Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Singha »

in this case we did build a product...but the buyer has other ideas and interests...
member_20067
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_20067 »

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 941375.cms

Agni 1 Test...
India on Thursday tested its indigenously developed nuclear-capable surface-to-surface Agni-I missile from a military base in Odisha, official sources said.

The missile, which can strike a target 700 km away, was tested from a facility on Wheeler Island near Dhamra in Bhadrak district, 170 km from here.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Austin »

Perhaps a new production batch test involving SFC . Congrats to all who are involved !
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Austin »

Most likely IA wants to procure some quantity of Javelin to build up niche capability with Man Portable F&F missile , keeping Urban Engagement and Choke engagements for tank in mind. Being man portable will give it tremendous flexibility on how they deploy it and the logistics involved in manning it.

Nag is still heavy missile good for open area long range engagements in deserts or plain and since there seems to be technology transfer involved with Javelin it would help making Nag that much more better or even man portable.

Konkurs are just el chepo version for taking broad range targets at ranges where using Nag will not be economical or where availability is not there most times you wont need a Golden Hammer to hit a fly
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Singha »

livefist has two photos of A1 launch...again the more menacing black and red, vs the old "drdo whites"
koti
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by koti »

Agni-I missile has a specialised navigation system which ensures it reaches the target with a high degree of accuracy, he said.
http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/NAT-SC ... 06843.html

I think the A2 Prime's guidance system is incorporated and validated again in this missile too.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by rohitvats »

The purchase of F&F manportable ATGMs has been in pipeline for a long time. IA even purchased a 'better' performing version of Milan 2T from BDL as a stop-gap measure. So, to say that Nag project is in trouble and hence, Javelin is being bought is nonsense. As for Konkurs, these are for BMP-2 IFVs. It was said that BMP-2 upgrades will feature Kornet - but I have not heard of anything on this front for some time. Nag is a project in its own class - there can be a problem only if the project has issue (which cannot be the case - missile has already been proved) or of IA has re-think on operational requirement of the type. The second is possible - because IMO, IA had never displayed any clarity on the ultimate employment of NAMICA system.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Singha »

PA seems to have setup specialized anti tank batallions...
merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by merlin »

That Agni I was apparently a randomly picked one by SFC and fired by them as well. So a full blown user test of a production missile. Good going. We need to reach that stage with Agni IV and V also.
Megh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 04 Mar 2011 02:16

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Megh »

MOSCOW, November 30 (Itar-Tass) —— The Russian-Indian joint sea-launched BrahMos cruise missile was successfully tested in the Baltic Sea on Wednesday, November 30.
The purpose of the test conducted aboard the Indian frigate Teg was to check how its missile systems operate. A missile fired from the ship’s bow flew along the preset trajectory and reached the destination in the target area. Telemetric data indicated that all of its systems worked properly.
The missile was launched from the first of the three frigates being built by the Kaliningrad-based shipyard Yantar for the Indian Navy.

full text
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by rohitvats »

Singha wrote:PA seems to have setup specialized anti tank batallions...
They are of two types - Ligth and Heavy. Former have manportable ATGM and soft-skinned vehicles. Latter are equipped with APC mounted heavy ATGMs like TOW.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Lalmohan »

the latter will be easy kills for the apaches
the former may be more problematic
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Singha »

with only 22 apaches? and they will have embedded manpad defenses and aa guns as well for sure.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by NRao »

APS?
Leo.Davidson
BRFite
Posts: 119
Joined: 09 Aug 2011 05:34
Location: Boston, USA

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Leo.Davidson »

Until the missiles are containerized, I will not believe we have a pushbutton deterrent. Right now, we have a missile system that takes atleast a day in preparations.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Singha »

+1. containerized is a lot more reliable ... and driving on rough terrain sounds scary with a 'open' 20t missile covered by tarpaulins.

agni1, agni2 will need design changes to remove fins. I dont think it will happen. probably A5 onward for big and Shourya onward for small it will be containerized and K4/K15 is ofcourse from day1 design.

