Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 May 2012 10:32

I would like to see the report. I doubt they have fins for the RV. What do the Pakis want fins for it?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 May 2012 10:52

Probably the mean this fins ? They seem to be though below the RV and probably at the guidance/payload adaptor section.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/ ... heen_1.jpg

I believe the only red part is the RV and it probably simile ballistic RV which is given spin before re-entry

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 May 2012 10:55

Yeah those fins are for ahead steering of the vehicle and not the RV. Its purely ballistic. BTW the M11 looks like this.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 May 2012 11:03

Agree Ramana , right now the RV looks pure ballistic ...no sign of MaRV or similar development seen on RV but it wont be far fetched to say they would be working in those front.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 May 2012 11:11

Austin wrote:Agree Ramana , right now the RV looks pure ballistic ...no sign of MaRV or similar development seen on RV but it wont be far fetched to say they would be working in those front.

Then why did the NIAS folks write about guided RVs etc in the Shine missile which is a copy of the M11?

I tried to see their report on TSP missiles but its only a title and no attachment!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 May 2012 12:40

Well either they have more information on the latest test that we dont its possible DNA has just been given some synopsis of the report , it does not talk about any guided RV AFAIK and can see the DNA report but just improvement in guidance and control.

It possible that late model Shaheen have better guidance ( RLG/GPS etc ) improving its over all accuracy for a pure ballistic trajectory , not a MaRV but better guidance leading to better over all improved CEP.

My thinking is its just a normal ballistic RV which is spinned before reentry beyond that its merely a question of newer guidance releasing the RV with better accuracy for better end result. ...... small improvement but neverthless those folks might be monitoring the telemetry and tracking it via GreenPine to know the end result.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 20 May 2012 21:25

<CONJECTURE>

1. Given that military technologies represent the cutting-edge triumph of science;
2. Because MaRVs are arguably the pointiest tip of that 'spear';
3. It follows that *current* MaRV technologies would not 'look like' or function in the same way as current commercial technologies (like wings);
4. Considering the mission profile of a MaRV, and the anticipated ABM countermeasures it must defeat, I would argue that India's MaRV will comprise the following features:

A] Thrusters for exo-atmospheric maneuvering;
B] Conformal control surfaces for endo-atmospheric maneuvering (not wings, which would overheat, have a large RCS, etc);
C] Autonomous final target selection / ability to avoid emergent ABM threats / therefore also RADAR or at least RADAR warning equipment;
D] Making this all happen could further entail ancilliary equipment, perhaps meaning that a single missile shot could entail; one/some of the MaRVs remaining poised in orbit; or a micro-satellite that could ascertain target damage/ ABM threats and appropriately direct these poised MaRVs; plus many other possibilities;
E] Altogether meaning something like "networked" MaRVs

</CONJECTURE>

COMMENTARY ON THE ABOVE:
I must add, the above conjecture applies to the world I see with my eyes; being the silly monkeys we still are; our "best and brightest" either develop sophisticated weapons or sophisticated financial instruments with their own destructive power.

This is the "Iron Cross" that Eisenhower warned us about in his "Military-Industrial Complex" speach; instead of useful things like renewable energy, abundant fresh/potable water, food and shelter, or universal education; which are the true keys to both individual human and societal progress.

Rakshaks should never loose sight of this.

Here's a Youtube excerpt of Eisenhower's 1953 speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGQ-wgPGTp8

[ADDED LATER: I think if the RV were spinning, that everything it's supposed to do would become that much more difficult. I think it would not be spinning, rather the ring-laser gyro inside it would be spinning. JMT]

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 20 May 2012 22:35

Nirbhay is supposed to have 24 different warheads, hope there is a cargo version among them which in the place of a 1 ton munition carries a rotary launcher in an internal bay

AGMs (Helina) are mounted on this rotary and assuming a loitering capability of 6 hours based on the Harop's specification, we could have our own first generation predator capability of course one way unless they have a parachute recovery as in Nishant

targeting information for the LOBL Helina is provided by NCW sensors

Predator's are not stealthy, but Nirbhay will be in part due to its terrain hugging profile, so we wouldn't need enemy's permission to go after non state actors, the improvement in loitering capabilities will only make this better

here is an example of weapon release from the internal bay of a pod, watch from 1:10 onwards

