Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 30 Aug 2014 11:16

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4377 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 ... 110  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2012 09:42 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56
Posts: 4153
Missile defence system ready for induction, reveals DRDO chief
Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2012 09:53 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38041
Saraswatji is showing he is an able successor to Kalam saab. He has the vision thing that GW Bush used to lament.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2012 09:57 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56
Posts: 4153
Agni-V — guidance on chip
Quote:
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.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2012 10:33 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Posts: 2784
Location: gaganaviharin
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?).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2012 10:40 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Posts: 2784
Location: gaganaviharin
Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2012 13:29 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00
Posts: 2679
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'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2012 15:43 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33
Posts: 626
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2012 19:05 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10764
Location: Illini Nation
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
Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2012 19:57 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00
Posts: 2679
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.

Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2012 20:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16
Posts: 2307
Location: USA - A fully owned subsidiary of India Inc.
Quote:

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..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2012 20:13 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00
Posts: 2679
Bharat Karnad on the Agony
India’s missile bamboozle
Quote:
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).

:D
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.


Last edited by Kanson on 28 Apr 2012 20:26, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2012 20:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16
Posts: 2307
Location: USA - A fully owned subsidiary of India Inc.
I don't like BK.. he keeps yapping the same things over and over agains.. like "unproven tnw" ,

icbm OR irbm is just a matter of semantics..BKs obsession is more to do with his h&d as an analyst ..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2012 20:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28
Posts: 1177
Quote:
nd most likely the only nation working on it. US does not need it, since no nation has currently an ultra-long range cruise missile.



No.

Yamrika's JLENS coupled with Patriot is undergoing tests even as we speak. they and the israelis are hyper keen on a CMDS.

Russia's latest Kh-101/102 series has variants capable of 5000 kms, air launched of course.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2012 21:04 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16
Posts: 2307
Location: USA - A fully owned subsidiary of India Inc.
JLENS tested on 26th april

http://defense-update.com/20120426_patr ... arget.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2012 21:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56
Posts: 4153
gakakkad wrote:
I don't like BK.. he keeps yapping the same things over and over agains.. like "unproven tnw"

Saar we need someone in the policy circle to push for more testing. He certainly has a role to play for no one in the decision making circle will give me the time of the day.

Even if the we have a proven bum, our claim that the 45kt pataka can be do a 200kt dhamaka, will cut no ice. Deterrence has to be demonstrated.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2012 21:11 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16
Posts: 2307
Location: USA - A fully owned subsidiary of India Inc.
^ all that is ok ,saar ,but some of his articles seem to undermine national interest.. like playing down A-5 etc..what was the need to remind the world about TNW when we had a celebratory success?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2012 21:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Posts: 4735
Location: Dehradun
If we have a good BMD we should take care of 90% of missiles launched at our major cities. That leaves a 10% coming through. The Paki tests were basically fizzles..even the fission ones. If even they work 5kT or so, damage to population centers in India is limited. However if they test again, there will be immediate improvements of yields to around 15 kT. The difference is major and if we consider the casualty differences between 10% of 100 nukes of 5 kT and 15 kT hitting population centers it is massive.

Meanwhile if we MIRV 6-8 even 20 kT proven fission devices to a single missile and 2 of them hit a major city, there will hardly be much difference in damage if we deliver 6 of 250 kT or 12 of 20 kT. A 20 kT device on Hiroshima took 70 k lives in an instant. A dozen 20 kT devices on a single city delivered through just 2 missiles is major devastation.

So possibly rather than testing out and disproving the TN fizzle theory, it may be prudent of us to not test and develop a massive BMD capability along with MIRV tech. 2 missiles delivering a dozen 20 kt and maybe one delivering 3 of 250 kT devices which may work are chances that no one in there right senses would assume, that no big damage will take place. The city on which these missiles fall will be ash. We have i am certain factored that in, BKs clamor for TN tests notwithstanding.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2012 21:35 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56
Posts: 4153
gakakkad wrote:
^ all that is ok ,saar ,but some of his articles seem to undermine national interest.. like playing down A-5 etc..what was the need to remind the world about TNW when we had a celebratory success?

