Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

nits
BRFite
Posts: 991
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby nits » 19 Sep 2013 14:27

Refer to below report; IMO Khan desh don't want us to have MIRV Tech...

India’s development of ICBMs likely to fuel arms race with China

ndia’s development of ICBMs is likely to see China deploy its own MIRV missiles which can carry multiple warheads, leading to an intense arms race in the region, says a new report on global nuclear weapons by renowned US experts.

The report says that the decision by China and India to equip their ballistic missiles with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) will influence the global nuclear stockpile trends. Described by Indian scientists as an ICBM, Agni V is not likely to carry multiple manoeuvrable warheads or MIRVS but its successors, including Agni VI, are likely to have the technology.

Kristensen told TOI that MIRVs are not in keeping with New Delhi’s policy of minimum deterrence and that Indian officials needed to explain why they want to develop the technology because it could lead to a buildup with China. “MIRV is developed for a particular strategic objective, normally to quickly increase the number of warheads deployed on missiles or to be able to hit a lot of targets in a single attack. Both of those objectives are incompatible with India’s policy of minimum deterrence because they would significantly increase the size of the arsenal and signal a shift to a nuclear counterforce war-fighting doctrine,” Kristensen told TOI.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12216
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby pankajs » 19 Sep 2013 14:32

Fifth is a hit, DRDO now plans Agni VI
Defence sources said next missile in the country’s long range weapon series is ‘Surya’ which was being developed secretly under the code name Agni-VI.

The missile will have a highest strike range of 10,000 km depending on the payload. But as of now, it is being developed for a range of 6000-km.

<snip>

A scientist, associated with the Agni-VI project, said the new generation missile was expected to be more bulky than the Agni-V, but it would be road mobile so that it can be easily carried to any place and deployed as and when required.

The length of the three-stage missile would be around 17 metres and diameter about 2.5 metre which would help storing different sizes of nuclear Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Warheads (MIRVs). The missile’s launch weight would be 60 to 70 tonne.

The new missile will also carry more number of warheads than any other version. “While Agni-V can carry up to three nuclear warheads, the next missile in the series can carry up to 10 nuclear warheads, capable of hitting multiple targets,” he said.

<snip>

DRDO chief Avinash Chander said with the technology, the scientists had mustered and achieved success with Agni-V, it is very much possible to have longer range missiles.
“But we are now focusing on fast induction of Agni-V missile and multiple warhead technologies. The Agni-VI missile is yet to have the Government sanction,” he said.

Confusing wonlee ... I was under the impression that the current mass was sufficient for 6k-10k range depending on the payload .. just compare with the current gen western missiles .. however this is still a welcome confirmation.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby jamwal » 19 Sep 2013 14:42

10000 km is just speculation onlee.
The newer missile will have MIRVs too

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby Gagan » 19 Sep 2013 14:44

Jamwal, I need to talk to you.
Pl give your email address

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby jamwal » 19 Sep 2013 15:01

.
Last edited by jamwal on 19 Sep 2013 23:14, edited 1 time in total.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby negi » 19 Sep 2013 17:36

pankajs wrote:Confusing wonlee ... I was under the impression that the current mass was sufficient for 6k-10k range depending on the payload .. just compare with the current gen western missiles .. however this is still a welcome confirmation.

The current Agni V config has maraging steel first stage that will bring down the mass fraction. Final config will have all composite body.
Last edited by negi on 19 Sep 2013 18:23, edited 1 time in total.

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby Christopher Sidor » 19 Sep 2013 17:41

nits wrote:Refer to below report; IMO Khan desh don't want us to have MIRV Tech...

India’s development of ICBMs likely to fuel arms race with China

Kristensen told TOI that MIRVs are not in keeping with New Delhi’s policy of minimum deterrence and that Indian officials needed to explain why they want to develop the technology because it could lead to a buildup with China. “MIRV is developed for a particular strategic objective, normally to quickly increase the number of warheads deployed on missiles or to be able to hit a lot of targets in a single attack. Both of those objectives are incompatible with India’s policy of minimum deterrence because they would significantly increase the size of the arsenal and signal a shift to a nuclear counterforce war-fighting doctrine,” Kristensen told TOI.