They could also add AAMs and ARHs to the internal rotary, the possibilities are interesting

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 20 May 2012 23:23

I don't think that Nirbhay is wide enough for a rotary launcher for Nag

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 21 May 2012 00:06

^^^^
Don't worry, I'm sure that some over-funded geek who is too smart by half is probably already working on it; proving mine and Eisenhower's point. ^^^^

Don't get me wrong; I'm all for a strong defense; India arguably being the most justified in developing her defenses, considering her neighourhood and history. HOWEVER, nobody should loose sight of the fact that India has many needs, and all must be considered. Also, there is the matter of timing, on top of prioritization, and next to other emergent (strategic) situations in the wider world.

YET, I would bet; air pollution probably causes more premature mortality among Indian citizens on an annual basis; as have all of the bullets and bombs aimed at Indians (even by other Indians), since partition (I won't say since independence); including major and minor wars, terrorism and insurgencies.

............. and that's only the air pollution.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 21 May 2012 00:15

Stage set for Akash Test

“Preparation for the mission is in full swing. This time the missile would target a Pilot-less Target Aircraft (PTA). Both the Akash and PTA teams have been camping here for a fortnight now. If everything goes according to the plan, the missile will be test-fired on May 20,” a source said.

Akash is a mobile, multiple-target handling and medium range air defence missile developed under the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP). The missile system is uniquely configured and customised both for Indian Army and Air Force. It has a strike range of 30 km and can be fired from both track and wheel platforms.

The missile system has been configured to be part of the futuristic network-centric operation, most of the operations having been made automated. The missile, which has a launch weight of 720 kg, a length of 5.8 metres and a diameter of 35 cm, can carry a payload of 50 kg. It can fly at a speed of around 2.5 Mach and can reach an altitude of 18 km.

The missile is supported by multi-target and multi-function phased array fire control radar called ‘Rajendra’, capable of tracking 64 targets and guiding up to 12 missiles simultaneously.

The Akash system is comparable to the Patriot system of the USA. It can destroy manoeuvring targets such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), fighter aircraft, cruise missiles and missiles launched from helicopters.

Akash trial put off to May 22

BALASORE: The user specific trial of Medium Range Surface-to-Air Missile (MRSAM) Akash, scheduled for Sunday, would now be conducted on May 22.

The trial would be carried out from the Integrated Test Range (ITR) off the Odisha coast.

A defence official said the Indian armed force would test fire two rounds of Akash missiles on May 22 and May 24. All eyes are on the fresh trial of the missile as it was earlier discarded by the Army due to reported faults in the system.

However, after a series of rectifications and advancement the missile was inducted in the Army and Air Force.

“We have a window from May 20 to 25 for the tests. Preparation has not been completed yet but we hope that everything will be ready by May 22. We have four missiles with us, but would carry out two rounds of tests,” an official told The Express.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 May 2012 01:13

RK, The RV needs to be spun at re-entry to ensure the right angle of attack is maintained. This is for conical versions. A winged glider type re-entry is like the space shuttle but much smaller.
Look at the RVs for Agni TDS second flight onwards. its only with Agni 1 and a few others after that we see plain ballistic RVs. No fin/vin wagehra.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 21 May 2012 02:03

^^^
From what I understand (and this could very well be wrong); there is a common misperception of how those connical RVs perform. They are not entirely like ballistic objects in atmosphere.

I do believe the 'pointy' end would face 'upward' on re-entry, with a broad, thermal-ablative-cooling disk protecting the 'broad' end of the RV, which would face 'downward'. (Alternatively, if you said the RV must spin in order for cooling of surfaces; this could be plausible; except that imparting/controlling the spin would be a trick in itself (more on this below).)

Think of how space capsules, and for that matter, how raindrops fall. The pointy end is 'up', and the broad/flat end is 'down'.

