Bharat Rakshak

Singhaji, would it be only 2.7m difference for the 3rd stage(22.7-17=5.7).. ?
Correct me if I'm wrong

http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesof ... detail.asp

indeed the agni3 is listed as 17m not 20m in other parts of the web.

in that I wonder why they did not solve the problem in one stroke by making 3rd stage couple meters longer so that range in current config could increase to say 6500km and when all stages are composite even farther.

perhaps the risk reduction in not tinkering too much with A3 and the size of vehicle/roads in india dictated that choice. for sure the beastly Topol-M TELAR would get stuck on many indian roads, apart from leaving 1000s of people gaping open mouthed at its sheer size and presence.

GD, India has more emphasis on accuracy due to its payloads. To get there they need the payload section to correct for that. Hence same specs give lesser range. But more accurate.

well the topol is certainly 6m longer if the web reports are true. thats a lot of difference esp if its in the 3rd stage size.

^^^
sirji,

A3 with 17m X2m at range 3500km can throw a total payload of 2500kg( with warhead+countermeasures)

When A5 borrowed pretty-much everything from A3 + extra stage to increase the range to 6000km onleee still retains the original throw weight capability of A3

2500kg payload only makes sense with a 4 X MIRV deployment. else 550kg single warhead is all we can throw. this might increase the range upto 13,000km

Just curious, I know that range is a function of payload, but do we test such cases during the missile testing? For example, will A-5 be tested with a single MIRV payload and tested to its full range (10k +) in such cases?

It seems A5 though canisterised is still rail launched. What would be the challenges of making it road mobile?
Dont see anything near the size of the Topol telar coming out of desh. Guess the better option would be to get some Russia telars.

Compare this to A3 with 17mX2m at 48tonns, but A3 can onleee throw it to 3500km sometimes we yindoos think we are over smart in konphusing mullahs, but even a no brainer will see the facts onleee.

I think it seems pretty obvious from these discussions that both A3 and A5 original ranges may be double the officialy declared ones (ie: 3500X2=7000 km and 5500X2=11000 km) with a little more than 1 tonne Payload.

Another interesting comment from the Hindu report:



a) Normal = satellite guidance + terminal guidance
b) Backup = RLG INS

during development we do it in kilometers, and operationally we convert them to miles. it is important to keep low on the range.

^^^
That may be a 916Gold BUDHA SMILE on 916thPost. ..?

GD< I think India has a variety of front ends.
Unitary pure ballistic mode, Unitary maneuvering mode, MIRV mode. Whats being proofed is the middle one.

The current P-5 have the first and last modes for nuke mission. So their ranges appear more.

I dont think any ICBM uses satellite guidance. even khan who owns GPS does not use it. they use dual INS system which is totally internal and star sensor and nothing is assumed about help from offboard sources.

so our normal and backup would both be INS

Well, so the GoI seems to have thrown out the "near-ICBM" term and is calling it for what it is, a ICBM.

Is the splash down near the Antarctica or near Oz since recall reading 2 different things in separate reports?

Here is a line from the official release (via Tarmak007 blog)following successful testing of Agni -IV.

Good to see the preparedness.

the club so far is 4 - France missed above, and 5-UK if you include bartania's purchased deterrence albeit under american control in scotland.

a full payload weight test indicates the eventual role of the missile is MIRV, else we could just use a 350kg dummy warhead and splash the other side of antarctica near chile.

imo we should use a SLBM type ogival nose , wrap the MIRV payload around a extended 'core' third stage and use aeroplate/aerospike to deal with the drag penalty just as all good SLBMs do. no reason why same concept cannot be used on land. might make the A5 a little shorter and nimbler....assuming we are using a DF31 type towed trailer with separate cab and not the super beastly TopolM Maz 7x7 where the missile kind of occupies half the cab area as well to save on length.

right now it will be a unwieldy 60ft + cab in length...almost like the trucks that carry windmill blades on NHAI...

silly question onlee
Why cant we buy TELs for A5 from China onlee? I am sure they would be cheaper!

