakistan.

The success of Agni-V, however, highlights the danger that I have been warning about for many years, namely, very advanced and accurate long-range missiles married to untested and unproven thermonuclear warheads that, without further physical testing of fusion and boosted-fission weapons designs, could prove to be duds. That will be a devastating denouement for the Indian strategic deterrent — accurate delivery but fizzled impact. Even so, with a proven IRBM, India has reached deterrence parity with China in the sense of being able to reach the most distant Chinese targets.

The MEA should capitalise on the interest generated by Agni-V to explore an Indian role as the “net security provider” that countries in Southeast Asia would welcome and Washington has been urging Delhi to play. Our dilly-dallying on the sale of the Brahmos supersonic cruise missile led Indonesia to buy a variant directly from Russia. Vietnam, which also seeks Brahmos, is unlikely to wait around either. Unless India treats Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia and other Asean members as the first tier of India’s defence and missile-arms them on a priority basis, national security will remain grievously impaired. New Delhi emphasising non-proliferation norms at the expense of the country’s geopolitical interests is tragically short-sighted, given that the brownie points it wins cannot compensate for China transferring nuclear missile technology to Pakistan, or insinuating itself into the military affairs of Burma, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and the Maldives, to disadvantage India.

The MEA should not squander the chance to pursue substantive cooperative security measures with the United States and countries on China’s periphery beyond anti-piracy patrols and joint military exercises by, for a start, discussing and preparing for contingency scenarios.



The writer is a professor at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi

[shyam1]

Arun ji, how will they test with all this tamasha going on with Iran and Obama pledge for nuke free world?



Isn't 2nd strike capability with current weapons feasible to deter any enemies? If we can hit the NE neighbour dams it should destroy their industrial heartland.



If Unkil or west causes problems then we can brandish the ICBM sword right, anyhow they know we have the capability.



Also, how can we use shourya nirbhay without escalation as they are N capable na? Will adversary wait to be hit before response and will they trust in NFU which is just a piece of paper?



Your take.

[Arun_S]

This has many nuggets.



[url="http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/agni-v-drdo-chief-dr-vijay-kumar-saraswat-interview/1/186248.html"][b]"India has all the building blocks for an anti-satellite capability"

[/url][/b] Sandeep Unnithan | April 27, 2012 | 12:06



Dr. VK Saraswat, Scientific Adviser to Defence Minister. Photo by T. Narayan. Days after the milestone first test of India's strategic ballistic missile [url="http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/agni-v-missile-india/1/185048.html"]Agni-V,[/url] Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister Dr Vijay Kumar Saraswat sat down for a detailed interview with Senior Editor Sandeep Unnithan. The [url="http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/agni-v-test-firing-drdo-being-needlessly-boastful/1/185230.html"]DRDO[/url] chief explains why the [url="http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/agni-v-launch-india-china/1/185099.html"]missile[/url] is a technological breakthrough and how it gives[url="http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/agni-v-test-china-says-india-not-rival/1/185151.html"] India[/url] the capability to target satellites in space.



Why is the Agni-V different from the previous Agni missiles?





Dr. VK Saraswat during an interview with India Today. Photo by T. Narayan.VKS: Agni-V is a completely new missile system. It is a 21st-century missile because of the technologies used and a game changer because of its strategic deterrence value. The missile went from drawing board to launch pad in just over three years. The government sanctioned the Agni-V project in December 2008. We began design work on it in April 2009. The missile was on the launch pad on March 14, 2012 and launched five days later.



What are the new technologies that the DRDO has developed for this missile?



VKS: Agni-V has taken us to a new level of technological maturity. This missile is entirely different from the Agni 3 and 4. The second and third stage booster of the missile are made entirely of composites. [color="#0000ff"]The third stage is a new booster that we developed. It is the lowest end of the tapered cone that ends with the warhead. That itself, in terms of composites, is a breakthrough. [/color]The navigation system is highly accurate. Don't forget that this missile travels at over Mach 20 in its terminal stage. Both the ring laser gyros (a device that measures the orientation of the missile and helps in inertial navigation) and the accelerometer (which measures the missile's rate of acceleration) are indigenously developed as part of the indigenous ballistic missile defence (BMD) programme. We also proved redundancies of our new onboard navigation system. A backup navigation system that was less accurate but more robust was put in place. This navigation system was supported by a unique fault tolerance software that we installed in the missile. [color="#0000ff"]The re-entry nose cone that contains the warhead had to be completely redesigned with new material and resins.[/color] This is because when the missile re-enters the atmosphere, it is hurtling towards the ground at over 20 times the speed of sound. Friction on the nose cone causes temperatures in excess of 2000 degrees centigrade. This system had to be proved on the ground and that was a major technological development for us.



