Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 28 Apr 2012 00:10

That said, why is the Agni-5 being touted as an ICBM when, at 5000 km range, it is only an IRBM? It is true that this missile has all the technologies such as, the vernier rocket motors in the nose-cone for maneuvering in the terminal phase for exact guidance to target, and only requires the Manmohan Singh government to gird up its loins and give the green signal for the ICBM presently at an advanced design-development stage at the Advanced Research Laboratory, Hyderabad, to start becoming a reality. But that will be Agni-6, or whatever it may becalled. For the ICBM, moreover, a more powerful solid fuel propellant — with slower, but more intense, burn, will be required, because to add another stage to the 3-stage missile would be impracticable to enable payload delivery to in excess of 10,000 kms — the true mark of an ICBM.

Mislabelling Agni-5 as an ICBM is par for the course with the Indian atomic establishment claiming a thermonuclear weapons status for the country when, in fact, the fusion and boosted fusion weapons designs remain unproven, because the design correctives incorporated into the thermonuclear and boosted fission designs that fizzled in 1998, are still untested and, therefore, unreliable.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Apr 2012 00:18

BK:-

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.

This is a soreness cause of premature censorship to testing by baboodom, but nevertheless, this is a heated debate we all agreed that testing fully scale maal is impossible unless it is done in labs or simulations. I think BK's vision is not distilled yet, and he needs to accept the facts, and move on to seeing avenues for building maals, with sophisticated super computers, and perhaps do all the sub-critical scaled down testing... which should not leave any signatures.

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.

This policy requires guts from buddas.. With the current Indian voters mind of electing only purely based on exploits of loopholes in our democracy, this will be never done unless it happens organically.. trickled down from one sale to another.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 28 Apr 2012 00:19

Aah, a good one from BK at last - the whole kowtowing to TSP nonsense earlier was rather irritating. Almost everything in the above article is in the right line - I say if there is even a shred of doubt about Indian TN phataka, test(s) should be carried out. Rather test and ensure capability now than risk doubt and thereby reduce deterrence value, which in itself could lead to nuke-exchange.

You simply can't have credible deterrence with lingering doubts - it is impression management that counts when it comes to deterrence.

What is the worst that can happen if some test phatakas go off? India is too deeply lodged in global markets/trade to be really harmed via sanctions. US, UK poodle and Canada/Aus are welcome to slap sanctions. Rest assured, others will do little more than "condemn" the irresponsible action.

The it about engaging E Asia more robustly is another highlight. Hell, if Bmos is an issur due to Rus, sell Prithvi and even mtcr restricted , export quality shaurya.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 28 Apr 2012 00:27

^^^ Expect a test in a decade or so, not before. I do not think another test will happen till India is ready to test/demo a full range ICBM/SLBM. Meanwhile use the time to improve any design parameters and subsystem tests. That way one can check on shelf life value of existing stockpile of weapons.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Apr 2012 00:58

Cain Marko wrote:Aah, a good one from BK at last - ..
You simply can't have credible deterrence with lingering doubts - it is impression management that counts when it comes to deterrence. ...

I am thinking he is not dumb to keep harping on that.. there should be a NFU strategic angle to come out with such statements, especially from policy gurus.

What I read in between the lines are that we still have long way to go on NFU capability, and lets keep doing that. It is not impossible to achieve 80% efficiency in good designs, without testing, using super duper kampooters. [Just going by the capability of Shakti-II, where dud is a misnomer]

khaan saabs regulardly keep doing, and has hinted a direction that is what the challenge is. we have to have our own nevedas and area51s, livermores and alamoses.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 28 Apr 2012 00:59

Cain Marko ji, don't forget TSP, as soon as we test, they will follow suit just to get that == feeling and that would bring the wrath of west leading to total destruction of TSP economy, two birds with one stone.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Apr 2012 01:01

So, derate the maals, have 80% effective calculations, build 250kt instead of 200kt, have 10 mirvs instead 12, etc. We can accomodate for inefficiencies when the scale we talk about is massive.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 28 Apr 2012 02:01

You simply can't have credible deterrence with lingering doubts - it is impression management that counts when it comes to deterrence.

