Agni test of 09 January 2003

Priyank · Post by **Priyank** » 13 Jan 2003 09:51

IIRC the correct term is HAE - High Altitude Engine. I have a question about it. What effect does it being liquid fueled have on operational readiness. Dosen't the liquid fuel have to be loaded just prior to launch and wouldn't that affect response time. IIRC, from an India Today article a few years back, the A-2 takes 20 min from the go signal to launch. I expect the A-1 takes about the same time.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 13 Jan 2003 11:57

You are right on HAE.

Agni's HAE is shrouded in secracy with zero information to outsiders like me..

subbu · Post by **subbu** » 13 Jan 2003 13:23

Arun_S configurations are very interesting, hopefully things turn out that way sooner. How about adopting "technology to operationalization: minimizing timelines" management initiative, should be really feasible with all that funding from the state.

regards to loading the liquid engines (HAE) with fuel, that is perhaps done when the alert levels have gone up in the conflict status. Maybe they won't wait until the command to launch is given.

The following maybe a lot of hand waving,

Just as a torpedo can maneouver underwater, can a 7(+) metre long ballistic missile be launched horizontally or at an angle to the horizontal plane which then straightens up by the time it reaches the water surface, jettisons the torpedo motor and goes vertical (or even angled)? or the only alternative is bigger subs.

Arun A · Post by **Arun A** » 13 Jan 2003 20:04

Originally posted by Priyank:
Dosen't the liquid fuel have to be loaded just prior to launch and wouldn't that affect response time.

Once the liquid fuel is loaded, how long can the missile be kept in the ready state?
Arun_S? Anyone..?

War, if it does come, won't come out of the blue. Even if the fuelling process takes 12 hours, we will know well in advance that we may have to fuel the missiles.

Rudra · Post by **Rudra** » 13 Jan 2003 20:13

is brahmos a liquid fuel ramjet? if so, looks like some types can be fueled permanently and sealed into tube.

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 13 Jan 2003 20:53

Liquid fuels usually have a limited time once loaded into the tanks. Basically due to corrosive nature of the propellents. But one can get extended life (after loading the fuel) by lining the liquid propellent tanks with appropriate anti corrosive coatings. Russians had perfected the coatings to such an extent that they could store the fuel for couple of years once loaded, all this before they switched to solid fuels.

here is a (rotary) kind of MIRV (in horzontal plane.

RanjanRoy · Post by **RanjanRoy** » 13 Jan 2003 23:48

From Intelligenceonline.net

Agni-III only to "dissuade" China 11 January 2003: The Agni-III missile that India will test-fire by the year-end is meant to "dissuade" China from launching a nuclear attack and not deter it as is the case of the Pakistan-specific Agni-I missile...

Kumar · Post by **Kumar** » 14 Jan 2003 01:33

This line of 'dissuading' and not deterring China with Agni-III is very significant. In light of India's avowed nuclear-deterrence policy, this statement implies that to deter China, India will have to pursue missiles of a type more advanced than Agni-III.

Amitabh · Post by **Amitabh** » 14 Jan 2003 02:02

It's all spin, possibly for diplomatic reasons (overcompensation for the 1998 George Fernandes controversy?). I can't tell the conceptual difference between "dissuading" and "deterring".

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 14 Jan 2003 02:10

Originally posted by Amitabh:
I can't tell the conceptual difference between "dissuading" and "deterring".

The way I see it "dissuade" means "if you hit me, I'll break your arm", whereas "deter" means "if you hit me, I'll shoot you through your head".

Prateek · Post by **Prateek** » 14 Jan 2003 02:17

Let's lok into dictionary for dissuade ..

Dissuade -

To deter (a person) from a course of action or a purpose by persuasion or exhortation: dissuaded my friend from pursuing such a rash scheme.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dissuade

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.

Anaath · Post by **Anaath** » 14 Jan 2003 02:21

May be "dissuading" is to signal a low volume A-III production run to third parties, per promises made or not made?

