Deterrence

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
wig
BRFite
Posts: 1788
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Deterrence

Postby wig » 25 Sep 2019 10:13

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/p ... 2019-09-24
Pak appears to have set up some new facilty for nukes

extracts
High-resolution satellite images, accessed by India Today TV's OSINT team, confirm the presence of a new facility 800 meters from the old nuclear workshop at Kahuta's Khan Research Laboratory.

When analysed closely, the pictures reveal how a piece of land turned from an empty helipad in 2014 to a possible nuclear centrifuge facility in 2019.

more details
It's surrounded by a thick two-meter boundary wall and a camouflaged rooftop, the pictures show in what are the telltale signs of a clandestine nuclear program.

"Satellite images that I saw very clearly indicate the intent that was from that point onwards. I think it is very surprising that the international community hasn't made enough noise about it," noted retired Air Vice-Marshal Sunil Nanodkar, when shown the latest pictures.

"The facility is coming up close to the Kahuta facility where there is a lab from which weaponisation of Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities is taking place. I think we need to watch it clearly in terms of what is going to be its capacity. We know it's a nuclear facility."

and
"These pictures bring you very close to Iranian and North Korean facilities. If today we say it's only Iran and North Korea -- and not Pakistan -- then there is something fishy. I think we need to take it up. We need to raise it on all international forums," said Vice-Marshal (retired) Nanodkar.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23779
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 30 Sep 2019 08:21

Navy’s ‘second strike capability’ is the most significant as nuclear deterrent: Rajnath Singh - Business Line
In the backdrop of Pakistan’s repeated talk about nuclear war, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said that Indian Navy’s “second strike capability” as a nuclear deterrent is “most significant”.

“Second strike capability” is an assured capability of an armed force to respond to a nuclear attack with its own nuclear weapons.

Addressing the Navy personnel on aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya, Singh said, “I am aware that after the Pulwama attack, when the country responded effectively through strikes on terror camps in Balakot, the Western Fleet was immediately deployed in a strong posture in the northern Arabian Sea. This degraded the ability of our adversary to deploy and ensured they did not attempt any misadventure at sea. In this context, the role of Indian Navy to have a credible ‘second strike’ capability as a nuclear deterrent, is most significant.

The Defence Minister’s remarks come just days after Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan, in his maiden speech at the UN General Assembly, drummed up hysteria over nuclear war while targeting India over Kashmir.

India had hit back saying the “threat of unleashing nuclear devastation qualifies as brinksmanship, not statesmanship”.

Singh said Indian Navy’s role is critical in ensuring the energy security and economic growth of the country and noted that about 90 per cent of India’s international trade by volume and about 70 per cent by value is carried by sea.

“As we move towards our goal of five trillion dollar economy, the volume of maritime trade will only grow in times to come. Thus, I firmly believe that the role of the Indian Navy in general, and the Western Fleet in particular, is also critical in ensuring the energy security and economic growth of the country,” he added.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23779
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 03 Oct 2019 19:00

The nuclear ayatollahs are re-starting their doomsday scenario.

India-Pakistan nuclear war may kill 125 million people: Study - PTI
As many as 125 million people may die immediately if India and Pakistan engaged in a nuclear war, and plunge the world into a "nuclear winter" that could lead to global climate catastrophe, according to a study.

"Such a war would threaten not only the locations where bombs might be targeted but the entire world," said co-author Alan Robock of Rutgers University-New Brunswick in the US.

The study, published in the journal Science Advances, looked at a war scenario that may occur between India and Pakistan in 2025.

While both the neighbouring countries have waged several wars over Kashmir, they could come to possess a combined count of 400 to 500 nuclear weapons by 2025, the study noted.

The researchers added that vegetation growth would decline globally by 15 to 30 per cent on land, and the oceans could see a productivity decline by 5 to 15 per cent.

Overall, the study noted that recovery from all these impacts would take more than ten years since the smoke would linger in the upper atmosphere.
"Nine countries have nuclear weapons, but Pakistan and India are the only ones rapidly increasing their arsenals," Robock said.

He added that the continuing unrest between the two nuclear-armed countries, particularly over Kashmir, made it important to understand the consequences of a nuclear war.