Akash could also use containers...

biladers have neatly containerized their DF21 and DF31
DF21 http://www.ausairpower.net/DF-21-TEL-1S.jpg
chilarai
BRFite
Posts: 580
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by chilarai »

The recent launch pics from livefist, the missile turns as it goes up ? one pic i can see "bharat" and another one i can see "India" . Looks like the pics were taken from the same side. or maybe there is slight change in camera angles .. those round things at the bottom(lights ? ) seems to be in different position
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by shiv »

Speaking of "push-button deterrent" are we speaking of an American doctrine or an Indian one? Nowhere in the Indian doctrine does it say that India intends to have a push-button deterrent. But I suppose if it is Indian it can't be good and we are better off following rahrah America.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by RamaY »

Does it say anywhere Indian deterrent has to be a 5day deterrent? We do love everything Indian. But that doesn't mean we sit on our bottoms. Then why deterrence to begin with? And why building new missiles in the same range class.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by shiv »

RamaY wrote:Does it say anywhere Indian deterrent has to be a 5day deterrent?
No. But not "push button either". As per the stated doctrine there is no intention of having ready to fire missiles with little warning.

But there is yet another question - the idea that a "canisterized missile" is a push button missile. Would you who know about Indian things be able to tell me why canisterized missiles would be "push button" missiles and not the current ones on railway carriages/trucks?

I may be mistaken, but for any missile the launch coordinates need to be known to launch it towards a known target. If a missile is canisterized it is mobile. If it is mobile but ready to fire - it will still have to be moved to a precise pre-surveyed spot before launch. What is push button about having to move a canisterized missile to some other area before launch? On the other hand if the missile is already located at its launch site, what is the need for canisterization? It could just as well be in a silo.

What is the difference between a canisterized missile and a missile that moves in a large specially designed container on a railway carriage or truck? How much longer would it take to expose the missile from a container and then raising it as opposed to raising a canister into launch position from a truck/railway carriage that is moved into position? . And how would the latter be "push button"?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by SaiK »

I read this push button is too tfta khanish. What we need is a canister/container that has a multi-factor authentication and fusion interface from credit card swipe of prathan mantri ji and his security chelas, fused with retina + finger print + on-sight dna hair analysis to confirm launch.
mikehurst
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 09 May 2011 17:22

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by mikehurst »

shiv wrote:Speaking of "push-button deterrent" are we speaking of an American doctrine or an Indian one? Nowhere in the Indian doctrine does it say that India intends to have a push-button deterrent. But I suppose if it is Indian it can't be good and we are better off following rahrah America.
Shiv, am not familiar with or have an in-depth understanding of Indian nuclear policy imperatives. However I have a doubt with regard to not following the "push button deterrent".

The key elements of deterrence as far as I understand are:
1. The possession of widely known military capabilities that make threats of military retaliation plausible;
2. The belief that the owner of such military capabilities is willing to defend by all possible force its stated position;
3. The ability to convince the opposition that the owner of such military capabilities will carry out its threat;
[Am paraphrasing from a book I read long ago.]

These goals are interlocking and share similar features but retain crucial differences.Now “push button” deterrent is a vital necessity with regard to India, considering that it has to contend with two nuclear neighbours who have an un-stated first use policy. Now my understanding of “Push Button” deterrent at the cost of being repetitive is where at the push of a button the missile or other delivery mechanisms can be activated or launched.

To this end containerisation is obligatory, with the war-head and missile’s mated and ready to be armed at a short notice. I do not see a way around this “Push Button” doctrine, be it American or otherwise.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by SaiK »

Very logical thought.. the launch will happen when the immediate and present threat leads to 100% first strike launch and detection. These detection systems can feed in to nuke command with the probability of first strike and immediate action to neutralize the incoming missile, and further launch the second strike concurrently.