BK has spelt out the GoI's position on the range and classification of A5 and even Saraswatji has stuck to it in all interviews and official releases. BK did not like the rug being pulled from under his feet and that is the sense you get from the first two para of his article. You can see his tangential reference to the actual range after DRDO let is out.

On the TNW, if the yield of the pataka is in doubt, the deterrence breaks down. So one way to look at it would be that by creating doubt about the bum, forces the government to test it to reestablish the deterrence. About the timing, I will not comment.

I am not going into Fizzle debate, just trying to figure out BK's reasons for writing what he wrote.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2012 21:41 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56
Posts: 4153
harbans wrote:
However if they test again, there will be immediate improvements of yields to around 15 kT.

Jub Chini maherban tab Baki pahelwan. Whether they have 5 kt or 15 kt bum depends on China and not on Baki's capacity to design or even test it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2012 21:46 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47
Posts: 773
Forget about the Poaks. Are the mini nukes going to deter China? Also we get so much less bang for our fissile buck if we don't go thermonuclear. Also remember the Chinese can always supply the Poaks with functioning nukes or transfer other designs to them. Lastly no one will treat India like the big boy it should be treated as, if we are junior members of the nuclear club. We shouldn't have what 3rd rate powers like the UQ have?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2012 21:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56
Posts: 4153
We will have to test the 200-250 kt thing today or tomorrow but that should be sufficient.
3-petaled MIRV = 3 * 250 = 750 kt
10-petaled MIRV = 10 * 250 = 2500 kt i.e 2.5 mt

So each A5/6/7 could potentially deliver between .75 to 2.5 mt to the same target if that is what is desired.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2012 22:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Posts: 4735
Location: Dehradun
Quote:
Jub Chini maherban tab Baki pahelwan. Whether they have 5 kt or 15 kt bum depends on China and not on Baki's capacity to design or even test it.


From what info we have, we do know that what they have is fizzle to limited yield. But if we test then they will too, in which case we can be certain they will graduate well up the yield ladder.


Quote:
10-petaled MIRV = 10 * 250 = 2500 kt i.e 2.5 mt

So each A5/6/7 could potentially deliver between .75 to 2.5 mt to the same target if that is what is desired.


Yield damage is calculated by distance from the center and effects reduce by the sq rt as distance from center increases. 20 * 20 kT (delivered from 2 MIRV'd) missiles will do almost as much damage as will 10 * 250 kT on a single city. Even with 20 kT devices we are talking of taking out around 2 million in a single city. But by making certain by testing that Paki;s can increase yield from 5 to 15-20 kT range, we will make sure the damage to us is far higher.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2012 23:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Posts: 733
Location: Our cultures are different and we cannot live together - who said that?
gakakkad wrote:
I don't like BK.. he keeps yapping the same things over and over agains.. like "unproven tnw" ,

icbm OR irbm is just a matter of semantics..BKs obsession is more to do with his h&d as an analyst ..


+1. My only take is that he has a scripted role to play and continues playing that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Apr 2012 00:53 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17
Posts: 2477
Location: जो हिंदू हित की बात करेगा वही देश पर राज करेगा !!!
harbans wrote:

From what info we have, we do know that what they have is fizzle to limited yield. But if we test then they will too, in which case we can be certain they will graduate well up the yield ladder.

Yield damage is calculated by distance from the center and effects reduce by the sq rt as distance from center increases. 20 * 20 kT (delivered from 2 MIRV'd) missiles will do almost as much damage as will 10 * 250 kT on a single city. Even with 20 kT devices we are talking of taking out around 2 million in a single city. But by making certain by testing that Paki;s can increase yield from 5 to 15-20 kT range, we will make sure the damage to us is far higher.