I don't think that spin plays a factor (though I could easilly be wrong). I know that the warheads for the POLARIS system were still (i.e. un-rotating) enough prior to re-entry to get a 'star fix' in order to correct for targeting purposes.

I wonder what role 'gyrostabilization' can play in trajectory correction for a MaRV. Conceivably, a perfectly connical RV could do some maneuvering with the right kind of gyros and enough centrifugal force on board.

John · Post by **John** » 21 May 2012 02:09

Any word yet on Akash MK II? it was supposed to test fired in 2012.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 May 2012 03:25

Flight from disarmament

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 May 2012 03:52

Gerard wrote:Flight from disarmament

Its a fishing expedition article. Regular BRF readers can spot the numerous fallacies.

He must be on a slow weekend to churn out an inane article on the anniversary of POK II tests.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 May 2012 07:40

not sure if he should say that about one can't be prepare for both war and peace.. and quoting einstein. einstein has also quoted, he is not sure about WW3, but sure about WW4 would be fought with sticks and stone.

So, what that would tell? My point is, we have to ensure Indian gene pool remains to fight with sticks and stones, where we are already the masters, and have excell in these martial arts.. WW4 - India super power - Einstein would have said too.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 21 May 2012 09:34

Interview with Avinash Chander, Chief Controller, Missiles and Strategic Systems, DRDO.

Has some good info on Agni 5, the various changes like stage separation, difference in how the stages were done in A5 etc. Would have to bold everything he says if I quote the article. Read in full

kit · Post by **kit** » 21 May 2012 09:58

Gerard wrote:Flight from disarmament

He does come across as an idiot.Any sane country would hope for the best but prepare for the worst ! ( India s neighborhood needs no particular mention ) As some one famously said " If they need war , we ll give them WAR ! "

MN Kumar · Post by **MN Kumar** » 21 May 2012 16:59

dinesha wrote: Nothing new about Pak’s latest missile, scientists tell PM
Published: Friday, May 18, 2012, 10:00 IST
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_dn ... pm_1690275
In the note, the NIAS says: “Information on the launch including an image of the missile was put out by the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) of Pakistan. The news release claimed that the Hatf-IV Shaheen-1A Weapon System as an improved version of Shaheen-1 with improvements in range and technical parameters.”

Using the image of the missile put out by Pakistan, the ISSSP carried out an evaluation of Pakistan’s capability and analysed whether any new developments could be inferred from this launch to substantiate the claim of range improvement. The scientists concluded,“A comparison of the April 25th image with earlier images...shows no significant change in the length of the missile (11.5 m to 11.6 m) or any change in the re-entry part of the missile.”

In fact, the scientists have relied on various Shaheen 1 images of October 2002, March 2004 and November 2006 to compare the existing data with those of the latest launch on April 25. The study shows that the “operational flight length” of all these missiles is almost the same varying between 11.43 m to 11.62 m. The report says, “There are no changes evident in the stage configuration and the main aerodynamic fins at the end of the missile and the exhaust look similar. The overall warhead length is comparable with the other images...”

How can they use some image as their basis for the assessment? You need more data for such an analysis.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 May 2012 17:10

MN Kumar wrote:
How can they use some image as their basis for the assessment? You need more data for such an analysis.

The more they reveal about how they get their data the better Pakis will get at stopping the data from getting out. Better to think that the NIAS are incompetent liars and leave it at that. So yes more data is needed.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 21 May 2012 17:11

MN Kumar wrote:quote="dinesha"] Nothing new about Pak’s latest missile, scientists tell PM
Published: Friday, May 18, 2012, 10:00 IST
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_dn ... pm_1690275
In the note, the NIAS says: “Information on the launch including an image of the missile was put out by the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) of Pakistan. The news release claimed that the Hatf-IV Shaheen-1A Weapon System as an improved version of Shaheen-1 with improvements in range and technical parameters.”

Using the image of the missile put out by Pakistan, the ISSSP carried out an evaluation of Pakistan’s capability and analysed whether any new developments could be inferred from this launch to substantiate the claim of range improvement. The scientists concluded,“A comparison of the April 25th image with earlier images...shows no significant change in the length of the missile (11.5 m to 11.6 m) or any change in the re-entry part of the missile.”

