Agni test of 09 January 2003

Raj Singh
BRFite
Posts: 101
Joined: 23 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Raj Singh » 10 Jan 2003 23:30

Sai NT

If USA says, agni-1 test is a big concern for them because it would increase tension. Why can't they say the same thing before.
There was a reason for my highlighting the word 'publicily'.

If USA says, agni-1 test is a big concern for them because it would increase tension. Why can't they say the same thing before. all they need is just put a "if" condition, "if you test, then we are concerned". That way, ddm can preempt paki mutterings and its unnecessary disturbances [media reactions].
Keep in mind that there is a reaction in public, and in pvt. In private, US may have expressed concern or would have gone along with India but had also told to India, what US's public reaction would be. So what you/I/us are seeing is the reaction in public.

If US was very concerned, it would have put pressure on India, in pvt and would have tried to stop India from going ahead with the test. As US has done in some cases, in the past. On the other hand, India would have politely but firmly told US, your concern is duly noted (in private of course) but ......

when india announces a series of tests, there should have been analysis and interviews by media folks with the noise makers.
I do not know at whom/where is this directed at.

saint
BRFite
Posts: 109
Joined: 19 Jun 2002 11:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby saint » 10 Jan 2003 23:39

raj singh,

good. If true, then it answers all the posts and highlights about USA, UK and other nations being concerned [posters].

regarding pre-emptive media management- I am directing at "spin doctors", GoI and ddm.

thanks for the answer.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Arun_S » 10 Jan 2003 23:57

Originally posted by Sanjay:
Arun_S,
I think you are right about Agni-3.
Do you have any problems with these estimates for Agni-2:

3000km range with 1000kg payload
4000km range with 500kg payload..
By my rakoning these statements are correct. Although the latter is very much on the conservative side.

BTW are you now able to use the RockSIM that I sent?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20712
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Philip » 11 Jan 2003 00:38

It looks as if a MIRV variant of Agni-1 will be tested,along with different payload/range versions.If a MIRV variant is developed,it will be particularly useful in the context of strikes against paki targets,many of which are in close proximity to each other and where one missile can do the job instead of three.This "value addition" to Agni-1 will release other short range missiles such as Prithvi for other dedicated targets,using conventional warheads.

Raj Singh
BRFite
Posts: 101
Joined: 23 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Raj Singh » 11 Jan 2003 00:56

Sai NT

If true,
If that is not the case, one would have heard/seen/read at least some outcry in US's public reaction if not complete castigation. By any yardstick, reaction in public is mild. That should say something.

Btw, Pakistan too was informed in advance, in all probability, as a matter of routine.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby ramana » 11 Jan 2003 01:29

Philip, A-I might not be MIRVed. This is due to the slim pencil thin vehicle structure. It will end up with bulbous nose. NG aerodynamically. Dont know about A-III.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3429
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby fanne » 11 Jan 2003 01:48

Why all the elements of the MIRV have to be in the same horizontal plane. Cannot they be stacked vertically, i.e. One above the other?

rgds,
fanne

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby NRao » 11 Jan 2003 01:53

Originally posted by philip fowler:
It looks as if a MIRV variant of Agni-1 will be tested,along with different payload/range versions.If a MIRV variant is developed,it will be particularly useful in the context of strikes against paki targets,many of which are in close proximity to each other and where one missile can do the job instead of three.This "value addition" to Agni-1 will release other short range missiles such as Prithvi for other dedicated targets,using conventional warheads.
MIRV would be constraint by the size of the nukes India is able to field. Open source seems to indicate India has it down to about 500Kgs. Since the capacity of Agni-I is around 1000Kgs, at most it will be able to carry 2 nukes. Any credible numerical increment on MIRVization would greatly depend on the ability to miniaturize the nukes - nukelets.

Umrao
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 30 May 2001 11:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Umrao » 11 Jan 2003 01:54

the difference between vertical and horizontal is
sequential and simultaneous.

Horizontal stacking allows (rotary) indexing vertical does not.

vertical restricts you to LIFO or FIFO only.

