Just one question.If those 'enlightened' ones at NSG say that we ll have the deal if India forgoes the right to test and agrees to the rest , should India say yes or nyet
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/smile.gif)
In my person perspective Pok-II showed Indian mastery of Boosted fission weapon, and all things fission. The 17Kt Boosted primary of S1 worked perfectly. Wish they had tested a higher yield boosted device as insurance, and India will would today have upper hand in the international negotiations. I am sure they can make 100kt or 150kt weapon, but without demonstrated test or LIF the claim is as valid as claiming 700kt boosted fission weapon.ranganathan wrote:What about the boosted fission devices? Do they work or were they also duds?
My understanding is :Raj Malhotra wrote:What is your peronal estimate of yields of PoK-2? There seems to be veiw on Board, perhaps misunderstood by me:-
pok-2-S1-Thermo Nuclear-25kt
pok-2-S2-Fission Bomb-25kt
Try better luck at Las Vegas or make Tiger eat grass.kit wrote:Just one question.If those 'enlightened' ones at NSG say that we ll have the deal if India forgoes the right to test and agrees to the rest , should India say yes or nyet.Personally I would tell them to go to .. well whatever
Gentle reminder folks, this is not the thread to discuss the above. And breaking my own rule below ...ramdas wrote:As far as I can understand, except NPAs everbody incl PKI et. al say
S-1 40-45kt
S-2 12 kt
Other than NPA's everybody accepted the DAE figure for the yield of these devices. So where did 28kt come from ?
So what if they were duds? Also while you are at it, can you ponder over what damage a 300 KT can do which a 150 KT or 15 KT cannot? Again this is in Nuke thread.ranganathan wrote:What about the boosted fission devices? Do they work or were they also duds?
Will it be at 80 KM or 100 KM. I think there was a talsk about a 100KM interception before. Can any one have any idea or info on that?? And also r we using Prithvi as Target or Agni-1 this timeA Sharma wrote:Missile Defence shield to be tested in November
Plans are afoot to test India's missile defence shield in November, Dr V K Saraswat, leading scientist at DRDO, said today.
"We are planning to test the missile defence shield in November. This time the configuration will be different. We will be approaching a higher altitude kill compared to last time's kill at 48 km," Saraswat who is the Chief Controller of Research and Decvelopment (MSS), DRDO told reporters today on the sidelines of a seminar organised on the topic `IT in Defence.'
There were also plans to enter the flight trial stage late next year for 'A-5,' the long range missile. It will be at a higher range than the Agni III, he said.
Refusing to divulge the range of the missile, he said, "It was commensurate in keeping with threat to the region."
Replying to a question on Astra missile, the indigenously built air-to-air beyond visual range missile, he said that the missile was under completion and between September 10-15 there were plans to have a "launch window for guided flights."
On the issue of the indigenously developed surface-to-air Akash missile, he said production of the Akash missile had commenced with the Indian Airforce placing orders for it.
The naval Long Range Sam (LR-SAM) is expected to enter its flight trial phase probably next year, he said
There was some discussion on BR or some other forum (i cant remember) about kill efficiency of such BMD systems. It was said that PAC system's main failure was its inability to destroy the warhead. Instead it used to deflect or damage the missile like something.Arun_S wrote:Prithvi target missile (different from Prithvi with 1000 Kg payload) is capable of simulating missile with range of 600-900Km and upto 1,200Km with little modification). This test will use Prithvi target missile.
Payload might burn only for ICMB or IRBM types which have re-entry vehicles. But in case of SRBM payload has shallower re-entry course (which have higher chances of carrying tactical nukes with low yields).Katare wrote:Without the protection of missile nose shield, wouldn't the war head would burn to ashes in atmosphere?
I think if missile is intercepted at too low an altitude than there is not enough time for major debris to burn completely. Also everything would fall within/close to target area. But at 48-70Km altitude hardly anything would make it to ground.
I was thinking such HTK vehicles can be packaged on other launchers if needed to improve the defending sides efficiency.are you talking of further development where there will be multiple HTK warheads on the PAD interceptor that will target individual BMs that may be at wide separations and different altitudes ?
