Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 2)

Kaushal · Post by **Kaushal** » 29 Jan 2002 06:57

mohan Because our scientists didn't have access to the classified info from the West's weapons program, and because the country absolutely had to have a nuclear deterrent, they were forced to "go back to basics" and develop everything from first principles. It must be remembered that in the initial years a lot of information (the principles of design) was available in the open literature. What was not available (and i suppose is still not available) is the result of the tests and the huge number crunching codes in a variety of interdisciplinary subjects including mechanics, wave phenomena etc. But indians have mastered such codes very early on and in fact is probably one of their strengths. This is one reason the Indians are more confident than most of us and the non-prol kibitzers, give them credit for. Indians are probably in the top 3 nations when it comes to computational mechanics and computational physics.Kaushal

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 29 Jan 2002 07:55

IMHO TIFR/BARC's excellence in abstract/fundamental science as well as applied sciences, that was instrumental in understanding and solving the complex high-energy physics involved in Thermo-Nuclear reaction. Use of high energy partical accelerator for basic sciences, supplimented the effort. All this required Indian investment in human resources in the form of extensive public education, instiutions, higher studies and mentoring & encouragement to young PG students. Not to mention hiring, motivating and supporting the scientists at TIFR/BARC and sister labs with people and projects to burn the fog of ignorance for the common good of Indian sciences and industry.OTOTH Gen Zia-ul-Haq was lamenting in 1982 of the lack of enough Phd's in TSP to give to Dr.Xerox Khan for running the copying machines stolen from European-URENCO( for Uranium enrichment). In the last 20 years TSP spent all its energies in sort term race to measure up against India, that it starved its future to death. The mulla's in madrasa's unfortunately sucked TSP back two generations, while India moved forward one generation.The situation is very similar to the USSR in its dying days. Sorry short sighted Pakistan for getting in the second Dog House. Mushy has the envious position to decide between accepting utter defeat and live for another battle after 3 generations, versus enter a suicidal war by pressing the Nuke botton, only to be wiped out of the face of existance what is left of Pakistan today. General Kargil-Climbdown, enjoy the stew you are boiling in

.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 29 Jan 2002 10:50

Re arunIIRC there were reference to IR and radar terminal guidance in re entry vehicles. So would it not take some weight also?Let me put it another way – what are the various components that you think constitute the payload and what are there weights?Let us see – some of the things can be as follows:-1. Carbon shield, fuel and motors of the last stage/attitude correction device ( or whatever )2. Computers, power source, INS, (altitude and speed sensors?)3. Datalinks, ECM/ECCM/EW, chaff?4. Nuclear device, shield, locks, fuzing, arming, safing systems5. Star sights, IR, radars (differential GPS?)6. Are there are speed retarding devices to slow down the reentry speed to allow better working of the terminal sensors, fins?, blow off panels to expose the sensors after protecting them from the heat? etcSometime back you made a reference to weights of various nuke devices, can you put the time periods of deployment of these devices so one guess which missile is for which device
Also for fissile jacket, one needs a lot of fission material and India may not have that much fissile material and whatever India has may be put to better use making primaries.Would not it be better to go in for something like 100kt (clean) thermo nuke and if required use it to explode very low, to limit spread and to take out shallow underground shelters?Also a 100kt cleaner device will weight less and probably can be used for cruise missiles also – like klub or Indian version of long range cruise missile.Also arun, are you sure about French (incompetence) as with a very mature civilian programme they cannot be making such mistakes or can they be?
does india have adequate programmes to produce enriched lithium and deutrium in qunatities?Further unlike Pak making a lot of noise about tests of warheads without fissile material, one hardly hears anything corressponding in India - after all there are other components of the bomb that require testing?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 29 Jan 2002 17:48

Raj: I have no detailed information on RV & nukes, and I belive for good reason India is protecting that very sensitive information. One can dabble in idle speculation, but that is what it would be, speculation, and it would be differrent for for every individual, even depending on the mood of the moment. Frankly who knows? After all it us very useful to confuse your potential adversary. Depending on knowledge & experinece on the technology an evaluator can destinguish between disinformation and a scoop

No prize to figure out why India is calling Paki nuclear bluff now ?