Why we need push buttons?
Last edited by SaiK on 02 Dec 2011 10:21, edited 1 time in total.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

Megh wrote:MOSCOW, November 30 (Itar-Tass) —— The Russian-Indian joint sea-launched BrahMos cruise missile was successfully tested in the Baltic Sea on Wednesday, November 30.
The purpose of the test conducted aboard the Indian frigate Teg was to check how its missile systems operate. A missile fired from the ship’s bow flew along the preset trajectory and reached the destination in the target area. Telemetric data indicated that all of its systems worked properly.
The missile was launched from the first of the three frigates being built by the Kaliningrad-based shipyard Yantar for the Indian Navy.

full text
From a link posted above, a small tibit of information why scorpene was delayed and warms jingos heats.
“The missile is ready for use from submarines,” Alexander Maksichev, managing co-director of the joint venture, told Itar-Tass earlier.
The missiles are intended for use aboard the Scorpion-type submarine, for which the Indian Navy has placed orders in France.

The Russian-Indian joint venture BrahMos has designed a new version of the supersonic cruise missile of the same name that can be launched from submarines.
:D
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Prasad »

Obviously i'm not aware of current procedures in this regard. I wonder if anoyone outside the innermost group in the central cabinet is but anything that reduces time to launch is a positive. Apart from the natural thing of reducing time to get something done, another thing to note is that it reduces chances of someone else finding out. We've heard of how sats found out about preparations for tests and immediately pressurised the govt to back off. Definitely a missile launch is not on the same scale. But things can be predicted by international parties if we've finally totally lost it and are going to launch. In such a case, if decision to launch time is 5 days, it gives more time for extraneous agents to apply pressure and get us to back off.

I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing, given the weapon that will be wielded. Just wanted to add this to the discussion.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Singha »

Speaking of "push-button deterrent" are we speaking of an American doctrine or an Indian one? Nowhere in the Indian doctrine does it say that India intends to have a push-button deterrent. But I suppose if it is Indian it can't be good and we are better off following rahrah America.

I strongly disagree. let me put my 2c opinion....n-weapons are like virginity, once you lose it you cannot get it back, you better be prepared to make love harder and faster on instant demand...."shoestring deterrence" , "minimal apologetic deterrence(we have a pat. pending on that), "humble yindu deterrence" does NOT work against enemies as aggressive as china and as overconfident+suicidal as TSP...esp when china can egg TSP on to do their dirty work and dare us to retaliate. :evil: delays only give a chance for outside agencies to apply pressure and breaks our deterrence model.

[1] we have a NFU policy and knowing our leaderships dharmic values (cutting across party lines) on mass genocide, we can be sure we will continue to have NFU policy even if we somehow detect imminent launch preparations on the other side there is going to be no pre-emptive strikes.

[2] it will be atleast 10 years before we get any early warning IMINT sats or ground based DEW line type radars...so at this time the only indication of a strike on indian soil is when a warhead impacts and vaporizes the target. we are totally in dark at this moment if someone has launched a 100 missiles on us (unless Unkil detects and phones a secret hotline to MMS - a fanciful thought). russia has no early warning sats for worldwide coverage , the 4 they have barely cover mainland US, so even if they wanted to they cannot help us out.

[3] not being able to respond within 20 mins of a first strike means the enemy can continue to pound us and attrit away our capabilities in the field and c3i with a follow-on second strike, since he has committed to n-war anyway might as well leave no stone unturned.

[4] we do not have a submerged N-deterrent and paltry few ground and rail based ones. the situation is likely to persist for another 10 yrs atleast. being few, these could be taken out by a clever and well informed foe who tracks their movements through humint and imint.

[5] we do not have E4B-NEACP type a/c which the PM /HM/DM can rush to and control things from the air. US has the luxury of a 30 min lead time and Marine-1 heli lifting from garden of white house to andrews afb or a dozen other bases to evac the potus and his staff. we have barely 10 mins flight time from TSP border and maybe 20mins across the himalayas. thats not enough to get the PM to Palam using a heli from safdarjung and on BBJ737 flight even if we had a airborne command post. why do you think the Russians got so worked up over n-tipped tomahawk GLCMs in europe or US over Rus missiles in Cuba...it drastically reduces warning time and makes deterrence unstable...well we have a entire country of 180 mil suicidal cases camped on our doorstep with 5-10 mins missile time to north indian and western indian mega cities.
and its not going away anytime soon. chinese IRBMs can also skip over the himalayas and hit N.india in 10-20 mins timeframe from vast tibet that is hard to monitor. Qinghai province delingha missile fields are too far in to even be attacked by planes.