I am assuming the flower pots (using kalam saars anaolgy) do not have active thrust generators except for micro course corrections.

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Sanjay » 11 Jan 2003 19:11

Arun_S, still having some problems. Will e-mail in a few days on it.

I am trying to be conservative. The last thing I want is to be overly optimistic about Agni-2 capabilities !

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2737
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby JTull » 11 Jan 2003 20:42

India developing Agni-III missile: Rediff
India developing Agni-III missile: TOI
India to test-fire Agni-III missile before year-end: HT

On my wish list would be to first modify Agni-II to a shorter-wider solid fueled version which would be easier to transport/camouflage and could be ported to submarines. We need that heavy lift long-range underwater ballistic missile capability. Klubs and Brahmos are not enough.

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Rudra » 11 Jan 2003 23:39

3000km is still not enough to reach Beijing from Tamil Nadu. I guess 6000 km should be the goal - brings japan into our 'peace and friendship' embrace.
something to wave at UK is in order too.

Sridhar
BRFite
Posts: 838
Joined: 01 Jan 2001 12:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Sridhar » 12 Jan 2003 00:02

GD:

Aatre has just said that the range is <B>more than 3000kms</B>. He has not given the upper limit. My guess is that nobody will give this upper limit, at least till the test, considering the potential diplomatic issues involved.

The true capabilities of the missile would become clear once we know its configuration. There is certain to be an understatement of the official range of the missile even when it is announced.

Arun A
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 13 Jul 2001 11:31
Location: Fairfax, VA, USA
Contact:

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Arun A » 12 Jan 2003 00:14

Originally posted by Rudra Singha:
3000km is still not enough to reach Beijing from Tamil Nadu. I guess 6000 km should be the goal - brings japan into our 'peace and friendship' embrace.
something to wave at UK is in order too.
GD. Japan may be closer to the Indian embrace than you think. This is from the Business Week(subscription section). While i dont think they will actually build nukes(the nonproliferation jihad in the SD wont let them), they might be more open to India's position.

Why Japan Just Might Build Nukes

Why Japan Just Might Build Nukes


Ask young South Koreans if they're concerned about North Korea's nuclear ambitions, and chances are the conversation will soon turn to a popular novel, The Rose of Sharon has Blossomed. It tells the story of a South Korean scientist who clandestinely helps the North develop a nuclear bomb. Later, North and South Korea join forces to destroy the aggressor threatening their peninsula: Japan.

No wonder, then, that Tokyo is worried about North Korea's nukes. If Pyongyang were to launch a nuclear warhead, a likely target would be Japan, still despised for its brutal rule on the Korean peninsula in the 20th century's first half. "North Korea now regards Japan as its biggest regional threat and the country most likely to go nuclear in the future," says Takashi Hirose, an expert on Japanese nuclear issues.

That has policymakers in Tokyo and beyond considering the once-unthinkable prospect of a nuclear-armed Japan. The U.S. "should remove [its] objections to Japan developing nuclear weapons," said Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Jan. 5. The following day, the Cato Institute, the conservative think tank, recommended that the U.S. reduce its military forces in South Korea and Japan and give both countries a nuclear green light. Even in Japan, some senior politicians have broken a long-standing taboo by discussing the possibility of a nuclear buildup. Yasuo Fukuda, the chief Cabinet Secretary, last June confided to Japanese reporters that "depending on the world situation, circumstances and public opinion could require Japan to possess nuclear weapons." Shinzo Abe, the Deputy Cabinet Secretary, said later that it would be acceptable for Japan to develop small, strategic nuclear weapons.

Granted, there are big legal, cultural, and political barriers to a nuclear Japan. The memory of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remains burned into the national psyche, and historically some 80% of Japanese are opposed. Furthermore, Japan would have to amend its constitution, which bans nuclear arms. "U.S. policymakers talk about getting Japan to make nuclear weapons, but it will never happen," insists former diplomat Satoshi Morimoto, now a Takushoku University security expert.