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 29 Jan 2002 17:57

Hi arunapart from specific info - the idea was that you have to put in some weight for the various items which i mentioned and this means that RV payload will have to be more than the weight of only the nuke.IIRC did not the US use oralloy which is enriched uranium for the jacket? No prize to figure out why India is calling Paki nuclear bluff now ? So are you also from the school of thought that thinks that pak nuke capcity is very limited

never got your opinions on the relevant thread of pak nuke capacity (IIRC)

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 29 Jan 2002 18:06

Aside I think as India did not test a boosted fission device seperately, it can mean that India used the device as the primary in the thermonuclear test. It would mean that India has a 12 kt fission device, 15kt boosted fission device and the Thermonuclear device.My reference to clean device meant that without the jacket, it would be much cleaner. It would also mean that we can use a heavier yield device over Pak.Further without the jacket the device would be lighter, will have smaller volume also.Also the indication towards 15kt boosted device means that BARC may be looking at lighter devices.IIRC even US/USSR went in for 100kt devices for cruise missiles.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 29 Jan 2002 18:08

BTW I noticed that FAS has updated their web page for Indian present capabilities, bringing it more in line with what we haev been saying is the real capability of India.
India's Nuclear Weapons Program: Present Capabilities: Last changed 5 April 2001It reflects both the Missiles & nuclaer weapons. Note the weapon types: <blockquote>quote:<hr> The types of weapons India is believed to have available for its arsenal include: 1. a pure fission plutonium bomb with a yield of 12 kt;
2. a fusion boosted fission bomb with a yield of 15-20 kt, made with weapon-grade ploutonium;
3. a fusion boosted fission bomb design, made with reactor-grade plutonium;
4. low yield pure fission plutonium bomb designs with yields from 0.1 kt to 1 kt;
5. a thermonuclear bomb design with a yield of 200-300 kt. <hr></blockquote>And Agni-2 Range 2500 - 3000 km with 1000Kg payload.ON Agni-III
<blockquote>quote:<hr> A follow on version to the Agni-II, to be called Agni-III, with a range of 3500 to 5000 km and a 1000 kg payload, is under development. This is expected to be the final variant in the Agni family. According to DRDO sources two approaches are under consideration - an enlarged solid fuel first stage with a 1.8 meter diameter and 36 tonnes of propellant, or an added third stage to the existing Agni-II. <hr></blockquote>BTW, my ballistic simulator clearly indicates that the second option is invalid.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 29 Jan 2002 18:12

Also notice the other updated FAS pages, with extensive quotes from BR-Forum member Dr Sanjay Badri Maharaj:India's Nuclear Weapons Program: India As A Nuclear Power: 1998-2001: Last changed 30 March 2001In fact I notice the whole section has been updated:
India's Nuclear Weapons Program

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 29 Jan 2002 18:23

Hi Raj: Did'nt want to hijack this Missile thread into Nuclear discussion thread. But here is my brief response. <blockquote>quote:<hr> My reference to clean device meant that without the jacket, it would be much cleaner. It would also mean that we can use a heavier yield device over Pak.
<hr></blockquote>TN device always requires a thick jacket for X-ray containment/redirection to the secondary stage. So the weight penalty is there irrespective of using third (fission)stage or not.For the Boosted fission in SHAKTI pls see the BR-Archive & the updated FAS link above. It is a 20Kt weapon.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 29 Jan 2002 18:26

Arun again off line here but I wanted to ask another question.Your fantastic simulations of the Agni parameters show that the ranges are greater than claimed by GOI.What is your take on the range of Prithvi (liquid fueled? Is it more than generally believed?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 29 Jan 2002 18:57

Prithvi was a proving ground for DRDO and they built a cheap reliable missile using the SAM-2 engine. Thus the missile is cheap & proven but the ISP is low and the mass-fraction is on the low end. Thus I belive the GOI stated range, though there may be an element of suprise for the adversary in terms of range or payload.

