Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

[Sanku]

I won't risk a nuke war by launching Prithvi in runway denial role.

Personally if you think despite NFU, the known use of short range strategic missiles in conventional role etc etc A mere launch of Prithvi would trigger a nuclear war. (also the whats the total flight time of Prithvi? By the time its launched, identified and nuclear missiles prepared for fire in turn it would have already hit its target)

Then

Of course Brahmos can carry nuke but then there is unsaid / undocumented perceived agreement with respect to nature of use BM and CM will be put to.

I have ZERO confidence in that unsaid/undocumented perceived agreement will not be construed as same.

The range this missile has, there are many other options available including CM / Fighter bombers etc which can as effectively do the mission without lowering threshold..

Are you sure? How about the aircraft losses and pilot losses?

(Note a 1000 KM cruise missile and a 1000 KM IRBM comparison is very different from a tactical missile etc, heck even a advanced Pinaka/Smerch can do 300 KMs and can carry tactical nukes would that also invite hair trigger reaction?)

[KiranM]

^^^
Political:
Just because India has NFU policy does not mean China/ Pak will believe or show that they believe us. For their purpose they can assume a Prithvi launch to be a nuke attack so as to escalate. Remember, most probably we will be the defenders and they the aggressors, where we will be trying to contain the hostilities while they trying to escalate (ala Kargil).

Technological:
There is a far greater chance of detecting Prithvi, especially during launch phase, than Brahmos. IIRC, Prithvi deviates from normal BM behaviour only during terminal phase where it can 'glide'. But until then it will maintain a ballistic trajectory and can be detected as such. It can also be mistaken for an Agni 1 / Shourya and as a result mistaken as nuke attack. (Let us not over estimate China/ Pak early warning, detection and target identification abilites)

Also, do not overestimate enemy Command & Control. Assuming target is an airbase, and Prithvi is launched with conventional warhead. And it is not detected until it hits the target. Most probably, the airbase communication will go offline. No way are the REMFs higher up the enemy chain of command going to know what hit them immediately. If the flight profile and other little info they know points to Prithvi, they can assume it is nuclear attack and 'retaliate'.

IMVHO, clear distinction has to be maintained between cruise missiles for conventional strikes and ballistic missiles for nuclear strikes. We should not leave any room for our enemies to wriggle due to lack of clarity of our doctrine.

Regards,
Kiran

[Sanku]

IMVHO, clear distinction has to be maintained between cruise missiles for conventional strikes and ballistic missiles for nuclear strikes. We should not leave any room for our enemies to wriggle due to lack of clarity of our doctrine.

Seriously folks, "our enemies to wriggle due to lack of clarity of our doctrine" do you guys really think that if Pakistan or China wants excuses to use Nuclear weapons on us there would be lack of excuses that they can use? Why cant they assume Brahmos? Or Nirbhay? Or Even a Su 30? After all all these would be equally valid assumptions? How do you control what they "assume" if they are going to disbelieve anything we said anyway?

We have a history of self-limiting behavior where we trip over our self to show to the world how pure our intentions are, and that has helped us how? By NSG, NPT, Sanctions, border violations etc etc.

We have a clear doctrine, NFU, these is no confusion what so ever. If despite that, a mere missile launch is taken as sufficient provocation to launch nuclear weapons at us then Pakistan or China should fully keep in mind what the endgame would be.

Rest assured, its only the endgame which has any deterrence value, otherwise the opponent can quickly climb up the escalation ladder irrespective of what your "escalation" stand is.

[KiranM]

IMVHO, clear distinction has to be maintained between cruise missiles for conventional strikes and ballistic missiles for nuclear strikes. We should not leave any room for our enemies to wriggle due to lack of clarity of our doctrine.

Seriously folks, "our enemies to wriggle due to lack of clarity of our doctrine" do you guys really think that if Pakistan or China wants excuses to use Nuclear weapons on us there would be lack of excuses that they can use? Why cant they assume Brahmos? Or Nirbhay? Or Even a Su 30? After all all these would be equally valid assumptions? How do you control what they "assume" if they are going to disbelieve anything we said anyway?