Sasi · Post by **Sasi** » 14 Jan 2003 05:36

<a href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b ... a=Dissuade" target="external">Dissuade</a> and <a href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b ... y&va=deter" target="external">Deter</a> seem to be two different things going by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definitions.

Main Entry: dis·suade
Pronunciation: di-'swAd
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): dis·suad·ed; dis·suad·ing
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French dissuader, from Latin dissuadEre, from dis- + suadEre to urge -- more at <a href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b ... y&va=sweet" target="external">SWEET</a>
Date: 15th century
1 a : to advise (a person) against something b archaic : to advise against (an action)
2 : to turn from something by persuasion
- dis·suad·er noun

Main Entry: de·ter
Pronunciation: di-'t&r, dE-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): de·terred; de·ter·ring
Etymology: Latin deterrEre, from de- + terrEre to frighten -- more at <a href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b ... &va=terror" target="external">TERROR</a>
Date: 1579
1 : to turn aside, discourage, or prevent from acting
2 : <a href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b ... va=inhibit" target="external">INHIBIT</a>
- de·ter·ment /-'t&r-m&nt/ noun
- de·ter·ra·bil·i·ty /-"t&r-&-'bi-l&-tE/ noun
- de·ter·ra·ble /-'t&r-&-b&l/ adjective

Prateek · Post by **Prateek** » 14 Jan 2003 05:41

So 'dissuade' is a bit more softer word compared with 'deter' ?

Raj Singh · Post by **Raj Singh** » 14 Jan 2003 05:56

Originally posted by Muddur

So 'dissuade' is a bit more softer word compared with 'deter' ?

It would seem that way but going by the definitions presented, there is a difference. For, dissuade is more on the lines of advise only whereas deter is prevention. Which can involve physical action, as well.

Amitabh · Post by **Amitabh** » 14 Jan 2003 06:11

My point is that the implicit threat, whether it be to "dissuade" or to "deter", is that India will drop a megaton warhead attached to an Agni on a city that is of value to the targeted country, be it Islamabad or Beijing. The objective is to prevent the said target from doing the same to New Delhi, and hopefully from attacking us conventionally.

Why this is only "dissuasion" in the case of China and "deterrence" in the case of Pakistan is beyond me. Surely, the threat to nuke Beijing is no softer than the threat to nuke Islamabad!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jan 2003 06:31

The means of convincing is different, the end is the same.

I doubt if India will produce any less missiles or less capable nukes. After all those that India produces have to be good enough to strike back. So, the issue is neither the number nor the destructive power.

It is probably to keep think-tanks and phoren governments occupied with extra verbage. Could be to buy soem time to go from "dissuade" to "deter".

Kumar · Post by **Kumar** » 14 Jan 2003 06:32

It seems that many countries have been advising India to not think beyond Agni-III, as then India would have a deterrence for China, supposedly the main enemy.

This dissuade versus deter nuance is brought in to say that Agni-III is not enough of a deterrence for China. So even though India would go on developing missiles of more advanced types it will still be claimed to be a deterrent for China only. It will be merely a coincince if it has some other powers under reach.

It is all diplomatese anyway, but hard-diplomacy by other countries has had quite a succesful record in delaying India's missile program.

Sukumar · Post by **Sukumar** » 14 Jan 2003 09:17

Arun_S, maybe you have some ideas on this. Why is it that the successive versions of Agni progress in small steps rather than leaps and bounds ?

I mean Agni to Agni 2 was 1500 --> 2599 Km
Agni 2 to Agni 3 is 2600 ---> 3000 Km

why dont they just make a leap to 5-6000 KM ? or is it all disinformation ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Jan 2003 09:20

dissuade, deter - what a load of crap.

One who is dissuaded may be deterred and one who isn't dissuaded will not be deterred.

The news item is someone's personal spin on the issue.