In fact, the scientists have relied on various Shaheen 1 images of October 2002, March 2004 and November 2006 to compare the existing data with those of the latest launch on April 25. The study shows that the “operational flight length” of all these missiles is almost the same varying between 11.43 m to 11.62 m. The report says, “There are no changes evident in the stage configuration and the main aerodynamic fins at the end of the missile and the exhaust look similar. The overall warhead length is comparable with the other images...”
/quote]
More important in the Paki weapons thread, but they probably used the Swordfish Data but that can't be put ina Newspaper report. Otherwise stuff like 673Km range cannot be estimated.

How can they use some image as their basis for the assessment? You need more data for such an analysis.

They have probably relied on information provided by Swordfish radar like Apogee, otherwise no way they can state 673 km range etc.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 May 2012 20:14

it should be given wide publicity as a way of cutting the paki propaganda down to size. more they need to test to prove themselves the better for us as it will reveal the true capability of the chinese weapons.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 21 May 2012 21:56

^^^^
I would imagine this is a rigorous process that goes from morphology to metrology; determining fuel load, engine performance, etc.; given aerodynamic considerations, warhead weight, platform, deployment elevation, etc.

BTW: This same kind of analytical process is a part of why the RoW has (more) confidence in India's strategic deterrent capability (than many of the Indian 'chateratti'). Doing these kinds of calculations, we can see that the IGMDP missiles are very capable, often with significantly under-reported range, speed, warload, etc. The one area where the claims have been substantial, and also clearly demonstrated, is with the terminal CEP of missiles (accuracy). Strategically, this is the one area where ambiguity isn't advantageous.

RADAR data will only describe the test, and it's not necessary to test a missile to its full range, or with all its fuel, or warhead weight, etc.

To determine the absolute capability envelope, you've got to look at the technology directly, as best you can (morphology, metrology, engine efficiency, energic stoichiometry, flight parameters, etc.).

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 May 2012 04:16

SaiK wrote:not sure if he should say that about one can't be prepare for both war and peace.. and quoting einstein.

"Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
"if you want peace, prepare for war"
"Epitoma Rei Militaris," by Vegetius (Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus)
c 375 AD

"To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."
US President George Washington
First annual address to the Congress, January 8, 1790

“In peace prepare for war, in war prepare for peace. The art of war is of vital importance to the state. It is matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence under no circumstances can it be neglected.”
Sun Tzu
c 500 BC

arun · Post by **arun** » 22 May 2012 07:31

MN Kumar wrote:
dinesha wrote: Nothing new about Pak’s latest missile, scientists tell PM

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_dn ... pm_1690275
{Snipped}
How can they use some image as their basis for the assessment? You need more data for such an analysis.

Apparently an informed assessment can be made from an image.

Checkout Markus Schiller’s and Rober H Schmucker’s April / May 2012 analysis of the North Korean KN-08 Missile:

A Dog And Pony Show

Addendum to the April 18, 2012 Paper “A Dog And Pony Show”

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 22 May 2012 08:46

arun wrote: Apparently an informed assessment can be made from an image.

This is somewhat easier or more complex, depending largely on the fuel type and engine characteristics (which most images won't provide). However....

Liquid fuels are less of a mystery than solid fuels; and engines like turbofans are much better understood than are ramjets/scramjets. I haven't looked at the TSP missile recently tested; but if it's a turbofan-powered CM that is fuelled with their standard JET1 or equivalent fuel, then a pretty solid guess can be made, based on many known data points.

OTOH, something like AKASH will inherently have a lot of potentially hidden capability, because the fuel is proprietary (i.e. Top Secret) and no one has really seen the inside of those engines (drawings on IBN websites don't count!).

I would imagine that (remote) spectral analysis of smoke plumes figures in this field of technical intelligence.