Maybe Kristensen does not realize that we have no-first-use policy. Under such a policy our Nuclear weapons are vulnerable to first-strike and being degraded significantly in a first-strike scenario. In such a case a missile armed with MIRV makes sense. In fact MIRV is a prerequisite to have a no-first-use policy. Also minimum deterrence requires that we have an arsenal of 2000 bombs or more. After all PRC is massive and we should make sure that not a single square cm of PRC is spared the heat and radiation of our bombs if push comes to shove.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby negi » 19 Sep 2013 18:23

^ Kristensen is aware of what we are capable of and we wish to do ; he writes and claims things because that is what the powers that be want to propagate and make everyone believe.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16395
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby NRao » 19 Sep 2013 18:44

Do the MIRVs have the capability to "glide" (in air)? Powerless flight? Is that possible at such high speeds?

Just curious.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2293
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby Prem Kumar » 19 Sep 2013 19:01

Its possible that during the A-V Test 1 & 2, DRDO might be proofing the accuracy with & without satellite signals. There is some deliberate obfuscation regarding the accuracy. Some reports say 100m; others say 10m. Maybe both are true - one without GPS and the other one with GPS.

Agree with Singha - there should be NO external dependency once the strategic missiles are launched.

Lilo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4069
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby Lilo » 19 Sep 2013 19:10

A scientist, associated with the Agni-VI project, said the new generation missile was expected to be more bulky than the Agni-V, but it would be road mobile so that it can be easily carried to any place and deployed as and when required.

The length of the three-stage missile would be around 17 metres and diameter about 2.5 metre which would help storing different sizes of nuclear Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Warheads (MIRVs). The missile’s launch weight would be 60 to 70 tonne


Any thing and every thing possible has to be there in the ICBM's we field.

-Short burn off motors - to reduce the chances of detecting a launch by enemy SATs.
-a weight saving composite body
- >10 MIRV's - warhead designs miniaturized to the extent possible - an extensive nuclear testing cycle may be required to validate them
-EMP shielded - able to withstand subkiloton level nuclear blasts in the vicinity
-Extensive system of Decoys - more info on these please.
-MARV ed warheads
-twin digit CEP for counter force attack if required - star sensors , midcourse compensation .
- Laser shielding

Massa is going to prowl with a 1000 ship navy aegis networked and stocked with SM-3s .
Fielding of ICBM capability doesnt make sense if super heavies akin to Russian monsters are not fielded. At least a tech demonstrator for a 200 ton class ICBM has to be tested. Just to show that we have the tech.
Last edited by Lilo on 19 Sep 2013 19:14, edited 1 time in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36390
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby SaiK » 19 Sep 2013 19:13

mr sidor's response is apt and if kristensen reads should be more than enough.

ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1390
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby ashish raval » 19 Sep 2013 23:58

I knew from Indian science magazines of early nineties when I was in primary school that Surya program existed alongside Agni and MIRV and its range is certainly greater than 15000 km and that will culminate our ballistic missile program. Prof. Satish Dhawan's name sounded familiar in those articles. It got vanished from media after 1995 or so and became a ghost project like Indian nuke sub project. :twisted:

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby Singha » 20 Sep 2013 07:29

did anyone ever make a SS18 class missile with solid fuel motors? liquid fuel means a 30min prep time and obviously such a giant missile will be silo based.
I am all for a tech demo as a statement.paint it all black, with a skull and crossbones logo.
but more interested in high mobility Yars/topol-M type TELARs for the A5.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9_-rneUjmQ

looking fwd to when they would march down rajpath for republic day.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2977
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby Kanson » 20 Sep 2013 08:08

This is not the first time we heard such discrepancy in accuracy of Long range missiles from drdo fellows. A year earlier or so, such information was published.

We know in engineering we deal in ranges. Ranges within ranges and so on. Respectable DRDO chief Dr. Chander gave two data: 1. 100m and 2. 10-15m as accuracy figures. Earlier we heard a figure of 10-20m; less than 10m give different meaning so now they say 10-15m.

