Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

[Kanson]

Hi Res Picture (390kb) of the QR SAM launch from PIB:

Clicky

QRSAM = AAD + Astra (of course, that of Trishul).

So it is indeed tri shul.

Has moustache/canard , TVC (not yet confirmed) of AAD.
Midbody wings & core tech of Astra. I think.

[Thakur_B]

Time to dump the Maitri project and Embrace qrsam as the new trishul.

[Austin]

Barak 8 - MR-SAM missile test in India

[Austin]

Any radar gurus can explain why Barak-8 has chosen S Band Radar while GreenPine is on L band , Does S band offer better capability to detect LO targets over L Band , Any information on adv and disadv of S and L Band ?

[Kakarat]

Saurav Jha‏ @SJha1618 12:16 PM - 11 Jul 2017

Agni-I, Agni-II and Agni-III are fully operational. Agni-II will be progressively replaced by the Agni-IV which is also there with the SFC.

Saurav Jha‏ @SJha1618 12:17 PM - 11 Jul 2017

As far as the so called MIRVed Agni-VI is concerned, a lot of development work on it was done and it is a 'screwdriver' away from testing.

[brar_w]

Any radar gurus can explain why Barak-8 has chosen S Band Radar while GreenPine is on L band , Does S band offer better capability to detect LO targets over L Band , Any information on adv and disadv of S and L Band ?

I've mentioned this a number of times but generally, for higher freq. RCS optimized configurations the lower the frequency or larger the wavelength the better you can detect those aircraft. So if that is the metric, L-band is going to get you better results. But even besides that, L-band is a better surveillance frequency as you can more efficiently cover larger areas for the surveillance mission. For long range surveilance it is practically the frequency of choice around the world whether that is for military or commercial applications.

As to the advantages of each band. L-band as I said is great for long range surveillance. A disadvantage is the antenna size, and the fact that discrimination is going to be poorer than the higher frequency radars. Simply put, as your frequency gets lower (and wavelength increases) your antenna has to get larger to maintain adequate resolution and a narrow beam - As I have said before, antenna size dictates accuracy and resolution through the relationship between wavelength and the aperture length so a comparable lower frequency radar has to have a much larger antenna to work. S-Band i.e. from 2-4GHz offers you a good compromise between large surveillance volume, precise discrimination for fire control and radar antenna size and power. In an ideal world you would want a very large X-band Fire Control Radar and perhaps an L band surveillance radar but it is often the size, weight, and power requirements (Ship or land) and cost that dictate the trades.

As a general rule, the higher you go up the frequency trade, the more transmitting power you need for a fixed detection range and other qualitative performance requirements (compared to lower frequency radars). Higher frequency radars require tens of thousands of T/R modules with lower efficiency so they drive up your power footprint for a given range and other mission parameters. Lower frequency sensors are much more efficient. Choice of radar frequency is ultimately driven by need and what the operator is stressing and willing to compromise on on if its a multi-mission radar.

S-Band is a good way to get some advantages of the L band in terms of long range surveillance while also being adequate enough to use as a targeting radar against a much wider target set hence it is preferred on large naval vessels that must provide for both those mission needs. While you can still target using lower frequency sensors operating in the L band your discrimination is not going to be as good and you will introduce larger PIP errors in your interceptors which then would dictate interceptor design if it is an Anti TBM mission.

As for Counter Low Observability, that is target dependent so you can optimize against both S and L bands but generally if you are hunting for lower signature targets the lower frequency sensor will provide you better early warning as long as the target is not optimized.

[tsarkar]

Any radar gurus can explain why Barak-8 has chosen S Band Radar while GreenPine is on L band , Does S band offer better capability to detect LO targets over L Band , Any information on adv and disadv of S and L Band ?

The same reason why our ships carry two radars - RAWL L Band and Elta/Fregat S Band.

L Band offer long distance detection including against LO targets while S Band offers better tracking resolution & computation of fire control solutions of targets handed over by L Band radar.

[SajeevJino]

Time to dump the Maitri project and Embrace qrsam as the new trishul.

good idea, I think GOI may already wasted few millions on Maitri

Its better pour the funds to new SR SAM ( well I'm not take this QR SAM ) And fine tune the system

Any idea about the P 15B destroyers loadout, I think the AD suite comes with battery of 32 Barak 8 and 16 QRSAM ( Once Maitri ) plus CIWS

[Austin]

Thanks brar , tsarkar got what I wanted.