I don't know the exact weights of the devices in P2. But even if there is controversy on the TN yield, it's important to note there is none about the fission one that's 15-20 KT. If we manage to MIRV 6 to a Missile, i doubt any city would survive a couple of missiles. I doubt the damage done by a dozen 250kt devices or a dozen 20 KT devices on a city will be much different. The deterrence can only be minimized if somehow we are not confident that even our fission devices will not survive or work at it's terminal stage.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 28 Apr 2012 02:09

Also it's important to remember that the Paki devices were about 5KT. In a worst case scenario, if Paki's were insane to launch, and India has an effective BMD, the damage to Indian population centers may not be that much as imagined. However if we test and Paki's do too, it is certain they may up their yields and improve on them. So in the sense it may be correct not to test presently. Meanwhile the damage we can cause both to China and Pakistan with even a dozen 20kT devices each city is enormous.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 28 Apr 2012 02:22

pankajs wrote:Bharat Karnad on the Agony
India’s missile bamboozle

Thanks for the link pankajs

One take-away is that, with Tessy, the DRDO has broken the glass ceiling that the GOI has imposed on it. From now on, all improvements to Tessy can be called Tessy itself - no need for new nomenclature.

As BK says, we can test MIRV in the next round. 1st stage composite in another round. SLBM in another. You could build upto a full MIRV ICBM/SLBM configuration under the Tessy umbrella. The idea being that DRDO doesnt need GOI sanction to perform additional tests. That's probably one of the biggest reasons for DRDO's excitement.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 28 Apr 2012 04:08

One naive question regarding ASAT capability:
Is the ability to dock with an orbiting satellite a confirmation of ASAT capability? In docking scenario you dont destroy the satellite, but there can be nothing that can come close to testing ASAT capability and not have the problem with debris? ABM capability though can be considered the same if not more stringent, docking will mimic the actual test of ASAT.
Added later:
I see one problem for docking, the final docking velocities are very small, but I guess ASAT missiles ram with high terminal velocities hence they might not be the same?

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 28 Apr 2012 06:17

It is the relative velocity which is small to make docking possible, without damage. IMO, it is as good a test. A few pages back it was mentioned in similar vein, to demonstrate a dock and tow down to earth atmosphere to burn on re-entry.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 28 Apr 2012 06:24

Prem Kumar wrote:As BK says, we can test MIRV in the next round. 1st stage composite in another round. SLBM in another. You could build upto a full MIRV ICBM/SLBM configuration under the Tessy umbrella. The idea being that DRDO doesnt need GOI sanction to perform additional tests. That's probably one of the biggest reasons for DRDO's excitement.

If others can accept a 5000km range BM armed sub prowling the oceans, then it makes little difference to them, if it is a factor 2 or 3 times this range. In fact they may even encourage a longer range one to be able to give them more lead time in detection.

The excitement for DRDO perhaps is that the west has been quiet, so GOI cannot use that excuse to not test or delay future versions of Tessy.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 28 Apr 2012 06:24

Direct ascent hit becomes feasible for targets in LEO with higher close in speeds, for GEO one has to take a merging orbit with sufficient velocity

Dr. Saraswat said that they would contend with the electronic hit of a LEO based sat similar to how they started off with BMD

for GEO, ISRO routinely tends co-locate its Insat series sats due to limited equitorial space spots observing India, while in space terms they might be real close, in absolute terms they might be 10s of kms apart, this last mile problem could be solved by a docker/kill vehicle

the exorbitant cost of sats implies that it could be economical to repair them in orbit by using a launcher such as an Agni variant SLV to send spare parts than to spend time and money on building a replacement sat with a full PSLV/GSLV, and considering there is no insurance coverage

this also serves as disincentive to any sabotage attempt as the effect would be very short lived

periodic refueling of spy sats allows them to be more dynamic in changing orbits

After seeing the Agni 5 RV's heat sheild, they could build a light weight SRE that could after docking bring back a orbiting sat safely