I think as soon as you deflect (uncontrolled deflection) missile with any outside force the missile will spin and disintegrate. Shallower trajectory will not give enough time for larger debris to be completely destroyed but the job is mostly done. In case of nuclear tipped missile it is preferable to intercept them at higher altitude to insure radiation is contained, burned and diluted at higher altitude. The commercial plasmatron (like PACT) incinerator burn radiation waste at around 1400-1600C (0.5 sec residence time) which is easily achieved in atmosphere by falling debris etc.Sid wrote:Payload might burn only for ICMB or IRBM types which have re-entry vehicles. But in case of SRBM payload has shallower re-entry course (which have higher chances of carrying tactical nukes with low yields).Katare wrote:Without the protection of missile nose shield, wouldn't the war head would burn to ashes in atmosphere?
I think if missile is intercepted at too low an altitude than there is not enough time for major debris to burn completely. Also everything would fall within/close to target area. But at 48-70Km altitude hardly anything would make it to ground.
And when we say hit-to-hill ABM, does it actually collides head-on or explodes in proximity.
I guess the long range for A-5 means they will add another stage and about 10 tonnes to make it go another measley 500kmMissile Defence shield to be tested in November
There were also plans to enter the flight trial stage late next year for 'A-5,' the long range missile. It will be at a higher range than the Agni III, he said.
Refusing to divulge the range of the missile, he said, "It was commensurate in keeping with threat to the region."
I think here you are citing Scud attacks with conventional warheads. The Scuds that landed at Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were Al-Hussein types ( local Iraqi versions) and it is believed that the intercepted Scuds caused more damage than those which were not intercepted due to the disintegration of warheads/body.Sid wrote:There was some discussion on BR or some other forum (i cant remember) about kill efficiency of such BMD systems. It was said that PAC system's main failure was its inability to destroy the warhead. Instead it used to deflect or damage the missile like something.
Does our BMD take a different path? Because if we intercept a BM over a city with 100kt power and fails to destroy the warhead, it wont make a difference as it will just fall to point B instead of A.
Is a fragmentation warhead enough to destroy a incoming BM's payload? Or we need something more to cripple/fry its electronics?
IMHO apart from TBM, only the warhead re-enters the earth atmosphere. The payload fairing is ejected while the missile is in space and then the warheads are ejected from the payload adapter, if it is MIRV warhead and if it is single warhead (in this case no warhead fairing) then the warhead itself is ejeted from missile body.Katare wrote:Without the protection of missile nose shield, wouldn't the war head would burn to ashes in atmosphere?
High explosives like TNT, RDX ect do not explode on contact with fire like low explosives like gun powder but they need shock for detonation. That's why a detonator (electrical/electronic trigger with low explosives) is used for IEDs containing high explosives. High explosives are very stable, insensitive to temperature and plastic when mixed with some binder like wax. Essentially the US scientists want to say that nuclear warheads will not explode accidentally (it may get damaged and become inoperative though) if caught in a fire because of safety measures and safe explosives. But it does't mean that an explosion from BMD attack will not take it apart and damage it to the extent that it will not explode.p_saggu wrote:This one question I have wanted to ask for sometime now.
We know that all P5 deploy nuclear warheads which deploy "safe" explosives, in addition to other measures which would make accidental detonation (and perhaps damage too) difficult. The US scientists have claimed that their nuclear weapons could survive a major fire and not go off because of those "safe"explosives.
Other than a direct hit on a warhead, or a very close explosion, is it not possible that a nuclear warhead may actually survive a BMD intervention?
Quick question guys if the HTK hits the MIRV in exo atmosphere then what would happen to the nuclear material???neerajbhandari wrote:High explosives like TNT, RDX ect do not explode on contact with fire like low explosives like gun powder but they need shock for detonation. That's why a detonator (electrical/electronic trigger with low explosives) is used for IEDs containing high explosives. High explosives are very stable, insensitive to temperature and plastic when mixed with some binder like wax. Essentially the US scientists want to say that nuclear warheads will not explode accidentally (it may get damaged and become inoperative though) if caught in a fire because of safety measures and safe explosives. But it does't mean that an explosion from BMD attack will not take it apart and damage it to the extent that it will not explode.p_saggu wrote:This one question I have wanted to ask for sometime now.
We know that all P5 deploy nuclear warheads which deploy "safe" explosives, in addition to other measures which would make accidental detonation (and perhaps damage too) difficult. The US scientists have claimed that their nuclear weapons could survive a major fire and not go off because of those "safe"explosives.