We can interpret these data as at worst Agni can reach an accuracy of 100m and at best case( as suggested by some) it can reach 10-15m. I offer a slightly different interpretation, as, 100m is the standard expected limit for missile like Agni V but they(DRDO) like to give an accuracy of 10-15m. Hearing all other missiles from drdo stable reaching/achieving single digit accuracy, I wonder why would DRDO fail to give Agni V, a 10-15m accuracy? Truth is Dr. Chander is being modest and diplomatic not trying to rattle the cage too much but give us jingoes the necessary information.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20122
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby Philip » 20 Sep 2013 08:21

A firang viewpoint of the A-5/6.

http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/

ndia Is Developing Its First “Real” ICBM
By Zachary Keck
September 19, 2013

India is beginning to develop a new, longer range nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) local media reported on Wednesday, citing unnamed sources.

A scientist with the Defense Research and Development Organization, India’s military technology agency, told The New Indian Express that DRDO is secretly developing a missile with an initial range of 6,000 km (3,728 miles). Currently, India’s longest range ballistic missile is the Agni-V, which has a range of about 5,000 km.

The same source said that the missile that is under development as the Agni-VI, but which will ultimately be called Surya, could eventually be extended to have a range of 10,000 km (6,213 miles).

Earlier this week DRDO chief Avinash Chander had said that India was capable of developing a missile with a range of 10,000 km within two and a half years if necessary. He also suggested that Delhi was not interested in utilizing this capability.

“Range is the least problematic area,” Chander said, according to The Times of India. “We have the full capability to go to any range...it's just a question of additional propellant and larger motors. But, as of now, we don't see the need for a higher range.”

The reports comes just days after DRDO successfully tested the Agni-V for the second time. The first test was back in April of last year. The Agni-V allows India to hold many of China’s largest cities under threat from its nuclear arsenal for the first time. As such, it is often called the "China killer" by India’s media.

Although the Indian media often refers to the Agni-V as an ICBM, its range of 5,000 km is slightly less than the international standard for an ICBM, which is 5,500 km. Thus, Surya will technically be India’s first ICBM.

As previously reported, India has been working on equipping the Agni-V with multiple independent re-entry vehicles (MIRV) that would give it the ability to carry multiple nuclear warheads on a single missile. The scientist who spoke with The New Indian Express on Wednesday said that Surya would be made slightly heavier in order to carry even more nuclear warheads.

“While Agni-V can carry up to three nuclear warheads, the next missile in the series can carry up to 10 nuclear warheads, capable of hitting multiple targets,” the DRDO scientist said, according to The New Indian Express.

The same report suggested that the Surya will be ready for testing within three years.

This indicates that development of the missile may be encountering difficulties. The first reports of the Agni-VI’s existence from earlier this year suggested that development would take just two years. Those initial reports also said that the Agni-VI’s initial strike range would be between 8,000 and 10,000 km, instead of the 6,000 km reported on Wednesday.


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53470
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby ramana » 21 Sep 2013 01:08

Philip,
Need to think more about the two accuracy figures for they have their own implications for the payload yield. A large figure means large yield and vice versa. One inductive method is the optimum height of burst. At same time they could be using a lower height combined with the lower number to demonstrate hard target capability.


There was a paper by Dr Chander about accuracy of long range vehicles taking inot account earth's rotation as a bias which was linked in the other thread.
Same time lower numbers would need some form of error correction with an active guidance on the payload vehicle.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby Cosmo_R » 21 Sep 2013 01:15

"...A scientist with the Defense Research and Development Organization, India’s military technology agency, told The New Indian Express that DRDO is secretly developing a missile".

Not so secret any more :).

'Zachary Keck' is infected with DDMitis

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby Vipul » 21 Sep 2013 02:54

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 174_1.html


After that scientific nod to the need for divine support, a simulated political order for a nuclear strike was received, from New Delhi. Vice Admiral S P S Cheema, who heads the Strategic Forces Command (SFC), keyed in the appropriate launch codes and preparations began. Then, a fault was discovered in the telemetry systems of one of the ships positioned along the flight path, which meant data might not be gathered for part of the missile’s flight. Drawing on their experience of tens of missile launches, the DRDO team decided to go ahead. The missing data, said Chander later, would be captured at various other telemetry stations.



Said former SFC chief, Air Marshal K K Matthews, at a debriefing after the mission,“This was a special launch, one where I saw fantastic decision-making amidst great tension. We had three small-big problems and the decision could easily have been to cancel the launch.”

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7202
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby disha » 21 Sep 2013 03:41

NRao wrote:Do the MIRVs have the capability to "glide" (in air)? Powerless flight? Is that possible at such high speeds?