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 28 Apr 2012 06:34

vasu_ray wrote:Direct ascent hit becomes feasible for targets in LEO with higher close in speeds, for GEO one has to take a merging orbit with sufficient velocity

It makes no sense for reconnaissance satellites to be in GEO. And since recce sats will be the main targets of any anti-satellite weapons, thinking of taking out sats in GEO is not necessary IMO. I don't think it is possible for a Agni based system to hit anything orbiting at 36000 km.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 28 Apr 2012 06:49

agree with you, the justification for a GEO mission is from an economics angle, and the kill vehicle technology is employed as well and can be on a routine basis, another implication is Agni SLV variant can use larger boosters in pursuit of this goal one that serves as a precursor to a full blown ICBM (in pure ballistic trajectory) if and when needed, the RV already demonstrated ICBM speeds

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 28 Apr 2012 06:55

How can DRDO not need GOI's permission to test when so much logistical work is necessary including warning other countries to have their ships and planes stay clear of the tested missile?

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 28 Apr 2012 07:10

for GEO, ISRO routinely tends co-locate its Insat series sats due to limited equitorial space spots observing India, while in space terms they might be real close, in absolute terms they might be 10s of kms apart, this last mile problem could be solved by a docker/kill vehicle

That could be deliberate, to allow for satellite drift and to allow for timely correction. Some sort of electronic jamming would be more cost effective in the long run as a ASAT capability. If a laser kill is feasible why waste effort/resources using kinetic kill ?

disha · Post by **disha** » 28 Apr 2012 07:17

All this talks about an ASAT for Geo is naadani (or bachpana) or naivette. And I am being very charitable. Idiocy comes to my mind, but I will refrain.

A geo sat follows the country, India's geo sat is right above India on a ring 36,000 km around earth. So will be the geo sat for the adversary. Now think about it, taking down a geo sat will create debris which will take down other geo sats which will create more debris which will take down your geo sat. In the best case, that ring is polluted and all modern communications come to a halt.

All it takes is a tiny pebble to take out a satellite., and there is no big deal in tracking a satellite, some are tracked by eye and several others are just tracked by their launch parameters. How does ISRO track its satellites? Use Radars? Just take a book of X grade or XI grade orbital physics and you will know.

What chineese did with their ASAT test was stupid. Idiotic and stupid and whole lot of nonesense. Just because bunch of DDMs got on to the ASAT test bandwagon, this forum is getting onto that. And extending it to geo asat weapon - sheer naivette.

Let it be clear, testing an ASAT weapon is like a bakis doing 26/11 and claiming mardaangi (manhood for the uninitiated in Hindi). There is a reason why Chineese are not respected in the civilian programme (look at ISRO with partnerships from France, ESA, NASA, Russia etc) and look at the Chineese space scientist - any time they go on a podium and claim ASAT, the whole world laughs at them. And nobody wants to be associated with such retards and they end up standing alone., with me too kind of moon shots.

If the above rant does not get into the heads of the ASAT and particularly Geo ASAT proponents, then I do not know what does.

What DRDO should be focussing on for anti-missile defense is this:

0. Operationalize the current BMD bubble of AAD/PAD/PDv
1. Track and take out IRBM and ICBM
2. Track and take out Cruise missiles
3. Work on boost phase kills (the missile is most vulnerable during the launch)

All of the above from Sea, Shore, Land and Air (yes, air!!!) platforms.

Accomplising the above itself will take another generation or two (25-40 years). Till then any talk of ASAT can wait.

disha · Post by **disha** » 28 Apr 2012 07:27

Bade wrote:
for GEO, ISRO routinely tends co-locate its Insat series sats due to limited equitorial space spots observing India, while in space terms they might be real close, in absolute terms they might be 10s of kms apart, this last mile problem could be solved by a docker/kill vehicle
That could be deliberate, to allow for satellite drift and to allow for timely correction. Some sort of electronic jamming would be more cost effective in the long run as a ASAT capability. If a laser kill is feasible why waste effort/resources using kinetic kill ?