If Japan could get beyond the hurdles, it likely wouldn't need long to develop a bomb. It has five tons of plutonium stored in the nuclear research center of Tokai-mura, north of Tokyo, and its scientists know how to convert it to weapons-grade material. Hideyuki Ban, director of the nonprofit Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, says Japan could build a nuclear bomb within months. And its civilian rocket and satellite launching system could easily be converted to military use. Japan also has superbly equipped land, sea, and air forces that could deliver medium-range nukes to North Korea.

But if Japan decides to build its own nukes, get ready for an Asian arms race. China would likely want to boost its arsenal, which would prompt India to develop more nuclear weapons, which would spur Pakistan to do the same--and on and on into an ever more perilous future.

By Irene M. Kunii in Tokyo

Prateek
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Prateek » 12 Jan 2003 01:14

India Developing Long-Range Missile
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030111_449.html

India is developing a powerful, nuclear-capable missile with a range of 1,800 miles, said a government adviser, expanding its military reach to more targets in rival Pakistan and some parts of China.

Prateek
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Prateek » 12 Jan 2003 01:24

India to test-fire Agni-III missile.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_136184,0008.htm

At the interactive session on 'Opportunities in Defence and Internal Security -Research and Development', he said India is capable of developing missiles having ranges between 3,500 and 14,000 kms.

"Missiles with ranges between 3,500 and 14,000 kms do not involve much of a change. We have the technology to do it" he said but added that India probably did not need such long-range missiles.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Arun_S » 12 Jan 2003 04:29

Originally posted by bansal:
[QB
On my wish list would be to first modify Agni-II to a shorter-wider solid fueled version which would be easier to transport/camouflage and could be ported to submarines. We need that heavy lift long-range underwater ballistic missile capability. Klubs and Brahmos are not enough.[/QB]
Amen ! I am pretty sure it would be a 1.8 or 2 meter diameter rocket. Agni-III will be the proverbial Kam-Dhenu (one that fullfills all kamana's). The stubby rocket will make transportation easier, and carry heavy & long punch in the short length naval version.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby shiv » 12 Jan 2003 07:17

Originally posted by muddur:
India Developing Long-Range Missile
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030111_449.html
:eek: :eek: :eek:

Videshi Dork Media Alert! Not serious "errors" but a "general tendency towards partially accurate generalities" which then get propagated. Maybee I'm nitpicking - but hey what the heck - that's me.

Quote 1:
range of 1,800 miles, said a government adviser, expanding its military reach to more targets in rival Pakistan
Quote 2:
Agni means fire in the Hindi language.
True, but it means fire in Sanskrit and many other Indian languages.

In addition, the word "Agni" is related to the Latin <a href=http://www.nd.edu/~archives/latin.htm">ignis</a> which also means fire, and from which words like "ignition" and "ignite" are derived.

And no. "Ignoramus" is unrelated.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2737
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby JTull » 12 Jan 2003 07:40

Originally posted by shiv:
[QBAnd no. "Ignoramus" is unrelated.[/QB]
:D :D :D

tiruvar00r
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 8
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby tiruvar00r » 12 Jan 2003 08:19

Actually it is. ignoramous..ignorance - abscence of gnosis(latin) Gnosis...Gnana...agni(knowledge/ light as in tamasoma jyotir)...get it?

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Rudra » 12 Jan 2003 09:09

Peace, Poetry, Love, Life...what to me has always been the most impressive sight in the world.
Topol-M.

http://www.softwar.net/TOPOL.JPG

--
the A-2 TEL observed in last yr Republic day appears superficially to be far less cross-country capable than the gigantic 7 x 7 MAZ vehicle Topol-M uses. They must have smaller ones suitable for us Indoos. time we upgraded on that front with an eye to the friendly future.

acc to FAS, topol-M has length 21m , diameter 2m
and 47t launch weight. is the colossal 10,000km range due to its 3 stages ?