We are also working on a canister-launched system for the Agni-V. We have designed a canister that can eject the 50-tonne missile[color="#0000ff"] 50 metres in the air and fire the first stage[/color]. The canister will allow us to store the missile for ten years with no maintenance. The missile will be carried on railcars and on a 12x12 road-mobile truck. Carrying the missile on a road-mobile launcher is better because it is more flexible, you just need some level ground to launch it. The first launch of the A5 was from a railcar, we hope it will subsequently be fired from road-mobile launchers.



Costs and production of the Agni-V? There is a concern that you will not be able to produce more than one or two missiles a year.



VKS: [color="#0000ff"]The A5 costs approximately Rs 50 crore per missile[/color]. We will need two more tests before starting serial production after two years. The DRDO is working with production agencies for this. All I can tell you is that we will produce more than just 1 or 2 missiles a year.



What were the challenges posed in tracking such a long-range missile?



VKS: The Agni-V required a different range deployment. The range of over 5,000 km meant the missile would land north of Antartica. That meant the ships tracking the launch would have to sail nearly a fortnight before the launch window. We had a slight difficulty in that all our tracking systems are ship and shore-based. We don't have airborne sensors. We needed three ships to track the launch: two near the splashdown and one to track the mid-course correction. The ships are due to return on April 30 or, 11 days after the missile test. We have a highly integrated tracking range comprising 15 sensors, seven radars and seven telemetry systems. They did an admirable job of tracking the missile flight in real time.



Does DRDO have the capability of destroying satellites in space?



VKS: Today, India has all the building blocks for an anti-satellite system in place.



We don't want to weaponise space but the building blocks should be in place. Because you may come to a time when you may need it. Today, I can say that all the building blocks (for an ASAT weapon) are in place. A little fine tuning may be required but we will do that electronically. We will not do a physical test (actual destruction of a satellite) because of the risk of space debris affecting other satellites.



How did you develop these ASAT capabilities?



VKS: There are a few essential parameters in intercepting satellites. You should have the ability to track an orbiting satellite in space, launch a missile towards it and finally have a kill vehicle that actually homes in to physically destroy it.



We have a Long Range Tracking Radar (LRTR) used in the Ballistic Missile Defence Programme that has a range of over 600 km. [color="#0000ff"]We will increase the range to 1,400 km allowing us to track satellites in orbit.[/color]



It is far more difficult to intercept ballistic missiles than it is to intercept satellites. Satellites follow a predictive path. Once you track a satellite, you will know its path.



In the BMD project, we track and intercept a 0.1 square meter target over 1,000 km away. A satellite is ten times larger-over 1 meter wide.



We have the communication systems in place, again developed for the BMD project. [color="#0000ff"]The first-stage booster developed for the Agni-V can inject a warhead 600 km into space. {Arun: he is referring to ASAT warhead} [/color]We also have a kill vehicle developed for the BMD project. The kill vehicle actually homes in onto an incoming missile. We have the Infra-Red and Radar frequency seekers on the kill vehicle that accurately guide it to its target.



At what phase of development is the BMD programme?



VKS: Phase-1 of the BMD programme will be completed by 2013. In this, we will intercept Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles with a range of 2,000 km. The second phase will be completed by 2016. In this, we will be able to intercept intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) with ranges over 5,000 km. Phase-1 has two missile interceptors called the PAD and the AAD. This year, we will be testing a new interceptor missile called the PDV.[color="#0000ff"] This missile will replace the PAD {Arun: As expected PAD was an experimanetal chassis, that was readily available and very suitable to prove teh technology and software}[/color]. Two missiles, the AD1 and the AD2 will be tested by the end of 2013 under Phase 2 of the BMD.



What about cruise missile defence?



VKS: That is a whole new ballgame because it calls for an entirely new set of missiles and radars. My team is presently studying CMD. We are looking at it as a possible next programme after finishing the BMD programme.



The DRDO has made breakthroughs in the K-series missiles for the nuclear submarine project. Why didn't you use a land-based variant of this missile?



VKS: The technologies involved in both missiles are different. [color="#0000ff"]An underwater missile has to deal with the pressure of a10 metre column of water above it. Hence the configuration of the missile is different. It is heavier, the structure is different. Unlike the Agni missile, this missile carries a lot of dead weight[/color].



When will the indigenous nuclear submarine INS Arihant be commissioned?



The submarine will test all its systems this year.



Field trials of the Arjun Mark 2 ?



VKS: We have the first test of the Arjun Mark 2 in June, this year. We have given the army 80 per cent of the changes in Mark 2. There are 126 more Arjuns being built, in addition to the 126 delivered to the army. We are confident of getting another order of 350 Arjun mark 2 tanks.



What stage is the Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT) project at?



VKS: We are holding discussions with the army for this. We will finalise the specifications of the tank in six to eight months. We are looking at industrial partners for this. We want new technologies for weapons, mobility and signatures for the FMBT. We have to decide on the type of armour to use for it, whether active or passive. The FMBT will be a tank complimentary to the Arjun. It will not replace it. Each tank has its own theatre. The T-90 MBT (used by the Indian army) has its theatre, the Arjun has its own theatre.



When will the Long Range Surface-to-Air Missile (LR-SAM) be tested ?