So that they put some GPS or any transmitter as part of the electronics etc, make them unreliable and pron to breakdown with major spare parts with them, so we need to keep begging them to make sure that our deterrence against them works, require us to sign equivalent of Massa documents so that they can inspect them at short notice etc... NO THANKS

maybe they will supply use and throw type TELAR. that too no guarantee stuff

The magic number for road mobile missiles will be 40 ft x 2 meters. Will fit into a standard 45 feet container. 20 meters long is too unwieldy..

The pakistanis tried that, unfortunately due to improper reverse-engineering tech in the TELAR, the missile went backwards instead of forward. Fortunately since the missile tech was also from China, the warhead dint explode due to reverse engineering issues. But the saying "Shooting one's own foot" was added to "Iman" in the verbiage of mottos of all Pakistani defence forces from that day onwards.

well I dont think the DF31 type china missiles have the X-country TELAR, their smaller ones do like the DF21 / DF15 and the pakis have some of it.

DF31: http://www.coldwar.org/bcmt/images/imag ... -31_lg.jpg
DF21: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0SOCGRWJHdU/T ... 3large.jpg
DF15: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/theater/DF-15-6.jpg

so they are kind of in same boat as us their DF31 while being in cansister is as long and awkward as the Agni on a semi-trailer type arrangement.

in contrast take a look at the kind of TELARs the USSR had from the 60s .... even their trucks can go through really rough terrain and the TELARS have giant wheels, all steerable wheels, low ground pressure....pretty much go anywhere in the world incl deep mud, rocks and snow.
http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/03 ... riers.html

we might consider importing some of these to reduce the length of the A5 system by atleast 6m as the cansister can extend a little even beyond the front bumper.

another option is go the Midgetman way 13m long, but that delivers a puny payload so of no use to us.

Modified versions of Nag missile carrier to be tested soon.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/article3299823.ece

Most interesting bit:

Singhaji, have India developed an indegenous TELAR technology and in use in any of our armed vehicles (TATRA being an imported technology) now?
else, Is this a very complex technology to adapt within a short span of time for us..?
Also Shall we expect our A-5 next week, with an indigenous X-country TELAR similar to that of TOPOL's; coz we have been on the development of canisterised A-5 from more than half a decade.. ..?

you expect BEML to develop that topol-M style telar?

we need limited number of such vehicles. we can import in fully assembled shape from MAZ if the spares pipeline is good. these vehicles are unique - not even tatra has it because nobody else has a need for big road mobile launchers - US gave up on it after playing around, UK and France are totally sea based.

only china, russia and india are deploying ICBMs from land mobile also.

I would like to first term our ICBM as India's Contribution to BMs. Unique, face all, No FUss system. Focus more on detection and launch capabilities, and begin long range and sky/sat based detection systems.

Excellent. Having our own high grade INS systems is very good news for all our missile and other programs (ATV, Arjun, LCA etc). In the recent Defexpo, these products were displayed along with some of their applications.

miniaturization of these ring laser gyros can be very useful for other missile systems especially for petals

Exactly! it is the Micro Navigation System (MINGS) that is the big deal.

The indigenous Ring Laser Gyros based high accuracy INS (RINS) has been there for sometime it seems. They have gone on to innovate a new navigation and guidance system. They could have called it RINS-NG or RINS-mkII or something similar but they have chosen to name it Micro Navigation System (MINGS). DRDO was not satisfied calling it a Mini Navigation System.

The above would indicate that it is a very compact package that would be as reliable as the indigenous Ring Laser Gyros based high accuracy INS (RINS). If the cost is not too high, then this new package could power all our current and future missiles starting from Brahmos upwards.

Consider this news item from Hindu on Agni-IV's success.Indigenous technologies played a big role

Agni-IV had a lot of new stuff on it for DRDO to celebrate its success but in this article you can sense the euphoria was really for the MINGS system.