Was thinking why not move to meter band radar as primary long range survellence radar for ships , OK the size of antenna will be large but for ships of bigger size should not be a problem at all ? Something like S/Meter Band ?

[Kakarat]

R-sir, QRSAM is pretty much the new breath of Trishul - or so I feel. It may become a tri-service missile.

SRSAM aka Maitri aka French Mica with DRDO radar is all but cancelled. For Navy. So QRSAM may take over until & unless IN insists on VLS missile which might require reengineering or new design.
QRSAM is now going great guns. For IA.
IAF is using Akash as its SRSAM system and will get 1S and NG variants. However, I feel they may take the QRSAM as well because its more mobile, and compact and hence easily deployable, survivable.

Trishul IMHO can be brought back purely as a gapfiller system to take out PGMs and CMs as a cost effective round. It has limitations otherwise being a command line of sight, system and not fire and forget. Also even in the above role, it can only take on a limited number of targets so not ideal

Form this image if we look at the exhaust the missile seems to have thrust vectoring (or its just me imagining)

If it has thrust vectoring then it might not be difficult to adopt it to vertical launch system for Navy or a version of this missile can be developed once its proven in its current form

[brar_w]

Thanks brar , tsarkar got what I wanted.

Was thinking why not move to meter band radar as primary long range survellence radar for ships , OK the size of antenna will be large but for ships of bigger size should not be a problem at all ? Something like S/Meter Band ?

Any radar that is designed for any application is done considering the mission constraints. In a nut shell these involve surveillance volume, multi-mission demand, horizon search and yes target RCS. If you were to put a VHF radar on board a large vessel as the primary surveillance sensor it itself would have to carry a very large antenna to 'earn its place' which will probably only give you marginal benefits as modern solid state S band radars are increasingly getting better at covering larger volumes and rapidly shifting modes thanks to wideband gap materials and element level digitization. In fact if you see the trend, modern iterations AEGIS (processor upgrades) SPY-1 have essentially eliminated the need for the L-Band AN/SPS-49(V)9 and the SPY-6 further adds to this. The same trend is being seen elsewhere.

The USAF trade space for a very long range surveillance radar, which in the past would have involved basically a bunch of L band submissions featured an L band, S band and C band submission and the requirements added other multi-mission modes to this as well. With higher power wide-band gap materials you can now move some of these missions to higher frequency radars whereas even a decade or two ago this was not possible. GaA and GaN on SiC have helped immensely here.

These more digital and fully digital radars can rapidly switch modes and can perform both the BMD and AAW mission concurrently and still meet the surveillance volume requirements because transmit power requirements are sized for detecting low RCS warheads at very long distances helps do the same for within the horizon bound atmosphere. But besides this, multi-mission radars are the way to go since they are for the most part able to meet emerging requirements for surveillance volume in modern warships.

Attacking a ship seldom involves the host platform getting very close to the vessel as most decent anti-ship weapons range at least a couple of hundred km's so what you are really looking for is the ability to cover the surveillance area efficiently but also have the ability to discriminate and fire control your primary targets which are platforms at very long range but more importantly cruise and ballistic missiles. For a platform flying at 20,000 ft. the ship's radar horizon perhaps extends to 300 or so km. Go lower as a platform and you further shrink it. That is the volume you are interested in. In fact if your ship has the ABM mission (like the AEGIS destroyers) you are more interested in that mission's surveillance volume which extends into space and hence is the transmit power driver for radars like the SPY-6 which must guide SM3 Block IIs with very very long defended area footprints.

Chinese vessels do deploy with the Type 517 but then again this is maybe driven by their constraints in solid state efficient multi-mission, jam resistant radars. But this is no where near the multi meter sized antennas modern AESA VHF radars carry so you aren't necessarily going to get better surveillance volumes or resolution out of these. It would also be interesting to see whether these are retained in their new destroyer configurations. From the mast pictures Singha posted a while back on the International Navy thread it appears not. Makes sense since they have added an AESA based primary sensor so can probably rapidly switch modes and are more confident in the radars performance compared to the legacy set. You cannot change physics, if you want good resolution and narrow beam you have to increase the antenna size along with the increase in the wavelength - Beam-width varies inversely with antenna size and directly with wavelength. This is why tactically relevant VHF AESA radars have antenna sizes that measure in the meters. The 55zh6 ME has an antenna that runs into tens of meters and is directional/sectored.