ArunK · Post by **ArunK** » 14 Jan 2003 09:42

Originally posted by R Sukumar:
Arun_S, maybe you have some ideas on this. Why is it that the successive versions of Agni progress in small steps rather than leaps and bounds ?

I mean Agni to Agni 2 was 1500 --> 2599 Km
Agni 2 to Agni 3 is 2600 ---> 3000 Km

why dont they just make a leap to 5-6000 KM ? or is it all disinformation ?

I have always felt that we should play our cards close to our chest as far as our ICBM capabilities go.

What is the need to show our hand? Consider this possibility...

Suppose we develop a 2m dia missile put a 3T weight on it and test it with a flight profile similar to the AGNI-II. We will of course claim that this was routine AGNI-II test. Now if we can achieve similar results in range as the AGNI-II with this baby, then we KNOW that our China based deterrent is well on its way to being operational. Hopefully, we have pulled a fast one and bought ourselves some time.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the 20 -- supposedly -- operational AGNI -II's there is already a couple of special ones that WILL reach Beijing if push comes to shove. Sort of like a couple of Aces in the hole just to keep the Chinese guessing. Once in a while, we drop just a very subtle hint like testing a missile when Li Peng is visiting India. I don't buy the tit-for-tat, cheap thrill revenge for the Chinese testing Nukes when Vajpayee visited them argument..

In fact, after all the experience and the tests our guys have conducted so far, the ICBM should already be operational by the time they actually announce the first test of a long range missile. That test should just be the final confirmation...

Div · Post by **Div** » 14 Jan 2003 11:16

...yawn

India's missile test: More fuel to the fire
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EA14Df05.html

subbu · Post by **subbu** » 14 Jan 2003 12:12

Talking about MIRV's, wouldn't the difference in apogee of each warhead determine its range. one would think warheads are vertically aligned, each is then released at different times in the cone's climb to apogee, and a variation in angle of each warhead due to small onboard thrusters will provide it with direction.

This way the cone is still intact, but with the warheads in horizontal plane, all of them have to be released in one go, bigger thrusters are needed to increase apogee making each warhead bulkier. perhaps a 100km variation in range (wild guess!) for all the warheads can be acheived at the most for the Agni-1's range.

From this, I still find Agni's current RV suitable for MIRV design with a lot of possible variation in range hence angle too. Another aspect is with varying apogee, three warheads can be targeted to the same area separated in time to counter anti-ballistic defences. After all everything reduces to probablity.

In this vertical design, wouldn't the HAE need be jettisoned before any warhead separates or is it possible to release the warheads without losing the cone or motor? if this is possible I don't see a difference between horizontal and vertical alignment designs except perhaps for the launch platform.

Rudra · Post by **Rudra** » 14 Jan 2003 19:16

I have never seen vertical MIRVs. the horizontal MIRV bus design is much simpler and compact. Length minimization is important for mobile and submerged ICBMs.

Sukumar · Post by **Sukumar** » 14 Jan 2003 21:18

Originally posted by ArunK:

Originally posted by R Sukumar:
Arun_S, maybe you have some ideas on this. Why is it that the successive versions of Agni progress in small steps rather than leaps and bounds ?

I mean Agni to Agni 2 was 1500 --> 2599 Km
Agni 2 to Agni 3 is 2600 ---> 3000 Km

why dont they just make a leap to 5-6000 KM ? or is it all disinformation ?
I have always felt that we should play our cards close to our chest as far as our ICBM capabilities go.

What is the need to show our hand? Consider this possibility...