Just take out their major transmitting-receiving stations and master control stations on Earth. Come up with an effective cruise missile - say nirbhay or brahmo-bhay (long range hypersonic missile)., to take out their transmitting stations.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 28 Apr 2012 07:29

at somepoint on this thread we crossed a point which is docking into a GEO sat serving different strategic goals and killing the sat is not one of them, however it employs kill vehicle technology which is ABM derivative any ways

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Apr 2012 07:33

The khaans ASAT program (ASM 135) is as old as 1950s, and soviets followed late 50s. soviets also did ground based laser during 70s. Chinese just took out one satellite,should not lead to whole world laughs at it 'cause that is not the way to do things [agree it is stupid, but the americans were 12 times stupid then.. and they don't appear so now].. while the super duper khaans had destroyed dozen sats during those times. All these programs ended after cold-war end, and USSR broke up.

developing a capability is different from using one.. an ASAT need not fire at a sat, but it could carry a piggy back launcher, that launches both the missile and the dummy light-weight plastic target orbiter., that will not cause any fallout. Well, the case of ABM mid course kill takes more precedence definitely, but asat killing capability is definitely a massive deterrent.

Boost phase killing is impossible, unless you have ready ABMs loitering in space.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 28 Apr 2012 07:46

From Wiki

On September 13, 1985, the United States destroyed US satellite P78-1 using an ASM-135 ASAT anti-satellite missile. On January 11, 2007, China destroyed an old Chinese orbiting weather satellite. A year later on February 21, 2008, USA destroyed a malfunctioning US spy satellite USA-193 using a RIM-161 Standard Missile 3.

Many may not believe the reason quoted for the 2008 action, but they did it anyway. There could be times when such a capability could be useful to have for very LEO situation if the sat is hurtling down to population centers and no corrective measures possible.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Apr 2012 07:47

What is the real reason for no sales of B'Mos to friendly nations? Is it a Russian veto or the lack of Indian political will and fear of annoying China as one report has hinted at? I feel that it is more of the latter.It is past time for us to exercise our legitimate right to supply friendly countries with such missiles,especially as many of them have already directly recd. Russian arms like Vietnam,Malaysia and Indonesia.If we are scared of supplying arms to them,when China supplies even nuke tech and ballistic missiles to vassal state Pak,who will take us seriously or trust us if and when they require help in a crisis? At least let us give them the ability to fight for themselves by making it even harder for the PRC militarily.Force-multipliers like Brahmos,Prithvi,etc.,in the hands of friendly nations in the Indo-China Sea should be the first step to building up a "first line of defence" as BK puts it.A pity that the LCA is so delayed and yet to be fully developed,it would've been an excellent model for export.

PS:As far as ASAT is concerned,we just need a tech-demo to warn the PRC if need be.The PRC's strategy in any major crisis would be first a massive cyber-attack with a huge dump of viruses to affect the key mil and civil entities of the enemy.The attacks would not be immediately traced to China as it has been practising this with sporadic attacks against western nations across the globe.Tracing these attacks back to the PRC has proven to be difficult and the PRC simply pretend that they are not responsible for any "rogue hackers".Taking out an enemy's sats however would be an act of war and certainly dramatically escalate the conflict.One doesn't also know how many years it will take us for our "scramjet-reusable missile"/space vehicle will take to arrive,which if and when it arrives,should have the potential to be able to kill any enemy mil-sat .

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Apr 2012 07:52

Boost phase killing is impossible, unless you have ready ABMs loitering in space.

Nope.

WRT TSP it is distinctly possible. Ground base solution.

What I am really interested in is sub-launched-boost-phase-kill.

There has got to be another women in DRDO/ISRO/whereever to solve this issue.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 28 Apr 2012 08:24

From Saraswat's interview

"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."

Are they considering integrating all telecom towers for a dense terrestial multi static network? anyways they first need to get rid of Chinese telecom equipment

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 28 Apr 2012 08:50

NRao wrote: What I am really interested in is sub-launched-boost-phase-kill.

There has got to be another women in DRDO/ISRO/whereever to solve this issue.