JMT

[ADDED LATER: Rakshaks, earlier in this thread, I called into question "the credibility of the BRF brain trust"; but was promptly corrected myself. Accordingly, I would hereby like to reaffirm my faith in "the BRF brain trust". Sorry 'bout that, RK]

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 22 May 2012 08:52

Singha wrote:it should be given wide publicity as a way of cutting the paki propaganda down to size. more they need to test to prove themselves the better for us as it will reveal the true capability of the chinese weapons.

Singhaji, why would we want to discredit their propoganda?

Psychologically, the mard - e-momeen would want to match us test for test. And we have quite a few lined up and the == on their part will give us ample opportunity to check out the chinese repainted missiles.

We should let them beat their chests as primates are wont to do (Due apologies to the primates). Don't we want them to "raise" their capabilities from 1TFTA=10SDREs to a figure >10?

But when they face our chaps, their camouflaged brown uniforms change from solid state to mainly liquid state and we eventually land up having to feed 90K of them.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 22 May 2012 08:55

Capability without strategy
Vipin Narang teaches political science at MIT. Christopher Clary is a PhD candidate in political science at MIT
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/capab ... y/952086/0

India must be transparent about its MIRV plans to avert a nuclear arms race in Asia

After the maiden test of the Agni V, the head of India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), V.K. Saraswat, noted that several Agni variants could eventually be mated with multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs), or multiple nuclear warheads — while later conceding that it was not yet government policy to do so. On May 10, he explained: “Where I was using four missiles, I may use only one missile. So it becomes a force multiplier given the damage potential.”

MIRV’d arsenals can be more destabilising than their solo-warhead counterparts. First, accurate MIRVs can enable a state to potentially disarm an opponent completely with only a fraction of the single-warhead missiles that might be required. Coupled with a missile defence system that might intercept any residual forces unhit by MIRVs, a state might be in a position to achieve “nuclear superiority”. As during the Cold War, this is a blueprint for a nuclear arms race, since adversaries must ensure that they have enough nuclear forces to survive a MIRV’d first-strike attempt and saturate any missile defences. Second, against MIRVs, an adversary has an incentive to preemptively destroy a missile force while it is still on the ground, since it can destroy multiple warheads for each hit, as opposed to just trading one-for-one. This gives an advantage to the side that launches its missiles first, the very definition of nuclear instability.

DRDO is attempting to develop accurate MIRVs as well as a multi-layered ballistic missile defence architecture. Saraswat has boasted that such a system will have a 99.8 per cent hit-to-kill probability. Even if this is inflated, to an adversary like China or Pakistan, repeated claims about MIRVs and ballistic missile defences may look like anything but a “credible minimum deterrent” strategy. But India has a no first use pledge, which makes its pursuit of MIRVs and any thought of attempting a disarming first strike puzzling. So why would India want MIRVs?

There are several possible explanations. Since authoritative views from the government, particularly senior national security officials, on technological developments relating to nuclear strategy have not been aired in the public domain, we — and India’s adversaries — can only speculate.

The first possible explanation is that deploying MIRVs is not official government policy. Instead, to enhance its organisational prestige, DRDO seeks to indigenously develop the same capabilities, including MIRVs, as the superpowers, without giving much thought to the strategic implications. Some scholars have explained such trajectories as technological determinism: if a state can build it, it will try to do so, whether the technology fulfils a particular requirement or not.

Unfortunately, if this is the case, DRDO’s pursuit of its own prestige may upset Asian strategic stability by triggering concerns in Beijing and Islamabad that India’s nuclear posture is no longer one of “assured retaliation” but one of “nuclear superiority” that threatens the survivability of China’s and Pakistan’s nuclear forces. Such fears might force them to re-evaluate their nuclear requirements and rapidly expand their nuclear arsenals to make any disarming attempt by MIRV’d Indian missiles impossible. While China has historically been relaxed about this possibility, Pakistani nuclear planners have suggested publicly that they account for possible first strikes in how they size and deploy their nuclear arsenal. It may push China and Pakistan toward more dangerous postures emphasising preemptive launches, since they might fear that their nuclear forces face a “use them or lose them” dilemma in a potential crisis. This is incredibly destabilising.