According to the researchers, the nuclear weapons in the year 2025 could range from 15 kilotonnes in explosive power -- the same size as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima by the US in 1945 -- to a few hundred kilotonnes.

In the scenario, the researchers estimated that 50 to 125 million people could die from the direct effects, with additional deaths from mass starvation also possible worldwide.

"Nuclear weapons cannot be used in any rational scenario but could be used by accident or as a result of hacking, panic or deranged world leaders," Robock said.

According to Robock, the only way to prevent accidental usage of nuclear weapons was to eliminate them.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11545
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Aditya_V » 03 Oct 2019 19:20

A logical person would say, Jihadi groups could cause nuclear Armegedon, so any person involved in this Nuclear Guarantee to Terrorists should be Banded from have any relation with the civilized world. i.e the Pakistani state or Chinese who gave the Nukes.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3622
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Deterrence

Postby Kashi » 03 Oct 2019 19:42

Alan Robock of Rutgers University-New Brunswick in the US.


That name again.....

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1788
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Deterrence

Postby wig » 23 Oct 2019 09:44

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comme ... 50838.html

India needs to amend its nuclear doctrine by Lt Gen Harbhajan Singh ( Retd)


excerpted
Our nuclear doctrine suffers from serious infirmities. It only deals with a nuclear conflict scenario. It does not get meshed with territorial security, which is the main Indian concern vis-a-vis China and due to which India went nuclear. India’s strategy has to be to deter/dissuade China from embarking on any large-scale offensive.


excerpted
Escalation leading to MAD scenario

India’s doctrine envisages using ‘massive nuclear retaliation’ in case an adversary resorts to first use of any kind of nuclear device, even a TNW.
It implies that if Pakistan uses a sub-kiloton nuclear weapon to wipe out an offensive Indian Army division/brigade in the desert of Rajasthan, India would immediately drop a number of strategic nuclear bombs on Pakistan cities and strategic targets. And it is implicit that in return, Pakistan would nuke Delhi, Mumbai, Jodhpur, Chandigarh etc.
Whatever the doctrine, in practice, the moment Indian troops are attacked by a TNW, there would be intense diplomatic pressure on India to not retaliate with nuclear weapons. Certainly not with strategic weapons and escalate the situation. The Indian leadership is most likely to succumb to such international pressure. A graduated nuclear response with TNWs is likely to be tolerated, though.
Also, in such a scenario, will the Indian political leadership have the courage to bear the consequences of creating a situation for MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction)? This is highly doubtful.
In view of the above, such a theoretical nuclear doctrine, which envisages raising the stakes from a tactical to a strategic level suddenly, seems “less of deterrence and more of pretence.”
The adversary’s leadership is unlikely to bite it and hence it does not have the required deterrence value.
Last edited by wig on 23 Oct 2019 09:58, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53967
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 23 Oct 2019 09:55

The argument is flawed.
The primary goal of deterrence is to prevent use of nuclear weapons.
By assuring massive retaliation in response to Paki TNW it deters them from using them in first place. In fact they complained about this many times.
The escalatory tit for tat is exactly they want as it internationalizes their problem.
Tue general is looking at nukes as usable weapons.
All nukes are strategic and breach a strategic threshold.
This was understood by all those who commanded the deterrent.
In fact ACM Mehra clarified there are low yield and high yield weapons. And usage is strategic always.

In fact its feasible to use a large yield in some circumstances.

As for minimum deterrent is what deters the adversary maximum.

And for tolerance from others powers no Indian leader from Mrs. Gandhi including spineless MMS ever cared for tolerance on that quarter.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1788
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Deterrence

Postby wig » 23 Oct 2019 09:58

Pakistan's nuclear proliferation in news again amid Turkey's quest for nukes


https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/wor ... 706257.cms
excerpts
Recep Tayyip Erdogan was reported conveying his desire for Turkey to go nuclear at a party convention.
"Some countries have missiles with nuclear warheads … (But the West insists) we can't have them. This, I cannot accept," Erdogan was reported
telling his party faithful in remarks that have caused a stir in Washington. "If the United States could not prevent the Turkish leader from routing its
Kurdish allies, how can it stop him from building a nuclear weapon or following Iran in gathering the technology to do so?" the New York Times asked in a report on Monday, pointing out that "already Turkey has the makings of a bomb program: uranium deposits and research reactors - and mysterious ties to the nuclear world's most famous black marketeer, Abdul Qadeer Khan of Pakistan."