VKS: [color="#0000ff"]The first successful trial of the LR-SAM was in 2010. After this we decided on a complete change of configuration. [/color]We will have another test of the modified missile in Israel in June 2012. The missile system has already been integrated into the first P15A warship (the INS Kolkata, being built at Mazagon Docks Ltd, Mumbai).

[shyam1]

Interesting that LR-SAM is already integrated into P-15A after just 1 test? Doesnt make sense.





[url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Youth-powered-Agni-V/articleshow/12916259.cms"]Youth powered Agni-V[/url]

"The most challenging aspect of working for the defence establishment is that there is a lot of scope to be innovative. In a control regime where a lot of technologies are denied by advanced countries, our scientists had the responsibility of developing software and technologies indigenously. And they did it," said Ravi Kumar Gupta, director, Directorate of Public Interface, DRDO, New Delhi.



According to officials, DRDO has also been working with students in various universities across the country for the development of technologies for various systems. Students of Osmania University, University of Hyderabad, and the IITs are also involved in different programmes and their contribution has been direct or indirect.



The work culture in defence organisations leaves no scope for red tape. "A senior scientist can directly interact with his young colleague. If there is a disagreement on any matter of importance, they are openly expressed. It is this freedom that helps every scientist to work unhindered towards a goal," a senior scientist said.



The young scientists in the defence establishments still savour the successful test-firing of the 5,000-km range ICBM that can reach the northern part of China.



"Our families did not quite know our nature of work. But after the missile was test-fired and Agni-V generated a euphoria in the country, that is when they realised the importance of our work. We are actually being looked at as heroes among our families, friends and relatives," a young scientist who works at the Research Centre Imarat said.

[url="http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/andhra-pradesh/article3365043.ece"]We have great potential to export missiles to friendly nations: Saraswat[/url]

Special Correspondent

Share · Comment · print · T+

WELL DONE: Scientific Adviser to Defence Minister V.K. Saraswat greeting Programme Director, Agni-V and Chief Controller (Missiles and Strategic Systems, DRDO), Avinash Chander during a felicitation function in Hyderabad on Saturday. Photo: Mohammed Yousuf

The Hindu WELL DONE: Scientific Adviser to Defence Minister V.K. Saraswat greeting Programme Director, Agni-V and Chief Controller (Missiles and Strategic Systems, DRDO), Avinash Chander during a felicitation function in Hyderabad on Saturday. Photo: Mohammed Yousuf



Some nations have evinced interest in importing Akash surface-to-air missile: Saraswat



There is tremendous potential to export some missiles and defence technologies developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to friendly nations after meeting the needs of the country, according to V.K. Saraswat, Scientific Advisor to the Defence Minister.



Talking to journalists on the sidelines of ‘Aerospace Luminary Lecture' organised by the Hyderabad Chapter of the Aeronautical Society of India here on Saturday, Dr. Saraswat said already some nations had evinced interest in importing the Akash surface-to-air missile. However, no commitment could be given today as a large number of systems were required for the country.



Dr. Saraswat said the export potential could be tapped in the years to come once there was real output in terms of numbers and quality. He, however, pointed out that the export policy would be very restrictive.



Referring to the successful launch of Agni-V, RISAT-I and the flight test of the naval variant of the Light Combat Aircraft, he said April was a great month for aeronautical and aerospace sectors in the country. Besides taking India's strategic defence preparedness to a higher level, Agni-V provided the capability to launch long-range missiles with multiple warheads, anti-satellite weapons and launch satellites on demand. The success of Agni-V also gave confidence that the country was not dependent on any other nation as far as missile technology was concerned. Likewise, the successful flight test of the naval variant of LCA demonstrated major technology capability of the aircraft taking off and landing on the deck of a ship.



LRSAM trial



He said another flight trial of Lone-Range Surface–to-air Missile (LRSAM) would be conducted in June, followed by a series of tests in 2013. It was expected to be inducted in 2014. The Medium Range Surface-to-air Missile would be ready by 2015.



He lauded the contribution around 15 industries from Hyderabad in the success of the Agni-V missile.



Dr. Saraswat and team members of Agni-V Avinash Chander, Programme Director, Agni-V and Chief Controller (Missiles and Strategic Systems (DRDO), V.G. Sekaran, Director, Advanced Systems Laboratory (ASL) and S.P. Dash, Director, DLRL, were felicitated.

proud of our scientists!



When will india ever sell its great weapons even if other countries are asking for them? Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia all asking for Brahmos... Now more asking for Akash - will they ever sell?

[Bharat_2009]

[quote name='Arun_S' date='27 April 2012 - 11:09 PM' timestamp='1335547913' post='114737']

Bharat Karnad got this one right now.



A little education by people who know the subject matter helped correct the understanding, and assessment.