Well, I am sure she will be "Messy" atleast for Pakis!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Apr 2012 09:24

Altair wrote:
NRao wrote: What I am really interested in is sub-launched-boost-phase-kill.

There has got to be another women in DRDO/ISRO/whereever to solve this issue.
Well, I am sure she will be "Messy" atleast for Pakis!

Ohhhh Ms Tessy getting Paki underpants in a messy.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Apr 2012 09:41

NRao, w.r.t pakis, one does not need any ballistics at all.. we can do it all with n-tippied hypersonic brahmos.. have 100s of brahmos, pakis are destroyed... I am assuming, each brahmos can carry an advance 20kt wala

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 28 Apr 2012 09:42

Missile defence system ready for induction, reveals DRDO chief

India’s missile defence system is ready for induction, V K Saraswat, chief of Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), has said.

A two-layer shield will be put over the national capital, Saraswat said. He confirmed that the system has already destroyed incoming missiles in four tests.

“We have identified the advanced air defence (AAD) missile and the PAD which has no acronym and is for exo-atmospheric interception (upwards of 30 km). The AAD is for endo-atmospheric interception. In two layers we intend to put it as part of the Delhi (air) defence,” Saraswat said in an interview to The Indian Express Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta for NDTV 24X7’s ‘Walk the Talk’ programme.

Saraswat said DRDO had used modified Prithvi missiles as simulated targets and demonstrated the capability of hitting missiles with the range of over 2,000 km. The Indian system is at par with the US Patriot 3 missile defence system, he said.

Asked when the system would be put in place over the capital, Saraswat said, “This system is now ready for induction.”
{In the interview with IT he said it will be ready by 2013...Hmmm...not much of a difference but still...}
The nuclear capable Agni V missile which India tested successfully last week has “taken deterrence of the country to a high level”, Saraswat said. The missile will be ready for induction in two years, he said.

The DRDO chief described Agni V as a 5,000-km plus missile with a maximum range of 5,500-5,800 km.

He said there was no pressure at any time to understate the range.

“We have not understated the range. As a missile designer and a person also involved a lot in policy planning, (I can say) we as a nation don’t have to hide anything with respect to our capabilities,” Saraswat said.

China’s state-run Global Times had reported that India cut Agni V’s range from the original 9,000 km under NATO pressure. The daily also quoted a Chinese military researcher as saying the missile could actually hit targets 8,000 km away.

Saraswat said the Tatra trucks, which have become controversial following Army Chief Gen V K Singh’s bribery allegations, have been in use since 1986, and DRDO has never had a problem with them. He disclosed that India’s wheel mounted strategic defence too is based on Tatra systems. “For strategic deterrence, we have rail systems and we have wheel based systems. Whereever we have wheeled systems, it is Tatra,” Saraswat said.

He also revealed that DRDO is working on an improved Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot (APFSDS) anti-tank ammunition, of which the Army faces a severe shortage. The scientist said the shortage of ammunition was because imports had not worked out for a higher grade of the system required after Kargil.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Apr 2012 09:53

Saraswatji is showing he is an able successor to Kalam saab. He has the vision thing that GW Bush used to lament.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 28 Apr 2012 09:57

Agni-V — guidance on chip

Responding to my earlier blog on the advanced chip-embedded guidance system successfuly tested on Agni-V, an expert at the cutting edge of these technologies emailed me the following. It will flesh out the understanding of interested readers so I’m copying it here:
“With regards to your latest article, the “fly-by-wire” concept in the A-5 comes from digitally connected multi-channel communications within its body for the control system, thereby reducing a lot of the cabling that would have otherwise gone into these missiles. This serves to reduce the risk of failure in the missile system and increases dependability.
“With regards to the embedding of the guidance system on chip (SOC), which enables the A-5 to possess superior accuracy, there is indeed an on-board computer on the A-5, which is more powerful than any used in previous vehicles. However, previous computers had severe weight, space, and cooling constraints. The guidance SOC based computers that weigh just 200 grams and possess around 7-10 times greater processing power than their predecessors. The embedded guidance SOC concept requires very little power, imposes much less space constraints, requires far less cooling, and, also very importantly, is not only more reliable and efficient, but also allows for far greater flexibility when choosing the warhead configuration.”

disha · Post by **disha** » 28 Apr 2012 10:33

vasu_ray wrote:at somepoint on this thread we crossed a point which is docking into a GEO sat serving different strategic goals and killing the sat is not one of them, however it employs kill vehicle technology which is ABM derivative any ways

And your point is? .... That this forum has come up with a better "solution" to take out a sat in the GEO, and the sat at GEO is for recon purposes?