We have a history of self-limiting behavior where we trip over our self to show to the world how pure our intentions are, and that has helped us how? By NSG, NPT, Sanctions, border violations etc etc.

We have a clear doctrine, NFU, these is no confusion what so ever. If despite that, a mere missile launch is taken as sufficient provocation to launch nuclear weapons at us then Pakistan or China should fully keep in mind what the endgame would be.

Rest assured, its only the endgame which has any deterrence value, otherwise the opponent can quickly climb up the escalation ladder irrespective of what your "escalation" stand is.

I have also given a technological plausibility. Please dont snip that out of consideration for your argument.

[Sanku]

I have also given a technological plausibility. Please dont snip that out of consideration for your argument.

Wasnt this a political argument as defined earlier? Anyway is the technical plausibility difference in terms of identifying a a/c take off vs a BM launch?

In any case a Prithvi would reach the target before the enemy has a chance to respond as if it means a nuclear strike anyway so whether its agni or prithvi will be clear in a very short interval.

In fact I would argue that the only reason even Agni would not be used in conventional role is cost efficiency and naught else.

[KiranM]

Folks, any idea why 2 Prithvis were tested? I thought the norm was to compress all parameters in one flight.

Thanks in advance.

[Sanku]

Folks, any idea why 2 Prithvis were tested? I thought the norm was to compress all parameters in one flight.

Thanks in advance.

Yes, they wanted to check on whether they can track two missiles at the same time, please refer to the previous article posted.

[nrshah]

Personally if you think despite NFU, the known use of short range strategic missiles in conventional role etc etc A mere launch of Prithvi would trigger a nuclear war. (also the whats the total flight time of Prithvi? By the time its launched, identified and nuclear missiles prepared for fire in turn it would have already hit its target)

How sure we are of NFU or rather how sure and confident our enemy is of our NFU? Is it international treaty? What if we launch first strike in defiance of NFU? Is there any international obligation on us not to strike first in spite of it being in our national interest and territorial integrity?

With respect to known use of SRBM in coventional role, all those very used by countries having a huge arsenal of ICBMs and SLBMs. When a country like India, where it is not sure how many IRBM we have if at all we have, Where they are inducted with 2/3 tests in armed forces (SFC), where the leading paper claims only SRBM has been inducted till date, where POK II is disputed after 10 years, things will be taken differently.

You are assuming sitting on the launching side. Just think what TSP /PRC will be thinking when they detect Prithvi...

With respect to time of flight and all, you are assuming S 300 cannot detect the missile from 200 Kms...Further, Prithvi will always

-Nitin

[rakall]

Folks, any idea why 2 Prithvis were tested? I thought the norm was to compress all parameters in one flight.

Thanks in advance.

Answer already in previous posts.. please refer today's Hindu article..

1. The successful test-firing established the Army’s capability to attack multiple targets simultaneously

2. It is a major milestone for the ITR as it showed the capability for simultaneous tracking of two missile systems while they are flying (though this would have been done before with ElOp sensors for the PADE.. this probably refers to tracking two missiles in simultaneous flight far away from ITR)



More details in this Hindu report

The successful test-firing established the Army’s capability to attack multiple targets simultaneously. Both missiles met the full mission objectives, the sources said.

The missiles were flight-tested against two targets, located 350 km away from the launch pads.


“It is a major milestone for the ITR as it showed the capability for simultaneous tracking of two missile systems while they are flying,” the sources said. Both were in flight around the same time for a few minutes.

Prithvi-II is equipped with features of manoeuvrability to deceive the enemy defence systems. The missiles were picked from the stock of the Strategic Forces Command.

[nrshah]

Folks, any idea why 2 Prithvis were tested? I thought the norm was to compress all parameters in one flight.