Disclaimer: I am not connected to the defense services nor with any of the defense research or production agencies. I do not have any chaiwalla or paanwalla sources. I am just an ordinary mujahid with an interest in defense related news so all the above is my reading of the news items on Agni-IV success

Pankaj, also, the MINGS is a big deal because it can be employed on tactical missiles. Usually, earlier the DRDO employed SDINS (strap down INS) on its long range missiles with GPS update with probably a similar system in backup, or just a GPS system. For tactical missiles, they didn't have much of a choice bar explicit guidance from ground based transmitters - eg they could develop command guided systems but were limited to importing subsystems if they had to build their own self guiding missiles.

Now, they can use a combination of RLG-INS (primary) with MINGS (as backup) for strategic missiles or just the MINGS for tactical missiles (a few km to a few hundred km) which can use a combination of inertial (MINGS) for mid-course guidance along with datalink update and the sensor for terminal guidance.

Also, at Defexpo, DRDO displayed three seekers - one for its PAD & the other (with partner Datapatterns) for a land attack system, both of these RF ones while the Semiactive laser one above was for the CLGM. Sudarshan, the LGB uses a similar seeker. Subsystems are key to making these missiles quickly, in response to service requirements. With these breakthroughs in propulsion (eg dual pulse motor for LRSAM, high maneuverability motors for AAD etc), control + actuation systems - both hardware & software for many programs ( eg check out the motors for Astra's fins, the guidance for the AAD/PAD sort of bullet hits bullet missiles), structures (composites for Agni etc), guidance (RLG-INS, MINGS, these seekers), plus the advances in onboard computing (advanced OBCs for missiles such as the Astra, Prithvi), and finally, the land based sensors (a whole bunch of radars)...I do think we are fast approaching the critical point that we can churn out many products across multiple requirements.

The Prahar is an excellent example of how a product originally intended for BMD could be used as a SSM..or how we employed the AKASH C3I system, suitably customized along with the Prithvi FCS for the Brahmos variants.

The need of the hour is to give the IAF/IA/IN tons of smart munitions at reasonable cost. The Sudarshan success is yet another positive step. Hopefully with the Glonass agreement now signed, we can churn out many local-JDAM types as well.

Am fairly certain now that what we are seeing from DRDO is just a portion of what they must be working on. With a successful missile expert like Saraswat at the top, these programs would have surely got an impetus and the results will be evident over time. The good thing about the missile programs is that they "pull" a lot of other tech advances along with them - eg radars, metallurgy and sensors, which can then be employed by other programs whether it be ground based air defence (which can use tech in its radars), or the LCA (which can use the RLG-INS) and so forth.

Another program mentioned publicly, were smart missile launched munitions. Sort of like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_and_Destroy_ARMor and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon.
The Nag's sensor was mentioned as a possible option for such a project.

Interestingly at Defexpo, the DRDO also displayed a lazer fuse for the Astra. Again - a subsystem which can be used for other programs as well.

both the RLG-INS and the MINGS ( essentially a MEMS based magnetometer) can receive multi constellation updates i.e GPS + GLONASS + IRNSS (future) to remove accumulated errors.

the GLONASS agreement therefore has obvious implications.


Oh and by the way DF-31 Mod B / DF-41 has a russki type TEL.

MINGS: GPS + MEMs gyros/accelerometers, nav system. Light weight, some resistance to jamming, very accurate. Improved performance over GPS alone. Useless if Satellite based navigation is denied to us.

RINS: Ring Laser Gyro based INS. Heavier than MINGS, immune to jamming, accuracy depends on time the vehicle is in flight.

Interesting, just checked. MEMS is: a MEMS-based miniaturised INS+GPS+GLONASS+Magnetometer System (MINGS) per DRDO (October 2011, Tech Focus) so does have INS functions and can function even with jamming only accuracy will be degraded.

From the Hindu article posted previously.Indigenous technologies played a big role

If the navigation packages were configured to ignore the GPS,etc signals, MINGS would not be able to provide backup if what you say is correct. From what DRDO claims, it seems that MINGS was tested to work in exactly that situation i.e without sat nav coverage.

On Agni-V : TOIlet : 1st April
First test of nuclear missile Agni-V in a fortnight: DRDO chief

There you have the primary and the backup navigation and guidance pakages.