Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Sep 2009 01:20

I would like closure on the radius of cavity of the POK I (from the Current Science paper: 30m) and S-I based on scaling using BARC statements on yields and compare to the radius of cavity measured (40+/- 4m) in the radio-chem paper.

the radius should be proportional to 1/3.4 as RC says.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Sep 2009 01:24

I still think it is valuable and I agreed to it being posted. If you want I will put that note on it.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 Sep 2009 01:25

What note ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Sep 2009 01:29

A note saying you psoted it on my asking.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 Sep 2009 01:30

Sure. Thank you and it is appreciated.

I must say, however, the conduct of a certain webmaster has left an exceedingly bitter taste in my mouth.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 25 Sep 2009 01:44

Sometimes like me N guru also gets carried away in (de) light hearted ways

Alls well that ends well. Its India that matters most.

Aiyyoo!!! All I meant was that the GOI has put solid concrete cover(up) on any data etc. that can shed any more light on the matter. No "triumphalism".

Because the S1 yield issue was resolved long-since (2 be precise, at the end of the Thread 1) by the Khetolai certainty. The yield was > or = max. expected yield. If the explosions had produced more yield, the damage at Khetolai would have been far beyond anything that responsible test planners would condone or contemplate. Q.E.D.

Any remaining "doubt" there is due to refusal to acknowledge simple common sense - no concern of mine.

This constraint probably limited the fusion yield to a very small value, too small for a fission portion of the size acknowledged by many here (~ 20-25KT). The GOI says that the radiology data shows that there WAS fusion. They also say there was enough to demonstrate that the science and engineering were in hand. They say that the precise breakdown between fission and fusion is not something that can be given out.

Given that they achieved the predicted yield or more, and given that they also conducted 4 other explosions varying from 10 - 20KT to sub-KT, this claim has plenty of credibility. However, it could have been fortuitous that they got good agreement, and there may be other things that occur in scale-up.

The issue then boils down to whether the Design Yield in POK-2 test series was large enough to allow extrapolation to 200kT. There I say that GOI has capped the well on that point effectively, no data being vented.

Note the reason given: everyone (but moi of course) seems to have missed the sweet irony in the elegant choice of words:

NON-PROLIFERATION CONCERNS.

IOW, "U GUYS". Same as what Dr. Santanam said in the original Informal Revelation in that conference.

Translation: India cannot sign CTBT because "U GUYS" published calculations claiming that Indian tests failed. And India is not going to release any data on why the test did NOT fail, because "U GUYS" made the Rules that prohibit everyone from revealing such data saying it would help Proliferation."

IOW,

to the NonProllotullahs.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Sep 2009 01:46

We all five have known each other since donkeys ears. No problems.

Thanks all. Can we move on to next hot button?

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 Sep 2009 01:52

Next hot button - serious EMP shielding did not start until 1994-95.

Prior to that, it means the Jaguars were really a last ditch platform. Cleared for but not optimised for nuclear weapons delivery.

Ramana, you might want to edit your post slightly. The only donkey's ears I know are on the Trinidadian Prime Minister (apologies to all donkeys).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Sep 2009 01:54

You didn't get the message from 'experts':
No nuke war expected.

-----------------------------

Donkey's ears are long so its euphemism for since a long time!!!

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 25 Sep 2009 01:57

Sanjay wrote:Next hot button - serious EMP shielding did not start until 1994-95.

Please elaborate

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 Sep 2009 02:04

Experts say one thing but there were other things going on.

There was the first phase of NBC prep in the Indian Army.

The 1980s and early-mid 1990s saw the purchase of up to 250,000 NBC respirators and a quantity of NBC suits and DRDO coming out with prototypes of the same. Total stock now is about 700,000. It was thought the S6 and S10s were out of service, but they've been seen around.

EMP hardening of certain air defence sites was done in the 1990s and of certain aircraft types to optimise them for an nuclear exchange.

Of course the NCP and secondary NCP and communications network for the forces are largely EMP shielded.

Sources will all be revealed at some point.

Interesting comment Ramana - in Trinidad we've corrupted it into Donkey's Years.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 25 Sep 2009 02:04

Ramana:
200 kt FBF design will not necessarily yield 100 kt if it fails, and there are many things that can go wrong. One could well get as low 10-20 kt (depending how much fissile material there is). So, setting up a 2-axis radiographic hydrodynamic facility (essentially 2 large and advanced Flash (or laser driven) X-ray cameras directed along 2 axes, to get a 3-D image of hydro-nuclear tests) is a top priority issue. This coupled with simulation increases the confidence levels in the FBF to at least ~ > 50 %. The remaining confidence gap in confidence levels can only be filled by actual tests. Similar facilities exists in Shanghai (ICF tests) and Chengdu.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 25 Sep 2009 02:08

narayanan wrote:
Note the reason given: everyone (but moi of course) seems to have missed the sweet irony in the elegant choice of words:
]NON-PROLIFERATION CONCERNS.