Also its cheap enough to be a mass produced conventional warhead weapon to decimate enemy troop buidup before it launchs attack.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 29 Jan 2002 19:00

Re arun Coming back to the Agni series. Now would this mean that Dhanush which we all thought was Agni2/stage2 is something else or it means that DRDO is using both the stages for shorter range variants?Would it be correct to assume that GOI is using simpler Agni-x against Pakistan rather than tasking Agni –2 from south India for safety and simplicity?With respects, even 36 tones looks rather big now. What about using the same tech and 1.8 dia to give a 24+12+2 (RV) missile called Agni-3? Would you be kind enough to calculate - if we are using a missile with 1.8 meters dia (with the characteristics of 36 ton missile) than how can we divide the stages to remain within around 10m and still get 5000km range. One configuration off course I have offered (your reference to FAS mistake – well this proves the point that they can’t even read the BRF properly

)Aside – a quote from FAS – This unsafeguarded quantity could be used to manufacture roughly 1000 nuclear weapons, if India so chose (which would give it the third largest arsenal in the world, behind only the U.S. and Russia).

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 29 Jan 2002 20:17

Will respond later in the day. During the time pls check the BR archive since I addressed this question an year ago.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 29 Jan 2002 20:45

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Arun_S:
Will respond later in the day. During the time pls check the BR archive since I addressed this question an year ago.<hr></blockquote>Will do that.IIRC you had worked on various configerations by uisng 36 tons stage. I will check and try to find out if you used smaller weight (1.8m dia) stages also.thanx in adv

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jan 2002 21:03

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jan 2002 21:46

A collection of articles on Agni test
1) SAAG - FIRE BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN:2) IDC - INDIA’S SECOND STRIKE NUCLEAR SECRET IN THE OPEN3) IDC meadi watch column- MEDIA Watch –– 29 January 2002Has details of which services and costs of the new vehicle.

RanjanRoy · Post by **RanjanRoy** » 29 Jan 2002 23:20

Penstion not reported in Defence Budget ! Now this is news to me.IDC: WHAT'S HOT? ANALYSIS OF RECENT HAPPENINGS <blockquote>quote:<hr> But the arms race is on and IDC sees a bigger than last years $13.6 b defence budget, but as we analysed and got confirmations our Defence Budget is actually bigger. The para military costs of Assam Rifles and such , pensions, atomic energy inputs and ATV budgets are not in the ambit of the Defence budgets. <hr></blockquote>