The second possibility is that India has quietly decided to abandon its nuclear posture of assured retaliation and no first use in favour of seeking nuclear superiority, and that deploying MIRVs and missile defences are, in fact, government policy. Since all public signals continue to point to an assured retaliation strategy and continued reaffirmation of the no first use pledge, this is unlikely.

The third explanation is that the government may approve the development of MIRVs, but in order to enhance the survivability of India’s second-strike deterrent. If India’s civilian nuclear managers and Strategic Force Command maintain warheads separate from missiles, and anticipate that an adversary may try to target Agnis in a conflict to degrade India’s nuclear retaliatory capability, MIRVs enable one to retain sufficient retaliatory throw-weight even with a few surviving missiles. Suppose India has 100 nuclear warheads and 100 various Agnis in its future force posture. If three-fourths of the Agni force is disabled by strikes, the remaining 25 Agnis with multiple warheads can achieve the same retaliatory throw-weight as a full complement of single-warhead Agnis. Such a strategy is not entirely irrational, assuming India believes its warheads are survivable but its missile force will be small or vulnerable.

If this is indeed the strategy, the problem lies in convincing China and Pakistan that India’s MIRVs, and potential missile defences, are defensive rather than offensive. If so, the government should clarify exactly how deploying these capabilities are consistent with its longstanding strategy of assured retaliation. A MIRV’d sea-based force makes a lot of sense for an assured retaliation strategy. But the argument for a MIRV’d land-based force is harder to make. Especially since, at first glance, dispersed single-warhead missiles seem more stable than a MIRV’d force for an assured retaliation strategy: it optimises survivability by requiring an adversary to hit many more targets to disarm your force, still assures the ability to inflict massive damage, and minimises incentives to be struck first since it does not pose a disarming threat to the adversary.

India finds itself in a strategically awkward position: advertising the development of a potentially destabilising capability that it does not yet possess and for which it has not yet articulated a clear rationale. If the government does not envision a role for MIRVs, it should enforce greater discipline on DRDO messaging. Alternatively, if there is a clear role for MIRVs, it should articulate it publicly to alleviate Chinese and Pakistani fears of a tectonic shift in Indian nuclear strategy. Developing capability without a strategy is a recipe for disaster. There are both malign and benign explanations for developing MIRVs and missile defences. In this case, there is virtue in the government being transparent about its intended course, lest Asia quickly find itself in an unnecessary and dangerous nuclear arms race.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 May 2012 09:40

The fallacy about the article is it looks at Asia as a two person game between PRC and India. PRC sees itself as a Pacific power and will match what US is doing. So regardless of what India does or does not do PRC will MIRV if not already. So Mr Narang should stuff it.

Secondly one does not know what the future will bring about. One more financial meltdown which JP Morgan is showing signs of can make Mr Narang seek jobs in Asia. Further satellite detection can make sea based boats vulnerable a few decades from now. So India and even US has to hedge for all eventualities. And its feasible that Mr Narang will be grateful that India did hedge.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 22 May 2012 12:29

ramana wrote:The fallacy about the article is it looks at Asia as a two person game between PRC and India. PRC sees itslef as a Pacific power and will match what US is doing. So regardless of what India does or does not do PRC will MIRV if not already. So Mr Narang should stuff it.

I wonder why Indians or people of Indian descent should seek to reduce Indian capabilities? Why not ask China to be less destabilizing?

ramana wrote:Secondly one does not know what the future will bring about. One more financial meltdown which Goldman Sachs is showing signs of can make Mr Narang seek jobs in Asia. Further satellite detection can make sea based boats vulnerable a few decades from now. So India and even US has to hedge for all eventualities. And its feasible that Mr Narang will be grateful that India did hedge.

I suspect that satellite based boat detection is not too far in the future. I have always felt that a few hundred land based road mobile missiles are always more survivable than a small handful of strategic nuclear boats, in the Indian context.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 May 2012 12:42

>> I have always felt that a few hundred land based road mobile missiles are always more survivable than a small handful of strategic nuclear boats, in the Indian context.

in the present context yes. but we have to develop SSBN tech in parallel also or risk making a false step like in the cryogenic area we chose the losing horse combo of fuels in 80s.