[Austin]

Well with the same digitisation and modern solid state benefit of better resolution and accuracy that has helped other radars , you can still get the same advantage for Meter band radar and you cannot beat physics when it comes to meter band in dealing with LO targets.

Here is INS Vikramaditya with S band Multifuctional radar FREGAT-M2EM and Air Survellence Radar PODBERYOZOVIK-ET1 operating C Band , The latter is interesting as it operates with 300 MHz to1 GHz

[negi]

Any radar gurus can explain why Barak-8 has chosen S Band Radar while GreenPine is on L band , Does S band offer better capability to detect LO targets over L Band , Any information on adv and disadv of S and L Band ?

EMF theory ; all things being equal (receiver , antenna and processing capabilities) the free space path loss increases with frequency so L band signal will suffer lesser attenuation , backscatter effects also increase with frequency so long story short for volume search lower frequency signals are employed and when target is close enough for better target and range resolution you employ a S or even X band radar .

Greenpine is a land based radar primarily for missile defense whereas Barak-8 might work with EL/M-2248 MF-STAR which has to be deployed on ships so real estate could be an issue too as for a given 'gain' aperture size increases with wavelength in use.

[brar_w]

Well with the same digitisation and modern solid state benefit of better resolution and accuracy that has helped other radars , you can still get the same advantage for Meter band radar and you cannot beat physics when it comes to meter band in dealing with LO targets.

Actually, higher power solid state and GaN materials help higher frequency sensors more provided you have the power and are able to remove heat since those are smaller space constrained antennas and the physical dimensions of the modules. On lower frequency sensors, individual PA performance isn't often the limiting factor, antenna size and overall logistical footprint is since they determine beamwidth so you can't shrink the radar down because your individual PAs are more powerful. Also for efficiency and size reasons you don't have to remove as much heat from the lower frequency radars.

As explained by stepping up to AESA and with higher capability in terms of moving to GaN you are increasing the capability of the multi-mission radars thereby making them better at all missions including surveillance. The DDG FIII for example removes the L-Band radar altogether once the SPY-6 and AMDR-X is integrated, the S-band radar handles all surveillance. The Chinese too have removed the VHF radar from their new destroyer. Surveillance needs are being met with new radars that in the case of SPY-6 are many times more powerful than their predecessor. This includes better performance against low RCS targets compared to their predecessors.

What I have tried to explain in my previous post was that if you want a VHF radar on a ship to handle your surveillance roles you would need a very large antenna for reasons explained earlier, the smaller the antenna the lower the utility of such a system on board unless one is worried about the other radars being jammed. The reason why L, S and C/X or more recently S/C/X bands are preferred is because they provide the best trade space when setting up a multi mission radar suite to handle the various missions demanded from an appropriate naval vessel out at sea.

Here is INS Vikramaditya with S band Multifuctional radar FREGAT-M2EM and Air Survellence Radar PODBERYOZOVIK-ET1 operating C Band , The latter is interesting as it operates with 300 MHz to1 GHz

A lot of modern ships employ S and X/C band radars plus other combinations. The older suite on the Nimitz has an L and S band radar setup. The Ford has a Dual Band Radar Suite (S and X Band) - that does the same but uses just one Radar Suite Controller for both antennas. It is able to do this by having digital AESA based radar that can handle the surveillance tasks required thereby allowing them to remove the L band sensor.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/dbr/

However the radar you have posted (Podberyozovik-ET1) is actually UHF band radar (Nato C Band I guess). As explained, the charecteristics of these radars lend them as excellent surveillance companions to higher frequency radars much like L band radars which are more common on surface ships. Similar trade was done on the Ground systems side with MEADS where a UHF AESA was paired with an X-band radar..

Greenpine is a land based radar primarily for missile defense whereas Barak-8 might work with EL/M-2248 MF-STAR which has to be deployed on ships so real estate could be an issue too as for a given 'gain' aperture size increases with wavelength in use.