[url="http://www.asianage.com/columnists/india-s-missile-bamboozle-287"]India’s missile bamboozle

[/url] By editor Created 26 Apr 2012 - 00:00 [url="http://www.asianage.com/bharat-karnad-067"][/url] [1][url="http://www.asianage.com/bharat-karnad-067"]Bharat Karnad[/url] [1]



There has been needless confusion and obfuscation about the Agni-V missile test-fired on April 19. First was the delay in the launch by some 11 hours. For a missile touted as “all weather”, a bit of lightning shouldn’t have frightened off the DRDO brass. More likely, the reason was last minute jitters about a missile whose launch had been turned into a media circus.

What is less comprehensible was the persistent description in the media, no doubt at the DRDO’s prompting, of the Agni-V as an “Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile” (ICBM) when, given its stated range of around 5,000 kms, Dr V. Saraswat, DRDO boss and scientific adviser to the defence minister, identified it correctly for television cameras as an Inter-mediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM). The first hint of Agni-V’s ICBM status was dropped by the minister of state for science, Ashwini Kumar, when he referred to the missile re-entering the atmosphere at “24.4 times the speed of sound”. Depending on the altitude, this works out to roughly 7.2 to 7.7 kms per second as terminal velocity, making it unquestionably an ICBM, compared to 6.2 to 6.5 kms per second re-entry speed of Agni-IV, which is IRBM performance. Obviously, Agni-V was fired in a high-parabolic trajectory to depress the distance it travelled, which may be why Chinese military sources have claimed that Agni-V’s 8,000-km range is being covered up. The Agni has to have a minimum range of 10,000 kms to be considered an ICBM. But why did the DRDO not publicise the missile’s full capability?( I thought a missile would be called an ICBM, if the range was above 5500 km)

The reason was to mollify the Manmohan Singh government that has always been fearful of spooking the US. Washington has insisted that India restrict its missile capacity to cover China without tripping into the ICBM range lest that leads to India being perceived as a threat, resulting in American counter-measures. While the Bharatiya Janata Party-led NDA government’s minister for external affairs (MEA), Jaswant Singh, denies he had cut any deal during his 19 rounds of “strategic dialogue” with Strobe Talbott, former US President Bill Clinton’s deputy secretary of state, in early 2000 to cap Indian missile capability at the IRBM level, the Congress coalition government has adhered to this restriction, which is reflected in the DRDO’s programmatic thrust.

Indeed, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s reluctance to offend Washington was stretched to a point where he reportedly kept delaying the approval of the first test of Agni-V until defence minister A.K. Antony put his foot down around mid-2011, and compelled Dr Singh to approve the launch. The government tried to soften any negative reaction by scheduling foreign secretary Ranjan Mathai’s speech extolling India’s spotless nuclear and missile technology non-proliferation record at an MEA-sponsored seminar on the same day as the missile test.

The DRDO’s fear of the government disallowing sustained testing of critical strategic technologies, backed by an equally nagging apprehension about reduction of funds for strategic technology development, is why the DRDO resorted to over-the-top publicity. The DRDO’s strategy was to thwart moves by the government to curtail activity in the missile field by creating huge public support for Agni-V and follow-on ICBM. It resembles the decision by nuclear scientists to simultaneously trigger three devices (which produced mixed, suboptimal results) on May 11, 1998, because of the fear that under foreign pressure the government would terminate testing after the very first explosion if a series of separate single underground tests had been resorted to.

The hullabaloo over the untested MIRV (Multiple Independently Re-targetable Vehicles) technology, enabling one missile to engage three to eight different targets that Agni-V is configured to carry, was also for the same reason. So much public hype about the MIRV technology, awaiting government permission to test for the last eight-odd years, means that Dr Singh cannot now stop its testing in the second launch of Agni-V.

The other stellar attributes of the Indian IRBM not talked about, but worth mentioning, are the chip-embedded guidance system and the servo-mechanisms for thrust control to permit mid-flight manoeuvring.

Were the Indian government strategic-minded, which it is not, it would push through an accelerated programme of testing and induction into service of Agni-V and, in parallel, quickly develop and test-fire over Antarctica a genuine ICBM by replacing the first stage made of steel on the IRBM with lightweight composites to accommodate more fuel. What an ICBM does is allow Chinese targets to be hit from virtually anywhere, thereby immeasurably enlarging the space for manoeuvre by Indian firing platforms outside Chinese satellite coverage. Further, the production rate of Agni-IVs and Agni-Vs needs rapid ramping up to keep pace with even a minor adversary — Pakistan.

The success of Agni-V, however, highlights the danger that I have been warning about for many years, namely, very advanced and accurate long-range missiles married to untested and unproven thermonuclear warheads that, without further physical testing of fusion and boosted-fission weapons designs, could prove to be duds. That will be a devastating denouement for the Indian strategic deterrent — accurate delivery but fizzled impact. Even so, with a proven IRBM, India has reached deterrence parity with China in the sense of being able to reach the most distant Chinese targets.