According to "Nuclear Black Markets", a study of the Khan network by the London think-tank International Institute for Strategic Studies, companies in Turkey aided AQ Khan's covert effort by importing materials from Europe, making centrifuge parts and shipping finished products to customers, the report said. A riddle to this day is whether the Khan network had a fourth customer besides Iran, Libya and North Korea, the report wondered, pointing to intelligence reports that believe Turkey could possess "a considerable number of centrifuges of unknown origin" by virtue of being Khan's fourth customer. Khan's nuclear network extended to Malaysia too.
Pakistan got away with its nuclear proliferation in 2004-2005 because of perceived need by the Bush administration of Islamabad's help and the transit facility Pakistan offered in Washington's war on terror in Afghanistan. The country was caught pants down proliferating nuclear blueprints; but Khan was made to confess on TV and asked to fall on the sword by claiming he did it on his own accord without government sanction, even though it was apparent that he had used government machineryand facilities with the knowledge and concurrence of the Pakistani establishment

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53967
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 03 Nov 2019 04:45

INDIA and the Bomb
Dr. Raj Krishna

This is a significant discussion of three major Indian alternatives to the Communist Chinese nuclear threat, and a proposal for a limited but independent nuclear capability.

Published in the December 1965 Edition of Military Review, pg. 74


https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals ... c-1965.pdf


Please read and reflect on the analysis published in Dec 1965 Military Review of US Army!!!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53967
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 06 Nov 2019 20:42


wig
BRFite
Posts: 1788
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Deterrence

Postby wig » 09 Jan 2020 17:48

India's Su-30 Jets Are Now Armed With Nuclear BrahMos Cruise Missiles

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... les-112016
extracts
India’s nuclear command has begun receiving fighter jets armed with the country’s most advanced, supersonic cruise missile.According to media reports, India’s Strategic Forces Command (SFC) has begun receiving 42 Su-30MKI air dominance fighters modified to carry air-launched BrahMos supersonic cruise missile

LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 161
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: Deterrence

Postby LakshmanPST » 09 Jan 2020 18:10

wig wrote:India's Su-30 Jets Are Now Armed With Nuclear BrahMos Cruise Missiles

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... les-112016
extracts
India’s nuclear command has begun receiving fighter jets armed with the country’s most advanced, supersonic cruise missile.According to media reports, India’s Strategic Forces Command (SFC) has begun receiving 42 Su-30MKI air dominance fighters modified to carry air-launched BrahMos supersonic cruise missile


I have a question (I'm assuming the answer is not classified)--->
Will these 42 jets be operated separately in 2 different squadrons directly under the command of SFC... Or will they be distributed to select bases individually, where they continue routine operations and will be armed with Brahmos only when required...???

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11202
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 09 Jan 2020 22:38

Is the Brahmos N armed?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53967
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 09 Jan 2020 23:37

The article is just speculation from 2015 and republished.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 605
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Deterrence

Postby Haridas » 21 Jan 2020 22:41

ramana wrote:The argument is flawed.
The primary goal of deterrence is to prevent use of nuclear weapons.
By assuring massive retaliation in response to Paki TNW it deters them from using them in first place. In fact they complained about this many times.
The escalatory tit for tat is exactly they want as it internationalizes their problem.
Tue general is looking at nukes as usable weapons.
All nukes are strategic and breach a strategic threshold.
This was understood by all those who commanded the deterrent.
In fact ACM Mehra clarified there are low yield and high yield weapons. And usage is strategic always.

In fact its feasible to use a large yield in some circumstances.

As for minimum deterrent is what deters the adversary maximum.

And for tolerance from others powers no Indian leader from Mrs. Gandhi including spineless MMS ever cared for tolerance on that quarter.