[6] so if we are not in a position to evac our central leadership either to NEACP or a secure bunkers outside delhi, we have to work on the assumption that they all could get wiped off in a 1st strike .... and this is likely to target mumbai as well. all the army, iaf and navy commanders are either in delhi or mumbai.

so its not clear to me in the event of delhi and mumbai being taken out, what is the chain of command, who will release the codes and has this event been planned for. do we have a 'dead hand' system that russia operates now to launch everything they have should all their national leadership be dead? we probably need one such to reassure and educate our foes that even if we are vulnerable to a decapitating strike, whatever we have will head their way and kick some backsides in short order....ie we will not go quietly into the night.

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/ ... ntPage=all

Perimeter ensures the ability to strike back, but it's no hair-trigger device. It was designed to lie semi-dormant until switched on by a high official in a crisis. Then it would begin monitoring a network of seismic, radiation, and air pressure sensors for signs of nuclear explosions.

Before launching any retaliatory strike, the system had to check off four if/then propositions: If it was turned on, then it would try to determine that a nuclear weapon had hit Soviet soil. If it seemed that one had, the system would check to see if any communication links to the war room of the Soviet General Staff remained. If they did, and if some amount of time—likely ranging from 15 minutes to an hour—passed without further indications of attack, the machine would assume officials were still living who could order the counterattack and shut down. But if the line to the General Staff went dead, then Perimeter would infer that apocalypse had arrived. It would immediately transfer launch authority to whoever was manning the system at that moment deep inside a protected bunker—bypassing layers and layers of normal command authority. At that point, the ability to destroy the world would fall to whoever was on duty: maybe a high minister sent in during the crisis, maybe a 25-year-old junior officer fresh out of military academy. And if that person decided to press the button ... If/then. If/then. If/then. If/then.

Once initiated, the counterattack would be controlled by so-called command missiles. Hidden in hardened silos designed to withstand the massive blast and electromagnetic pulses of a nuclear explosion, these missiles would launch first and then radio down coded orders to whatever Soviet weapons had survived the first strike. At that point, the machines will have taken over the war. Soaring over the smoldering, radioactive ruins of the motherland, and with all ground communications destroyed, the command missiles would lead the destruction of the US.

The US did build versions of these technologies, deploying command missiles in what was called the Emergency Rocket Communications System. It also developed seismic and radiation sensors to monitor for nuclear tests or explosions the world over. But the US never combined it all into a system of zombie retaliation. It feared accidents and the one mistake that could end it all.

Instead, airborne American crews with the capacity and authority to launch retaliatory strikes were kept aloft throughout the Cold War. Their mission was similar to Perimeter's, but the system relied more on people and less on machines.

And in keeping with the principles of Cold War game theory, the US told the Soviets all about it.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by shiv »

mikehurst wrote: To this end containerisation is obligatory, with the war-head and missile’s mated and ready to be armed at a short notice. I do not see a way around this “Push Button” doctrine, be it American or otherwise.
But how is "push button" related to containerization/canisterization. Containerization implies protection from elements/exposure and small size/portability/stealth. But targeting requires precise coordinates. If containerization is needed for mobility, fixed coordinates are needed for "push button launch". Push button launch is incompatible with mobility unless the missile is moved to a spot whose coordinates are pre planned. Or else you have a mechanism of precisely (I mean really precise) feeding of coordinates into your missile wherever that missile happens to be moving. Even then the containerised missile has to be moved to a suitable launching spot, its coordinated estimated by a pre existing coordinate sensing set up and the launch done thereafter. Why would the procedure be different for a missile in a container on a launch platform versus a "canisterized" missile? There seems to be a belief that a canisterized missile can just be launched "as is where is".
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by shiv »