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 30 Jan 2002 09:31

Raj: Here U go.Disclaimer: Following configurations of long range missile, fly in significantly reduced effective gravity and thus much of the actual performance depend on the performance of last stage as well as the PBV & RV deadweight which is subjectively dependent on the technological excellence of the manufacturer. The following are merely possible performance under assumed conditions.
A hypothetical 2.5 stage missile with 1.8 meter diameter with first stage of 24 ton (7m long) and second stage of 12 ton (3.5m long), followed by a PBV of 2 Ton (approx. 1.5 meter long ) with a RV of 1250Kg (including 1000Kg payload) will go 6725 Km :Payload = 1,250.0 Kg, Number of Stages = 3, Simulation Time Granularity = 0.500 Second
Launch Direction = 45 degrees-North, Launch Latitude = 45 degreesSegment-Name ISP(Vac) ISP(SL) Stage-Mass Fuel-Fract Burn-Time Thrust-Direction
Stage1 264.0 237.0, 24,000.0 0.86 073.0 Sec 45.0 Degree
Stage2 264.0 237.0, 12,000.0 0.87 050.0 Sec 45.0 Degree
PostBoostVeh. 291.0 237.0, 02,000.0 0.90 099.0 Sec 40.0 Degree Range: 6,725 Km
================================================================
The same missile with 750Kg payload (i.e. RV net weight of 1000kg) yields:Payload = 1,000.0 Kg, Number of Stages = 3, Simulation Time Granularity = 0.500 Second
Launch Direction = 45 degrees-North, Launch Latitude = 45 degreesSegment-Name ISP(Vac) ISP(SL) Stage-Mass Fuel-Fract Burn-Time Thrust-Direction
Stage1 264.0 237.0, 24,000.0 0.86 073.0 Sec 45.0 Degree
Stage2 264.0 237.0, 12,000.0 0.87 050.0 Sec 45.0 Degree
PostBoostVehicil 291.0 237.0, 02,000.0 0.90 099.0 Sec 40.0 Degree Range: 8,086 Km.
================================================================
OTOH missile confign without PBV & 1000Kg payload (i.e. RV net weight of 1250kg) yields:Payload = 1,250.0 Kg, Number of Stages = 2, Simulation Time Granularity = 0.500 Second
Launch Direction = 45 degrees-North, Launch Latitude = 45.00 degreesSegment-Name ISP(Vac) ISP(SL) Stage-Mass Fuel-Fract Burn-Time Thrust-Direction
Stage1 264.0 237.0, 24,000.0 0.86 073.0 Sec 45.0 Degree
Stage2 264.0 237.0, 12,000.0 0.87 050.0 Sec 45.0 Degree Range: 4,117 Km
================================================================
And a 3.5 Stage (the third stage of 5 Ton and ~1.5 meter long) with 1000Kg payload (i.e. RV net weight of 1250kg) configuration could yield: { notice the 800Kg PBV stage assumption, as against 2000Kg in earlier confign}Payload = 1,250.0 Kg, Number of Stages = 4, Simulation Time Granularity = 0.500 Second
Launch Direction = 45 degrees-North, Launch Latitude = 45.00 degreesSegment-Name ISP(Vac) ISP(SL) Stage-Mass Fuel-Fract Burn-Time Thrust-Direction
Stage1 264.0 237.0, 24,000.0 0.86 073.0 Sec 45.0 Degree
Stage2 264.0 237.0, 12,000.0 0.87 050.0 Sec 45.0 Degree
Stage3 264.0 237.0, 05,000.0 0.87 040.0 Sec 40.0 Degree
PostBoostVehicil 291.0 200.0, 00,800.0 0.86 120.0 Sec 40.0 Degree Range: 7,160 Km
================================================================
The same confign with 500Kg payload (i.e. RV net weight of 750kg) yields:Payload = 750.0 Kg, Number of Stages = 4, Simulation Time Granularity = 0.500 Second
Launch Direction = 45 degrees-North, Launch Latitude = 45.00 degreesSegment-Name ISP(Vac) ISP(SL) Stage-Mass Fuel-Fract Burn-Time Thrust-Direction
Stage1 264.0 237.0, 24,000.0 0.86 073.0 Sec 45.0 Degree
Stage2 264.0 237.0, 12,000.0 0.87 050.0 Sec 40.0 Degree
Stage3 264.0 237.0, 05,000.0 0.87 040.0 Sec 35.0 Degree
PostBoostVehicil 291.0 200.0, 00,800.0 0.86 120.0 Sec 35.0 Degree Range: 11,900 Km