Yup this is it. Israelis have leveraged the excellent property of the S band to fashion a radar that provides both excellent volume search capability and precise fire control. This is a good trade off as opposed to maintaining a two radar set up which though optimal comes at a cost in terms of financial and logistical. Many others have made similar trades and this is a very good trade to make for a Multi-Function radar. The USMC has done a similar trade with their AN/TPS-80. The green pine on the other hand has to cover a much larger area given that it is a specialized BMD sensor. An S or X band radar option here would have made the sensor much much more expensive to develop, purchase and operate and performance would have been lower for a fixed SwAP-C dynamic. This is the TPY-2 dilemma where one had to choose between discrimination at all cost and sacrifice on cost, weight, power and other requirements (plus take a range hit). One advantage of a better discriminating sensor Is that you can remove some of the design constraints on interceptors given the better discriminating abilities of higher frequency radars. This is why the US Army prefers X band as a primary BMD sensor and are only willing to accept C band for cost and commonality reasons even if that leaves them a bit off when it comes to volume search and other features.

[Karthik S]

I read it sometime back it will be tested later this year:

Saurav Jha‏ @SJha1618
As far as the so called MIRVed Agni-VI is concerned, a lot of development work on it was done and it is a 'screwdriver' away from testing.

If the above is true, will we atleast now state the true range and not worry that it may bell the ring of western powers.

[Indranil]

Although the shape of QRSAM has remained as that shown in DRDO tender, I am completely taken aback by the propulsion system. Obviously, it is a dual-thrust propulsion system. The lower part of the missile (like in Trishul) seems to be made of maraging steel, while the upper part is composite. But, four 4 separate motors for boost phase?

[Rakesh]

India’s Light Combat Aircraft to Be Armed With Beyond Visual Range Missile
http://thediplomat.com/2017/07/indias-l ... e-missile/

[negi]

I also saw that with QRSAM the only similar in fact a bit more flared out motor I saw was in 1st gen Nag missile.

[Philip]

One point to remember.Basing more of our strat. deterrent in S.India will make "securing" Sri Lanka an absolute for India and complete sanitisation of the island of any Chinko mil presence. Chinese naval assets operating out of HTota/Colombo Port could in theory,attack our installations in the south.
Whatever mil/missile measures we take to counter the PRC,must also mean securing neighbouring nations from Chin mil influence/presence.

http://www.defencenews.in/article/India ... rts-263165

India modernising Nuclear Arsenal with eye on China : US experts
Facebook Twitter Google+ Linked in
Thursday, July 13, 2017
By: TNN

Highlights
India's nuclear strategy is now focused on China, 2 US experts have claimed.
India is estimated to have produced plutonium for 150-200 nukes.
India currently operates seven nuclear-capable systems.
India continues to modernise its atomic arsenal with an eye on China and the country's nuclear strategy which traditionally focused on Pakistan now appears to place increased emphasis on the Communist giant, two top American nuclear experts have said.

An article published in the July-August issue of the digital journal- After Midnight - has also claimed that India is now developing a missile which can target all of China from its bases in South India.

India is estimated to have produced enough plutonium for 150-200 nuclear warheads but has likely produced only 120-130, wrote Hans M Kristensen and Robert S Norris in the article- "Indian nuclear forces 2017".

India's nuclear strategy, which has traditionally focused on Pakistan, now appears to place increased emphasis on China, the two experts claimed.

"While India has traditionally been focused on deterring Pakistan, its nuclear modernisation indicates that it is putting increased emphasis on its future strategic relationship with China," they wrote.

"That adjustment will result in significantly new capabilities being deployed over the next decade that may influence how India views nuclear weapons' role against Pakistan," they said.

Noting that India continues to modernise its nuclear arsenal with development of several new nuclear weapon systems, the two experts estimate that New Delhi currently operates seven nuclear-capable systems: two aircraft, four land-based ballistic missiles, and one sea-based ballistic missile.

"At least four more systems are in development. The development program is in a dynamic phase, with long-range land- and sea-based missiles emerging for possible deployment within the next decade," it said.

India is estimated to have produced approximately 600 kilograms of weapon-grade plutonium, sufficient for 150-200 nuclear warheads; however, not all the material has been converted into nuclear warheads, the article said.

Based on available information about its nuclear-capable delivery force structure and strategy, we estimate that India has produced 120-130 nuclear warheads, the article said adding that the country will need more warheads to arm the new missiles it is currently developing.

Kristensen and Norris said that the two-stage, solid-fuel, rail-mobile Agni-2, an improvement on the Agni-1, which can deliver a nuclear or conventional warhead more than 2,000 kilometres is probably targeted on western, central, and southern China.

Although the Agni-4 will be capable of striking targets in nearly all of China from northeastern India (including Beijing and Shanghai), India is also developing the longer-range Agni-5, a three-stage, solid-fuel, rail-mobile, near-intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of delivering a warhead more than 5,000 kilometres (3,100-plus miles), it said.