Thanks in advance.

I dont think what is being reported was actually tested. Prithvi has been tested for hell no of times even earlier. The argument that it was tested by SFC does not makes much sense since there will not be a new team created for SFC. The same missile group will be handling / operating the missile but under command of SFC.

Further, why only prithvi needs to be tested every time? Doesn't SFC have interest in other missiles like A 1 and A 2?

My personal views... Please don't bang me for that...

-Nitin

[Sanku]

Further, why only prithvi needs to be tested every time? Doesn't SFC have interest in other missiles like A 1 and A 2?

Prithivi is the cheapest, many tests are not Prithvi tests but sub system tests (such as this one) why not use Prithvi and save the more potent ones for later?

Thats why Prithvi is tested the most often.

[Sanku]

Personally if you think despite NFU, the known use of short range strategic missiles in conventional role etc etc A mere launch of Prithvi would trigger a nuclear war. (also the whats the total flight time of Prithvi? By the time its launched, identified and nuclear missiles prepared for fire in turn it would have already hit its target)

How sure we are of NFU or rather how sure and confident our enemy is of our NFU? Is it international treaty? What if we launch first strike in defiance of NFU? Is there any international obligation on us not to strike first in spite of it being in our national interest and territorial integrity?

You miss the point totally, if you go around playing the game of what will enemy assume , they can pretty much assume anything for anything.

We have no control over their imagination. Why wont they assume that the Brahmos is carrying a Nuke? Or the Su 30 is not actually a Nuke bomber?

This is "analysis paralysis", this way you can convince yourself to not do anything.

In any case this is precisely why NFU exists.

If despite the NFU enemies get in the business of assumption -- they should be ready for the end game.

That is deterrence.

[Sanku]

Folks, any idea why 2 Prithvis were tested? I thought the norm was to compress all parameters in one flight.

Thanks in advance.

. It is a major milestone for the ITR as it showed the capability for simultaneous tracking of two missile systems while they are flying (though this would have been done before with ElOp sensors for the PADE.. this probably refers to tracking two missiles in simultaneous flight far away from ITR)

Yup, it was tracked from Naval ships deployed out. I suspect that this test is a part of the PAD program, where they are now trying to test their ability of tracking multiple incoming missiles at the same time.

[mody]

"The tracking both missiles at the same time" bit does not make much sense. The missiles were fired 5 minutes apart. Considering a 350 Km range, the first prithvi would have already impacted or would be very close to impact when the second would be launched.

If they really wanted to test tracking two missiles simultaneously, then they could have lauched both at the same time of only a few seconds apart. Also firing off two prithvi missiles, is an awfully expensive way to test this capability.

Also Prithvi does exist with Solid fuel option. The BR prithvi page itself mentions the same. Specifically the Dhanush variant has always been talked about as being solid fueled.

[mody]

By the way, what happened to BR missile section??? The whole page looks different. The entire section on the AGNI family of missiles is gone.....
Anyone knows why these changes have been made and where all the info has been hidden??

[sum]

By the way, what happened to BR missile section??? The whole page looks different. The entire section on the AGNI family of missiles is gone.....
Anyone knows why these changes have been made and where all the info has been hidden??

Arun_S guru left BR and so, all the material he had put up went with him...

[Sanku]

"The tracking both missiles at the same time" bit does not make much sense. The missiles were fired 5 minutes apart. Considering a 350 Km range, the first prithvi would have already impacted or would be very close to impact when the second would be launched.

At what trajectory?

If they really wanted to test tracking two missiles simultaneously, then they could have lauched both at the same time of only a few seconds apart. Also firing off two prithvi missiles, is an awfully expensive way to test this capability.

You have a cheaper method? Please tell.

Also Prithvi does exist with Solid fuel option. The BR prithvi page itself mentions the same. Specifically the Dhanush variant has always been talked about as being solid fueled.