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jan 2002 12:41

<blockquote>quote:<hr> http://www.indiadefence.com/2strike.htmIndia embarked on the 150 km Prithvi missile development programme in 1983. The rich experience of the Navy in the 1971 war in the maintenance of Styx liquid fuelled missiles was studied by DRDO. ISRO was working with solid fuel at that time which is more reliable and ISRO?s know how came to DRDO through Dr APJ Abdul Kalam who fathered the Prithvi and the AGNI. The Armed Forces supported solid fuel missiles for the future as handling liquid fuel is not conducive in the field but DRDO did not know what to do with the many scientists working at the DRDL liquid fuel laboratory at Hyderabad. Their lobby tilted the decision and the Prihvi short-range liquid missile was progressed for the Indian Army and one missile group has been deployed.K Santanam a former RAW nuclear specialist who spent decades as Technical Adviser in DRDO has now clarified that the Prithvi was never intended for nuclear warheads under normal circumstances. The IAF realised this and have resisted accepting the longer range 250 km Prihvi offered to it, while the Navy has successfully tried out a launch from an off shore patrol vessel with the help of DRDO and Larsen and Tubro, who over came the stabilsation problems at sea.
<hr></blockquote>Some interesting implications of this.a)Following Prithvis around will not be indicative of an impending nuclear attack, and hitting Prithvis will not assure against retaliation.b)Attack by Prithvis will no longer indicate a nuclear attack. The Pakistani leader who assumes that a Prithvi launch means nukes are coming will be setting the stage for a massive retaliation if he misreads a conventional Prithvi attack and responds with a nuke strike.If people feel that a conventionally armed Prithvi is a useless weapon. I welcome the statement, because there is nothing to fear is there? It is, after all, a useless weapon. If it is expensive to launch a conventional warhead with a Prithvi - why worry - let the loser Indians worry about these costs.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 30 Jan 2002 13:03

Arun as usual-terific info!If I may say (without putting my foot in my mouth) this configeration(s) will put the performance near Chinese DF-31. Supposedly they are still struggling with it.
Also as the mass fraction of the fuel in the stage improves (with the use of tech developments of PSLV-stage 3) then the missile will continue to become lighter.So agni-3 may resemble something like DF-31 with the agni-4 on the principle of kryler and midgetman.I personally think that the missile programme of (SS missiles) is a good example that good infrastructure built over time can deliver results. As it is easy to see that even further developments will based on tech which is already mastered.A very good example of doing things within capabilties (rather than brouchure mentality of some service segments that base specifications on the latest protypes of western forces).

ehsmang · Post by **ehsmang** » 30 Jan 2002 14:10

what would be the approx cost of each of these missiles when in production??

Vick · Post by **Vick** » 30 Jan 2002 16:58

Arun, does your simulator take into account the changes/advances in the fuel? ie better mass fracctions? I was browsing the DRDO site and came upon a few book written by DRDO scientists regarding the missle program and one clearly stuck out. There is a book that deals with rocket propellants that came out in 1999 and I was wondering if you had taken a decko at that? It would seem to me that the book will have info regarding Indian rocket fuel capabilities. Either way, might be a good way to check out what's going on in this field by DRDO.

krsai · Post by **krsai** » 30 Jan 2002 19:28

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ehsmang:
what would be the approx cost of each of these missiles when in production??<hr></blockquote>I think we will only know after our mission to moon becomes a success.

Vanahan · Post by **Vanahan** » 30 Jan 2002 19:28

Why stop at 1.8 m diameter... Something in the range of > 2.1m would be better to shorten missile lengths even more. The ideal scenario would be to develop a family of SRBMs, IRBMs, SLBMs, and ICBMs with one to four stages respectively, all of which based on one such common core motor system. Such a system based on commonality of missile/fuel/weapon system components could prove to be most economical and efficient. This is the route to take meet our long-term tactical and strategic missile requirements. However, it will require considerable political vision on the part of our leadership and substantial technical leadership from DRDO and participating industry to eradicate bureacracy and expedite research, development, manufacturing phases. The main goal will be to attain strategic and technical partity with the big five powers and sidetrack regional players such as Pakistan. It is to be noted that the Chinese DF-31 ICBM, DF-41 ICBM and JL-2 SLBM are all based on such a concept.

krsai · Post by **krsai** » 30 Jan 2002 20:11

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 30 Jan 2002 21:16

OK enough of the mesmerizing high/joyride let's get back to reality. Guys, did you forget that these are HYPOTHETICAL configurations, with lots of assumptions? I ask your caution to NOT jump to wrong conclusions/track

For all I can see the Agni-III will be ~4500Km range missile. The longer range possibility IS ONLY POSSIBLE with lots of IF's:1. someone puts in money, effort and find scarce talent to spend time on Hi-tech low weight gizmos. These are no easy push-over technological & industrial obstacles.2. If there is a compelling need and priority for such a major effort.3. If one is willing to and has time to prove out new RV & upper stage.With current proven sub-systems IMHO one can only look forward to a ~4,500Km missile.Vick: Pls share some more details via BRF private message.