The main reason to test TN design is that it saves lots of precious fissle material compared to Fission and Boosted Fission ones. In case we have well confirmed TN design then its a win win situation as we'll have higher yield warheads and more warheads compared to what we'll have if we're forced to make our inventory mainly from 'fission' and 'boosted fission' designs.

Porki/Panda combo is already testing in North Korea, for them there is no problem in testing as NoKo is immune to sanctions.

We need around 900 warheads against both pork-panda cities, army targets, dams, industrial hubs, ports and refineries.

Plus more to take out missiles on the ground.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Apr 2012 01:13 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 24544
Location: NowHere
You want to reverse back to 1998, and continue on the failure analysis of 12-25kt rather 45-60kt thermos, then we have no other option than to accept that there exists another factor that a 45kt maal can be contained to produce 12kt maal output. I would say the boulders and rocks helped. Why not consider that ratio, and begin our subcritical testing of scalable design for 12kt walas that produces only sub-critical wavelengths.

And we would never know if that did not take place as well.. so let us keep at that deterrence level for our advantage against chippanda, and continuation of nfu programs we have chartered.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Apr 2012 01:42 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56
Posts: 4153
We have great potential to export missiles to friendly nations: Saraswat
Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Apr 2012 01:45 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56
Posts: 4153
Agni-V missile test moves India past its old rivalries
Quote:
There was a sense of déjà vu when, days after India successfully test-fired its nuclear-capable Agni-V ballistic missile, Pakistan responded by test-firing an "improved version" of its nuclear-capable Hatf-4 intermediate range ballistic missile. At a time when Indo-Pakistan ties seem to be improving, these tests have struck a jarring note.

Although New Delhi and Islamabad informed each other of their impending tests, in accordance with a 2005 pact that stipulates that the two neighbours give due warning to each other before missile tests, recent events underscore the continuing security dilemma between the South Asian neighbours. However, there is a bigger story behind India's test that also needs to be recognised.

With its latest test, India has gained entry into an elite club of nations - the US, Russia, China, Britain, France and Israel - and is a culmination, in many ways, of efforts that started in 1983 as part of India's Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP).

From the first test of Agni I in 1989, it has been an eventful road for India's missile programme. It was just a matter of time for Agni-V with its range of 5,000 kilometres after the 3,500-kilometre test of the Agni-IV in November. Although it will take a few more tests before the missile becomes operational and inducted into the armed forces, the message is clear - India's second-strike capability is secure.

India's nuclear doctrine precluding a first strike relies fundamentally on a credible second-strike nuclear capability. The Agni-V, by bringing the Chinese heartland within range of India's missiles, makes the Sino-Indian nuclear dynamic more stable than before. India's Agni-III has been deployed very close to the Chinese border to give India a credible second strike capability.

Now, for the first time, India has demonstrated its missile capability that is able to target China. This will give Indian military planners greater flexibility in deploying the missile arsenal. This test is also psychologically important for India, boosting its confidence to deal with China as an equal.

China is already at an advanced stage in its missile capability. China's nuclear arsenal is more than double India's estimated 100 warheads, and it continues to deploy both land and submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

China's reaction has been predictable, underscoring once again the disdain sections of the Chinese elite feel for India. Although officially, China just emphasised that India and China were not rivals, the state-run Global Times was openly dismissive of Indian claims, arguing that India "should be clear that China's nuclear power is stronger and more reliable" and that "for the foreseeable future, India would stand no chance in an overall arms race with China".

Although sections of the media have portrayed Agni-V as an Inter Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), technically the missile is not. The Agni-V is an Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM) and in terms of policy there is a good reason for New Delhi to underline the fact that India is not yet ready for an ICBM.

So far, India has successfully crafted a narrative about its missile programme that gives it a defensive orientation. India wants a missile capability to strengthen its deterrence, and there is no need to antagonise the rest of the world by suggesting a capability to strike at will against any corner of the world.