"The extra range will allow the Indian military to establish Agni-5 bases in central and southern India, further away from China," the research article said.

[Kakarat]

Range of Agni V (5000km) if launched from HAL airport Bangalore

[Karthik S]

Kakarat ji, kindly use maps that show J&K as part of India in entirety. If we ourselves start using these maps, people will forget that even PoK and Aksai Chin are Indian territories occupied by pakis and chinese.

[Kakarat]

Kakarat ji, kindly use maps that show J&K as part of India in entirety. If we ourselves start using these maps, people will forget that even PoK and Aksai Chin are Indian territories occupied by pakis and chinese.

If the map was drawn by me I would have definitely done, but most of these circle drawing and range finding websites only have these kind of map. anyways edited my previous post replacing the newer edition map with the older edition map

[Singha]

the massive real size of africa is evident in this map. 5000km and hardly a slice of it.

no wonder cheen is hungrily trying to gobble its resources

[Karthik S]

But isn't the range "more than" 5000 km.

[Kakarat]

But isn't the range "more than" 5000 km.

The exact range of Agni V is known only to a select group of people, I have just used the widely mentioned range of Agni V

[Karthik S]

I was referring to Singha sir's post, regarding its African reach.

[Kakarat]

Range of Agni IV (4000km) if launched from Port Blair Airport



Range between Port Blair to Beijing is 3930km

[nits]

We are missing firing from our Subs; what is the max range we have for missiles which we can fire from our subs

[titash]

Although the shape of QRSAM has remained as that shown in DRDO tender, I am completely taken aback by the propulsion system. Obviously, it is a dual-thrust propulsion system. The lower part of the missile (like in Trishul) seems to be made of maraging steel, while the upper part is composite. But, four 4 separate motors for boost phase?

More likely a single motor but 4 vectored thrust nozzles? sea harrier style?

[tsarkar]

Thanks brar , tsarkar got what I wanted.

Was thinking why not move to meter band radar as primary long range survellence radar for ships , OK the size of antenna will be large but for ships of bigger size should not be a problem at all ? Something like S/Meter Band ?

To add, our PAD/AAD use Greenpine/Swordfish LRTR L Band for long range detection and Thales Master T/MFCR S Band for tracking and fire control solution.

LRSAM on Type 15A uses RAWL L Band and Elta 2248 S Band. Land based MRSAM used Elta 2084 S Band radar.

Chinese do use low frequency radar (refer old X antenna in the rear mast) but we found L Band works better.

[brar_w]

Tsarkar, from what I have observed from pics shared by Singha in the Int. navy thread, the Type 517 is conspicuously absent on the latest Chinese destroyer. In my last post I've tried to guess the reasons as to why that is.

[Gagan]

Was looking at the Type 056 corvettes that china is churning out - 33 and counting.
Equipped with 2x2 AShM, 2x2 torpedos, SAM, hull and towed sonar, 76 mm gun, 30mm CIWS, helo in a hanger

Now India has indiginous programs well underway and nearing completion on most of these except a cheap mass-produced subsonic AShM/LACM
Brahmos-M might still be very expensive, Nibhay Lite might be what is needed

The next revolution must be targeted towards making sensors, engines including marine turbines, AShM/LACMs

Would love to see corvettes mass produced in batches of 10-20, which cover all domains, to be used as escort ships, similar in concept to the Type 056

[ramana]

KarthikS, Please don't bring things not adding value to the topic. Do you think anyone on this Forum is willingly using bad maps?

Indranil, 4 nozzles in booster phase wont that add to the reliability concerns. Any one nozzle or motor underperforming is a big downer.

Early US missiles had such issue.

[Karthik S]

I know that was OT, and didn't mean to say anyone will willingly use bad map. But just wanted to point out that we shouldn't use the map that's used by various foreign agencies, saw few maps that have AP as dotted IB line. Many Indians inadvertently are using such maps. There was even a draft by GoI that misrepresentation of Indian map will get to 7 years jail term and a hefty fine.

But as you say, will not add things if it doesn't add value to the topic.

[Indranil]

Although the shape of QRSAM has remained as that shown in DRDO tender, I am completely taken aback by the propulsion system. Obviously, it is a dual-thrust propulsion system. The lower part of the missile (like in Trishul) seems to be made of maraging steel, while the upper part is composite. But, four 4 separate motors for boost phase?