Suppose we develop a 2m dia missile put a 3T weight on it and test it with a flight profile similar to the AGNI-II. We will of course claim that this was routine AGNI-II test. Now if we can achieve similar results in range as the AGNI-II with this baby, then we KNOW that our China based deterrent is well on its way to being operational. Hopefully, we have pulled a fast one and bought ourselves some time.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the 20 -- supposedly -- operational AGNI -II's there is already a couple of special ones that WILL reach Beijing if push comes to shove. Sort of like a couple of Aces in the hole just to keep the Chinese guessing. Once in a while, we drop just a very subtle hint like testing a missile when Li Peng is visiting India. I don't buy the tit-for-tat, cheap thrill revenge for the Chinese testing Nukes when Vajpayee visited them argument..

In fact, after all the experience and the tests our guys have conducted so far, the ICBM should already be operational by the time they actually announce the first test of a long range missile. That test should just be the final confirmation...

Arun_K, I dont agree - where nuclear capable missile ranges are concerned. China knowing that Beijing is within range of Indian nukes is the best deterrent or dissuasive argument that India can ever make.

jarugn · Post by **jarugn** » 15 Jan 2003 00:15

Respect from China - Talks about common interest.

http://www.spacedaily.com/2003/030114100704.nysqkr2x.html

"It conforms with the common interests of the countries in South Asia to maintain peace and stability in the region," foreign ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue said at a regular briefing.

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 15 Jan 2003 00:19

Originally posted by Rudra Singha:
I have never seen vertical MIRVs. the horizontal MIRV bus design is much simpler and compact. Length minimization is important for mobile and submerged ICBMs.

The injection of multiple satellites (Technology Experiment Satellite (TES) of ISRO, BIRD of Germany and PROBA of Belgium -- into their intended orbits) by PSLV was demonstration of vertical configuration.

jarugn · Post by **jarugn** » 15 Jan 2003 00:25

Respect from China

http://www.spacedaily.com/2003/030114100704.nysqkr2x.html

SandeepA · Post by **SandeepA** » 15 Jan 2003 01:05

Please change the title of the thread. Its no longer 'BREAKING NEWS'. Its very misleading.

Sandy

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 15 Jan 2003 02:33

Originally posted by Rudra Singha:
I have never seen vertical MIRVs. the horizontal MIRV bus design is much simpler and compact. Length minimization is important for mobile and submerged ICBMs.

Lets make sure we have a common understanding of Verticle v.s. Horizontal. Verticle MIRV is when the long side of RV is aligned to the Rocket's length.

All MIRV's that I have seen in open litrature are mounted vertically. IIRC there are some images in FAS site. Wheer did you see horizontal orientation?

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 15 Jan 2003 02:45

By your defination both of them are vertical, what is being debated though is how do you stack these MIRV's, if you stack them one over the other so that their verical axis is one and the same, we were calling it vertical. If you put these MIRV side by side (still the long side vertical) so that vertical axis of each of them was parllel to the vertical axis of the rocket (and of course parllel to each other), we called it horizontal. All the fas.org site picture show a horizontal config.

Thanks,
fanne

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 15 Jan 2003 03:30

Originally posted by R Sukumar:
Arun_S, maybe you have some ideas on this. Why is it that the successive versions of Agni progress in small steps rather than leaps and bounds ?

I mean Agni to Agni 2 was 1500 --> 2599 Km
Agni 2 to Agni 3 is 2600 ---> 3000 Km

why dont they just make a leap to 5-6000 KM ? or is it all disinformation ?

Mostly due to constrained bandwidth of DRDO. As you know the Technology demonstrator Agni series were targeted for RV validation and simply used availabe subsystems i.e. Prithvi mounted on a SLV-1 booster, that is suboptimal for range. Agni-II is the first proper design of IRBM.

The Agni-3 discussion is premature since no one has seen its configuration and capabelities thereof. Given India is playing catchup in international strategic scene on it is very useful for India to understate the range of its long range missiles. Call it path of least resistance and prudence.

saint · Post by **saint** » 15 Jan 2003 04:04

I have a vague feeling that agni-3 would be the 5k {high payload} - 8k range {low payload}.

spinned version public format would be 3k to 5k.

say: 5k for all demo purposes. quite good enough to satisfy our doctrine.