While this might not satisfy some hyper-nationalists in India, an ICBM capability would generate apprehensions about India's intentions and cast doubts on the narrative of a peaceful rise. The message India sends to the rest of the world is especially important at a time when India is seeking membership in global-export control regimes - the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), the Australia Group and the Wassenaar Agreement - based on its impeccable non-proliferation credentials.

The reaction of the US, underlining India's "solid non-proliferation record", is also very instructive about how US-India ties have deepened in the last few years. India is widely considered as a responsible nuclear power, and the logic of India's tests is well understood. The US today welcomes its rise as a balancing force in Asia and as a powerful democratic partner at a time when America's traditional allies in the West no longer have the will and the ability to carry the burdens of a global power.

So while India's focus remains firmly on China, Pakistan continues with its obsession with India. Islamabad's latest missile test merely underscores an already well-established reality that Pakistan maintains a credible deterrence against India. The more confident Pakistan is about its nuclear posture, the better it is for the region as it will bring greater stability in India-Pakistan ties.

The real problem in India-Pakistan ties today is not Pakistan's nuclear capability but the reluctance of the Pakistani security establishment to unequivocally renounce terrorism as an instrument of state policy. And the recent tests in South Asia do nothing to change that reality.

Dr Harsh V Pant is a reader in international studies at King's College London


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Apr 2012 01:47 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 21 Jan 2010 19:24
Posts: 352
Location: Pandora
***Question for gurus****

If there is a submarine-launched missile which impacts on home soil (any country), how would the struck nation identify who launched the missile? Let's say the missile ballistic profile was disguised, so it does not look obviously like a Trident or Russi or Chini missile...how to identify the source from the mushroom cloud? Is there anything in the fallout or radiation spectrum that would be a signature for any specific source of fissile material?

Now that we will soon have the capability to destroy China, this might be a sneaky option for some anti-China third party...esp if they modify the ballistic profile to look like a Chinese SLBM.


Last edited by Fidel Guevara on 29 Apr 2012 01:54, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Apr 2012 01:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Posts: 7253
How many countries can launch a nuclear missile from their submarines? The signatures of each device are very well known, and it will be near impossible to claim "deniability". It is also unclear why any country would nuke another without being in a state of war. No third parties exist out there who would risk a global cataclysm under a nuke cloud. Very few will survive with their gene pools intact.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Apr 2012 01:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Feb 2012 20:45
Posts: 1824
Fidel Guevara wrote:
***Question for gurus****

If there is a submarine-launched missile which impacts on home soil (any country), how would the struck nation identify who launched the missile? Let's say the missile ballistic profile was disguised, so it does not look obviously like a Trident or Russi or Chini missile...how to identify the source from the mushroom cloud? Is there anything in the fallout or radiation spectrum that would be a signature for any specific source of fissile material?

Now that we will soon have the capability to destroy China, this might be a sneaky option for some anti-China third party...esp if they modify the ballistic profile to look like a Chinese SLBM.

Not a guru, but found some info, may be this way:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/11/nuclear-debris-carries-signatures-of-bomb-that-caused-it.ars
and also this pdf, don't know how to upload it:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=nuclear%20weapon%20signature&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CFgQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fas.org%2Fsgp%2Fcrs%2Fnuke%2FR40154.pdf&ei=-VWcT8nSLqjc6QHl_JyODw&usg=AFQjCNEQrWT4K6Zb1Y32T-b37kMvMeLcTA


Last edited by venug on 29 Apr 2012 02:07, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Apr 2012 01:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 21 Jan 2010 19:24
Posts: 352
Location: Pandora
Marten wrote:
How many countries can launch a nuclear missile from their submarines? The signatures of each device are very well known, and it will be near impossible to claim "deniability". It is also unclear why any country would nuke another without being in a state of war. No third parties exist out there who would risk a global cataclysm under a nuke cloud. Very few will survive with their gene pools intact.