Just curious.


Yes. I have to re-find the paper where it details the mathematics behind a conical gliding projectile. The issue here is if not properly engineered, it will tumble and burn up. Further the way it is stabilized interferes with Gyros. So with Agni V (and the conical motor thingy - the entire missile to me sometimes looks conical!) a lot of mathematical problems were solved and engineered.

And I would hasten that it is one of the most advanced missile out there.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7202
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby disha » 21 Sep 2013 05:39

I was planning to build a conical model rocket and retrieve it gliding down., just do not have enough time. Anyway, this is a good start (explains the aerodynamics behind gliding a conical body) :

http://sargrocket.org/Documents/Centuri/tir-24.pdf

Forumites would have already known about this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Draco

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby krishnan » 21 Sep 2013 06:37

not glide, they are missiles on their own and can fly, i think they are equiped with motor and can fly down quiet fast

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2977
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby Kanson » 21 Sep 2013 10:31

Sirji

We know the destruction size of Hiroshima.

The area of total vaporization from the atomic bomb blast measured one half mile in diameter; total destruction one mile in diameter; severe blast damage as much as two miles in diameter. Within a diameter of two and a half miles, everything flammable burned. The remaining area of the blast zone was riddled with serious blazes that stretched out to the final edge at a little over three miles in diameter.


This is for a ~10 kt weapon.

If the weapon is a City-buster, it hardly matters whether you weapon fall 100m this way or that way becoz the size of destruction is so much. 100 m is the size of a small street. @ 100 m accuracy, your bomb may fall on either this end of the street or on the other end. Hardly matters if it is a City-buster.

So what if the weapon is targeted towards military targets such as marshaling yards? Accuracy of missiles, as reported/available, for established powers falls in the range say 50m to 200m and more. Established powers talked about CounterForce with these missiles. With the size of weapon ranging from 150 kt to 500 kt & more, for these powers, such accuracy is sufficient to bring forth enough destruction to decimate the target. So, for 100 m accuracy with 250 kt weapon it does the job. We do seems to be standardizing on 150/250 KT weapon(as this is often mentioned).

So why we are then trying to achieve 10m accuracy? I think, with more accuracy, one establish more capabilities. With high accuracy one can adjust the HOB to concentrate the weapon's destruction in desired area/size of interest. The effect will be localized but the amount of destruction will be higher to that area.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3413
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby kit » 21 Sep 2013 12:47

Kanson wrote:Sirji

We know the destruction size of Hiroshima.

The area of total vaporization from the atomic bomb blast measured one half mile in diameter; total destruction one mile in diameter; severe blast damage as much as two miles in diameter. Within a diameter of two and a half miles, everything flammable burned. The remaining area of the blast zone was riddled with serious blazes that stretched out to the final edge at a little over three miles in diameter.


This is for a ~10 kt weapon.

If the weapon is a City-buster, it hardly matters whether you weapon fall 100m this way or that way becoz the size of destruction is so much. 100 m is the size of a small street. @ 100 m accuracy, your bomb may fall on either this end of the street or on the other end. Hardly matters if it is a City-buster.

So what if the weapon is targeted towards military targets such as marshaling yards? Accuracy of missiles, as reported/available, for established powers falls in the range say 50m to 200m and more. Established powers talked about CounterForce with these missiles. With the size of weapon ranging from 150 kt to 500 kt & more, for these powers, such accuracy is sufficient to bring forth enough destruction to decimate the target. So, for 100 m accuracy with 250 kt weapon it does the job. We do seems to be standardizing on 150/250 KT weapon(as this is often mentioned).

So why we are then trying to achieve 10m accuracy? I think, with more accuracy, one establish more capabilities. With high accuracy one can adjust the HOB to concentrate the weapon's destruction in desired area/size of interest. The effect will be localized but the amount of destruction will be higher to that area.