My mind is super relaxed & dancing in joy at this K-4 test.
Shade more than Pokharan-2 :D :)

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2447
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Deterrence

Postby Vips » 22 Jan 2020 00:11

Yes but K-4 with range of 3500 KMS is at best achieving full proof deterrence only against Porkistan. For the chinese, we will have to wait till K-6 (with 6000 KMS range) is operational. Hope this happens by 2024.
Last edited by Vips on 22 Jan 2020 04:38, edited 2 times in total.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6435
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Supratik » 22 Jan 2020 00:48

K4 range is 3500-5000 kms. Indian missiles state the lower end of the range. It is China-specific.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3673
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 22 Jan 2020 04:37

wig wrote:Pakistan's nuclear proliferation in news again amid Turkey's quest for nukes


https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/wor ... 706257.cms
excerpts
Recep Tayyip Erdogan was reported conveying his desire for Turkey to go nuclear at a party convention.
"Some countries have missiles with nuclear warheads … (But the West insists) we can't have them. This, I cannot accept," Erdogan was reported
telling his party faithful in remarks that have caused a stir in Washington. "If the United States could not prevent the Turkish leader from routing its
Kurdish allies, how can it stop him from building a nuclear weapon or following Iran in gathering the technology to do so?" the New York Times asked in a report on Monday, pointing out that "already Turkey has the makings of a bomb program: uranium deposits and research reactors - and mysterious ties to the nuclear world's most famous black marketeer, Abdul Qadeer Khan of Pakistan."

According to "Nuclear Black Markets", a study of the Khan network by the London think-tank International Institute for Strategic Studies, companies in Turkey aided AQ Khan's covert effort by importing materials from Europe, making centrifuge parts and shipping finished products to customers, the report said. A riddle to this day is whether the Khan network had a fourth customer besides Iran, Libya and North Korea, the report wondered, pointing to intelligence reports that believe Turkey could possess "a considerable number of centrifuges of unknown origin" by virtue of being Khan's fourth customer. Khan's nuclear network extended to Malaysia too.
Pakistan got away with its nuclear proliferation in 2004-2005 because of perceived need by the Bush administration of Islamabad's help and the transit facility Pakistan offered in Washington's war on terror in Afghanistan. The country was caught pants down proliferating nuclear blueprints; but Khan was made to confess on TV and asked to fall on the sword by claiming he did it on his own accord without government sanction, even though it was apparent that he had used government machineryand facilities with the knowledge and concurrence of the Pakistani establishment


OT but Turkey seems quite determined to kick the US out of the Incirlik Air Base as a prelude to it's nuke quest.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2447
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Deterrence

Postby Vips » 22 Jan 2020 04:39

Supratik wrote:K4 range is 3500-5000 kms. Indian missiles state the lower end of the range. It is China-specific.


Still does not cover China fully if the submarine is near its base or in Bay of Bengal. Even the Chinese will feel threatened only with a submarine launched missile of 6000-8000 KMs range.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2447
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Deterrence

Postby Vips » 22 Jan 2020 04:43

kit wrote:
wig wrote:Pakistan's nuclear proliferation in news again amid Turkey's quest for nukes


https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/wor ... 706257.cms
excerpts


OT but Turkey seems quite determined to kick the US out of the Incirlik Air Base as a prelude to it's nuke quest.


Makes sense on why Erdogan is supporting pakistan so blindly. Blow back will be huge - Expect a grass eating Turkey if they go nuclear. Sick men of Europe will be terminally ill if USA/Western Europe impose sanctions. Turkey is totally dependent on the western block for its exports and tourism industry.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3673
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 22 Jan 2020 05:51

Vips wrote:
kit wrote:
OT but Turkey seems quite determined to kick the US out of the Incirlik Air Base as a prelude to it's nuke quest.


Makes sense on why Erdogan is supporting pakistan so blindly. Blow back will be huge - Expect a grass eating Turkey if they go nuclear. Sick men of Europe will be terminally ill if USA/Western Europe impose sanctions. Turkey is totally dependent on the western block for its exports and tourism industry.


Not quite Turkey is likely to get to eat its nuclear cake and have it too., given the US penchant to look the other way when its core interests are in line. I expect the US to look the other way as Turkey covertly goes nuclear, the best indication ...and watch for this ... is the news of Turkey "going to develop a nuclear submarine" with "safeguards" , BRF as usual ahead of the curve.

This is not if but when.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5241
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 22 Jan 2020 06:26

kit wrote:
Not quite Turkey is likely to get to eat its nuclear cake and have it too., given the US penchant to look the other way when its core interests are in line. I expect the US to look the other way as Turkey covertly goes nuclear, the best indication ...and watch for this ... is the news of Turkey "going to develop a nuclear submarine" with "safeguards" , BRF as usual ahead of the curve.