Yes, Shaurya came from such experiments. However the question here is around deployed Prithvi's and not capability. There is no need for Prithvi + solid fuel since that is now Shaurya.

[rakall]

"The tracking both missiles at the same time" bit does not make much sense. The missiles were fired 5 minutes apart. Considering a 350 Km range, the first prithvi would have already impacted or would be very close to impact when the second would be launched.

If they really wanted to test tracking two missiles simultaneously, then they could have lauched both at the same time of only a few seconds apart. Also firing off two prithvi missiles, is an awfully expensive way to test this capability.

Also Prithvi does exist with Solid fuel option. The BR prithvi page itself mentions the same. Specifically the Dhanush variant has always been talked about as being solid fueled.

1. The main objective is not to "track both missiles at the same time".. that was only a bonus - validation of capabilities at ITR.

The main objective is for SFC to train to attack two different targets simulataneously.. Pick two targets, feed in targets and fire off two missiles at these targets in quick succession -- does SFC have the capability to do this (without needing help from DRDO)!!! That was the main objective of the test..

2. Prithvi does not exist with solid fuel option.. The Dhanush is just the stabilising platform for ships - all ship-launched Prithvi test firings clearly show a reddish-orange flame typical of the Prithvi liquid fuels.. So far not a single launch photo of Prithvi is available with anything other than the characterisitic reddish-orange flame & smoke to indiacte replacement of the liquid fuel with solid fuel....

The different references to "testing of solid fuel Prithvi" & sudden appearence of a large-sized solid booster were speculated to be solid-fuelled Prithvi.. However all such "testing of solid fuel Prithvi" have since been attributed to either the preliminary preparation tests for PADE or hushed-launches of Shaurya/Sagarika.. the large-sized solid booster of 6m long X 0.74m dia is itself the second stage of the Shaurya missile (not of solid-fuel Prithvi).

[nrshah]

More details in this Hindu report

The successful test-firing established the Army’s capability to attack multiple targets simultaneously. Both missiles met the full mission objectives, the sources said.

Does BM needs any further guidance one launched? If no, than how does it or why does it need to establish the army's capability to attack multiple targets simultaneously? Please enlighten..

-Nitin

[rakall]

Further, why only prithvi needs to be tested every time? Doesn't SFC have interest in other missiles like A 1 and A 2?

Prithivi is the cheapest, many tests are not Prithvi tests but sub system tests (such as this one) why not use Prithvi and save the more potent ones for later?

Thats why Prithvi is tested the most often.

I think the right answer is in numbers.. A1 & A2 have only entered low-rate serial production - probably single digit missiles per year.. it is not yet known if they are fully inducted & fully operational..

Whereas the Prithvi has been ordered a lot.. IA & IAF are reported to have ordered atleast 75+62 = 137missiles.. this is in one batch.. there would have been other orders in small batches.. IN probabaly has a dozen Prithvi's in its inventory..
So the number of Prithvi's with armed forces is a minimum of 150.. (though a lot more orders would have been un-reported).

Until A1 and/or A2 is ordered in significantly larger numbers, Prithvi forms the mainstay of SFC.. fully knowing that it will eventually be replaced by the new generation canisterized missiles.. i think - ultimately the same will be true for A1 & A2 too..

[Sanku]

More details in this Hindu report

The successful test-firing established the Army’s capability to attack multiple targets simultaneously. Both missiles met the full mission objectives, the sources said.

Does BM needs any further guidance one launched? If no, than how does it or why does it need to establish the army's capability to attack multiple targets simultaneously? Please enlighten..

-Nitin

As I said there are still two parts to test (unlike Rakall I think the second part was the more important one)

However, the answer to the above question is simple. Try and fire an arrow, now try and fire another arrow.

Now fire both in a very short span of time from a quiver full of arrows you are carrying on your back.

Same thing -- modern version, including the post first shot activity dovetailing into the next pre shot activity.