India should worry about the comprehensive underground network of facilities and launch facilities by china, not just their cities which are 'soft' targets even with ABM defenses that may be spoofed. Along with missiles India certainly need to work on warhead designs with penetration aids that can really bring destruction to the heart of Chinese nuclear capabilities and certainly a single digit CEP is definite plus !. Only then it can achieve real deterrence .India by virtue of a smaller stockpile vs china needs to have deployed thermonuclear weapons more than any other state.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53470
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby ramana » 22 Sep 2013 08:55

To get from 100m to 10m is an order of magnitude effort and means a lot for targeting strategy.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3413
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby kit » 22 Sep 2013 12:02

Guess so , but if you have a no first use doctrine, either the number of missile deployed/can be deployed has to increased in sufficiently large numbers and also should be inherently survivable/mobile.Another one is to enhance the capability in such a way that even a few missiles than can get through a first strike (probably a rogue nation) AND a ABM screen (the one behind scenes) can do unacceptable damage. MIRVs probably in the order being planned and a high CEP is the only way out even for a minimal deterrence. Even with all these ultimately the warhead matters .. are you going to target a population /economic center or a hardened underground military facility ? Would a relatively rudimentary early generation war head do the job ? Would you depend on fusion megaton weapons or fissile ones ? Understood that these issues are discussed a lot, but 'real' perceptions vary about the Indian capabilities . A self professed no first strike policy with a relatively 'not so massive' counterstrike capability will erode the whole foundation of national security.Something better than nothing WILL not work. A massive first strike capability with a 'no first use' doctrine suits India better. If you depend on early gen weapons then increase the inventory exponentially and also the number of missiles deployed/can be deployed especially if there is no will / ability to field newer warheads.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53470
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby ramana » 22 Sep 2013 20:39

About 2000 feet.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1639
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby Sid » 23 Sep 2013 09:58

ramana wrote:To get from 100m to 10m is an order of magnitude effort and means a lot for targeting strategy.


I thought nukes are triggered at a certain altitude to have biggest impact.

if they are detonated even 50 meters above the ground then how will 100m or 10m CEP matter?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby Singha » 23 Sep 2013 12:34

they want the center of the resulting hemispherical blast cone to be within that CEP.

that is because whether air or ground burst, you need a good CEP esp for relatively low yield warheads like ours.

in the good days when CEP was 500m-1000m, all the n-powers tipped their ICBM with 750kt-1MT warheads and tested multi megaton devices.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53470
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby ramana » 23 Sep 2013 20:09

Singha wrote:they want the center of the resulting hemispherical blast cone to be within that CEP.

that is because whether air or ground burst, you need a good CEP esp for relatively low yield warheads like ours.



A very apt point to note while reading about A-V2 accuracy.

Its a weapon system and not just a rocket.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20122
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby Philip » 23 Sep 2013 21:36

Ramana,it is becoming obvious ,with official statements,that almost all our future strategic missiles will have MIRV warheads on the larger,longer ranged BMs.However,in terms of accuracy,it would be the accuracy of the MIRV warheads (upto 10 mentioned) that matters,more than that of the basic missile.Thus far there has been no official word of any MIRV testing.How long would it approximately take for us to perfect the same?

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7202
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby disha » 24 Sep 2013 06:10

krishnan wrote:not glide, they are missiles on their own and can fly, i think they are equiped with motor and can fly down quiet fast


Krishnan'ji with all due respect you are stuck on the word "Glide".

Glide they will the RVs or MIRVs and they will be made to glide., lot of reasons to glide. It is independent of them being equipped with motors (HAMs) or not.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7202
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby disha » 24 Sep 2013 06:19

kit wrote:Guess so , but if you have a no first use doctrine, either the number of missile deployed/can be deployed has to increased in sufficiently large numbers and also should be inherently survivable/mobile.Another one is to enhance the capability in such a way that even a few missiles than can get through a first strike (probably a rogue nation) AND a ABM screen (the one behind scenes) can do unacceptable damage. MIRVs probably in the order being planned and a high CEP is the only way out even for a minimal deterrence. Even with all these ultimately the warhead matters .. are you going to target a population /economic center or a hardened underground military facility ? Would a relatively rudimentary early generation war head do the job ? Would you depend on fusion megaton weapons or fissile ones ? Understood that these issues are discussed a lot, but 'real' perceptions vary about the Indian capabilities . A self professed no first strike policy with a relatively 'not so massive' counterstrike capability will erode the whole foundation of national security.Something better than nothing WILL not work. A massive first strike capability with a 'no first use' doctrine suits India better. If you depend on early gen weapons then increase the inventory exponentially and also the number of missiles deployed/can be deployed especially if there is no will / ability to field newer warheads.