Other than a direct hit on a warhead, or a very close explosion, is it not possible that a nuclear warhead may actually survive a BMD intervention?
Cheers....
Thank you Arun sir, that clears pretty much all of my doubts on what would happen to the nuclear material in exo/endo atmospher.Arun_S wrote:Few observations and answer:
1. Un-exploded nuclear material is far less dangereous than the material after nuclear chain reaction has occured. {in the order of million times less radioactive}
2. Unexploded natural or enriched Uranium is the most harmless substance. The radioactiility is veru very low.
3. Un exploded weapon grade Pu is still quite harmless compared to the stew after chain reaction. Pu burns/oxidizes vigereously when exposed to air. Pu exposure requires effected population to use special salt in the cooking.
4. An ICBM RV that is disabled or destroyed in exo or upper atmosphere will largely vapourize into its oxide form, but substantial part will hit earth and shatter. The pit will IMHO almost certainly be vaporied because it is so small.
5. An IRBM/SRBM RV that is disabled or destroyed in exo or upper atmosphere or will be partly vapourizes into its oxide form, but more substantial part will hit earth and shatter. The pieces of fissile pit will reach earth surface.
6. An RV intercepted at low altitude (<30 km) will have larger chunks of fissile pit.
7. A SRBM RV at low altitude will have an almost intact pit hitting surface.
The death and damage due to worst possible contamination is many orders less v.s. if the RV had explode as intended.
Intercepted RV will require temporary relocation of population below, and immediate administration of salt that will prevent absorption of radioactive material into body (absorbed fissile materials salt tends to congregates in bones). Debris and top soil around it need to be recovered and stowed away. If one recalls after a nuclear explosion the most lethal radio activity is due to absorption of chain reaction byproducts and nuclear particle by the non-radio active materail of the bomb/RV. More than half fissile material (>80% for fission bomb and >55% of boosted fission bomb) of the bomb anyway does not participate in fission chain reaction and is wasted and dispersed with along with the newly created highly radioactive material.
Fissile material burnt high up in atmosphere will naturally disperse over a wide area and is effectively dust unto dust. Almost harmless, just slightly elevated Pu or U in the top soil.
So RV interception produces far fewer casualties (short/long term) and far less area is contaminated, after decontmination the land can be immediately put back to use for farming/living.
'Little boy' (U-235) which fell on Hiroshima only utilized 1% of it's fissile U-235 (64 Kg) and 'Fat Man' (Pu-239) which was used on Nagasaki fissioned 20% of total plutonium (6.2 Kg).Arun_S wrote:More than half fissile material (>80% for fission bomb and >55% of boosted fission bomb) of the bomb anyway does not participate in fission chain reaction and is wasted and dispersed with along with the newly created highly radioactive material.
HYDERABAD: Beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile Astra will be tested at the Integrated Test Range, Chandipur-on-sea, off the Orissa coast, on September 11.
Scientists of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) will conduct a ground-level flight test of the missile, which can intercept fast-moving targets at supersonic speeds (1.2 to 1.4 Mach).
This will be the first of four ground-level flight trials. The second is scheduled for September 13. The subsequent tests will be conducted in one-and-half to two months.
Astra Project Director S. Gollakota told The Hindu here on Monday that scientists would test the guidance, avionics and the functioning of the communication link between the mother aircraft and the missile. The communication link in Radio Frequency would be tested and validated.
The tests would be used to generate data relating to temperature, vibration, stress and strain levels experienced by the missile at different speeds and altitudes.
Second stage of tests
The four trials would be followed by captive flight tests early next year when the missile would be mated to the aircraft. Several manoeuvres at different speeds and altitudes would be conducted and the compatibility of electronics, avionics and other systems checked. After the captive flight tests, the missile would be integrated with the Sukhoi-30 and test-fired by the middle of next year.
That's the speed of the target.ranganathan wrote:How useful is a AAM with a ridiculous speed like mach 1.2-1.4??
its speed is >4 M.ranganathan wrote:How useful is a AAM with a ridiculous speed like mach 1.2-1.4??
Rahul M wrote:astra is not sarh. it uses an on board seeker.
1.2-1.4 covers almost all a/c including fighters and also UAVs and CMs. if they can improve to around 2 mach, that should do just fine.