If we make a 2m diameter A3 as Arun_S predicts
and only 2 stages + RV, will its range
decline ?


present A-2 is 20m in length but only 16t in weight due to its 'weak' pencil shape.

the desi A2 TEL is just a ruggedized flatbed
of the type ONGC uses for carting its heavy gear.
http://198.65.138.161/wmd/world/india/images/agni_1999_p170399a.jpg
--
maybe not all have seen photos of wheeler island
http://198.65.138.161/wmd/world/india/wheeler-imagery.htm

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby shiv » 12 Jan 2003 09:22

Originally posted by tiruvar00r:
Actually it is. ignoramous..ignorance - abscence of gnosis(latin) Gnosis...Gnana...agni(knowledge/ light as in tamasoma jyotir)...get it?
Interesting etymological quibble

Agnani=ignorant one
gnana=knowledge

But "Agni=fire=light=knowledge=gnana" is a new twist that I had not thought of.

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Rudra » 12 Jan 2003 09:38

http://www.meadev.nic.in/news/clippings/20020528/ie.htm

333 - prithvi.
444 - initially prithvi, now A-1 once produced.
555 - A-2

Guest

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Guest » 12 Jan 2003 09:48

An interesting article from BBC.
India Nuclear muscle.

Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Kumar » 12 Jan 2003 09:54

333 - prithvi.
444 - initially prithvi, now A-1 once produced.
555 - A-2
So following the pattern:

666- A-3 :) (If you find it a riddle, read the last chapter of Bible titled 'Revealation' or see the 'Omen' series of movies .) ;)

Vanahan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 20
Joined: 13 Dec 2001 12:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Vanahan » 12 Jan 2003 10:10

Good find RS. So the missile groups will be based on type/role, rather than numbers (of launchers). Makes sense. Based on this, one may hypothesize 666 for A-III and so on. Nice number. :) Good idea to openly declare certain conventional missile groups under the operational command of Army HQ [333, 111(?-Northern theater), 222(?-Eastern theater)] and others [444, 555, 666?, 777? etc.] under the new SFC. Prevents wrong perception by the enemy and public on movements and manouvers by certain missile groups. I would like to see even conventional missile groups come under unified theater commands sometime in the near future.

A pet peeve: I sincerely hope that DRDO will stop wasting time and money on useless, stopgap measures such as Prithvi-II(for AF) and P-III(for IN). On the IAF's part, I do hope that they will come to the realization that land-based missiles will naturally have to come under the mandate of the Army owing to the specialized land-based security and operational requirements, regardless of range. The IAF must reinvent its role in India's strategic posture by focussing its energy on becoming a viable aerospace entity. Space/Air-based communications, intelligence and Early-Warning devices will have to be its main thrust, if it want to keep itself in the forefront of India's nuclear deterrent. It's first priority would be the establishment of a NORAD-type facility and capability. Similiary, the IN should first get its domestic submarine-production programs running, before investing or embarking on SLBM programmes of any kind. KLUB-type SLCMs should suffice for the time being.

On another note, the image posted for the A-II is not really of its TEL, rather just for a carrier vehicle. More recent R-DAY parades have been with the TEL. Note the hydraulic arms in the following pics.

http://198.65.138.161/wmd/world/india/images/agni_2002_h230120023.jpg
http://198.65.138.161/wmd/world/india/images/agni_2002_h230120024.jpg
http://198.65.138.161/wmd/world/india/images/agni_2002_p230120023.jpg

That said, it would wise to arrange for ToT of some heavy-duty MAZ-type vehicles. No question of importing these directly from outside due their strategic nature. Rather complete in-house manufacture will be necessitated, owing to special security issues. Besides, large numbers will be required for spares, support vehicles, decoys, training vehicles etc.

Added later: the WHEELER islands facilities look rather spartan. The helipad camouflage is a joke, only hope that it was intentional.

Div
BRFite
Posts: 327
Joined: 16 Aug 1999 11:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Div » 12 Jan 2003 10:34

The Chinese seem to have gone with a truck chassis (with whitewalls), even though I am pretty sure they've imported MAZ transports in the past.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Rangudu » 12 Jan 2003 10:42

China's WS-2400 TELs are carbon copies of similar MAZ models.