[Sanku]

Prithivi is the cheapest, many tests are not Prithvi tests but sub system tests (such as this one) why not use Prithvi and save the more potent ones for later?

Thats why Prithvi is tested the most often.

I think the right answer is in numbers.. A1 & A2 have only entered low-rate serial production - probably single digit missiles per year.. it is not yet known if they are fully inducted & fully operational..

Yup and also costs and numbers are related, the forces will always use their cheapest and most widely available platform for testing generic stuff (sub systems, processes etc) as long as they exist.

(note I am not talking of this test alone)

[Philip]

One reason why this Prithvi test was conducted-and that too by the Army's strategic group,is that this missile will carry nuclear warheads only and is a key part of our strategic deterrent against Pak.It is Pak specific and the recent controversy about our TN capability,being non-existant has made the IA conduct this test to satisfy itself that this missile with most probably a boosted-fission warhead will perform (we hope the need does not ever arise)if and when it has to.The range given,350KM should also be taken with a pinch of salt.It is likely to be much more,as to be really useful against Pak cannot be stored too close to the border.This is also one missile that India should export to countries that feel threatened by China such as Vietnam,Taiwan ,etc.Like Brahmos,it will find ready takers.

[Kanson]

Also Prithvi does exist with Solid fuel option.

In addition to Mr. Rakall's explanation, there is not a single offical description confirming the presence of solid fuel Prithvi. Bigwigs like Saraswat confirmed the presence of only liquid fuelled one

There is only once in DRDO tech focus, the name of "Prithvi III" appeared.

[nrshah]

As I said there are still two parts to test (unlike Rakall I think the second part was the more important one)

However, the answer to the above question is simple. Try and fire an arrow, now try and fire another arrow.

Now fire both in a very short span of time from a quiver full of arrows you are carrying on your back.

Same thing -- modern version, including the post first shot activity dovetailing into the next pre shot activity.

But in that case there is a single bow and one person to shot it. But in this case there are separate launchers and many computers and persons who will do it.

I don't find any issues in it. You need to feed different co ordinates for set of targets, launch authorization and all missile will blast of guided by INS towards the co ordinates... I m a novice for this process. Please correct if wrong

-Niitn

[Kanson]

Further information on Prithvi Test

Link1

BALASORE: The country achieved another milestone in its strategic defence programme on Monday when the armed forces for the first time successfully
test fired two nuclear capable Prithvi-II missiles in in salvquick succession o mode from two mobile launchers stationed at the Integrated Test Range (ITR) off the Orissa coast.

Mounted on Mobile Tatra transporter-erector Launcher (MTL), the indigenously developed surface-to-surface short range ballistic missiles (SRBMs), were launched one after another from the launching complex III (LC-III) at the ITR in Chandipur-on-Sea, about 15 km from here. The missiles were fired at about 10:30:40 am and 10:33:40 am. [It is 3 mins not 5] "Though earlier we had tested the Prithvi missile in salvo mode, for the first time it was test-fired one after another in quick succession. The two missiles aimed at two different targets at 350 km away and met all mission objectives. It was a copy book success," ITR director S P Dash said.
....
The entire flight path of the missiles was smooth in accordance with pre-decided coordinates. The missiles covered around 340 km within 202 seconds. Both the missiles covered same distance because all the mission parameters like elevation, trajectory, azimuth, flight path and stage separation were in one coordination. Only difference was the missiles were fired from two launchers," the source said. [It appears IA tested the consistency of the missile system as both are subjected and tested for the same parameters] ....
Defence sources said, it was a test from the limited stock production (LSP) series. "The missiles used for the test were picked up randomly from the assembly line after production and were launched with inertial navigation system. It has achieved single digit accuracy reaching close to zero circular error probability," a source said. [Reconfirming the single digit accuracy reached for Agni 3 missile in previous test]
.....
It has a length of nine metres with one metre diameter thrusted by liquid propulsion twin engine and uses Advanced Inertial Guidance System with maneovuring trajectory and reaches the targets with few metre accuracy. Both the missiles were from the stock of armed forces and the total launch activities were carried out by the Strategic Force Command.