Marten, yes I agree, very few countries have the capability, but this number will increase. 10-15 years from now, perhaps Israel and NoKo might have this capability, perhaps even Pak if they really push for it.

As for the signature of each device...I would hope so, but I doubt it. Take the W88 for example, I doubt if we or anyone else will know anything about its explosion profile, maybe only the Chinese have a clue about it since they stole the tech from Khan. Since most warheads nowadays are not tested, only simulated, you will need moles deep inside every nuclear establishment to leak this info.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Apr 2012 02:06 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 21 Jan 2010 19:24
Posts: 352
Location: Pandora
venug wrote:


Thanks for sharing, this sounds very doable. Especially since the "suspect" country will share every detail about their nukes if such an event ever happens.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Apr 2012 02:08 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 29 Jun 2009 10:02
Posts: 326
Location: Mumbai/Delhi
What Marten is saying is very interesting. In a few years the oceans wud be milling with SSBNs with nuclear tip missile club being bigger than even now. There will always be new entrants. Now forget about Khan, any other country does not have the kind of sophisticated data+snooping+24/7 alert assets. also, once a nuclear missile is launched, the country under attack wud not wait for confirmation of the sournce and in panic may just go ahead with nuking the country it believes has launched the attack. This raises some interesting scenarios on India-puke-lizard and India-lizard-vietnam(say) and many others.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Apr 2012 02:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Feb 2012 20:45
Posts: 1824
Fidel, you are correct, it is not possible, but the pdf talks about other methods, I linked later. But as you said what ever method, we will need a sample 'signature' to match to, lacking which we may have to look to US perhaps? and the pdf discusses only about how to detect the presence of nuclear materials in a bomb than how to link to the source country.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Apr 2012 02:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 24544
Location: NowHere
So, are you guys suggesting that pakis or the khaans can launch a sub launched missile on china, and they will react towards India? America will seize to exists on such acts. The very fact, that during cold war days, it was a terror every time tension builds up or when (check out movie K9) things goes very close to being a nuclear holocaust.

There are protocols established on engagement of war, and countries don't operate like pakis or chinese terrorists. They hide, and do everything clandestine, and still china, signatory to many treaties, hides away many strategic missiles, and does not declare their power.

In addition, they continue to spoil the world climate by p5 harakiri, and cause problems especially for India. India needs to show them, that time is up.. fold up their dam wazoos, and obey to a global order.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Apr 2012 02:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 21 Jan 2010 19:24
Posts: 352
Location: Pandora
Guys, this thread seems to be totally about Agni-V, and other missile/munition discussions may be getting washed out of prominence.

I set up a dedicated thread for Agni-V topics. May I request that we move the party to that room?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Apr 2012 03:23 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43
Posts: 6685
Private industry’s contribution to Agni-V success huge, significant: Saraswat


We have great potential to export missiles to friendly nations: Saraswat
Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Apr 2012 08:11 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Posts: 1525
Location: Gora Paki



two interesting vids of M51 tests the first one is particularly interesting because it shows a pontoon type launch with the aerospike deployment onlee.

Guessing our own pontoon lanches will be similar...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Apr 2012 08:53 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47
Posts: 773
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?172498-French-Armed-Forces-Pictures/page102

Must check out these amazing pics of the M-51 SLBM including beautiful pics of its carbon filament rocket motor casing 8)
Anyone have an idea why there is venting of gas from the upper aspect of the first stage?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Apr 2012 09:45 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31
Posts: 5979
My guess and I stress guess, is that it is not venting gas but rather is venting water.

Perhaps undersea ballistic launches require the missile body to take on water during launch to prevent the missile from being crushed by the pressure of sea water encountered when the missile exits its launch tube.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4377 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 ... 110  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ashokk, deejay, Google Feedfetcher, SNaik, Zynda and 29 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group