Singha wrote:
I strongly disagree. let me put my 2c opinion....n-weapons are like virginity, once you lose it you cannot get it back, you better be prepared to make love harder and faster on instant demand...."shoestring deterrence" , "minimal apologetic deterrence(we have a pat. pending on that), "humble yindu deterrence" does NOT work against enemies as aggressive as china and as overconfident+suicidal as TSP...esp when china can egg TSP on to do their dirty work and dare us to retaliate. :evil: delays only give a chance for outside agencies to apply pressure and breaks our deterrence model.

[1] we have a NFU policy and knowing our leaderships dharmic values (cutting across party lines) on mass genocide, we can be sure we will continue to have NFU policy even if we somehow detect imminent launch preparations on the other side there is going to be no pre-emptive strikes.
Singha you are calling for a change of doctrine. The doctrine needs to be changed and the missile designed to fit the doctrine. The doctrine will not be changed to fit the missile. Our current missiles are aimed at fulfilling the doctrine as it is.

Be that as it may, how does canisterization make a whit of a difference? If the canisterized missile is moving around for safety against first strike how can if be launched in a "push button" launch in 20 minutes? it will have to be positioned somewhere, the coordinates fed it and then launched. Or else it will have to be pre positioned. If it is pre positioned how is a canisterized missile different from what we have now?
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Prasad »

Mobility in that case probably means the missile is mobile but doesnt stray from a circle of a certain radius dictated by a response time, from a pre-decided point of launch. Also, at hte same time, there could be multiple missiles on the move. Whichever is closest to launch position could be called upon to launch. If multiple launches are required, they could be staggered launches as and when they get to their closest launch position. Also, while mobile, the route taken might cover/pass close to multiple pre-decided launch sites so as to reduce response time, thereby giving mobility and rapid response.
mikehurst
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 09 May 2011 17:22

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by mikehurst »

shiv wrote:
mikehurst wrote: To this end containerisation is obligatory, with the war-head and missile’s mated and ready to be armed at a short notice. I do not see a way around this “Push Button” doctrine, be it American or otherwise.
But how is "push button" related to containerization/canisterization. ..............There seems to be a belief that a canisterized missile can just be launched "as is where is".
Shiv, you are right, i seem to have mixed up time frames of deterrence launches, with specific features of containerization. Will get back to you once i have read up more.

- Mike.
member_20047
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 8
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_20047 »

I guess what Shiv is trying to explain is correct. We are confusing between two things- canisterization & push button doctrine.

I will like to put down my view point regarding this-

Canisterization will help us in reducing our response time, since the warhead will already be mated with the missile body. We just need to put the coordinates & authentication. canisterization also will help in the mobility & portability as the missile will be more protected from environmental factors such as heat/dust etc.

For push button we need to identify the target locations prior to actual attack. For eg, during cold war I guess the American missile doctrine was that in case mainland USA is attacked(whichever city may be) by Russia using nuclear weapon, they will retaliate by targeting Moscow & other big cities. In our case, we can also have something like that- In case the attack originated from Pak, we will take out Islamabad or karachi, no matter whether we are attacked in New Delhi or Mumbai. In such cases we can have ready missiles with fixed coordinates, & we just need authentication. So, Push button doctrine can be maintained even without canisterization. We just need to have ready missiles with proper authentication.
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by negi »

Well from my vantage point if my understanding of our nuclear doctrine and policy making in general is correct , I am sure that we haven't yet mated warheads with any of our missiles or delivery platforms hence the canisterzation is not an issue here. Like all other policy making bodies even the one that drafts the nuclear doctrine is plagued by the gandhian baggage and hence talks about NFU which actually makes no sense specially in context of deterrence.

What GD is asking for will be labelled as a 'maximalist' stance by the folks who today draft the nuclear doctrine and turned down.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Singha »

>> Or else you have a mechanism of precisely (I mean really precise) feeding of coordinates into your missile wherever that missile happens to be moving.