I hope agni platform could one day become a modular missile system, where at each stage additional blocks could be added to extend or augment the system performance and capabilities.

thinking lego-ish here. i don't think so i am having a fantasy.

Leonard · Post by **Leonard** » 15 Jan 2003 11:20

Agni: sharpening our N-point

Shishir Gupta analyses the message in the missile launch

With the 3,500-km range Agni-III missile expected to be test-fired this year, New
Delhi is in the process of fine-tuning its nuclear posture towards its regional
rivals.

At the same time, it is planning to fill up its atomic quiver by raising another
Prithvi missile as well as induct the 800-km range Agni missile by the end of the
next fiscal year.

According to highly-placed sources, while India intends to adopt a ‘‘credible
deterrence’’ posture towards Pakistan, it has no plans of matching up to the
superior Chinese nuclear arsenal. New Delhi, in fact, is in favour of a ‘‘dissuasive
posture’’ towards China that would essentially make Beijing think twice before
deploying nuclear assets against India.

However, the strategic planners are clear that this ‘‘dissuasive’’ posture may not
be able to blunt Beijing’s nuclear plans for India.

New Delhi’s logic is different when it comes to Pakistan, which has time and
again threatened to use nukes against India. Security planners stress on building
up delivery systems that would put the fear of India’s retaliatory capability into
Islamabad.

It is understood that the process of raising the second Prithvi missile group,
called 334, has already begun in the military establishment. Just as the 333
Prithvi missile group, the new group will be based in Hyderabad and will have 12
missile launchers.

Both the groups will have a mixture of 150 km range and 250 km range Prithvi
missiles that will ultimately be integrated into the newly formed Strategic Force
Command. The 334 group, which is expected to have a core of 300-400
tech-savvy personnel, is expected to be ready by the 2003-end.

The exercise of inducting the Agni-I missile has also begun. This single-stage,
solid fuel and highly mobile missile has what’s known as a ‘low ground signature’
— which means that the missile will be difficult to detect since it emits less heat
during take-off.

This enhances the missile’s shelf life, a factor critical to India’s no first use
doctrine. The 15.3-metre long, single-warhead and 12,300-kg heavy weapon has
lesser re-entry velocity compared to its adversaries which gives its more room for
terminal manoeuvring.

During the January 9 test, Agni-I was handled and fired by a core group of 25
personnel from the Indian artillery under the Defence Research and Development
Organisation’s supervision. However, according to the plans, all the nuclear
assets including those delivered from air and sea will come under the Strategic
Force Command. While India is still to develop the sea-based retaliatory
capability, the exercise of modifying the Mirage-200H flights and SU-30 MKI for
nuclear delivery has already begun.

Sources said that Agni-I missile group, which is likely to be based again in
Hyderabad, should come up by 2003-2004. V.K. Atre, Scientific Advisor to the
Defence Minister, has gone on record to say that the medium range missile was
on the verge of induction and there were no plans for any further tests.

The intermediate range Agni II and the long range Agni III missiles are scheduled
to be inducted by the end of the current 10th five-year plan. Otherwise, as it
happened during Operation Parakram, India will have to rely on the air force for its
second strike capability.

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=16643

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 15 Jan 2003 19:50

Agni as a base platform has been proven time and again. First test of Agni-3 could be over its minimum range to validate any new systems. Then you could expect one to fired from Thar desert from a mobile platform to its full range, which could very well be over 5000 kms.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 19 Jan 2003 06:56

http://www.flonnet.com/fl2002/stories/20030131005503400.htm
FRONTLINE:
A successful launch
T.S. SUBRAMANIAN

The surface-to-surface Agni missile being fired from the test range at Chandipur-on-sea near Balasore, Orissa.