IOW, to the NonProllotullahs.

Sorry for OT, but going by their behaviour, "prollo" in NPA above ought to be "Prutta" (very apt Swedsih word for them)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Sep 2009 02:08

No-no. What is the feasibility of a 100kt FBF from scratch based on S-I primary? All evidence shows that one worked.
I agree 200kt might need proofing.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 Sep 2009 02:18

Ramana, many things can be done. I've had indications of up to 80kT being confidently feasible from the principles established in the S-1 primary design.

The question really is will the military accept it ? My sources indicate yes to the 80kt, but skeptical beyond it.

Mind you, the military has based calculations on things like this - only 6 in 10 missiles reach the target and 5 in 10 warheads explode.

If they are still thinking like that then who knows how they are prepared to gamble with weapons designs ? Perhaps take a chance with a few 200kT TN and 150kT FBF ? When you launch - do a mixed delivery - a FBF, a TN, with a few fission thrown in for safety per target. Heck, that's what I would do!. If they work, you've validated your FBF and TN. If not, target is severely damaged anyway.

The other thing is that the 200kt yield weapon needs to be hashed out. The press conference today was pretty clear in its statement:

"It has given us the capability to build deterrence based on both fission and thermonuclear weapon systems from modest to all the way up to 200 kilotons, and possibility of meeting all our security requirements,"

It doesn't say what has been done. For that we go all the way back to Vasundhara Raje.

This is just an opinion - not one completely baseless but still an opinion - the larger weapons exist. They have not been issued to the forces.

Arun - perhaps it's time to explain your views on the 700-1000kg Agni payloads ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Sep 2009 02:23

I understand the stats. They will need more of them thats all.

BTW the UN SC passed the universalization of NPT goal resolution and Indian diplomats already replied. The real reply is issuing the high value payloads.

One thing I dont understand is the passing of such resolutions and expecting multi-$B contracts from Indian military!

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 Sep 2009 02:28

Ramana, the thing is, India's missiles and warheads - barring the TN perhaps - are already more reliable than that.

It is a very conservative SFC mind that is at play - probably for the better.

As per the UNSC - Obama is playing to the gallery. India responded in as articulate a way as I have ever seen and note a subtle change:

"India cannot accept calls for universalisation of the NPT. As India's Prime Minister stated in Parliament on 29 July, 2009, there is no question of India joining the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state,"

Obama is running the US on games and soundbytes. Since his election he has achieved nothing tangible anywhere.

There is an addition to my quote from the press conference:
"The May 1998 tests were fully successful in terms of achieving their scientific objectives and the capability to build fission and thermonuclear weapons with yields upto 200 kt."

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 25 Sep 2009 02:37

ramana wrote:No-no. What is the feasibility of a 100kt FBF from scratch based on S-I primary? All evidence shows that one worked.
I agree 200kt might need proofing.

S1 primary was a "very simple" FBF config. It's doubtful if such a configuration would yield with some level of confidence more than 50 -60 kT. More likely, closer to 50 kT.

Scale-up to 100 kT and beyond with some level of confidence will require redesign with a 2-axis radiographic hydrodynamic facility to begin with.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 Sep 2009 02:39

Arun, I agree. But I've actually been checking around and let's just say I am no longer sure about Karnad being correct on India lacking such a facility.

That said, I am still checking.

Let there be no misunderstanding however, I have considerable regard for Bharat Karnad - and actually enjoy his books - I just know that mistakes and errors can be made.

And Arun - just because I may disagree with you don't take that to mean I lack appreciation or respect for the work you have done.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 25 Sep 2009 02:41

>>>there is no question of India joining the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state,"

Wah..mazaa aa gaya

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 25 Sep 2009 02:42

Sanjay wrote:Arun - perhaps it's time to explain your views on the 700-1000kg Agni payloads ?

IIRC I never stated that a pure fission 20-25 KT will weigh 700-1000 kgs. It would conservatively weigh in the range of about 225-250 Kgs. If they fine tune the design, they could even get it under 200 KG. But, if they did 4 years work in 24 years (1974-1998) and still failed in what was or should have been their primary task (S-1), then this weight reduction will take another 2-3 years, if not more.