More likely a single motor but 4 vectored thrust nozzles? sea harrier style?

You are most likely right about the 4 vectored thrust nozzles, but a single motor configuration. I don't think it is the Sea Sparrow style. It is more the minuteman configuration.

Indranil, 4 nozzles in booster phase wont that add to the reliability concerns. Any one nozzle or motor underperforming is a big downer.

It probably is. I am not a rocket buff. But I think they are doing it for extremely fast acceleration in boost phase.

[ramana]

Or mfg ease of making smaller nozzles vs one big nozzle.

[Rajeev]

http://www.defencenews.in/article/India ... rts-263165

India modernising Nuclear Arsenal with eye on China : US experts

Original article is much more detailed :
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10. ... 17.1337998

[jamwal]

This article claims in missiles section that the launcher is pulled by a Volvo truck a d cites DRDO 2014 newsletter. Nothing about trucks is mentioned there.

[Rajeev]

This article claims in missiles section that the launcher is pulled by a Volvo truck a d cites DRDO 2014 newsletter. Nothing about trucks is mentioned there.

I think the article is referring to following in DRDO newsletter about Akash

https://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/newsletter ... une_14.pdf

The cost-effective Akash missile system is modular and mobile with all its components including launchers either wheeled truck or trailer mounted. Good lateral acceleration capability of missile till intercept provides high manoeuvrability and capability against high performance air targets, such as tactical strike aircraft, bombers, high altitude reconnaissance aeroplane and armed helicopters

[Karthik S]

Agni-VI: India’s Next Missile all set to Surprise the World ?
Agni-VI !!! What’s that? Never heard about it . were the actual words used by DRDO chief Dr S Christopher when asked by media about Agni-VI Program a few months back, while Government and DRDO continue to refuse to confirm or deny existence or development of successor of Agni-V, Chatter around seems to hint that India is just a few days or a few months away from surprising the world by testing China Centric Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) in coming days. Agni-5 India’s first China Centric ICBM recently turned 5 and also underwent its fourth and final test-firing last year and will now undergo at least two user-trials by the tri-service Strategic Forces Command (SFC) before it enters full-scale production and induction, which has lead to wide-scale speculation among Defence and Nuclear analysts worldwide on possible debut of Agni-VI pretty soon . Former DRDO chief Vijay Kumar Saraswat in his tenure had confirmed that India had all the building blocks to develop a longer range and more capable missile then Agni-V and talks about MIRVs (multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles) capable Agni-VI being under development as been speculated by both Indian and International Defence and Nuclear analysts for a long time now. DRDO usually has development gap between each Agni-series of less than 4 years and Agni-V turning 5 without any successor in sight suggests that Successor at least is ready in semi-knocked down condition which can be assembled in few days for its first debut test flight if given clearance from the top but since DRDO has been so tight-lipped about Agni-VI, it suggests that the final decision will be a political one and reasons to keep Agni-VI under wrapped, might be a Strategic one . Agni-VI with 6,000-7,500 km range and ability to carry a larger multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) payload capability over Agni-V will send shockwaves not only in Bejing but also in all European countries which will be put them under Agni-VI range. Speculation is also there that Upgraded lighter Agni-V might be tested with MIRV Capability with under reported range to pass it off as just an improved Agni-V to keep nerves calm in many countries with whom India is working in trying to secure its entry in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). All-composite Agni-V with improved components will make it significantly lighter than its current avatar and with MIRV warheads, Agni-V will lead to range extension of 1500-2000 km with a 1.5-tonne warhead and Chinese officials have already debunked Indian claim of 5500 km slated range of Agni-V and have said that it is capable of striking targets 8,000 km away with a lighter payload which technically could mean that with a full payload a lighter Agni-V might be able to strike over 7000km range and with light payload over 9000km and Agni-VI could be 10000km capable ICBM with reported range of 6000km . While DRDO has not made any effort to clear confusion on who will be successor to the Agni-V, Two Successor theories floated around by Defence and Nuclear analysts worldwide and also in India is that to keep heat off its Nuclear Missile program, India might introduce upgraded Agni-V with the same name but with minor design change or with an extensions like Agni-V+ or Agni-VPrime to maintain a low profile of the new missile even if it comes with MIRV warheads and increased range or it might finally reveal Agni-VI but with understated range .

http://idrw.org/agni-vi-indias-next-mis ... ore-141387