Div
BRFite
Posts: 327
Joined: 16 Aug 1999 11:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Div » 12 Jan 2003 10:54

Yeah, the Shaheen-II and similar ChiCom missiles seem to use the MAZ-547V type of transporter. But, the larger DF-31 range missiles (as I posted above) look to be based on a truck/transport chassis.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Arun_S » 12 Jan 2003 13:06

Originally posted by Rudra Singha:
acc to FAS, topol-M has length 21m , diameter 2m and 47t launch weight. is the colossal 10,000km range due to its 3 stages ?
[b]
If we make a 2m diameter A3 as Arun_S predicts and only 2 stages + RV, will its range decline ?

[/b]
Two basic prospective configurations for Agni-3 that come to mind:

Configuration-A:
Booster: 24 Ton, 1.8m Diameter, 7 meter long
Stage-2: 8.3 Ton, 1.8m Diameter, 3.5m long

For a 3 MIRV (TN payload), 1200Kg net-payload the range would be ~5,100Km.
With a Hi-Altitude-Motor of 1.5 Tonne, the range would be ~5,650Km

for 3 MIRV(Boosted Fission Paylode), 500Kg payload the range would be ~8,400Km.
With a Hi-Altitude-Motor of 1.5 Tonne, the range would be ~17,000Km

Configuration-B:
Booster: 32 Ton, 1.8m Diameter, 9 meter long
Stage-2: 8.3 Ton, 1.8m Diameter, 3.5m long

For a 3 MIRV (TN payload), 1200Kg net-payload the range would be ~6,350Km.
With a Hi-Altitude-Motor of 1.5 Tonne, the range would be ~7,500Km

for 3 MIRV(Boosted Fission Paylode), 500Kg payload the range would be ~10,000Km.
With a Hi-Altitude-Motor of 1.5 Tonne, the range would be ~20,000Km

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby shiv » 12 Jan 2003 14:23

Originally posted by vanahan:


A pet peeve: I sincerely hope that DRDO will stop wasting time and money on useless, stopgap measures such as Prithvi-II(for AF) and P-III(for IN).
I think you need to look at the issue from a slightly different angle. From the way you have put it - one could say NASA should really have gone straight ahead and produced the Apollo series and done the moon mission decade earlier instead of wasting time with the one-man Mercury and 2 man Gemini series of rockets.

The reason they did that was that they were DEVELOPING the skills needed to do the Apollo mission.

The same holds true for the Prithvi and follow up missiles. If you have not already read Raj Chengappa's "Weapons of Peace", this may be a good time to obtain a copy and read it. For various reasons - India's space vehicle programs and defence missile program started and developed on two separate, parallel tracks.

Remember that if India develops a 4000 to 13000 mile range missile in 5 years time we might have people saying., "Why did we not do this straightaway rather than wasting time with the Prithvi 1 and 2 and Agni 12345xyz?"

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Rudra » 12 Jan 2003 19:45

that 8000km sounds awful nice. thanks Arus_S for the math.

the 333,444 are assigned to two separate strike corps. methinks Prithvi is a sunk investment and they will use it until shelf-life expiry after which 333 might shift to Dhanush/Brahmos combo.
cost reduction will be a favourable force. Dhanush/Brahmos being solid fueled are far cheaper to operate than prithvi procession.

444 would continue with A-1 deployed deep inside
india.

methinks the 555 will operate both A-2 and A-3 being enlarged as needed. only when sufficient stocks of A-3 are built up the regiment would split into two both with A-3 only.

Raj Singh
BRFite
Posts: 101
Joined: 23 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Raj Singh » 12 Jan 2003 21:20

Quote, from another board..

" Officials further revealed that the Republic Day parade would display nuclear-capable Agni-I, Prithvi, Tungushka and Brahmos missiles, Arjuna tank and Bofors guns, Lancer attack helicopter, full-width mine plough, and mobile decontamination system to be used in nuclear-biological-chemical warfare.

But no decision has been taken to display the on-trial T-90 battle tank and OSA-AK missiles."