Kaushal · Post by **Kaushal** » 30 Jan 2002 21:27

Why stop at 1.8 m diameterIIRC, this limitation has something to do with the requirement of rail mobility. There are a lot of tunnels on Indian railways and not all of them are very wide and will only allow standard wagons to get through. Of course if the infrastructure is improved , this may not be an issue,Kaushal

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Jan 2002 00:02

I dont know your background nor antecedents. I submit that the Second strike posture comes from the DND doctrine. Agni and all provide teeth to the doctrine. There is no spin involved. Please dont make wild claims on this forum.
ramana/Admin hat on.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Jan 2002 00:12

Shiv in your line of thought. The CCS has cleared the deployment of Prithvi and is under chief of staff. This is in response to the possibility of the RATS firing convnetional Hatf etc.Pioneer report:Army chief to clear Prithvi deployment
----------------------
Brahmastra as last resort: Army chief to clear Prithvi deployment
Rahul Datta/New Delhi The Union Government, faced with the possibility of a war with Pakistan, has directed the Services to use Prithvi missile as "a last resort under utmost restraint". This significant order, in the backdrop of the military build-up on the Indo-Pakistan border, came late last week after the Chiefs of Staff Committee sought clear directions from the Government to meet the threat of battle-field ballistic missiles of Pakistan, sources said here on Wednesday. Following the clear-cut guidelines from the Government, the Army has directed the artillery, the main user of Prithvi missile, that use of such missile will be controlled and sanctioned by the Army Chief. The Chiefs of Staff Committee last week had sought directions from the Government for the use of Prithvi missile in the eventuality of Pakistan using its short-range battle field ballistic missiles Hatf-I, II and III.

The operational commanders also briefed the Government on three other important factors. They included the reaction of international community, enemy's reaction and steps to be taken if enemy pre-empts and launches its missiles, sources said. The Government, after studying all the implications, ordered the Services to use Prithvi only as a last resort and only if Pakistan launches its Chinese made Hatf missiles. Incidentally, Prithvi and Hatf missiles have a range of 150 to 200 kms. The Government also ordered that Prithvi missiles will only carry conventional warheads, sources said.The Chiefs of Staff Committee also urged the Government to have a dialogue with Pakistan, if and when it takes place, in two phases regarding battle-field ballistic missiles. Favouring a battle-field missile regime between the two countries, the committee suggested a composite dialogue at the diplomatic and political level. It should be followed by an interaction between the armed forces of the two countries at the technological and military level, sources said. The two countries have an agreement not to target each other's nuclear facilities and assets besides India's declared policy of no first use of nuclear weapons.
-----------------------------
So bottom line the Prithvi is being cleared for conventional role. If TSP mistakes a Prithvi strike for any thing else its escalation of first order. TSP now cannot launch on warning as Naiazi and other hotheads were warning. So kind of defacto NFU. Also not the COS wants a dialogue on BM regime. I had suggested this two years ago on similar logic.

RanjanRoy · Post by **RanjanRoy** » 31 Jan 2002 00:26

<blockquote>quote:<hr>The Government, after studying all the implications, ordered the Services to use Prithvi only as a last resort and only if Pakistan launches its Chinese made <hr></blockquote>Now does one read those condictions as an "OR logic" or an "AND logic" ? My undertsanding is that it is "OR logic". The DDM news reporters have this basic responsility to at least get the facts straight from source (and if required ask clarifications)and report them straight. :p

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 31 Jan 2002 00:29

What if some time late in Feb /March Uncle winks to Mushy and thereby allows him to launch a barrage of SSM attack and do a land grab and by the time we absorb the surprise and start to to retalliate , Uncle steps in say Ok stop it boys time out and time to settle the Kashmir issue and starts directly medling in the affairs of India??The authorization of the use of Prithvi in this regard is significant, if and ever a battle erupts
the party first to grab as much a chunk of Land has the advantage, IA under any circumstances should not allow any large scale thrust into Indian territory.Will TS Pakis launch a barrage of SSM as prelude to attacks or will it be a combo of artilary and SSM barrage, before the armored cols move?? Since PAF will be mostly defending assets or doing CAP??