This is not if but when.
Look the other way for its core interests are on line? What US core interests are on the line to warrant the US to look the other way, and allow Turkey to go covert nuclear?

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6435
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Supratik » 22 Jan 2020 20:55

Check google. K4 is philosophically the same as the A3 (similar range and payload) and covers all the major Chinese cities when fired from the Bay of Bengal including near the Indian coast. K5 is from where MIRV starts officially and K6 is an ICBM-class SLBM. K4 and K5 are China-specific. K6 is for other players but like A6 may not see the light of the day as it may get into geo-political complications.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18863
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Deterrence

Postby Karan M » 22 Jan 2020 21:05

Supratik wrote:Check google. K4 is philosophically the same as the A3 (similar range and payload) and covers all the major Chinese cities when fired from the Bay of Bengal including near the Indian coast. K5 is from where MIRV starts officially and K6 is an ICBM-class SLBM. K4 and K5 are China-specific. K6 is for other players but like A6 may not see the light of the day as it may get into geo-political complications.


No, it doesn't. Not Beijing, nor Shanghai. We need more than 3500 km.
This political bits and pieces approach of incrementally adding a 1000 km every time has messed up DRDO planning like anything. They constantly have to re-develop platforms with new tech but incremental advances in range which don't meet all their or our deterrence requirements because of the fear of offending the western NPA gang.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6435
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Supratik » 22 Jan 2020 22:14

Range is 3500-5000 kms. Distance from Vizag to Beijing is about 4000 kms. BOB is going to be the bastion and BOB itself is 1600 km in width. We are not going more than 6000 kms with either ICBMs or SLBMs unless there is an abrupt change in relations with the West.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53967
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 23 Jan 2020 00:19

We need to understand that post WWII world order was mainly a dual system between US and FSU.

The US emerged dominant as FSU collapsed.

However the twin phenomena of Rise of China and the Information/Digital revolution are forcing creation of a new world order.

Prof Gavin says even rise of China is due to the Digital Revolution.

And understand NaMo has personally taken charge of the 5G issue.


So please read this long 11 pages essay and think before posting stuff.

ramana wrote:Architecting a Future of World Order


Please read Prof Francis J. Gavin, Harvard on new post 2008 world order.


You will understand India was with both systems and outside. Sort of neti-neti dilemma.
Very soon after 2024 when $5T economy is realized neti-neti will not do and India has to create its own space in the Future World Order. To do this we have to be a full spectrum, full range power in the old order.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2447
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Deterrence

Postby Vips » 23 Jan 2020 00:27

Supratik wrote:Range is 3500-5000 kms. Distance from Vizag to Beijing is about 4000 kms. BOB is going to be the bastion and BOB itself is 1600 km in width. We are not going more than 6000 kms with either ICBMs or SLBMs unless there is an abrupt change in relations with the West.


Strategically it makes sense to keep the enemy guessing of the location of our SSBN/SSN. To limit the force just in the BOB theatre and that too near it's base in Vizag is simply not practical.
For an assured strike capacity against china from anywhere including from Arabian Sea and South of Kanyakumari in the Indian Ocean a SLBM with range of at least 6000 KMS is an absolute requirement.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 605
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Deterrence

Postby Haridas » 23 Jan 2020 07:25

Supratik wrote:K4 range is 3500-5000 kms. Indian missiles state the lower end of the range. It is China-specific.

If the vehicle mass is 17 tonnes, then the range is certainly not understated. Unless it is made of unobtainium.

Recall what is the all up weight of Agni-II ?

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 605
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Deterrence

Postby Haridas » 23 Jan 2020 07:43

Supratik wrote:Check google. K4 is philosophically the same as the A3 (similar range and payload) and covers all the major Chinese cities when fired from the Bay of Bengal including near the Indian coast.

Missiles weight and fuel ISP are the prime factor that determine range-payload relationship; philosophy is only an image without substance.

A3 missile weight is more than twice of K4, so what gives?

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6435
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Supratik » 23 Jan 2020 20:55

A3 missile weight was much reduced with new stuff. Read the Hindu/Frontline article on Tesse Thomas.