The MEA should capitalise on the interest generated by Agni-V to explore an Indian role as the “net security provider” that countries in Southeast Asia would welcome and Washington has been urging Delhi to play. Our dilly-dallying on the sale of the Brahmos supersonic cruise missile led Indonesia to buy a variant directly from Russia. Vietnam, which also seeks Brahmos, is unlikely to wait around either. Unless India treats Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia and other Asean members as the first tier of India’s defence and missile-arms them on a priority basis, national security will remain grievously impaired. New Delhi emphasising non-proliferation norms at the expense of the country’s geopolitical interests is tragically short-sighted, given that the brownie points it wins cannot compensate for China transferring nuclear missile technology to Pakistan, or insinuating itself into the military affairs of Burma, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and the Maldives, to disadvantage India.

The MEA should not squander the chance to pursue substantive cooperative security measures with the United States and countries on China’s periphery beyond anti-piracy patrols and joint military exercises by, for a start, discussing and preparing for contingency scenarios.



The writer is a professor at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi

[/quote]



Old 2009 interview but still lot of interesting details.



Devil's Advocate with the former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Dr Anil Kakodkar. Lot of interesting details

He sounds very confident on TN.



[size="6"][size="4"]India has thermonuclear bombs: Kakodkar[/size][/size]



http://ibnlive.in.com/news/use-plural-in...038-3.html



So, it was an H-Bomb after all



http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/jul/27bomb1.htm

[osman]

[quote name='Arun_S' date='24 April 2012 - 02:14 AM' timestamp='1335213419' post='114730']

BTW Agni-3 booster was composite case from day one; and Agni-V uses the same booster as Agni-3. There is no doubt that all 3 stage of Agni-V are composite. It clear that the upper stage is not only composite but carbon composite. That makes for small size missile with disproportionally large payload impulse.

[/quote]



Looks like we have a lot more bang to gain from the third stage composite conversion.



By Anantha Krishnan M

Express News Service

Bangalore: Thursday's 5,000-km-plus sky part of Agni-5 missile might have put India among a select-group of countries having ICBM-capabilities. But, the icing on the cake is the confidence shown by DRDO's tech-gurus in developing systems which were denied to India. With Agni-5 turning a blockbuster, DRDO has set its eye now on bigger and bolder missions.

During a telephonic interview with Express from Wheeler Island, Avinash Chander, DRDO's Chief Controller (Missiles and Strategic Systems) and Agni-5 Project Director was as cool as a cucumber, despite the smashing hit. “Our next aim is to put satellites to orbit at very short notice using missiles. We can launch low-cost micro-satellites into the orbit with a payload of 60 kg. It can be used for intelligence-gathering purpose and launched within few hours of notice,” Avinash said.

According to him, the next big challenge for DRDO is to master the MIRV (Multiple independently-targeted re-entry vehicles) and MaRV (Manoeuvring re-entry vehicles (MaRV) technologies. “Our next aim is maneuvering warheads for long-range missiles. We want to develop intelligent missiles with highly-accurate warheads for future. Missiles that could counter an incoming missile, by predicting its trajectory is the key,” Avinash said. He said that DRDO is hovering around the idea of developing missiles with anti-satellite capabilities too.

He said the scientists are already on a mission mode to develop an all-composite missile for the future. “A full composite missile with a high-degree of precision. We are moving faster and now we have the technologies to boot. We will have missiles with less radar cross sections soon. The user is part of our thought-process right from the word go. The user has become an integral part and hence the ownership has gone up many folds with all our new projects,” Avinash said.

Among the new technologies used onboard Agni-5 are Ring Laser Gyro-based Inertial Navigation System (RINS), Micro Inertial Navigation System (MINS), high speed onboard computer based on power-PC design, light-weight composite motors and 100 per cent home-grown software. “The INS worked in dual redundancy configuration. Agni-V uses a three-stage propulsion system and it has onboard less cabling, multi-sensors among others. Around 80 per cent of Agni-5 is made in India, making it a truly value-for-money-weapon,” Avinash said.

Copyright@The New Indian Express

[osman]

There is however an additional question. I was going through a news article which states the accuracy of Agni V as 0.001 degrees per hour. Well there is either something wrong with this number or something wrong with my math or tan function of Google is messed up.



tan(.001 / 3) x 5000 = 1.66666673 km as the error at the end of 20 minutes. Assuming the missile travels for 20 minutes the accuracy of the missile will be .001/3 degrees in 20 minutes.



If this is indeed the right math,



tan(.00001 / 3) x 5 000 = 0.0166666667 km or 16 meters.

tan (.000001/3) x 5000 = 0.00166666667 km or 1.6 meters accuracy.



These are significant mistakes by the journalist if my math is correct. Also the significance of the figures brandished are important for ASAT capability which is being touted. The chinese ASAT shot down a target with a minimum planar dimension of 1.4 meters. Assuming travel time of 1/6th of the Agni V test for the ASAT kinetic kill to reach 1000k SSO orbit at it's max.



tan(.00001 / 6) x 1 000 = 0.00166666667 or 1.6 meters of accuracy is afforded by this figure. So did the journalist just swallow two zeros? Was this the signal being sent out to China. Our missiles are as good as your ASAT test if not better. This possibly also hints at Chinese guidance systems being at par with ours. Forum members please feel free to correct me. I am new here and if there are any transgressions let me know.