==============================

Link 2

Prithvi was initially supposed to be a 150-km ‘‘tactical’’ battlefield missile with conventional warheads but later its role was expanded to include the ‘‘strategic’’ one as well with nuclear payloads. With the 700-km Agni-I and 2,000-km-plus Agni-II ballistic missiles still to be inducted into the forces, the advanced version of Prithvi is currently the mainstay of SFC. The Army had earlier ordered 75 Prithvi-I and 62 Prithvi-II missiles worth around Rs 1,500 crore, while IAF had gone in for 63 Prithvi-II missiles for Rs 906 crore.

The Navy, in turn, has orders worth Rs 116 crore for Dhanush (a Prithvi variant with a 330-km range) missiles for its two ‘‘dual-tasked’’ warships, INS Subhadra and INS Suvarna.

===================================

So total is 200 Prtihvi I &II missile + Dhanush missile ( ~ 5). Is this information is in agreement with other avaialble open source information ?

[Kanson]

Can mods capture these information and upate them in the missle pages ?

[rakall]

But in that case there is a single bow and one person to shot it. But in this case there are separate launchers and many computers and persons who will do it.

I don't find any issues in it. You need to feed different co ordinates for set of targets, launch authorization and all missile will blast of guided by INS towards the co ordinates... I m a novice for this process. Please correct if wrong

-Niitn

Obviously like you have mentioned missile firing is not just pressing the launch button.. 10..9..8.. 3..2..1 and go.. right? You need to pick your target and feed in the co-ordinates of the target and also co-ordinates of your current position (unless FCS has a automatic way of deducing the current location from a GPS or something).. then the FCS calculates the launch inclination, azimuth and associated mission parameters - the launch authority quickly validates them ( Excuse the guesswork - I am thinking he has a spreadhseet or a lookup table of somesort as a standby to validate the FCS) and gives thumbsup..

thanks a lot to Kanson for digging that ToI report.. I had read it somewhere in the morning & was looking for it to reply to Nitin's question...As the report points out - Prihtvi was previously tested in Salvo mode & now what they tested is quick-fire mode..

The difference, I think, is this -- in salvo mode which they did previously they would have used two FCS to fire two different missiles.. But what I am thinking they would have probably done differently in this test is fire the two missiles from two launchers, but with the same FCS console..
Start --> FCS already has coords of launcher1 --> You feed in coords of target1 --> FCS gives firing solution --> authorise launch --> missile lifts off.. Reset FCS & connect to second launcher --> FCS updates location coords of launcher2 --> You feed in coords of target2 --> FCS gives firing solution --> authorise launch --> missile2 lifts off. ( Guesswork alert )

Why that is important ?
It is said that typically each group has 12launchers.. you cant have 12different FCS.. or can you? In case there is only two (or four) FCS for the entire group - then there is a need to validate the robustness of the FCS to authorise launches in quick succession... (without hanging.. ctrl+alt+del etc etc)..

[Kanson]

Thanks Rakall, i was wondering whether interested people here could find the means of updating the Missile page till something happens. It could just be that the relevant information can be collated and arranged by onlookers and later it could be updated by anyone.

[KiranM]

But in that case there is a single bow and one person to shot it. But in this case there are separate launchers and many computers and persons who will do it.

I don't find any issues in it. You need to feed different co ordinates for set of targets, launch authorization and all missile will blast of guided by INS towards the co ordinates... I m a novice for this process. Please correct if wrong

-Niitn

Obviously like you have mentioned missile firing is not just pressing the launch button.. 10..9..8.. 3..2..1 and go.. right? You need to pick your target and feed in the co-ordinates of the target and also co-ordinates of your current position (unless FCS has a automatic way of deducing the current location from a GPS or something).. then the FCS calculates the launch inclination, azimuth and associated mission parameters - the launch authority quickly validates them ( Excuse the guesswork - I am thinking he has a spreadhseet or a lookup table of somesort as a standby to validate the FCS) and gives thumbsup..

thanks a lot to Kanson for digging that ToI report.. I had read it somewhere in the morning & was looking for it to reply to Nitin's question...As the report points out - Prihtvi was previously tested in Salvo mode & now what they tested is quick-fire mode..