Again sheer naivette to think that Geo sat can be used for recon and one will develop and better demonstrate ASAT capability against Geo. So this discussion should be put to rest.

Now VKS (as you yourself have quoted), the scientific advisor to the nation and the harbinger of agony for the rest will satisfy himself with an "electronic test" for an ASAT, leave alone GEO ASAT - I do have to ask - which farm's radish you are? (or in Hindi - Kis Khet ki Mulangi hai tu?).

disha · Post by **disha** » 28 Apr 2012 10:40

Boost phase killing is impossible, unless you have ready ABMs loitering in space.

BS.

NRao wrote:What I am really interested in is sub-launched-boost-phase-kill.

Getting it to a ship based boost-phase kill will be a start., but first step after the operationalization of the AAD/PAD one would be a ground based one.

vasu_ray wrote:From Saraswat's interview

"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."

Are they considering integrating all telecom towers for a dense terrestial multi static network? anyways they first need to get rid of Chinese telecom equipment

Yes, using multi static network may be a start.

All DDM should be asking questions on our strategy to defend against cruise missiles like Barbur. ASAT is a me-too demonstration and a distraction. India should be the first nation that has a anti-cruise missile defense shield. And most likely the only nation working on it. US does not need it, since no nation has currently an ultra-long range cruise missile. Same with Russia. But Pakis have it and India is the neighbouring country.

US should think what happens if the Bakis give Barbur to Nokos.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 28 Apr 2012 13:29

Suraj wrote:Kanson: It's fair to say we're probably debating very different issues here I cannot possibly address all the various theoretical permutations - I mentioned the specific case of why CF against PRC will not work, and why a irrational CV posture is on the lines of our actions so far. If you disagree, that's fine

My humble reply was, tunnels are common for all such powers holding such Nuke arsenal including Pak. Deterrence of what was talked during Cold War is possible only if players are somewhat rational. Pakis are not rational by any yardstick. Chinese Maoists are not very different from Pakis. If Pakis further go that road, as revealed by an assistant to late Bhutto, in the fit of anger if they try to Nuke India, we can't play by the usual Deterrence game. Becoz, as revealed, they are prepared mentally for that destruction and the usual Deterrence game fails here. We can't loose our people for their madness. One way or to put it correctly, Only way to stop them in their tracks without we getting affected is CF. Prahaar is a CounterForce weapon as one can understand from DRDO press release. Its close relative, AAD acts as an ABM. Similary for Prithvi, PAD is an ABM. The relation aptly amplifies their role. It much easier to take out a BM while still in the launcher. To take out a BM at its terminal phase, it needs min. two AAD or more. But it needs min. one Prahaar an equivalent to AAD to take out a BM in launcher. So cost wise it is much less and affordable, if we look from ABM angle.

Suraj wrote:PS: please don't equate the verbal characterization of a game theory situation as some personal emotional response, i.e. 'your bravado' for example. I've not made the debate personal, and would appreciate the same.

I put care to say things to give no wrong meaning. But I think, I missed the mark on this small thing.

Probably, I might have used 'your bravado' unconsciously becoz, the statement you made 'no matter what you do to us' in no way reflects our Deterrence posture, in my view. No country which has responsibility to its people, can afford to say, 'no matter what you do to us'

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 28 Apr 2012 15:43

Kanson.... when u say " Only way to stop them in their tracks without we getting affected is CF " it almost seems that u have the uncanny ability of getting into the Paki mind to find when their supreme moment of irrationality/ madness has arrived. and thats the time for ur CF strategy to kick in? and for our missiles to be launched.