Sometimes it is not about CEP or range or megatons or kilotons etc.

On a submarine platform, MIRVs are a potent force multiplier. Say four K-4s each with 3 MIRVs, a sub can easily cover 12 targets. And we all know how easy it is to communicate with a sub. 2 Subs can now target 24. And increasing the missiles to 12 per sub, you are now talking about 72 targets with just 2 subs. Basically 2 subs can bring down any nation to its knees however large or small it is.

So MIRVs are an important second-strike capability.

Additionally, targetting the MIRVs is tough unless one does a boost-phase intercept for a sure kill. Now think about intercepting MIRVs launched from subs with glides/HAM and decoys.

And what has this to do with accuracy? Accuracy of the "parent" missile is very important to have a reasonably accurate MIRV.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53470
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby ramana » 24 Sep 2013 07:59

Philip, Not MIRV but MARV.

asprinzl
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 08 Sep 2004 05:00

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby asprinzl » 24 Sep 2013 09:36

India must continue developing longer range missiles. The current Chinese confidence and belligerant behavior along the LAC is due to Indian deficit in long range missiles and nuke stock piles. The mentality in Delhi must not be allowed to remain disconnected from military reality. Also, the sooner these missiles are developed and deployed on subs the better. A 10K range missile on a sub is a much bigger headache for any enemy that is contemplating a pre-emptive strike.

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6693
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby habal » 24 Sep 2013 11:44

If you do not want US to interfere in internal affairs of India, at least 300 missiles must be pointed at mainland and a few at hawaii. Once you got the US covered, one can kick pakistan tushy at leisure without looking back over the shoulders constantly at machinations of 7th fleet and so on.

Without this crucial aspect covered, rest is all hot air and time pass. Whatever can hit western countries can also hit China so it covers both rogue nations with the same cover. Also for countries with weaker arsenal, they need to uprate their payload and not downrate it on some pretext. One thing that deep state in west hates dealing with is massive nuclear contamination where all their grandoise machiavellian plans are laid to waste in a zero-sum game. For all practical purposes, western intervention always plays with miniature battlefield nukes that are deniable and not larger variants. Countries with weaker arsenal should not hold themselves hostage to such modalities. Use the largest biggest weapons as soon as hostilities begin should be motto.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1122
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby RKumar » 24 Sep 2013 15:05

+1

Like n-bum test, we have to make a step forward and relations will be normalized after few years. But at least deterrence will be in place and reports ridicule India will stop in western media. Problem is I don't see it happening under current GoI leadership :( .

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20122
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby Philip » 24 Sep 2013 16:52

Ramana,stand corrected reg. MARV.Reg. Range and targeting.I really do not see any reason as of now for any targeting of Hawaii or the US mainland in case we develop an ICBM capable of reaching that far. Even if we did have the capability,how many missiles and warheads would we want to allocate for that purpose? We would beggar ourselves in the bargain. The immediate need is to have enough missiles and warheads to deter both China and Pak and the Saudis too,who most probably possess Paki built N-warheads for their Chinese BMs.5 SSBNs with approx. 60 missiles X at least 5 warheads would suffice for the Sino-Pak combine.Add to that a few hundred mobile missile launchers and at least 100 aircraft capable of delivering N-stand-off missiles.A figure of around 500 would be the minimum to truly deter the dragon and pigsty.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1122
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby RKumar » 24 Sep 2013 21:20

I am totally against pointing individual countries as a threat. If you read the history of our wars, you will understand how world powers behaved to their interests or egos. Only way of stopping such powers to behave in that way is to have to capability to hit back at any country in the world aka potential enemy. We don't need to threaten anybody everyday but we have to project our capabilities. We should threat others at right time but with a backup and bluff should be minimum.

Our motto should be ....
There are no permanent friends or enemies there are only permanent interests of the country. There must be no personal relations or benefits.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53470
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

Postby ramana » 24 Sep 2013 22:13

The Chinese will do it any way.

India should help China be China.

RKumar:

"Naming enemies makes them!" Adm Cunningham, RIN

Philip, Long back in 1999 I wrote a BRM article called "What Next?" It still stands true even now.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... amana.html


....