The difference, I think, is this -- in salvo mode which they did previously they would have used two FCS to fire two different missiles.. But what I am thinking they would have probably done differently in this test is fire the two missiles from two launchers, but with the same FCS console..
Start --> FCS already has coords of launcher1 --> You feed in coords of target1 --> FCS gives firing solution --> authorise launch --> missile lifts off.. Reset FCS & connect to second launcher --> FCS updates location coords of launcher2 --> You feed in coords of target2 --> FCS gives firing solution --> authorise launch --> missile2 lifts off. ( Guesswork alert )

Why that is important ?
It is said that typically each group has 12launchers.. you cant have 12different FCS.. or can you? In case there is only two (or four) FCS for the entire group - then there is a need to validate the robustness of the FCS to authorise launches in quick succession... (without hanging.. ctrl+alt+del etc etc)..

Rakall ji, thanks for the links and quotes you gave earlier. My main intention of questioning the purpose was because I felt there is more than that meets the eye in this salvo test.

What you say (the post I quoted) I completely agree. But cannot this be achieved through simulation (for FCS robustness) and battle drills (salvo firing practice by SFC personnel)? (And that too for the same target)

In a cost concious setup like ours I doubt this very much.

IMVHO either;
1) It was a cover for something else, or
2) These Prithvi missiles were to be phased out and SFC wanted to use this opportunity to carry out a live drill rather than dispose of them as junk

[rakall]

Also Prithvi does exist with Solid fuel option.

In addition to Mr. Rakall's explanation, there is not a single offical description confirming the presence of solid fuel Prithvi. Bigwigs like Saraswat confirmed the presence of only liquid fuelled one

There is only once in DRDO tech focus, the name of "Prithvi III" appeared.

Kanson could you please post that tech focus..

I dont have any links.. but my own conclusion that a solid-fuelled version does not exist is based on what I thought & a conversation with Lt.Gen.Sundaram (who was director of 15 or 16 Prithvi launches).

Whenever the reports of solid-fueled Prithvi were mentioned and etc - I always wondered how it is possible to simply replace pumps, fuel tanks etc and fill solid propellant (refer my previous post).. during that time I happened to attend a talk by Lt.Gen.Sundaram and quizzed him on the same.. He said the samething and said only liq-fueled Prithvi exists..

When I further probed him on the news reports.. he cryptically said "oh.. that is something else". Which raised hope, but didnot erase the confusion. The confusion stayed through 2004 to 2006 and the purdah started lifting with the tests of PAD and Shaurya.. the closest thing to solid-fueled Prithvi is the second stage of Pradyumna interceptor - that is just my opinion only..

[Kanson]

I just gave the information from memoy. It appeared somewhere before 2003, i think. Def not after 2004...I can add few things on that. There is no information available for Prithvi III in the tech focus, afaik. Just a name there, it could just be a typo

There is no solid fueled Prithvi. It is a fact. People are mischievous in adding fuel to the confusion. DRDO exploited that and infact doctored plume section of Prithvi missile in certain images. Yes there was lot of smoke at that time.

[Sanku]

What you say (the post I quoted) I completely agree. But cannot this be achieved through simulation (for FCS robustness) and battle drills (salvo firing practice by SFC personnel)? (And that too for the same target)

In a cost concious setup like ours I doubt this very much.

The question on testing vs cost keeps coming up all the time doesn't it.

Well my take on it is that even for a deployed system, a certain amount of live testing is absolutely essential, all forces do it AFAIK, in addition to the usual simulation based methods and practice.