I dont know how come u credit Pakis with so much irrationality/madness and insanity? which actions of their dont seem rational to u? Honestly. while they may talk big their actions seem pretty rational to me atleast. they have screwed our happiness for so many years, toyed with the yanks for so long, begged their way thru thick and thin...How come u credit them so much irrationality? they have been in possession of the N bomb for long..what is preventing them bombing India in their fits of supreme irrationality?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Apr 2012 19:05

SaiK wrote:NRao, w.r.t pakis, one does not need any ballistics at all.. we can do it all with n-tippied hypersonic brahmos.. have 100s of brahmos, pakis are destroyed... I am assuming, each brahmos can carry an advance 20kt wala

SaiK,

Nukes, WRT TSP, are passe. Old stuff. If it were not for China their Generals would be maintaining goat herds in the NW. Technology has overtaken TSPian strategic thinking.

In true TSP influence: next stop, China, for dinner.

ramana wrote:Saraswatji is showing he is an able successor to Kalam saab. He has the vision..........

And, the ability to push the right buttons at the right time to make things happen. (Part of vision?)

pankajs wrote:Agni-V — guidance on chip
The guidance SOC based computers that weigh just 200 grams and possess around 7-10 times greater processing power than their predecessors. The embedded guidance SOC concept requires very little power, imposes much less space constraints, requires far less cooling, and, also very importantly, is not only more reliable and efficient, but also allows for far greater flexibility when choosing the warhead configuration.”

Range. Range. Range!!! Unpublished range.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 28 Apr 2012 19:57

pankajs wrote:Missile defence system ready for induction, reveals DRDO chiefIndia’s missile defence system is ready for induction, V K Saraswat, chief of Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), has said.

Asked when the system would be put in place over the capital, Saraswat said, “This system is now ready for induction.”
{In the interview with IT he said it will be ready by 2013...Hmmm...not much of a difference but still...}

Sire, Induction can happen even in the condition of partial readiness. It could be that system might get inducted with AAD later PDV joins the team.

The DRDO chief described Agni V as a 5,000-km plus missile with a maximum range of 5,500-5,800 km.

He said there was no pressure at any time to understate the range.

“We have not understated the range. As a missile designer and a person also involved a lot in policy planning, (I can say) we as a nation don’t have to hide anything with respect to our capabilities,” Saraswat said.

Why people putting too much pressure on him. What they are going to gain, whether it is 5000 or 6000. People that should be more concerned about range must be Chinese not us.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 28 Apr 2012 20:07

All DDM should be asking questions on our strategy to defend against cruise missiles like Barbur. ASAT is a me-too demonstration and a distraction. India should be the first nation that has a anti-cruise missile defense shield. And most likely the only nation working on it. US does not need it, since no nation has currently an ultra-long range cruise missile. Same with Russia. But Pakis have it and India is the neighbouring country.

good post.. I don't know why people are so much after ASAT ..Pandas space program is more about accumulating h&d warming stats than actual science.. they compare it like India had 15 launches last year , we had 30 so we are better..does not matter if they put toilet seats in orbit..

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 28 Apr 2012 20:13

Bharat Karnad on the Agony
India’s missile bamboozle

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).

BK probably have reasons to be indignant. All before Agni V launch he was on TV repeatedly mentioning this missile is an IRBM and we actually need ICBM yada yada. Within few hrs of launch MoD/DRDO indirectly called that as ICBM. Poor BK. But he took this upon to put his message as far as possible. I can see that right up to point of digging the ground under his feet. But that's a different story.

Agni team in fact wanted to do testing as scheduled. Whichever way you look at it, it partially a PR exercise. Whether it is Bill Gates/Microsoft releasing new OS or Airbus a new airliner, they expect the PR exercise to be 'glitch' free. There is nothing to suggest that it is not an "all weather".

Indra wanted a confirmation whether this Agni is meant for him and tested us at the time of launch. We told in all clarity no no this is for the Cheenese. Thats why some small delay. See how much diplomacy this GoI has to be extended to make this test happen? BK is not seeing things in right perspective.