Well the other way to make the numbers add up is by using cosine to arrive at the actual distance traveled along the hypotenuse. The difference between the distance it was supposed to travel and distance it traveled gives the final figure.



5 000 - (cos(.001 / 3) x 5 000) = 0.000277777775 km or 2.7 meters.

1 000 - (cos(.001 / 3) x 1 000) = 5.5555555 × 10-5 km or less than a meter.

15 000 - (cos(.001) x 15 000) = 0.00749999937 km or 7.4 meters at 15000 km assuming it takes an hour to reach there which isn't a realistic time but a crude approximation with lots of extra time.



If I use Cosine, the chinese missile has an accuracy of at least (giving them the benefit of doubt to score an accurate hit on the 1.4 meter minimum cross section satellite in SSO).



1000 -(cos (.01/6) x 1000 ) = 0.00138888857 meters for an ASAT kinetic kill.



Their minimum CEP at 5000, 10000 and 15000 km being

5 000 - (cos(.01 / 3) x 5 000) = 0.0277777521 KM or 27.7 meters

10 000 - (cos(.01 / 2) x 10 000) = 0.12499974 KM or 124.9 meters

15 000 - (cos(.01 / 2) x 15 000) = 0.187499609 KM or 187.5 meters





How do we account for this variation between tan and cosine. In case of cosine it's quiet clear the accuracy needed in ASAT hits is much much lower than the one quoted in Indian media of 0.001. It's my second post on the forum so please be a little gentle on me if there are errors or omissions.

[gangajal1]

It is not necessary to use either tan or cosine. It is best to convert the degrees to radians and then simply multiply 5000 kms by the radians. The accuracy of the missile can then be estimated as follows:



(0.001/3)*(1/57)*5000*1000 which is 30 meters.

[osman]

[quote name='gangajal1' date='29 April 2012 - 09:56 PM' timestamp='1335716303' post='114755']

It is not necessary to use either tan or cosine. It is best to convert the degrees to radians and then simply multiply 5000 kms by the radians. The accuracy of the missile can then be estimated as follows:



(0.001/3)*(1/57)*5000*1000 which is 30 meters.

[/quote]



(.001 / (3 x 180)) x (22 / 7) x 1 000 x 1 000 = 5.82010582 meters by using the radians calculation. It still does not hint at ASAT capability. DRDO was clear that this gave us ASAT. Later interviews suggest the difference between the ASAT capability and what's available now is a 600km range radar which is being upgraded to 1400 km range.



So the question remains on the quoted number. The Chinese ASAT hit a satellite which had dimensions of 1.4m diameter x 1.8m height. Which of these calculations is the right one?



(.0001 / (3 x 180)) x (22 / 7) x 1 000 x 1 000 = 0.582010582 meters which is more than enough to give us ASAT capability.

Thanks.



Added later:

Assuming we have BMD capability at 600km also requires a better accuracy than reported.



(0.00001/6)*(1/57)*600*1000 = 0.0175438596m

Given the missiles are tracked at 0.1 cross section as quoted in reports.



If we have BMD, we also have ASAT. If we have ASAT our CEP is in single digits. It's possibly the signal being sent out. I am not sure I can separate DDM from the facts. I also don't know what DDM expands to but I understand this is what we call DDM. I normally am kush with the Arun analysis, I just wanted to explore a bit more.

[osman]

Double post.

[osman]

[quote name='Bharat_2009' date='29 April 2012 - 06:47 AM' timestamp='1335661741' post='114751']

Old 2009 interview but still lot of interesting details.



Devil's Advocate with the former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Dr Anil Kakodkar. Lot of interesting details

He sounds very confident on TN.



[size="6"][size="4"]India has thermonuclear bombs: Kakodkar[/size][/size]



http://ibnlive.in.com/news/use-plural-in...038-3.html



So, it was an H-Bomb after all



http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/jul/27bomb1.htm

[/quote]



Well the trouble with "all is well concept" as deterrence isn't whether we have a good design. It's two fold, the deterrence is what the enemy feels is unacceptable damage and the utilization of nuclear material and the quantity of nuclear warheads. BK is of the view that both boosted fission and thermonuclear devices did not work as expected. So we must test again.



OperatingSystem man.

[Bharat_2009]

[quote name='osman' date='30 April 2012 - 01:36 AM' timestamp='1335729506' post='114758']

Well the trouble with "all is well concept" as deterrence isn't whether we have a good design. It's two fold, the deterrence is what the enemy feels is unacceptable damage and the utilization of nuclear material and the quantity of nuclear warheads. BK is of the view that both boosted fission and thermonuclear devices did not work as expected. So we must test again.



OperatingSystem man.

[/quote]



Different opinions exits on this one. We have to see both sides of the coin.