Vanahan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 20
Joined: 13 Dec 2001 12:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Vanahan » 12 Jan 2003 22:46

I am ok with the 2-track approach with which the Indian missile program followed, that is from an historical perspective. However, now that we have superceded the liquid-fuel approach with solid-fuel, and mastered larger diameter core motor tech, why not go ahead with designing and building missiles that will actually satisfy the strategic and tactical requirements of the country? The roles envisaged (whatever they were) for P-II have been superceded by Agni-I development (a highly comendable job) which fulfills the longer stand-off range requirement with a much greater payload and accuracy. The IN's practical requirements are much more easily met with KLUB and BrahMos variants, which btw are much more user-friendly, as well as capable at their roles.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Arun_S » 12 Jan 2003 23:21

Single Stage Agni-3 for Short Range or Submarine Launched use is as following:

Configuration-C:
Booster: 24 Ton, 1.8m Diameter, 7 meter long

For a 3 MIRV (TN payload), 1200Kg net-payload the range would be ~1,580Km.
With a Hi-Altitude-Motor of 1.5 Tonne, the range would be ~2,790Km

for 3 MIRV(Boosted Fission Paylode), 500Kg payload the range would be ~1,920Km.
With a Hi-Altitude-Motor of 1.5 Tonne, the range would be ~5,200Km

for Conventional 3,000Kg payload the range would be ~1,060Km.
With a Hi-Altitude-Motor of 1.5 Tonne, the range would be ~1,340Km

tiruvar00r
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 8
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby tiruvar00r » 12 Jan 2003 23:23

Interesting etymological quibble

Agnani=ignorant one
gnana=knowledge

But "Agni=fire=light=knowledge=gnana" is a new twist that I had not thought of.
Light to knowledge/good is a cultural rather than etymological connection .

I mean, aren't names like agni vayu varuna etc pre sanskrit(so that doing a sandhi - like gni-Agni is wrong or not relevent or something).

AJames
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 43
Joined: 23 Feb 2002 12:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby AJames » 13 Jan 2003 06:03

Actually railcar (and submarine) based IRBMs and ICBMs make perfect sense for India, and road transporters don't. Road transporters are impossible to hide because India hasn't got large expanses of wasteland like China or Russia from where people can be excluded. This makes Indian road based missiles easy to track by spies and easy to sabotage. The railcar based missiles are easy to hide even in populated areas, provided there is some way to transport the warheads from safe storage to the railcars housing the missiles (the railcars with the missiles must be dispersed to prevent them being tracked when they emerge from nuclear weapons storage facilities. The warheads must be stored in secure facilities to prevent them from being stolen by terrorists or ISI operatives).

As for the Agni being long and pencil thin, I don't think this is due to any technological deficiency. I used to wonder why the Agni was made so thin and long, until I saw the railcar launcher. Then it all made perfect sense - it's proportions are perfect for railcar deployment.

tiruvar00r
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 8
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby tiruvar00r » 13 Jan 2003 06:22

They should concentrate on miniaturization, storage, quick assembly(less than 2 hours, let us say) and onsite tech support in the missile groups(none of this call center in India with college girls is going to work).

The aim should be to fire an agni out of a (few?) shaktiman(s).(or one reusable hypersonic reentry vehicle(what was it called? avtar?)

Infact DRDO should start a miniaturization wing that brings down sizes/ weights/radar signatures/ other fingerprints.

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Rudra » 13 Jan 2003 07:02

Arun_S, what is the high altitude motor you refer to ? a small liquid fuel motor attached to the RV ? I thought the RV had this for re-entry manouvering....

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Agni test of 09 January 2003

Postby Arun_S » 13 Jan 2003 09:01

HAM is the liquid motor attached to MIRV bus, that is used for course correction and also for propulsion towards range extension. In the case of Agni-1 & 2 the HAM is integrated to the RV itself (ever wondered why Agni's RV is so long?). Most MIRVs (of cold-war vintage)did not have any motor, they were simply lobbed correctly by MIRV-bus. IMHO for terminal manovering MIRV may have small cold gas thruster.

Many possibilities.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests