Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

krsai · Post by **krsai** » 27 Jan 2002 07:34

http://www.indian-express.com/ie20020126/top1.html

PAKISTAN: Pakistan appealed to the international community to ‘‘take note of this Indian behaviour which is prejudicial to the pursuit of stability in our region’’. P2

US: Though the US didn’t react to the test, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton said at a conference the proliferation of N-material posed a serious threat to international securityBRITAIN: Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said: ‘‘I regret India’s decision to test a ballistic missile, particularly in the light of current regional tension’’

RUSSIA: ‘The test itself was completely transparent under international confidence-building measures,” said a Russian official’CHINA: Official media reported India’s statement that the test wasn’t sending any message to anybody========
The testing of this medium range ballistic missile (MRBM), with a range of 700 km and payload capacity of approximately 800-1,000 kg, is a new entry in DRDO’s inventory list. We are very happy with the initial results, - K G Narayanan, DRDO chief advisor.Experts say the missile could also provide the platform to launch low-level earth-orbitting surveillance and reconnaissance satellites. The missile is capable of carrying all kinds of payload, according to DRDO officials.It is a single stage, all-solid fuel missile. Experts say a single stage missile hitting a target accurately at 700 km distance is an achievement. The solid fuel means higher safety standards and a much longer shelf-life. The Agni variant is both road and rail mobile.

Vanahan · Post by **Vanahan** » 27 Jan 2002 07:37

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by k r sai:
Agni-II carried a ``velocity-trimming package'' to compensate for the slight performance variations inherent in solid motors. The package in the Agni-II is said to have consisted of liquid-fuelled thrusters (which are small rocket engines). The new short-range Agni is likely to have retained this velocity trimming package.<hr></blockquote>The above article is the most accurate one yet with regards to available information, and the first(in my recollection) to mention propulsive elements in the RV. The said liquid fuel thrusters onboard the Agni RV effectively makes this another stage. Thus, if their (liquid thrusters) presence can be confirmed by DRDO sources, the new Agni variant should be correctly called a 2-stage missile, and the A-II a three-stage missile.

krsai · Post by **krsai** » 27 Jan 2002 07:46

I have a feeling that when we tested the agni-II-extended{last test}, we actually tested the 3500km wala. in the sense, the current test agni-3 is actually agni-1, agni-2 is 1500km-2000km.
[yahoo!! I did predict correct. see posts below]I expect Surya to be the next classified missile in the making with a first version hitting anywhere between 3500km to 5000km - meaning derated for western guys: 8000kms. When we may test the 8000kms icbm, that should be a derated 12000km wala....night flight to venus! from mount mahendragiri!

karthik.k · Post by **karthik.k** » 27 Jan 2002 07:50

If there were indeed two tests, would GoI have let the 2nd missile be photographed in flight ? Testing a missile on the sly and letting out the pics to the media doesn't make sense to me. Kindly enlighten.

krsai · Post by **krsai** » 27 Jan 2002 07:58

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Karthik Krishnamurthy:
If there were indeed two tests, would GoI have let the 2nd missile be photographed in flight ? Testing a missile on the sly and letting out the pics to the media doesn't make sense to me. Kindly enlighten.<hr></blockquote>I think we should discount this thoughtof two tests since russians says: ‘The test itself was completely transparent under international confidence-building measures,”

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Jan 2002 10:01

New]http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991845]New Scientist: India lacks suitable warheads for tested missile [/URL]
Bing, bing, bing, bing, ...., ...., ....,. <blockquote>quote:<hr>Jasani say that testing is a long process and is not convinced that India has the nuclear weapons for this missile. He believes that India may be more concerned about another neighbour with nuclear-capability - China.
<hr></blockquote>Altho, this test may be TSP centric, the BIG picture is being painted with China in mind. For once someone in the west seems to have realised that fact. If we can marginalize TSP, we have made a quantum leap. TSP is a hugh waste of time.

Kaushal · Post by **Kaushal** » 27 Jan 2002 10:18

As far as India is concerned TSP is a pimple on the fly of the elephant ( i am exaggerating but not a whole lot). The problem is the rest of the world insists on clubbing the 2 countries together. it appears we are joined at the hip and the country most responsible for such a perception is of course TSP, which would vaporize into thin air the moment India moves to another locale like South America,Kaushal

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 27 Jan 2002 10:48

Arun S,
You'r ,i wager,pretty much on the dot.I recall you predicting these "developments" quite some time back.

<blockquote>quote:<hr>However, it is prudent to note that this problem has become rather trivialized nowadays with the availability of much greater and cheaper computing power for CFD modelling. <hr></blockquote>Vanahan.
Perceptive remarks.If i may add,reentry technology-heat shield etc -also involves expertise with composite structures and their usage.... a capability which we have in depth,but the pukes dont.Regards,
Nitin

shashidhar · Post by **shashidhar** » 27 Jan 2002 16:49

what a load of crap.The west would love to paint Indo chinese conflict.This missile is pakistani specific.India must declare that to ratchet up the pressure.No point in beating around the bush.We want action against pakistan-and we shall have it.
I am waiting for this govt to declare Indus treaty null and void- patience cannot last forever.I hope BJP will get a sound thrashing at the polls for not doing enough.After the 'historic'(my foot) mushy sppech on what he was going to do nothing has materialised.The 20 thugs we wanted are smoking cuban cigars and living in villas protected by assigned bodyguards from mushy.
This govt still dilly dallies??What the hell are we getting in return?Srinagar TV blasts,eight children killed,four policemen dead,more infiltration,the terror king wants another five years at the gaddi?India keeps quite?
How come India has not raised concerns about trampling of democracy of poor pakistanis?How come pakistan is not isolated by so called guardans of the free world?
On that note jasso says he will walk twice as much as pakistanis.Can't the man shut up for once and leave it to LKA to do the talking.This guy puts India in a bind and this dirty talk will be quoted by nobody like anita pratap and other leftist, west funded pinko club.
Ratchet up the heat folks.

member_3837 · Post by **member_3837** » 27 Jan 2002 18:32

There is no way that the two images that are being
labelled Agni are the same missile. I thought I was crazy but my first thought at seeing the tubular "Agni" was that it was a sub launched ballistic missile.Next I thought could this be the Brahmos missile.
If one visits the Brahmos website, images of the missile show an obvious black and white checkered
paint job on the missile. If the tubular missile we are seeing now is the Brahmos it is a new test of this weapon. Hopefully the GOI will come clean
soon, because things just don't add up here.

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 27 Jan 2002 19:46

The second picture (blunt nose) is NOT BrahMos !! The missile is too fat compared to BrahMos and the dimensions just do not add up. The BrahMos information from www.BrahMos.com <blockquote>quote:<hr>
The Brahmos missile has a diameter of approximately 700mm and is approximately 9 meters long. It weighs 3000 kg with a 200 kg warhead, with capabilities to cruise at 15 kilometers altitude during midcourse and at 5-10 meters during terminal phase.
<hr></blockquote>These do not match up, in addition to the fact the BrahMos cruises at high altitude midcourseOther reasons why they would not try and hide BrahMos test behind an Agni-X test (though vice-versa woulkd make sense):* BrahMos is a known program whose testing has not met with the fierce criticism as the tests of ballistic missile(s).* BrahMos is publicly viewed as an "anti-ship" missile with a non-threatening 200kg warhead. Arguably, both of these factors are irrelevant in terms of using BrahMos as an effective land-attack weapon, but that is besides the point. The comments for the media are completely based on public perception and not threat evaluation.Conclusion: The second blunt nose missile is not BrahMos because there's no reason to hide a BrahMos test.Another key assumption being made by everyone is that the two tests happened simultaenously !! I would suggest we try to do the following first:1) are those two different missiles?
Ans. There is a consensus among the key experts (arun_s, Johann, JEM, etc.) that those are two different missiles.2) why are they showing two different missiles in the clip?
Ans.
a) simplest is they did not want to show the actual test but wanted to feed people some nice video of a missile test

but india, unlike china, has not release fake pictures of its arms in development. it is unlikely they will start now.
b) two missiles were tested and they (GOI spin-doctors) are being truthful in their traditional "clintonesque" way and are trying to get the unrelated messages out together (classic repetition of earlier similar messages like that in the case of Akash tests quoting it was a nuclear capable SAM with 45 kg warhead).if two missiles were tested, then it is not necessary they were tested simultaneously. Tests from the submersible platform "sagarika" were slated for Sept. 2001 (Janes, Indian Exp., TOI, etc.). If a test was conducted following 9/11 they would not have publicised it given the climate then. Additionally, US was too busy tailing Osama/Taliban/Al-Qaeda with all its "eye-in-the-sky" assets to be watching for possible Indian tests off-shore (which would be a harder task than watching on-shore assets).So, is this an attempt to come clean about an undeclared test India possibly conducted earlier?As for the Russian statement and trying to decipher it as a benchmark, all it talks about is the specific Agni-X test and nothing more and nothing less. Agni-X test was transparent in that it was clearly announced and each country has the option of utilizing their own assets to gather the required data.In my analysis I think Britain's reponse is the key. It is way too harsh and out of character for a country which has lately given to pussy-footing in remarks concerning India. Possible reasons -
* UK is being the mouth-piece for US which currently can not put out a harsh statement critical of indian test. This is the most likely scenario. As long as india knows that UK is unlikely to have to put up with an indian rebuttal statement.
* UK's reponse belies the concern about testing of another weapon system - possibly the launch from a submersible platform. I would think the UK response is two-fold, above reason as well as combined with this one.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 27 Jan 2002 20:01

Avid,I'm hardly an expert on missiles, can barely tell the back-end from the front. But I did see the first clips shown on DD, and the one shown being launched (Agni, white, diagonal orange stripes, pointy black nosecone, etc.) clearly was not the one later shown in vertical flight - unless, as I said, I was hallucinating. Not likely. But it makes no sense to me at all. Clearly, photos released were also different. Wonder why.

Sridhar · Post by **Sridhar** » 27 Jan 2002 20:19

JEM:The second picture (blunt nose, no fins) was not **released**. The caption in the Hindu, CNN, NYTimes etc. all said that it was a Television image. It is thus a single source - the Doordarshan image.Given Doordarshan's record, it might have well been a goof-up, which in itself has two possibilities
1. They showed an archival clip of another missile launch, not even an Indian one.
2. It was another Indian missile launch, which they had filmed but were not supposed to release.If it was not a DD goofup, it might have been a method of releasing information to the bozos in GHQ, Rawalpindi about our capabilities (in addition to the guys in DC) without raising the temperature too much.What I can't really understand is that if it was indeed a second launch, what do we gain by hiding it. My (limited) understanding about a posture of deterrence is to advertise as loudly as you can and as credibly as you can, your capability to pulverize the enemy. And even if that is not entirely correct, whom are we trying to hide it from. If there was a second launch, Uncle would have definitely got to know about it anyway, and the sneak preview is unlikely to have been missed in Rawalpindi. Might make sense to hide it before the test (like Brahmos), but not after it.Puzzling, especially given our past record of transparency in these matters, where GoI has released info about failures (Dhanush/Trishul etc. being examples) as well as successes.P.S. You are being modest as usual

krsai · Post by **krsai** » 27 Jan 2002 20:23

When Tony Blair visited India, he said, UK is not anymore a super-power-ish, and can't influence the world on any matter. The argument they are the mouth-piece for US needs a pinch of salt to digest since if USA wants to say anything on India, they can without any inhibitions viz to the current situation, since they are not in anyway siding with India or evening balancing to say that much. They have more weight towards our enemies rather than us. If dubya condemnds Indian tests, there is no way India's relationship with USA is going to be effected since our way of thinking is entirely different, for any rational relationship we might want to keep with anyone. And,.. okay UK screams and it just does'nt cross the straights of gibralter.. no effect at all. In fact they might jeopardise a billion dollar deal for 66 hawks. Big deal either way {Indo-UK}. I guess, if we have informed everyone concerned then it is plausible to state the reactions to the tests are well anticipated or perhaps known ahead of the tests.. meaning a copy of these reaction statement given to India much before. So, is the reaction from GoI - meaning calm, firm and well orhestrated reactions to the condemnations.If there were two tests, then it has to be from ITR. And if we have given advanced notices, then US satellites are already positioned to capture.. and Powell clearly said there is nothing new India did, to be alarmed..The only thing may be to calm the pakis.. showing a picture that the tests were nothing for that pakis should go ballistic..blah blah.. remember, they are tyring to balance.===\This is because the nuclear warheads possessed by India and Pakistan are not suited to short-range conflict, he says. They both own kiloton nuclear weapons, but not sub-kiloton weapons, which are needed for short range./===Can some experts say why this is so? why can't we use a kton weapon for short-range? Impossible or not suitable? disadvantage and other possible problems?

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 27 Jan 2002 20:34

Guys, let's not get into a tizzy about the British comment. Poor guys had to say something. It's alright. Smile politely, pat them on their collective back and offer a Britannia biscuit.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 27 Jan 2002 21:13

vanahan : All my rocket simulation for last 2 years has the RV thrusters accounted for. Thus I also sometimes use the term PBV (Post Boost Vehicil) for the RV, since that is what it is (although its a non-MIRV configuration). The ~4 meter long length is too big for a typical payload RV. IMHO the long cylinderical half of the RV is too long for any other purpose but housing significant amount of PBV fuel and small thruster. If you look at all my simulations the RV stage assumes ~250Kg fuel and a slow burn time of 90 seconds or more (for range calculation the difference between 300 seconds burn and 90 second is not much, but for engine weight & ISP purposes the longer burn time is more advantageous). THE RV fuels is anybodies guess, but that also provide flexbility for wider range of payload (Lighter/Heavier as well as small/volumenous)depending on mission (as against the typical small RV, seen in western missiles).In view of above one can see the tremendeous range vs payload tradeoff that Agni can have, as against conventional fixed payload RV missiles of US & Russia.Any wisdom of the Agni-2 range that I had been projecting for smaller un-conventional payload of ~350Kg ? He he.. the reasons why dragon is twitching for better ralationship with India

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 27 Jan 2002 21:27

Here we go again TIT for TATFrom Times of India : Pak may follow suit and test missileshttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Articleshow.asp?art_id=1606672340
From Indian Express: Pakistan may follow suit and test its missileshttp://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=6894

RonyKJ · Post by **RonyKJ** » 27 Jan 2002 21:29

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Sridhar:Given Doordarshan's record, it might have well been a goof-up, which in itself has two possibilities
1. They showed an archival clip of another missile launch, not even an Indian one.
2. It was another Indian missile launch, which they had filmed but were not supposed to release.<hr></blockquote>I concur with sridhar that the picture of the missile wiht the blunt nose is something different which is either a wrong picture or of something which DD was not supposed to release.It is not possible that the two are same pictures from different angles because of two reasons. The first is that although sunlight can play tricks wiht the markings it cannot make the payload module shape look so different. Secondly all photo/videographers/press are usually located at one spot and it is doubtful that somebody got a shot from a different angle.So the unresolved task is to identify the missile from the second photo.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 27 Jan 2002 21:32

BTW, Agni-2 cannot have the stated range of 3000Km without accounting for the RV thrusters. With only the 2 solid stages it can get to the 2600Km range, that some western sources believe.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 27 Jan 2002 21:38

The blindsighted Pakistanis will over-do Indian efforts of testing a shorter range Agni-IRBM and claim superiority by testing a shorter range Gauri with 50 Km range

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 27 Jan 2002 22:34

Does anyone have a picture of Klub missile? Recently our Navy chief stated that we have a sub lauched missile capability. If he was referring to the Klub, then the picture might have something to do with that

Prateek · Post by **Prateek** » 27 Jan 2002 22:36

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by k r sai:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/01/25/india.missile/index.htmlnow cnn has a new twist..it says the test is not against pakistan but china...man we need to settle our petition with these guys... this is outrageous reporting... where have we said it is any country specific...<hr></blockquote>
I think US is trying to help India test their weapons by keeping Pakistanis happy !Tell Pakis that the 700 Km missile test is against China, Which means, Pakis keep quiet, let Indians test this missile, since it doesn't harm Pakistan, it is tested against China. The Chinese don't care if India were to test 700 or even a 1000 Km missile against China! They will just give a grin smile at it

.But never the less, this kind of reporting serves the US purpose of pitching India against China. US of A is playing his games. India should play theirs.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Jan 2002 22:39

The Agni RV has an onboard thruster setup called the high altitude engine(HAE). It is also called a half stage for it can add range if needed. I am not confident but I believe it is based on the 4th stage of the PSLV. I deduce this based on ISRO offcials remarks about the long burntime of the 4th stage and how it has strategic implications. Remarks made to Flt Intl after PSLV-II test.The liquid fuel Prithvi is based on a cancelled SSM -Devil program of DRDO. WOP by Chengappa documents this. Perhaps N. Gopal Raj does not read books by his competitors. Kalam in Wings of Fire tells how the second stage of A-I was chosen to be based on the Prithivi- to buy time and achieve quick flight test to check out the RV paramaters. He always wanted a solid fuel model but had to settle as it would take time. The A-II solid fuel motor is called Daisy and the scientist who developed it was honored in the DRDO Tech Focus pages in 2000.

member_201 · Post by **member_201** » 27 Jan 2002 22:51

Short-range Agni missile test-fired http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020126/main1.htm

krsai · Post by **krsai** » 27 Jan 2002 23:32

Admins may want to change the topic to AGNI-I/SR test fired!!!
===

Agni-I: A short range N-missile India urgently needs

K SANTHANAM [ SUNDAY, JANUARY 27, 2002 10:39:01 AM ]

NEW DELHI: The successful launch of the Agni-I missile with a range of 800-900 km from the interim test range, Balasore, on Friday has great significance for operational aspects of our deterrence posture. The existence of the Agni-1 project has not been generally known outside a small, select group in the government. The road-mobile, solid propellant Agni-1 urgently fills the need for a nuclear missile which could be launched sufficiently far away from the western border. In June 1999, external affairs minister Jaswant Singh and defence minister Mr George Fernandes initiated a discussion on the need for a missile to cover the gap in range between the Prithvi-II (250 km) and the Agni-II (2,500 km). The "go ahead" to develop, test and produce the Agni-I came in October 1999. The fact that it took just 15 months to test the missile would indicate that proven technologies and sub-systems from the Agni-II project would have been optimally used to reduce development efforts and speed up hardware realisation indigenously. Information released by the DRDO indicates that the first stage and reentry vehicle of the Agni-II has been used with some modifications in the Agni-I. But that would not be enough. A new closed loop guidance scheme for the atmospheric phase of the missile's trajectory would be needed. Also, some rework of the airframe and sub-assemblies would be necessary because of higher boost phase acceleration expected for Agni-I in comparison to Agni-II. The third member of the family, Agni-III, is in the development stage. It'll be rail-mobile and have a range of 3,500-4,000 km. Its first test may occur in late 2003. The design and manufacture of a new road-mobile launcher for this missile, again in 15 months, is noteworthy because it confers operational advantages (eg survivability) in movement, deployment and launch. Discussions initiated by the defence minister in June 1999 and the "go ahead" in October 1999 were against the backdrop of the Kargil war and the nuclear shadow. Given India's no-first-use doctrine and Pakistan's NATO-like adherence to first-use, some strategists in India felt that Prithvi deployment, even with conventional warheads, would provoke Pakistan to undertake a pre-emptive nuclear strike because "Pakistan may perceive the Prithvi as deployed with nuclear warheads". This theory led to an assertion that the Prithvi deployment would lower the nuclear threshold. Further, given the short range of the Prithvi, its movement from storage depots to launch points would be tracked by Pakistan's intelligence.It is known that from its inception in 1983, the Prithvi was designed to carry conventional warheads like pre-fragmented monolith and bomblet sub-munitions. However, until June 1999, it is not clear whether any serious direction was given to the DRDO by the services or the government on the inevitable need for a nuclear-capable missile of this type. The fact that the Agni-I was taken as a crash project only in October 1999 indicates the reactive nature of our procedures and processes.

(Santhanam is Director, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses and was a project coordinator for India's nuclear weapons programme. He witnessed the Agni-I test at Balasore.)

krsai · Post by **krsai** » 28 Jan 2002 00:26

Agni-I/SR test is really causing nightmare to musharaf and pakis. Its rattling them up!

http://deccanherald.com/deccanherald/jan28/ipak.htm
Following Indian decision to test-fire Agni-II, President Pervez Musharraf called an emergency meeting of his military and civilian colleagues immediately to discuss the response. - The planes landed on the motroway as part of mock preparations...The operations by the planes were meant at exercising pilots and ground crew to undertake operations from surfaces other than the road runway in times of emergencies.

THIS CLEARLY SHOWS AGNI-I/SR IS SPECIALLY FOR PAKISTAN.. THEY EXPECT ALL THEIR PORTS TO WIPED OUT..

krsai · Post by **krsai** » 28 Jan 2002 01:09

Agni-1 and National Security

Sahastra · Post by **Sahastra** » 28 Jan 2002 02:15

Admins, please lock the thread.The new thread is here:AGNI-I/SR missile: Strategic implications
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=004708

Bharat Rakshak

Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)

Re: Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 1)