I think they load the missile's navigation prior to launch from stopped position. after that, it does not depend on any external inputs because these may be damaged or jammed. atleast thats how ICBMs work...they might take a 'star reading' outside the atmosphere but other than that only INS. they do not use GPS because gps might be jammed or taken out by asat attacks.

I agree that warhead mating and containerization are different issues because even a non container Agni can move around with mated warhead but the heat, dust , rain and flies of india indicate a 'open' agni will not be moving around much if at all...it might move from its garage only in crisis and more it spends out more the chance of something being damaged being a sensitive piece of eqpt. if we had containers, could move around with less chance of damage in a crisis and even in peacetime could participate in more exercises of movement.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Singha »

>> Singha you are calling for a change of doctrine

I dont think so. Dead hand is inherently NFU. other than putting things in a container for better movement, what else did I ask for - nothing.
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by negi »

GD but a missile canisterised or not, can only be on the move in field if it has been mated with the warhead (unless we are talking about mating warheads in the field), it is the mating of warheads with missiles which is a wet lungi moment for GoI and now that warheads are separate what is the use of canisterizing a IRBM ? I know like all other things one day there will be canisterized agnis plying on the roads but it will be not before we become a 5 trillion $ economy. :)
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Austin »

shiv wrote:Be that as it may, how does canisterization make a whit of a difference? If the canisterized missile is moving around for safety against first strike how can if be launched in a "push button" launch in 20 minutes? it will have to be positioned somewhere, the coordinates fed it and then launched. Or else it will have to be pre positioned. If it is pre positioned how is a canisterized missile different from what we have now?
Shiv the whole idea of canisterisation or wooden round as it is called was to prolong the life of the missile , prevent it from external climatic events that may cause it to wear and tear much early and keep it in a sort of hermetically sealed canister that would gurantee its life for atleast 10 years without need for maintenance , they do have a way to check the health of missile without needing to open the canister through some connectors. As a benefit a cannisterised round is easier to transport as well.

Cannisterisation of missile has little to do with doctorine which is the way you would employ it first or second strike or LOW or any other that you may have.
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by negi »

Austin wrote: Cannisterisation of missile has little to do with doctorine which is the way you would employ it first or second strike or LOW or any other that you may have.
Nope canisterisation means you have to have the warhead mated with the missile it is a BIG CHANGE in doctrine. Not only doctrine but before you mate a warhead with a missile you need to have a clear and unambiguous nuclear chain of command in place and we do not have that today.
Badar
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 23 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Badar »

Drona,

Containerization makes very little impact on your nuclear doctrine. All an AUR does is make your Agni force more reliable, secure and cheaper.

NFU in practice means that you are willing and capable of absorbing a full counterforce strike and still remain capable (force assets, command-control, political will) of an appropriate response. This, BTW is the only sane and sensible deterrence posture.

There are two aspects to the rapid reaction capability. One is the ability of strategic forces to execute a strike rapidly with a minimum of delay and prep-time after launch authority has been received. This is desirable and the AUR might help here.

The other part of "rapid reaction" is the political decision process which results in the issuance of valid strike orders to the missile forces. Putting this on hair trigger "push button" is insane. By improving survivability, an AUR Agni might avert a use or lose it pressure, allowing for a more restrained, thoughtful and useful decision making.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Austin »

negi wrote:Nope canisterisation means you have to have the warhead mated with the missile it is a BIG CHANGE in doctrine. Not only doctrine but before you mate a warhead with a missile you need to have a clear and unambiguous nuclear chain of command in place and we do not have that today.
Just because you mate the warhead does not mean you can use the warhead , to activate those warhead and even to launch the missile you need many layers of authorisation code from highest authority , an unauthorised launch will blow up the missile after leaving the silo or does not leave at all , atleast that is the case with US and Russian ICBM/SLBM.

See no reason why we cant mate the warhead and keep it with SFC ,after all once your detterent patrol starts you have to keep it that way , cant wait for sub to come ashore to mate its warhead with SLBM.
Post Reply