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Jan 2002 00:37

Umrao jaan, The arming of Prithvi takes the wind out of the premeptive strike methodology of TSP. It means the MND is on Agni series only. So no one can claim mistake boss! I was always wondering how they will square the circle of Prithivi and the MND. Guess by moving it out to the A series. BTW am rereading the Santhanam article for am seeing more in it than a first cut gives. Give me a couple of days.

subbu · Post by **subbu** » 31 Jan 2002 01:54

if a Agni or Prithvi is launched, all that pakistan sees is a streaking blob/a radar blimp, how do they distinguish that its Prithvi and not Agni, nobody can judge the missile based on the political mood of the countryone supplies the radar signature to the enemy as part of the submitted nuclear policy?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Jan 2002 02:10

The Prithvi has larger signature as it does not separte from the vehicle. Kapich!

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 31 Jan 2002 02:14

Put a VHF transponder / Telemetry on Prithvi, with the song playing for Pakis to Die Shaking/Dancing."Tweedle dee tweedle Dum, here I come" (hit of the 1970 pop group "Rare Earth" ---> "Anokha Prithvi"

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 31 Jan 2002 02:17

I read someplace (FAS ?) that the Prithvi is coated with radar-absorbent material. Is this true ? And if so does it in anyway affect the radar-signature vis-a-vis Agni ?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 31 Jan 2002 02:24

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by pchupunkar:
Only ATV based SLBM's provide the secondary strike capability.
...
Ideally: I would like complete / total global nuclear disarmament; not likely for another 50 years.<hr></blockquote>Actually a small road/rail mobile missile provides excellent second strike capability. They are hard to locate and strike. While sub based missiles are more survivable, one does not put all eggs in one basket. Witness the Russian Topol-M road mobile ICBM.As for disarmament, not even in 500 years.
In 1139, Pope Innocent II banned the crossbow, a device considered the ultimate inhumane and terrible weapon.
Disarmament didn't work in the 12th century and it doesn't work in the 21st.

RanjanRoy · Post by **RanjanRoy** » 31 Jan 2002 02:27

<blockquote>quote:<hr>if a Agni or Prithvi is launched, all that pakistan sees is a streaking blob/a radar blimp, how do they distinguish that its Prithvi and not Agni, nobody can judge the missile based on the political mood of the country <hr></blockquote>These missiles have very small radar signature, and TSP does not have very powerful radar to see them any farther then IMHO ~100Km, much less determinde the 3D position of missile to figure out the trajectory and distinguish Prithvi-from Agni. One needs a Green-Pine type of system to detect and analyze missile signature from such small target at long range (~900Km). It matter little (if any) to a BAKRA (goat) if the butcher will HALAL or HARAM it.

RanjanRoy · Post by **RanjanRoy** » 31 Jan 2002 02:33

Isn't it similar to trying to mount Arian booster to replace Shuttle SRB ?Seriously it called developing a new missile. In reality called Dhanush which I think is based on second stage of Agni-2.

subbu · Post by **subbu** » 31 Jan 2002 02:36

but an agni in the boost phase or the 'cruise' phase might have similar size/signature when enetring pakistan's radar reach, will they wait to ascertain?for their own good, they have to because we have second strike capability??isn't it a too flimsy to distinguish between a conventional and a nuclear missile just by signature and at the next level if it is only the warheads, like in the case of a 'dual' use Agni, How do you expect pakistan to respond?