For India, the number has to be formulated taking into account various factors. Some of which are-

Threat perceptions, the nature, location, and political disposition of the challengers- democratic need less deterrence while autocrats need more, the survivability of the force, and international geopolitics play great role. Indian adoption of theater missile defenses to reduce the number of in-coming payloads from regional challengers would help the minimal aspect, as the force would become more survivable. It would become very complicated to examine all these factors. A possible approach is to envision the security situation in terms of low, medium, and high risk.

Let us examine the low risk situation. In this scenario, there is the 1999 level of political situation- US and NATO primary security alliance, declining Russia, ascending but reforming China and Pakistan under Nawaz Sharif type of representative rule.

India should have the capability to destroy 20 long range, 30 medium and 50 regional targets. These are based on ensuring enough destruction capability to deter any aggressive behavior from any quarters. If only modest numbers are available, it would mean a reverse kamikaze situation- a negligible, minuscule retaliatory strike on a challenger who has delivered excessive destruction to the Indian State in a first strike. As the Indian deterrent program is based on minimal testing and low yield devices (< 45kt), it would require three times this numbers to assure destruction. These numbers could come down with further delivery vehicle tests to prove reliability and accuracy; again if new payload details are revealed and accepted by the challengers, the numbers could go down.

Add to this another hundred to ensure survival of first strike. This number could go down, if a global or bilateral no first use agreement is reached with the NWS states. Another would be if a mutual de-targeting agreement were signed with principal NWS. A NWS declaration about not expanding their doctrine to non-nuclear threats would not be of much use to India in this case as she does not intend to use such threats- B&C W.

Add to this about a hundred for pipeline process- weapons at lab, under replenishment, in logistic cycle, unavailable due to any reason etc. This number is not subject to any trimming.

India is not part of any global security arrangement and has to rely on itself. The numbers suggested reflect this. If it were to be accommodated in international forums and mutual threat reduction mechanisms, then participation in reduction regimes can be considered.

An argument is being articulated that, India should come up with its numbers by taking a page from the French and UK arsenals. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, these states do not face a challenge to their existence. Also, being members of NATO they have an extended umbrella from US. Moreover, they have deployed their arsenals on survivable platforms – nuclear submarines. The two powers have conducted 200 and 45 tests respectively which gives them assurance on reliability. They have special agreements on weapons with the US, which gives them access to know-how. On the other hand, China has in the eighties clarified that its NFU applies only to the P-5 which are recognized by NPT and it does not apply on its own territory. India is not a member of NPT and China claims vast areas of Indian territory, in Arunachal Pradesh among others. India would be an implicit victim of this clarification In addition it has created security problems for India by transferring nuclear weapons technology and material to Pakistan, not to mention violation of the very treaty confers special privileges on it- NPT. The Indian posture should be based on numbers which give it comfort and assurance and not on any external insights. If this results in a higher number for Pakistan so be it. The thinking among experts is Pakistan will try to match India and will not let itself, be left with lower numbers and this could lead to a failed state. This problem is not of India’s choosing. Pakistan is a sovereign state and is quite capable of making its own decisions. In addition what is to prevent China from transferring more weapons to Pakistan? It has not obeyed laws in the past. It signs treaties for convenience and ignores them when it suits their perception.

Medium Risk situation

An un-representative military government in Pakistan, which is in an alliance with a totalitarian, un reforming China would represent a medium risk security scenario. They could encourage insurgencies in border-states, and hold out prospects of simultaneously threatening India.
This situation would require additional delivery vehicles and weapons, which can be used in a regional context. Examples are additional lower yield weapons for battlefield use, and more higher yield weapons for counter- value targets in China. Add another hundred of these to the numbers from low risk scenario.

High risk situation

An aggressive Western alliance, alone or in consort with the medium risk scenario is one situation, which comes to mind. Another is a change of politics in Russia, which exhibits tendencies inimical to Indian interests. The point is, any grouping which has large numbers of nukes available to them and has inimical disposition has to be considered

These would require more, high yield payloads and long range delivery vehicles on survivable platforms. It could also require MIRV development and would be a costly endeavor. The challenge to Indian diplomacy and the political class is to prevent the emergence of this situation. The main limitation to handle this situation is access to fissile material and the strength of the economy. Low cost technology initiatives to maintain this option are- regular PSLV launches of multiple satellites, production facilities for advanced fusion materials, a robust command and control system, and ballistic missile nuclear submarines.



Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests