Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 2)

Sridhar · Post by **Sridhar** » 31 Jan 2002 02:40

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Kaushal:
Why stop at 1.8 m diameterIIRC, this limitation has something to do with the requirement of rail mobility. There are a lot of tunnels on Indian railways and not all of them are very wide and will only allow standard wagons to get through. Of course if the infrastructure is improved , this may not be an issue,Kaushal<hr></blockquote>Kaushalji:I don't think this is a concern. The standard dimensions of an IR broad-gauge passenger coach are as follows:Width: 10' 8" (approx 3135 mm)
Height (From rail level to rooftop) : 4025mm
The lowest height of the wagon-top in the IR system is 898mm (used for carrying CONCOR containers)
Avaialble vertical clearance : 3127mm
Source: IRFCA - Page on Rolling StockThe binding constraint would probably be the vertical one due to the gantry below the missile. While I don't know the dimensions of the Agni gantry, I don't think it would be more than 0.5m (and if it greater than that, it surely can be made for the purpose).Thus, the available theoretical clearance for the missile alone is 2627mm. Hence a 2.5m diameter missile may be feasible from the p.o.v of rail mobility. The only question is whether the low-floor container car would be suitable for a missile launch, but my guess is that it is only a matter of the right design.

RanjanRoy · Post by **RanjanRoy** » 31 Jan 2002 02:40

<blockquote>quote:<hr>How do you expect pakistan to respond?
<hr></blockquote>
Build and shift to second strike capability

if they have any juice left. :p Seriously.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 31 Jan 2002 02:48

Sridhar: Do not forget the dimentions of the launcher boom required for rail-launcher configuration. IIRC the Agni-2 carrier/launcher is integrated into the rail transporter. Secondly it does makes sense to allow some human space for first level upkeep of the missile in the container. As well as some wall thickness for security-protection/environmental control !

Sridhar · Post by **Sridhar** » 31 Jan 2002 03:02

ArunS:If the 'boom' that you mention is the same as the 'gantry' I accounted for, it is already built into the calculation (I have allowed for 500mm height for that).Also, there is an additional meter between the top of the missile and the power cable. Access would therefore not be that much of a problem even on electrified tracks.Having said that, this is only a layman's perspective I tried to give. If you are saying that 1.8m is the limit, I would go with that.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 31 Jan 2002 03:22

I am not that much of an expert, please do not be too swayed by what I is my humble, yet slightly educated openion. So 1.8m is not sacrocent, yet 2.2 meter is also feasible.

Who knows the size of the fins ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Jan 2002 03:33

Here goes!!!
---------------
The K. Santhanam article on Agni test firing in Times of India and the IDSA website is very illuminating from political and technical aspects. First the political aspects. The decision was the result of a discussion on the need to have a intermediary range vehicle between the short range Prithivi- II (250 km) and the longer range Agni-II( 2500km). The discussion was initiated in June 99 at the height of the Kargil imbroglio. The concern was that advanced deployment of the Prithvi could be misinterpreted as lowering the threshold. Yet press reports after the crisis was resolved indicated that four Prithvis and one Agni were activated. Obviously the misinterpreation would not have happened if suffcient Agnis were around for the task or these were tasked for other targets. Also there is the question of minimum range for the Agni which precluded more of them being tasked as a result of the Kargil crisis. Hence the need for the intermediary vehicle. Soon after in late June '99, Nawaz Sharif went to Washington DC and agreed to withdraw his troops from the heights. The decision was taken in October 99 that is a full three months after the discussion was initiated. This period must have been spent in trade studies to determine the feasiblity of designing such an intermediary vehicle. Santhanam states that it took 15 months to develop the vehicle and its road-mobile launcher. This indicates the vehicle development was over by Decemeber 2000. News reports indicate that the vehicle was ready for testing in December 2001 but was postponed twice to ease tensions. Either this was a development flight to qualifiy the vehicle or was done to proof the batch by confirmatory testing. It could be the latter as a statement by DRDO after this test, suggested speedy deployment in the armed forces. On to technical aspects. The vehicle design is sadi to have used existing sub-assemblies of the Agni-II vehicle with modifications. He notes that in addition the closed loop guidance scheme for the vehicle trajectory was worked out. He suggests that some of the airframe and sub-assemblies were reworked due to the higher boost phase accelerations for the intermediary vehicle compared to the A-II. This is true for the RV on the intermediary vehicle will see much higher accelerations due to the reduced overall mass of the vehicle. We can infer that the RV has been qualified now for higher accelerations than on the A-II and this has implications for the longer range vehicles planned - A-III etc. And he promptly states that the A-III in development and is rail-mobile as opposed to road-mobile and has a range of 3500-4000 km and its first test may occur in late 2003.
He also comments on the reactive nature of the Indian system in developing this vehicle. However the IGMP was successful due to the close interaction with the armed forces and the fact that the low range of the Prithivi could be viewed as de-stabilizing is an indication of the cursory nature of the various interests- DRDO, and the armed forces. Since arms control issues were involved it would be interesting to find out the involvement of the MEA experts in this matter.
Another issue to pick a bone with is the reason for the Prithivi program. From 'Wings of Fire' it is clear that the project was implemented as a morale booster for dis-heartened scientists in DRDL who had worked on a previous program 'Devil'. And after the first flights it developed its own constituency. It is a sorry state of affairs when a weapons system implemented as a morale booster ended up craeting heartburn about lowering the threshold. Someone higher up should have stepped in long ago and come up with less destabilizing system. It only goes to show that special weapons are complex systems and have deeper ramifications that have to be understood before proceeding.
The key messages are:
India has an intermediary range missile which can be deployed far away from premptive strike zones and could be activated without lowering the threshold. It is based on a solid fuel vehicle which reduces the time factor for any assured retaliation. Thus it enhances the credibility of the deterrent.India has an RV and sub-assemblies that have been qualified for higher accelerations than the A-II vehicle. This implies these can be used on longer range vehicles as needed.This bird is very accurate as it uses the A-II guidance sub-systems over shorter range.The Indian system can and does react in a quick manner to immediate threats.It has to strenghten its review process and ensure all stake holders are present.

Nikhil Shah · Post by **Nikhil Shah** » 31 Jan 2002 03:49

Calvin,How does this development change your assumption about late reaction to first Pakistani strike on India? It was one of factors IIRC in your analysis on WMD and C&C.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Jan 2002 04:13

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ramana:

Pioneer report:Army chief to clear Prithvi deployment The Government also ordered that Prithvi missiles will only carry conventional warheads, sources said.
<hr></blockquote>Ahh - thanks for the link. It's prettyy clear now. The Prithvi willbe used to play with all those conventional warheads that were designed for it.The possibility opens up for the use of Prithvi as "extended artillery" ad with accuracy being an inverse function of range - interesting things can be attempted, while the nuke posture sits elsewhere.And yet, if push comes to shove - the a Few Prithvis could reatin their nuclear role.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 31 Jan 2002 04:50

Ramana: As always, good review and analysis.Few observations: <blockquote>quote:<hr> Also there is the question of minimum range for the Agni which precluded more of them being tasked as a result of the Kargil crisis. Hence the need for the intermediary vehicle. <hr></blockquote>In terms of what drove the need for Agni-1, I think minumum range was a non-issue. Since Agni-2 were supposedly available and ready to be launched for secure and comfortable locations in India. The driving needs perhaps were:1. Cost
2. Simplicity: improved safety, handling, operating, training & UP-TIME
3. more mobile: easier & flexible deployment options
4. more accurate (as compared to 2 stage missile)
5. Smaller less conspicious man and support vehicils.Yet if required show visible presence at medium range from border (to US spy sats) like Prithvi to signal seriousness.On the RV: Lack of RV-fins seem to indicate mastery of alternative flight control mechanism.Also 18 months of DRDO/BDL response time, I am sure had earned more respect & confidence from the Army/AirForce. Which I think was bruised due to delay in Trishul, Akash, Nag programs. <blockquote>quote:<hr>Someone higher up should have stepped in long ago and come up with less destabilizing system. It only goes to show that special weapons are complex systems and have deeper ramifications that have to be understood before proceeding.
<hr></blockquote>
You are on the dot.thanks for sharing your assessment.

shashidhar · Post by **shashidhar** » 31 Jan 2002 05:18

The No first use doctrine makes exlanation for lowered threshold unsustainable.The activation may only mean that nuclear retaliation is in the offing.However with prithvi being close to the border:1)The nuclear capable missile will become a target and accessible target.
2)the prithvi in conventional role and nuclear role will only confuse matters.
3)The accuracy of prithvi with liquid fuelled system enables it for conventional high priority targets-it's cross with nuclear capability will mean that this role will not be feasible.
With Agni-x India has freed prithvi for conventional role.that is the beauty.

Roop · Post by **Roop** » 31 Jan 2002 07:04

(Note: I am only looking for open-source info in this post. Classified info is neither sought nor expected).Santhanam says that the Agni terminal guidance is a closed-loop system. This obviously means that a form of feedback is required, so that the guidance system can continuously compute the error-delta and take corrective action. What is the technology of this system? It can't be purely INS, because INS by itself is open-loop.I can only come up with satellite guidance as a possible candidate. BUt how can that be? India doesn't have its own GPS, and what scientist in his right mind would design a system based on the assumption of a foreign nation (US or Russia) being charitable enough to provide the necessary satellite guidance?TERCOM (Terrain Contour Matching) can't be used -- we're talking about a ballistic missile here, not a cruise missile.Radar guidance, perhaps? But how will the missile lock on to the target? Assuming active radar homing (the only reasonable assumption I can make), from what distance will the missile start to radiate? How will it acquire the target? How will it distinguish between the desired target and a large building or structure that may provide a false return because it happens to have a much larger RCS than the actual target?BTW, what is the CEP of the Agni? It better be darn good if they're planning to use 20KT warheads on it.Just some thoughts, and as I said, it's okay if this post is ignored for fear of compromising security.

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 31 Jan 2002 07:08

Mohan Raju>> DO we have a complete list of all the transponders on Indian satellites?

Roop · Post by **Roop** » 31 Jan 2002 07:25

<blockquote>quote:<hr>DO we have a complete list of all the transponders on Indian satellites? <hr></blockquote>Spinster:I'm not sure, but my speculative answer is: "Highly Unlikely". We (or rather, someone who keeps track of these things) probably has a list of the commercial/civilian transponders, but not the military ones. Indian babus may goof off and screw up a lot, but one thing they are good at is keeping the really important military secrets.

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 31 Jan 2002 07:57

"I'm not sure, but my speculative answer is: "Highly Unlikely". There in lies the answer to your original question. This is negative feed back loop

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 31 Jan 2002 08:02

<blockquote>quote:<hr> Mohan: Santhanam says that the Agni terminal guidance is a closed-loop system. This obviously means that a form of feedback is required, so that the guidance system can continuously compute the error-delta and take corrective action. What is the technology of this system? It can't be purely INS, because INS by itself is open-loop.I can only come up with satellite guidance as a possible candidate. BUt how can that be? India doesn't have its own GPS, and what scientist in his right mind would design a system based on the assumption of a foreign nation (US or Russia) being charitable enough to provide the necessary satellite guidance?
<hr></blockquote>This was extensivly discussed & archived ~2 years ago but looks like we lost parts of the archive.In summery it is clear that the missile is in close loop control all the way. INS being primary naviagtion, as well as integral element of control system. IIRC Indian source quote CEP of 150 meters.Caution: the following is my educated guess and may be speculative

. High accuracy is achived by mid course update of the INS, via some inginious ground based radio nav system which I speculated as inverse of the sky based GPS system. IMHO such systems have room for variety of long range deployment options. It is speculated that the Indian Agni-2 RV also seem to have the option of terminal guidence by RF/optical means.This is one of the reason Gen Mushy & his AHQ staff is browning pants so often, now that India has readied its armed forces for war at moments notice.

jrjrao · Post by **jrjrao** » 31 Jan 2002 08:20

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Mohan Raju:
TERCOM (Terrain Contour Matching) can't be used -- we're talking about a ballistic missile here, not a cruise missile.
<hr></blockquote>Mohan, the Pershing II missile, in those old (pre-pre-GPS) days, was noted for being a very accurate missile even though it was an all solid-fuel missile. And that it achieved its accuracy using methods quoted below. Perhaps the cunning Indoo's have been reading/learning/absorbing/improving!!!

<blockquote>quote:<hr>
The Pershing II was most advanced ground-to-ground missile ever developed by the U.S. Army. The two-stage missile was so accurate it was capable of flying 1,000 miles and hitting a single hardened target. The maneuvering warhead guided itself to the target by making radar images of the terrain below and comparing them with stored terrain maps of the target area.
<hr></blockquote>
http://www.wsmr.army.mil/paopage/Pages/PII.htm

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 31 Jan 2002 09:16

I believe there was some reference to Star sighting system also in guidance. 
Further ramana u have to take into consideration that the range of Prithvi was perhaps the result of some thinking of the higher ups (read MTCR)
also when we talk about solid-liquid debate then we take the accuracy issue very lightly. prithvi was always meant to hit conventional targets with accuracy. it used engines developed from a SAM and "gimballed" arrangement.Assuming that Agni-1/prithvi had to be mounted with all solid stage configeration then we would have required to develop flex nozzles, new stage-2 and third stage. Note- the third stage = altitude correction system continues to liqud fuel based. (?)the issue is that the accuracy with solid stage was further in future compared to liquid fueled engines.
i think the issue would be somewhat similar to using 1.8 meter dia motor which is being discussed now. this also requires facing bigger technological challenges and is not the issue of bigger motor only.IMHO we are underestimating the tech challenges of getting the Agni-2 and Agni-x in 1989 when first prithvi and Agni-1 were tested. Not to forget that India-pak were in confrontation in 1990. though it is difficult to say what role Prithvi tested in 1988 played there but I suppose the time limits do have a role to play in weapon development and cannot be considered indefinite.PS- the reference to 1.8m dia is being made because of kalam's book where he mentioned some thinking about a 36 ton 1.8m dia motor.
Df-31 is around 20 tons and I think that is how the Agni-3 may look like with 1.8 meter dia motor.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 31 Jan 2002 20:05

Unlike Agni, Prithvi is capable of changing trajectory (at 5 waypoints) to confound ABM system (if any) and prevent the enemy . This abelity is due to not only the re-startable liquid engine but also the relatively large fins/wings, primarily since much of Prithvi's is in thin atmosphere which enables significant aerodynamic streeing (i.e. without using fuel)

bored_desi · Post by **bored_desi** » 31 Jan 2002 21:21

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Arun_S:
Unlike Agni, Prithvi is capable of changing trajectory (at 5 waypoints) to confound ABM system (if any) and prevent the enemy . This abelity is due to not only the re-startable liquid engine but also the relatively large fins/wings, primarily since much of Prithvi's is in thin atmosphere which enables significant aerodynamic streeing (i.e. without using fuel)<hr></blockquote>So are you saying that prithvi is a precursor to a cruise missile ??? (or was that Lakshya).

krsai · Post by **krsai** » 31 Jan 2002 21:35

<blockquote>quote:<hr>High accuracy is achived by mid course update of the INS, via some inginious ground based radio nav system which I speculated as inverse of the sky based GPS system. IMHO such systems have room for variety of long range deployment options. It is speculated that the Indian Agni-2 RV also seem to have the option of terminal guidence by RF/optical means.
<hr></blockquote>Arun, in layman sense, [I hope I got what is said here is right?], Agni-1/sr would rely on ground based radars?
If so, do we have such long-range ones to get the positions for mid-course or rv corrections.[leaving aside, other target locking mechanisms for the final phase]. <blockquote>quote:<hr>The maneuvering warhead guided itself to the target by making radar images of the terrain below and comparing them with stored terrain maps of the target area
<hr></blockquote>
Would we like to use this slightly old tech for a new tech-toy of ours.
What would agni-1/sr would do in case of radar jamming and giving wrong
images. I guess this is a dangerous guidance, since enemy could reflect
back a radar map of delhi or bombay...[first question in my mind, is this
possible].==Are there other possibilities like instead of radars, the missile itself will emit signals back to the deployer, and ack back the position for corrections????? the signals could use satellites - TES for example is ready right on
the dot for us [for sr].OR, how far and powerful and till what stage / phase / sphere these signals can be monitored and used for corrections.For longer range like A3, we need one more TES probably Geo one, so that we re-position on the target for tracking and corrections.Alterntive thought/questions, are there instruments that is like once given[preset/set] a geographic position [long/lat] during mid course can adjust based on the current position it is [attached to the missile here] in. Meaning trying to adjust[correct] to the expected trajectory using these "compass readings" [example distance measuring from a fixed pole].

Sahastra · Post by **Sahastra** » 31 Jan 2002 22:26

K R Sai,Use the normal font please. Thanks.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 31 Jan 2002 22:30

pchupunkar: I mean what I said without any hidden meaning. With due respect I would suggest you to get update with general missile information available on the web, and then involve in more productive discussion. I do not see this forum for spoon feeding on Basics . k r sai: As a rule nowdays Combat Aircrafts & Missiles (of all kinds i.e. A-A, A-S, S-S) do not use Active Navagation aids (those that involve tramsitting any signal from the craft), for obvious reasons. RF transmission in some cases used for terminal guidence during last few seconds of flight by when it does not compromise success of mission.I would not be drawn into discussing possible options on Agni's navigation any more than what I have hinted. If one is upto the speed on the state of the art in the industry, one can sense what it may mean.

krsai · Post by **krsai** » 31 Jan 2002 22:40

Arun, quite right.
======================http://rediff.com/news/2002/jan/31cia.htm
India continues nuclear programme with foreign aid: CIA
"India continues to rely on foreign assistance for key missile technologies, where it still lacks engineering or production expertise. Entities in Russia and Western Europe remained the primary conduits of missile-related and dual-use technology transfers during the first half of 2001," the report, which covers the first six months of last year, says. 

- India continues to develop its nuclear arms programme with foreign assistance, mainly from Russia- "Russian entities continued to supply a variety of ballistic missile-related goods and technical know-how to countries such as Iran, India, China and Libya," it says. ===
comments?

krsai · Post by **krsai** » 31 Jan 2002 22:55

From: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/missile/agni-improvements.htm- The Agni-II incorporates a far more accurate terminal navigation and guidance system which constantly updates information about the missile flight path using Global Positioning System information provided by ground-based beacons.
- Also to increase accuracy, the re-entry vehicle employs a terminal guidance radar operating in the C- and S-bands. ===
Qs:
1. does not the beacon installations restrict the range?2. Should I take "constant" here meaning active navigation?===I guess the "time" enemy has at this stage is very little for him to do anything.. but skeptic about due to my knowledge/ignorance

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 31 Jan 2002 23:07

Probably the step-grandfather of Prithvi being the SA-2 which was a SAM had something to do with the fins and the maneuverability.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 31 Jan 2002 23:19

<blockquote>quote:<hr>>> 2. Should I take "constant" here meaning active navigation? <hr></blockquote>No. That is not what it necessarily means.BTW the look at the reported CEP of 40 meters.

Raj: I don't agree with your proposition.

krsai · Post by **krsai** » 01 Feb 2002 02:25

fyi. Not for techies like arunhttp://spaceboy.nasda.go.jp/note/Rocket/E/Roc_e.html

bored_desi · Post by **bored_desi** » 01 Feb 2002 07:52

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by k r sai:
fyi. Not for techies like arunhttp://spaceboy.nasda.go.jp/note/Rocket/E/Roc_e.html<hr></blockquote>Japan has a space shuttle ? Or is that a future space shuttle program?

Priyank · Post by **Priyank** » 01 Feb 2002 10:13

pchupunkar,From the article on Japan's space shuttle program, it is clear that the Japanese space shuttle is not operational yet, but is still in the developmental stages.Talking of space shuttles, even the Russians had a space shuttle program at the time of the Soviet Union. It was called Buran ( Russian for snow storm ) and was launched by an Energia rocket. I believe that atleast one was built ( I have seen a picture of it somewhere ) but I don't know whether it was actually launched or not. I have no idea on the current status of the program and most likely it has been cancelled due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent cash crunch in which the Russian space budget was decimated. Forget a space shuttle program, they did not even have enought money to keep the Mir in orbit.P.S. - I don't see what the Japanese space shuttle has got to do with this thread.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 01 Feb 2002 11:11

member_3853 · Post by **member_3853** » 01 Feb 2002 13:32

Hello people,
This is my first post.-----------------------------------------------
The Agni-II incorporates a far more accurate terminal navigation and guidance system which constantly updates information about the missile flight path using Global Positioning System information provided by ground-based beacons.Also to increase accuracy, the re-entry vehicle employs a terminal guidance radar operating in the C- and S-bands.
-----------------------------------------------Qs :Does this mean that the Agni-II can be made to home in on a moving target like an aircraft carrier? Is it possible? Also, is the CEP of 40m acceptable for an anti-aircraft carrier assignment?If this is possible, then how does a ballistic missile compare with a cruise missile in terms of range, survivability and accuracy for the anti aircraft carrier missile role?

krsai · Post by **krsai** » 01 Feb 2002 22:46

Managed to fish out a fantasitc old report. this reporthas stuff!.
From: Volume 16 - Issue 9, Dated: Apr. 24 - May. 07, 1999From the Indian perspective, however, with an established mastery over solid propellants, it was logical to go in for solid propellants right from the start because even solid propellants, concepts and technologies for thrust termination had emerged.Indeed, the DRDO appears to be well on its way to using solid fuel in a big way; it has, somewhat belatedly, established a facility to produce solid propellants, and the unit is likely to go on stream very soon. It would also seem to make sense to make Prithvi a soild-fuel missile

THERE have been media reports that Agni-II uses the Global Positioning System (GPS) for control during re-entry. Abdul Kalam, however, denied this; such a system, he said, depends on several external influencing factors and would make the system vulnerable to external interference.

Considering that except in some parts - for instance, the northeastern region - road infrastructure is available wherever rail tracks are available, the decision to become rail-mobile could mean, in strategic terms, that deployment in the northeastern region is to be considered seriously. the actual operationalisation of the missile is at least five years away.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 02 Feb 2002 00:36

Priyank,The Buran did an orbital flight without crew. It was landed by autopilot. After this the project was shelved in the early 90s. IIRC the buran has a bigger payload capacity than the american space shuttle.Vivek M,Personally don't think it is possible to use a ballistic missile for moving targets such as a CBG. If it could have been done, why would cruise missiles have been developed? The Soviets and now the Russians depend on waves of ALCMs to engage CBGs. I don't think there is any country in the world which depends on ballistic missiles to hit ships moving at sea. Attacking a carrier group on the high seas is much more than just launching a ballistic missile at it. You have to know its position at launch, calculate its position at the time of impact and HOPE it will be there when the missile lands. Further ballistic missile warheads are not designed to manouvre in any significant manner, and they can't go chasing after ships. They are designed to go up and come down in a BALLISTIC trajectory with minor error corrections on the way down. ie, if you want to change the target by lets say 50-60 kms from the original impact point, you'd better do it high up. If you can't do so early enough by the time the warhead is at a lower altitude, you may not be able to correct enough to alter the path by 50 kms. They do not carry enough propellant for that and to use an analogy, it will be like shooting off a marble at a moving target hoping the marble will meet the target at the exact spot you calculate (and hope for) it to be in the future. This is the reason for the development of cruise missiles which are powered at all stages of their flight profile, and are more easier to manouvre in case the target changes its position unexpectedly.George J,I think one should look at the effect of the bikini atoll tests on warships for this...The carrier USS Saratoga survived the first blast (23 kT airburst) but was sunk with the second one (23kT underwater detonation)Here is a fact sheet on this test http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq76-1.htmHere is a list of vessels used in the testing testing and their fate http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq76-5.htmShips sunk by the airburst http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq76-3.htmShips sunk by the underwater burst http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq76-4.htm

George J · Post by **George J** » 02 Feb 2002 01:18

Shalav:
I was referring to near surface or air-detonation of a 1 ton conventional warhead on the Agni. A nuke warhead on a CBG in our case would be pretty much an overkill and even suicidal.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 02 Feb 2002 01:31

George J,1 ton air detonation ain't going to do much if its not going to strike the ship directly IMO. It would have to be pretty close to do much damage, else it is just going to pepper a ship with shrapnel, and not too much at that, since the blast will not be directed at the ship, but will spread in a globular pattern from the point of detonation. Think of the 23kT air burst which didn't sink the Saratoga. It was 23,000 times more powerful than a 1 ton explosion.But since i don't know for sure I will not dive deeper into this and make any more guesstimates.

RanjanRoy · Post by **RanjanRoy** » 02 Feb 2002 01:45

Folks get back to meaningful discussion per title of the thread, and please delete externeous stuff.And BTW this is not a wish list thread, thus "SHOULD" based sentances must be meaningfully used.

George J · Post by **George J** » 02 Feb 2002 02:50

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Shalav:
George J,......1 ton air detonation ain't going to do much if its not going to strike the ship directly ....<hr></blockquote>My views exactly. Thank you for concurring and for you insights, homie. (he he he i could'nt resist it, maybe you can tear me up at the next BR chicago meet.)

subbu · Post by **subbu** » 02 Feb 2002 05:02

without a background, perhaps these are what I can field,1) if pakistan attacks BARC first breaking an agreement, wouldn't we retaliate attacking their nuclear facilities? and if pak is on a hair trigger alert to hold a nuclear strike having lowered the threshold, wouldn't any Indian missile conventional or otherwise create jitters among them (other than your regular fear for missiles!). if they can't identify a missile, every incoming indian missile strike is a do or die calculation for them (and having violated their own treaties earlier wouldn't they expect us not to stick to NFU either), isn't that state real close to nuke threshold? extending teh scenario, our use, if any, of subkiloton/tactical weapons would be tantamount to a citizen killing nuclear attack!!2) would we, even if we try to take out their nukes are sure that 100% of their nukes + capability is gone?? which I doubt, and doesn't it leave us with a residual threat if not outright second strike capability on their side?3) so, if we are to live with the status quo, can we fight a conventional war, well under this god knows where nuclear threshold? Do we do comphrehensive strikes across the board for say few days/week getting at our objectives and offer a truce? before things get real real hot notwithstanding rhetoric. can we define our military objectives and their achievability and do the job within a short time frame?4) Can a conventional/subkiloton 2-ton+ payload short range Agni coupled with MIRV capability, if any, be a more cost effective solution?5) if we pit the dodging warhead of Prithvi aganist Akash (assuming it has an anti ballistic role), whihn one wins? we don't hear these kind of tests by countries (for export reasons?) or atleast I am ignorant.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 02 Feb 2002 07:46

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Can a conventional/subkiloton 2-ton+ payload short range Agni coupled with MIRV capability, if any, be a more cost effective solution? <hr></blockquote>MIRV on Agni-I ? Dream-on

IMHO the RV of Agni-I should have more space for weapon as compared to Agni-II (much lesser RV thruster fuel), thus I would thinks it can deliver ~1.5 to 2 ton conventional weapon.

subbu · Post by **subbu** » 02 Feb 2002 22:57

Hi Arun, Being an expert too often you deal with realism, am happy speculating in the tolerable zone:-) I was wondering about range vs. payload conservation with the existing capability of Agni system, since we could lift a heavier payload to a lower height(short range) using a Agni-2 or 3?, a heavier MIRV kind of warhead could be lifted. Not underestimating the complexity, releasing RVs at different heights is the basic principle, for example, 3 * 1 ton is not too huge a payload. while height and range are taken care of by regular launch and RV release points, its in correcting the azimuth per RV one perhaps needs more thruster propellant. if an RV's initial release momentum at a height is difficult to control by thrusters in changing its azimuth, is it difficult to change azimuth angle of each RV using azimuth ahgle chnages of the final stage (3stage + MIRV) before the release of each RV. why isn't such technology used for smaller ranges such as a 250-km prithvi? pak targtes being close enough or a battlefield tactical strike note, we can view this as a cost effective solution (in contrast to perhaps launching 3 missiles acheiving the same) rather than that as a super-duper off limits technology of the west and a bait for the yearning yindoo etc., or treat this as an academic exercise.