Rudra: The Agni-3SL range will be pretty close to what is projected in this article:
[url="http://www.indiaresearch.org/WayToACredibleDeterrent.pdf"]
WAY TO A CREDIBLE DETERRENT
é Arun Vishwakarma[/url]
[url="http://www.indiaresearch.org/WayToACredibleDeterrent.pdf"]http://www.indiarese...leDeterrent.pdf[/url]
For 8,500 km range the payload is only 700Kg, and if that payload is anything but Thermonuclear, its deterrence value is puny.
BARC failed India by not demonstrating a high yield weapon during the last opportunity that India had to test nukes, and full clearance given by political system to test to their heart's content. Given their track record of 1974 and 1998, their design on paper (and fix on paper) does not inspire confidence to lay observer, much less countries that need deterred.
To substitute for BARC's failure (non-performance) India has to field 5 to 10 times more missiles of Agni-3 class, unless DRDO is asked to make bigger class of missile that is 3 times heavier than Agni-3. One can understand the handicap armed forces will face with such a heavy missile. Since such big missiles can-NOT be submarine launched, the only way to circumvent BARC's failure is to field 5 to 10 times more nuclear powered submarines.
As for 3 stage of 2 m diameter that I called as Agni-3A configuration, and what DRDO now calls as Agni-V, the range with 1,500 kg payload will be ~8,100 km. Of course with 1,500 Kg payload plus decoys it could be just 5,500 km.
The postulated Agni-3B configuration maintains same outer size as Agni-3A but has an additional "SUM" (Small Upper Stage) stage in the nose cone that makes it a full range (Full-scale).
But isnt that term used by Shri Saraswat here:
[url="http://www.indiaresearch.org/WayToACredibleDeterrent.pdf"]
WAY TO A CREDIBLE DETERRENT
é Arun Vishwakarma[/url]
[url="http://www.indiaresearch.org/WayToACredibleDeterrent.pdf"]http://www.indiarese...leDeterrent.pdf[/url]
For 8,500 km range the payload is only 700Kg, and if that payload is anything but Thermonuclear, its deterrence value is puny.
BARC failed India by not demonstrating a high yield weapon during the last opportunity that India had to test nukes, and full clearance given by political system to test to their heart's content. Given their track record of 1974 and 1998, their design on paper (and fix on paper) does not inspire confidence to lay observer, much less countries that need deterred.
To substitute for BARC's failure (non-performance) India has to field 5 to 10 times more missiles of Agni-3 class, unless DRDO is asked to make bigger class of missile that is 3 times heavier than Agni-3. One can understand the handicap armed forces will face with such a heavy missile. Since such big missiles can-NOT be submarine launched, the only way to circumvent BARC's failure is to field 5 to 10 times more nuclear powered submarines.
Quote:
[size="1"]Agni-3SL and Sagarika - Range v.s. warhead and its destructive power[/size]
[size="1"]Copyright: Arun Vishwakarma[/size]
![[Image: PayloadandeffectivenessversusRange-.jpg]](http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c109/Arun_S/PayloadandeffectivenessversusRange-.jpg)
As for 3 stage of 2 m diameter that I called as Agni-3A configuration, and what DRDO now calls as Agni-V, the range with 1,500 kg payload will be ~8,100 km. Of course with 1,500 Kg payload plus decoys it could be just 5,500 km.
The postulated Agni-3B configuration maintains same outer size as Agni-3A but has an additional "SUM" (Small Upper Stage) stage in the nose cone that makes it a full range (Full-scale).
But isnt that term used by Shri Saraswat here:
Quote:He denied that India had any programme to build a [color="#0000ff"]full-scale[/color] Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM)-missiles with ranges in excess of 5500 km.