That is true for all deployed elements. Its just that missiles make a bigger splash because it shows up on the DDM radar.

Also this one case may have been a SFC specific tests, but a most of the "lot" of Prithvi tests are also for subsystem validation. Even in this case they did use it to validate other subsystems.

Finally even Agni I was tested twice last year from a end user trial from existing stocks mode.

So yup, we need to keep testing, costs notwithstanding.

[nrshah]

Thanks Rakall, for that very important guidance

-Nitin

[rakall]

What you say (the post I quoted) I completely agree. But cannot this be achieved through simulation (for FCS robustness) and battle drills (salvo firing practice by SFC personnel)? (And that too for the same target)

I think they surely would have done a lot of simulation.. but then that also needs to be supported through whatever little bit of testing they can..

In a cost concious setup like ours I doubt this very much.

IMVHO either;
1) It was a cover for something else, or

It certainly does not look like that bcoz "The Hindu" print version had actual photos of Prithvi (in SFC colors) tha were tested yesterday..

2) These Prithvi missiles were to be phased out and SFC wanted to use this opportunity to carry out a live drill rather than dispose of them as junk

As I have mentioned in one of my previous posts, a minimum of 150, and actually upto 220 (as per link Kanson posted) have been ordered.. it is likely that only a portion of them are available with SFC & the rest being in tactical roles with Army, Airforce.. And the number of Agni-1&2's available with SFC is speculated to be "meagre".. so unless either Agni 1&2 are ordered in large numbers, Prithvi is still the workhorse for SFC (atleast for the western neighbour) and not yet junk-rated, i suppose..

But in the longterm (say 6-7years from now) -- a lot of Shaurya's will/should be ordered ideally, to replace all the Prithvi's and Agni-1's.... and another 3-4years thence -- a lot of canisterised A5's should be inducted or operational to replace atleast the Agni-2's.... and maybe the Agni-3's aswell, incase A3 is not canisterised..

[Kanson]

Objective of the test seems to validate the missile accuracy, consistency, robustness and response, i guess.

Lauching of a missile includes pre-checking, validation and target confirmation.

[rakall]

Thanks Rakall, for that very important guidance

-Nitin

guidance? I think 'guessowrk' will do..

I just gave the information from memoy. It appeared somewhere before 2003, i think. Def not after 2004...I can add few things on that. There is no information available for Prithvi III in the tech focus, afaik. Just a name there, it could just be a typo

There is no solid fueled Prithvi. It is a fact. People are mischievous in adding fuel to the confusion. DRDO exploited that and infact doctored plume section of Prithvi missile in certain images. Yes there was lot of smoke at that time.

DRDO has been lampooned for a lot of things.. I still remember the Shi*Aroor & ASShukla stories.. But on the particular instances of PADE - with PAD & AAD, as well as Shaurya -- DRDO pulled a fastone on everybody.. DDM completely bought the solid-fuelled Prithvi story.... there was aboslutely no hint to anybody of a new baalistic missile or a BMD project -- out of the blue they just churned out these things one by one.. and put a lot of credibility back in place..

[Kanson]

^^^ Yes i guess still DRDO has many trick up her sleeves. One thing positive happened was it made DRDO more open to media houses. Before that these media people were made jokers by Armed force who used every opportunity to take a dig at DRDO. That episode reversed this trend and made DRDO more media friendly. Still some retd Adm and Generals cant stop their swipe at DRDO in writing any article for the media without any mention of positives their Services enjoying from DRDO.

[karan_mc]

BrahMos to be deployed in Ladakh

[Sayak]

Do you know if India has MIRV? As far as I know that technology has yet to be developed. India has RV, not MIRV - from what I know

Agni missile to get multiple warheads
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1960774/posts

^^^ already posted followed by 5 odd pages of discussion.
anyway, username changed to Sayak which means arrow, a lethal weapon
if not lethal force !
Rahul.