The myth bomber





http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?262027



But the failure of the TN device bothers you (Mr. K.Santhanam)



It bothered me then, it bothers me now. But it does not bother me to the extent that I spend sleepless nights, because in some sense the deterrence with the fission bomb is available. But obviously, India’s nuclear arsenal is incomplete without a TN weapon. India’s minimum credible deterrent remains untouched because the fission bomb certainly worked like a song and, therefore, the minimum part of our deterrent is fully addressed. (But) certainly, we need a thermonuclear bomb, especially for the Agni class of missiles which have a range of 3,000 to 4,000 km. It really doesn’t make sense that you fly the Agni missile 4,000 km and deliver a 20 KT bomb. This will certainly not be in the category of what we call inflicting unacceptable damage on the adversary who attacks us. For sure, we need to carry out a proper thermonuclear test.



I’ve said that if the opportunity arises we should consider resuming the tests. Ultimately, it’s a political decision and I fully respect that. But if you ask me, I think the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will be pursued with much vigour by the new US administration. The window of opportunity is available now.



From Arun's articles - India's warhead options are http://www.indiaresearch.org/Shourya_Missile.pdf



FBF warheads



550 kg FBF with 150 kilotons yield

350 kg FBF with 50 kilotons yield

180 kg FBF with 17 kilotons yield



TN warheads



340 kg TN with 200 kilotons yield









PM seeks to rest row over Pokhran N-tests



http://content.ibnlive.in.com/article/29...226-3.html



It looks like top Indian scientists, particularly ones trusted by the government are happy with the analysis and results. If you want another testing, then just ex and current top Indian scientists have the right to make that call. Not anyone else.





From BK's article



"The Agni has to have a minimum range of 10,000 kms to be considered an ICBM"



Any missile with range about 5500 km is called an ICBM.



Tell me something. DRDO said before and after Agni V launch that it was an ICBM. Mr.BK said to the media it was an IRBM. But hats off to Mr BK, if he is purposely trying to divert the attention of non proliferation experts but from his article we can safely assume that he is against downplaying of missile range.

[gangajal1]

[quote name='osman' date='29 April 2012 - 11:42 PM' timestamp='1335722656' post='114756']

(.001 / (3 x 180)) x (22 / 7) x 1 000 x 1 000 = 5.82010582 meters by using the radians calculation. It still does not hint at ASAT capability. DRDO was clear that this gave us ASAT. Later interviews suggest the difference between the ASAT capability and what's available now is a 600km range radar which is being upgraded to 1400 km range.



So the question remains on the quoted number. The Chinese ASAT hit a satellite which had dimensions of 1.4m diameter x 1.8m height. Which of these calculations is the right one?



(.0001 / (3 x 180)) x (22 / 7) x 1 000 x 1 000 = 0.582010582 meters which is more than enough to give us ASAT capability.

Thanks.



Added later:

Assuming we have BMD capability at 600km also requires a better accuracy than reported.



(0.00001/6)*(1/57)*600*1000 = 0.0175438596m

Given the missiles are tracked at 0.1 cross section as quoted in reports.



If we have BMD, we also have ASAT. If we have ASAT our CEP is in single digits. It's possibly the signal being sent out. I am not sure I can separate DDM from the facts. I also don't know what DDM expands to but I understand this is what we call DDM. I normally am kush with the Arun analysis, I just wanted to explore a bit more.

[/quote]



If the ASAT weapon is a kinetic weapon then a 30 m CEP at 5000 km is probably not good enough. If the ASAT weapon uses something like a proximity fuse, then a CEP in double digits might do the job.

[osman]

[quote name='Bharat_2009' date='30 April 2012 - 09:08 AM' timestamp='1335756630' post='114759']

From BK's article



"The Agni has to have a minimum range of 10,000 kms to be considered an ICBM"



Any missile with range about 5500 km is called an ICBM.



Tell me something. DRDO said before and after Agni V launch that it was an ICBM. Mr.BK said to the media it was an IRBM. But hats off to Mr BK, if he is purposely trying to divert the attention of non proliferation experts but from his article we can safely assume that he is against downplaying of missile range.

[/quote]

In the context of India, an ICBM as defined by range characteristics as opposed to the speed based ICBM profile he acknowledges at the beginning of the article is 10000KM. The distance from the farthest Indian territory to the farthest Chinese city is roughly around 10,000 km. So Agni V as capped by the present government to 5000km, which has been pussy footing around an ICBM calling it an LRBM something on one uses internationally irks BK. Either you call a spade a spade or toe the line. The government wants to take credit for it and was surprised when Nato and US reaction was muted. The die was already cast on the decision to call it LRBM. DRDO stuck to the name, but their celebrations and the details put out indicated an ICBM. DRDO doesn't act like they have the moon after every test. Certainly not after Agni IV. So the cat is out of the bag. So clearly the maximal position we can take without directly targeting the US is 10,000km. The future Agni tests are also not subject to caps to the extent they are labelled LRBM and don't cross 10,000km.



On the nuclear tests, BK is quiet candid and seems to suggest the world was with India in a new series of tests. It has been signaled to a lot of Indians including BK in 2009 and later that a test would be reasonable and ignored. The Santhanam episode was again an attempt at forcing the hand of the government which was reluctant even after these signals. The hurry in 2009 and I think after re-election, Obama will make a renewed push towards Non Proliferation. The window was closing and Obama wanted the Indian tests out of the way to seal the deal and a legacy second term for Obama could only mean a renewed push. So time really is running out. I don't think the Indian strategic circle is even open to such innuendos and BK makes no bones about it and is calling the fission and TN tests a dud. We don't have a war-head against China, test or forever be a second rate power is his message. Counter-value is the only china deterrent. 1MT being replied to with a 20kt on a country which spent 30 years and 1/3rd it's GDP building a second great wall of tunnels with grains and can house 1/3rd of all major city residents is a poor deterrent in BK's book.I agree with him on the tests and the need for the proof tests. The more we sweat in peace the less we bleed in war.



Added Later:

Around 2009 there were reports of Pakistan actively pursuing a thermonuclear warhead program and looking internationally to acquire such capability. The Pakistan tit for tat tests would have been a series of low KT fission devices in 2009. An Indian test in 2009 would have also galvanized support for Non-Proliferation campaign of Obama with the inclusion of India and excluding Pakistan as the dust settled with India strongly in the tent.

[ramana]

Looks like this op-ed was missed!



Beyond Agni 5

Beyond Agni-5

Go for ICBMs and thermonukes, says N.V.Subramanian.



25 April 2012: Now that the slightly over-the-top celebrations of Agni-5's test have ceased, some harsh truths must be told. Agni-5 has a five-thousand-kilometre range and can carry a one-ton nuclear payload. For India's strategic requirements, that is not enough.



Without stating who India's enemies are, the country must have deterrent capacities to reach anywhere, anytime. Since India is also a self-proclaimed second-strike power, it becomes critical to have credible and secure deterrents, and our current inventory is unsatisfactory.



From available evidence, it appears that India will deploy boosted fission warheads on missiles like Agni-5. It confirms that the thermonuclear devise tested on the first day of Pokhran II failed. The boosted fission trigger worked but couldn't ignite the paired fusion bomb.



The Indian nuclear scientific establishment has its own explanation for the low yield of the thermonuclear device. It has never satisfied the world. You can take the attitude that it doesn't matter what the world thinks. In other walks of life, that may work. But not when it comes to deterrent weapons.



Deterrent weapons not only have to be repeatedly tested for perfection. But they must satisfy the rest of the world. Only from world satisfaction comes credibility for a weapon system. If a deterrent is not credible, it is not worth having, and positively dangerous to flaunt.



It is possible that India has built a viable thermonuclear device after the Pokhran II fizzle. But this or a future Indian government will have a hard time testing it, especially as it will have a bearing on the Indo-US nuclear deal and the uranium fuel and reactor contracts flowing from it. Sooner or later, however, India has to overcome the obstacle and test -- and the sooner the better.



The Agni-5 test has produced little protest from major powers, which means there is greater reconciliation to India's military nuclear status. That should give India the creative opportunity and space to test a thermonuclear weapon. To stress, the sooner it is done, the better.



Boosted fission warheads that Agni-5 and longer range missiles are expected to carry have the bang, so to speak. But thermonuclear devices have more bang for the buck. With far better yield-to-weight ratios than fission or boosted-fission devices, smaller and lighter fusion warheads would cause vast destruction at greater distances. Which is where, therefore, Indian weapons' designs and tests must head, if the country must be counted as a serious weapons' power.



Which in turn leads to the quality, Indianness and reach of our missiles. Of course it is not a matter to tom-tom that you have missiles that go to the top end of ICBMs, but there is robust deterrent logic to have them. The longer the range of missiles, the more deployment options you have, and at greater strategic depth.



For example, it cannot make sense to deploy deterrent weapons in Jammu and Kashmir or Assam where they are most vulnerable to a first-strike. The longer the missile range, the further inland it can be deployed. But there are limits to the security of land-based deterrent systems. The Andamans may seem a long way away from the threats from the North and West, but weapons systems deployed there are vulnerable from sea and natural calamities.



A sea-based deterrent is more secure. But whilst it demands the most sophisticated, secure, fool-proof and fail-safe fire control, command and control and informational systems, its foremost requirement, after SSBNs, is long range missiles. And the longer the range of missiles, the more secure your deterrent.



Hence, whilst Agni-5 is a good starting point, India must place no ceiling on the missile range. If an Indian IRBM is acceptable to the world, why not an ICBM? And our need is for the longest range of ICBMs, so that we have secure deterrents deployed in any of the waters of the world. And with tested and perfected thermonuclear weapons, the world would accept the credibility and soundness of our deterrent.



That is where India should be headed.

[Shaurya]

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.