K4 + Arihant is surely not going on deterrent patrols before 2018 surely since K4 is not tested yet and nobody is saying when.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 May 2012 18:46

Again, capabilities can drive stratgies too.. There are many strategies that are hidden by hidden capabilties.. some are not even on the books because of current state of systems.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 22 May 2012 19:45

Singha wrote:>> I have always felt that a few hundred land based road mobile missiles are always more survivable than a small handful of strategic nuclear boats, in the Indian context.

in the present context yes. but we have to develop SSBN tech in parallel also or risk making a false step like in the cryogenic area we chose the losing horse combo of fuels in 80s.

K4 + Arihant is surely not going on deterrent patrols before 2018 surely since K4 is not tested yet and nobody is saying when.

If we can have 3-4 boats in the water at all times then yes they might be survivable. Less than that I'm not so sure. Lots of boats will be hunting them and not just from our neighbours.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 May 2012 20:16

if the whole world gangs up on us there is no hope. but even 2 SSBN on patrol can disappear into the vast southern half of the indian ocean. if you look at a map its a gigantic place to disappear in and easily connects to contiguous south atlantic and pacific with no visible chokepoints. there are no shallow areas either, its very deep and most islands are volcanic not corals => steep drop offs . the chinese would be incapable to tracking subs in such a space unless some new breakthrough came along in space based sensors. only the khan would have enough SSNs in forseeable future to cover an entire ocean and root out targets.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 May 2012 20:28

Gd, You are looking at it with today's knowledge of physics and sensors. We dont know what else is lurking in some labs that makes subs as apparent as whales? The N-sub proliferation means its not the old two person game with a Mexican standoff. So can bet a dnonut hole to a doallr that folks are working on this.

I like AC's Frontline interview where he talks about moving technology and the need to keep up with the best.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 May 2012 20:47

James Cameroon of titanic fame is the only other person who conquered the marinara trench. of course, it was dedicated specially built sub, and nat-geo program on his venture was awesome. Not many subs can go that deep at 6-10 km., and all the chellenger mission just drops the weight, and bullets up to the surface.. the psi at that deep is near 15k... any mistake would have crushed him to molucules for deep sea creatures to enjoy.[there are living creatures at that pressure. wow].

so, we could study those animals, and building data for deep sea vehicles.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 22 May 2012 20:51

ramana wrote:The fallacy about the article is it looks at Asia as a two person game between PRC and India. PRC sees itslef as a Pacific power and will match what US is doing. So regardless of what India does or does not do PRC will MIRV if not already. So Mr Narang should stuff it.

Secondly one does not know what the future will bring about. One more financial meltdown which Goldman Sachs is showing signs of can make Mr Narang seek jobs in Asia. Further satellite detection can make sea based boats vulnerable a few decades from now. So India and even US has to hedge for all eventualities. And its feasible that Mr Narang will be grateful that India did hedge.

PRC IS working on MIRV both for the land based and sea based part of its deterrents, the DF 41 and JL 2 variants. The author's arguments that we need MIRV only for a first strike from land based forces is incoherent. What I am interested in finding out is if AC did admit that "it is not official policy yet to proceed with MIRV of A5?"

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 May 2012 20:55

AC said nothing of that sort. The quote is for VKS.

Besides how can the govt approve a policy which is not yet demostrated?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 22 May 2012 20:58

ramana wrote:AC said nothing of that sort. The quote is for VKS.

Besides how can the govt approve a policy which is not yet demostrated?

Sorry about the AC, VKS misquote. I meant the approval to proceed with MIRV. I am responding to the following quote in the article.

while later conceding that it was not yet government policy to do so.

added: There have been some reports that we have been in a position to test MIRV but have not done so. After A5, it was publicly confirmed that we indeed are in such a position and seems to have plans. If we do test, then whether it shall be policy to MIRV or not is a thinner line, unlikely to be taken seriously by adversary. More so, I do not follow the rationale of not to MIRV as the article seems to push. So, best to get to the root of the supposed comment from VKS.