-----------------------Added later --------------------------
You may recall some discussion many years ago where I referred to Agni being designed for a high yield FBF device because back in late 80's when AGni was being designed BARC was only confident of making a high yld device with that kind of mass. The reliability requirement from 1980's is very different from the SFC we have now, and the tough neighborhood has become tougher since then. Meaning a FBF designed in late 80's or 90's with certain confidence level, does not meet current requirement.

Unless there is evidence that India has 2-axis radiometric device in hand for many years, 700 kg FBF IMHO is no go. OTOH 700-1000 Kg payload is great to obfuscate missile range, as well as potential conventional use in sub-nuclear threshold scenario.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 Sep 2009 02:44

Yes - I know that. Never thought you ever said it. 225-250kg - I dig that and fully endorse that. So what the hell is Agni carrying ? One of Mayawati's elephants ? Shashi Tharoor's ego ?

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 25 Sep 2009 02:48

Sanjay wrote:Yes - I know that. Never thought you ever said it. 225-250kg - I dig that and fully endorse that. So what the hell is Agni carrying ? One of Mayawati's elephants ? Shashi Tharoor's ego ?

No, just a few pairs of Jayalalita's 2000 shoes, so we can show the Iraqi shoe bandit how it's done @ hypersonic speeds

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Sep 2009 02:48

Sanjay wrote:Yes - I know that. Never thought you ever said it. 225-250kg - I dig that and fully endorse that. So what the hell is Agni carrying ? One of Mayawati's elephants ? Shashi Tharoor's ego ?

Its called capability retention. If the vehicle is designed for heavy payload then it can certainly carry the lighter payloads and mean time people cant object to the vehicle characteristics na?

While at it ever heard of Durga?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 25 Sep 2009 02:50

Arun_S wrote: But, if they did 4 years work in 14 years (1974-1998)

That is BTW 24 years. If for 24 years they knew the goal was for a credible test so that it solid and uncontested then something is wrong.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 Sep 2009 02:54

Ramana, the missiles were never trialled to determine flight characteristics at 250-300kg payloads. Something big is being carried and that's what I want to find out.

Acharya, the weapons team was disbanded and reconstituted, shortages and facilities not being completed on time are also issues. Furthermore, I am fascinated by the press conference today and say that it cannot be ignored when dealing with S-1.

Great Devotee of Durga - very popular deity in Trinidad.

Talk aside - TN is a pretty good state compared to UP. I say that with pain coming from a village in the Fyzabad district.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 25 Sep 2009 03:00

Sanjay wrote:Ramana, the missiles were never trialled to determine flight characteristics at 250-300kg payloads.

What will be the test trajectory (flight characteristics) that you expected if payload was smaller?

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 25 Sep 2009 03:00

Sanjay wrote:Ramana, the missiles were never trialled to determine flight characteristics at 250-300kg payloads. Something big is being carried and that's what I want to find out..

hmmm....me too

Wouldn't a significantly lighter payload mean a longer range? (I know it's not that easy and simple...Arun please correct me)
Taking the A-II to A-III range and taking A-III to an almost ICBM range? Wouldn't this imply that A-5 would be ICMB range with our 20kT warhead? (of course I realize it wouldn't be cost effective to use such a small warhead on an ICBM)

Sanjay wrote: Acharya, the weapons team was disbanded and reconstituted, shortages and facilities not being completed on time are also issues. Furthermore, I am fascinated by the press conference today and say that it cannot be ignored when dealing with S-1.
.

Disbanded? why on earth would we do that?
and what specifically do you mean when you refer to the press conference?

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 Sep 2009 03:02

Not sure but I would have thought that you would inevitably get an enormous range increase and as such simulating the same would have required some serious trajectory depression. In addition, would the RV withstand the greater re-entry heat and speed ?

Raveen, the bomb team was disbanded in the late 1970s. As far as the press conference goes, this is the first point by point rebuttal done of any claims of S-1 failure.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Sep 2009 03:10

A few days ago I aid the 20kt warhead would imply more fleixibility. That is what I ment.

BTW the press conf confirmation of the range of technologies confirms most of Arun_S articles and papers. This shouldn't be lost sight of.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 25 Sep 2009 03:12

Sanjay wrote:Not sure but I would have thought that you would inevitably get an enormous range increase and as such simulating the same would have required some serious trajectory depression. In addition, would the RV withstand the greater re-entry heat and speed ?

Raveen, the bomb team was disbanded in the late 1970s. As far as the press conference goes, this is the first point by point rebuttal done of any claims of S-1 failure.

Sanjay, thank you from me and everyone else on BR who is reading this thread you have been a great source of knowledge, answers, information and in my case sleep (I had many a sleepless nights thinking about the lack of a viable detterent)

Do you know why did we disbanded the team?
Initial objectives met? or CIA pressure etc

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 Sep 2009 03:15

Ramana, you are absolutely correct regarding flexibility.

Still not sure what Agni -1 and Agni-2 are carrying. Possibly FBF ? Not impossible within say 500kg and the rest for decoys etc.

Here's what's bugging me - the 1999 test was done with a 1000kg payload (or warhead - not sure which) to 2300km.

The 2001 test was done with a 700kg payload (or warhead) to 2100km.

Why the reduction and what does this tell us about the Agni ?

Ramana, could you be more specific regarding your comment on the press conference ?

Raveen, I don't know why they disbanded the team.

I am glad you found what I wrote useful. That said, I am as prone to error as anyone else but I don't think I've made any massive ones this time.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 25 Sep 2009 03:23

Excellent Post Sanjay. The info in that post is more than anything we have heard in the last fifteen-twenty years!

Sridhar · Post by **Sridhar** » 25 Sep 2009 03:29

Raveen wrote:Do you know why did we disbanded the team?
Initial objectives met? or CIA pressure etc

The great effect of auto-uro therapy! Seriously, there has been only one PM in our history who actively tried to damage if not destroy the capabilities developed in the field. Fortunately, he did not last long and once Madam came back to power, things were put back on track.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Sep 2009 03:32

Sridhar wrote:
Raveen wrote:Do you know why did we disbanded the team?
Initial objectives met? or CIA pressure etc
The great effect of auto-urea therapy! Seriously, there has been only one PM in our history who actively tried to damage if not destroy the capabilities developed in the field. Fortunately, he did not last long and once Madam came back to power, things were put back on track.

Thats what it appears. However the refinements to the POKI device were made during his tenure. KRC says every PM contributed to the deterrent. As Sanjay says we dont know and may try to find out.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 25 Sep 2009 03:54

Sanjay wrote:Not sure but I would have thought that you would inevitably get an enormous range increase and as such simulating the same would have required some serious trajectory depression. In addition, would the RV withstand the greater re-entry heat and speed ?

Well that is the purpose of proving the RV. Depressed trajectory is the more difficult stress test on RV simulating compared to lofted. You might have seen that often the peak altitude and flight time does not jive with parabolic trajectory, strongly indicating RV kicking in at a different direction (away from minimum energy path) and there are not too difficult methods to get higher re-entry velocity for smaller payload, while fitting into the two publicly declared variables : Flight time and Apogee..

Only US (possible to some extent Russia too) can detect that from space born assets.

Sridhar · Post by **Sridhar** » 25 Sep 2009 04:10

ramana wrote:Thats what it appears. However the refinements to the POKI device were made during his tenure. KRC says every PM contributed to the deterrent. As Sanjay says we dont know and may try to find out.

I guess an official committee such as KRC had an incentive to steer clear of politics and the statement about the positive contribution of all PMs being largely true, it would not serve any purpose to single any one PM out. But, I don't dispute that there is often a difference between "maya" and reality and that might well have been the case in this PM's case. But the known fact is that at least some of the key personnel were moved out of the team, including notably Ramanna, who lost his position as BARC director. He was brought back only after the return of IG.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Sep 2009 04:12

I was looking for the quote from Sri R.N. Agarwal of RCI on the earliest designs for the REX and its evolution.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 25 Sep 2009 04:21

Sridhar wrote:
ramana wrote:Thats what it appears. However the refinements to the POKI device were made during his tenure. KRC says every PM contributed to the deterrent. As Sanjay says we dont know and may try to find out.
I guess an official committee such as KRC had an incentive to steer clear of politics and the statement about the positive contribution of all PMs being largely true, it would not serve any purpose to single any one PM out. But, I don't dispute that there is often a difference between "maya" and reality and that might well have been the case in this PM's case. But the known fact is that at least some of the key personnel were moved out of the team, including notably Ramanna, who lost his position as BARC director. He was brought back only after the return of IG.

Some people met one of the ex-Secretary of AEC. He recollected that there was deep rift between Ramanna and Sethna?. IG had to handle both of them and probably had to do what had to be done. Sethna is Gujarati/ Parsi and had good rapport with Desai.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 25 Sep 2009 06:16

Sanjay, Excellent summary.

RC and AK have given a point by point answer to the doubts.

Are there still doubts about the yields?