I have to fundamentally disagree on the issue of longer ranged missile. A missile with range greater than 6000 kms or even 8000 kms will have only one target and that is the west. I see no benefit in doing that. In fact the opposite is going to happen. We need the West for faster technology absorption and development. I also believe that decision makers of India realize that and so you no longer hear about A6 or Surya and are probably not going to hear about them unless something changes dramatically.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 605
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Deterrence

Postby Haridas » 23 Jan 2020 22:39

Supratik wrote:A3 missile weight was much reduced with new stuff. Read the Hindu/Frontline article on Tesse Thomas. ....

Sure, please point out the specific article that states the payload, all up weight & range for Agni 3 and whatever new

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6435
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Supratik » 23 Jan 2020 23:03

You should find it in their archives if it is available. It has been a few years.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 605
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Deterrence

Postby Haridas » 24 Jan 2020 11:02

Supratik wrote:You should find it in their archives if it is available. It has been a few years.

I have been drdo watcher for many years, and do not recall any report with specific info stating range-payload and the mass of vehicle of new rocket versus A3. I am willing to learn. Please enlighten us with such supposed report/news if it exists.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6435
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Supratik » 24 Jan 2020 21:46

I don't have time to find it for you. But from what I recall the article was about Tesse Thomas and one of the things mentioned was how she helped reduce the weight of A3 I believe to 22 tonnes without impacting range or payload. No further details was given or at least I cannot recall. I also remember that reduction in weight was mentioned in the wiki page on A3 sometime back and has since then disappeared for unknown reasons.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 384
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby dinesh_kimar » 24 Jan 2020 22:42

Haridas wrote:I have been drdo watcher for many years, and do not recall any report with specific info..



Saar, Tessy did say it. Weight of A3 from 50 to 22 tons. Reported in the Hindu, referenced on BRF by our Indranil Saar, among others...

https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=7107&start=3280

Now awaiting your comments / analysis on the same...

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 605
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Deterrence

Postby Haridas » 25 Jan 2020 14:17

I am absolutely sure that the Tesse Thomas interview context was wrongly reported becuase it is impossible physics to keep same A3 performace by reducing A3 vehicle weight from 48 tonnes to 22 tonnes using any type of exotic solid fuel or casing material. Unless of course the A3 in the first place was using substandard19th century black power solid fuel.

22 tonnes can only be for a similar range craft with smaller vehicle size and smaller payload. If only someone can get the proper context of Tesse Thomas statement. I am willing to learn and correct my incorrect understanding.

Has india launched the said 22 ton vehicle ever ? Proof is in the pudding, isn't it?
Last edited by Haridas on 25 Jan 2020 14:34, edited 1 time in total.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 605
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Deterrence

Postby Haridas » 25 Jan 2020 14:27

Supratik wrote: I also remember that reduction in weight was mentioned in the wiki page on A3 sometime back and has since then disappeared for unknown reasons.

Unrelated but I am the initial / original author of Wiki pages for Agni missile including Agni3. I assigned much of my copyrighted Agni pages that were earlier hosted on Bharat-Rakshak missile section (I was then webmaster for BR's missiles & space web pages section, forum handle: Arun_S), to wiki public commons.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6435
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Supratik » 25 Jan 2020 16:29

You are asking for classified information. If you are writing or editing wiki on missiles you should be knowing that the earlier version of A3 was not very efficient. Payload information or vehicle size was not available IIRC.

Mukesh.Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1049
Joined: 06 Dec 2009 14:09

Re: Deterrence

Postby Mukesh.Kumar » 25 Jan 2020 16:48

Supratik wrote:You are asking for classified information. If you are writing or editing wiki on missiles you should be knowing that the earlier version of A3 was not very efficient. Payload information or vehicle size was not available IIRC.


With deference Supratikji, Haridasji has been the doyen of the missile thread on BRF. In his earlier avatar he opened our eyes to facts and analysis which over the years have been proved right. He is among the few for whom coming back to BRF over two decades has been worth it.

My earnest request is to either directly correspond with him or share the data.

A public argument between the two of you is not seemly on BRF.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6435
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Supratik » 25 Jan 2020 17:01

I am just reporting what is available open source from credible sources. The Hindu/Frontline has the best reportage on govt science/technology in India. Now if you start questioning it then it becomes a problem.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], nithish, shravanp and 56 guests