ON January 9, India successfully test-fired Agni-I, the short-range ballistic missile that can reach targets 700 km away, from the Wheeler island in the Bay of Bengal, off the Orissa coast. Agni-I was test-fired for the first time on January 25, 2002. Both the test flights carried a one-tonne payload.

Agni-I, which is India's reply to Pakistan's Ghauri, can hit most Pakistani cities without having to be launched from the border. While Ghauri is actually the No Dong missile of North Korea, Agni-I is totally home-grown. Unlike Ghauri, which is powered by liquid propellants, Agni-I is boosted using solid propellants and hence it can be readied much faster than Ghauri. Agni-I fills the gap between the Prithvi-II missile, which has a range of about 250 km, and Agni-II which can reach targets 2,500 km away. Thus the series is constituted by Agni, Agni-II and Agni-I. (Frontline, February 15, 2002).

Scientists have called the second launch a confirmatory flight, which is a prelude to the production and subsequent induction of the missile into the Army. According to informed sources, despite slight modifications, the guidance and re-entry systems performed flawlessly. Much of the credit for the success of the flight goes to R.N. Agarwal, Mission Director for both the flights of Agni-I. He told Frontline that the test-firing of Agni-I was undoubtedly a great success. It had several improvements when compared to the previous flight, but such improvements were part of developmental flights, Agarwal said.

The vehicle, which is 15 metres tall and weighs about 12 tonnes is a single-stage, surface-to-surface missile that can be fired from both road and rail launchers. An important modification to Agni-I was the removal of the second stage of Agni-II.

Dr. K. Santhanam, who is now Director, Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses, was the originator of the Agni-I project. It was conceptualised in October 1999. The development was completed in 15 months, that is, by December 2000. However, there was a one-year delay before it was actually launched.

The confirmatory test of Agni-I firms up India's "credible, minimum nuclear deterrent" posture. Significantly, the test-firing comes after the country set up the Nuclear Command Authority.

Those present at Wheeler Island when Agni-I was launched on January 9 included Defence Minister George Fernandes and Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister V.K. Aatre. On December 31, 2002, Aatre revealed that India would soon conduct several tests of indigenously developed missiles including the medium-range Agni.

Dr. A. Sivathanu Pillai, Chief Controller (Research and Development), DRDO, said that the supersonic cruise missile called BrahMos would be ready for commercial production and induction into the Services in about two years. BrahMos has been jointly developed by India and Russia. Both India and Russia plan to market BrahMos to friendly countries. At a banquet hosted on December 4 in honour of the visiting Russian President Vladimir Putin, President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam had called BrahMos "a unique example of the partnership between our two countries in critical areas of research and development." The first flight of BrahMos took place on June 12, 2001. While the Agni series form the centrepiece of the IGMDP, the other missiles include Prithvi, Trishul, Akash, and Nag.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jan 2003 07:19

Cross post:

Russia gives nuclear edge to Indian defence

It states:

Though touted as a 280km range anti-ship missile, the BrahMos, based on the existing Yakhont, is expected to be used by India to develop a long-range nuclear weapon delivery system

Since Brahmos is expected to carry a 200Kg warhead, we can probably get an idea about the size of an India nuke.

Ashutosh · Post by **Ashutosh** » 19 Jan 2003 08:21

Nice Brahmos pic from Janes

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 21 Jan 2003 05:40

Sanjay Badri Maharaj: Here is a web page that alludes to the 200Kt boosted fission weapon for Agni:

Source is a MS-Word file at the following URL Special Report--Indian Nuclear Weapons Webpost.doc

Agni-2 has a theoretical ability to hit a target 3000km away with a 1000kg payload, and it is suggested that a 200-kiloton 'boosted-fission' warhead has been designed for the Agni system. Should this be reduced to a 15-20 kiloton system, the payload could be reduced to as little as 250kg.

Prateek · Post by **Prateek** » 21 Jan 2003 05:46

Arun_S:
Did U just take this link from the one I posted in the checkmate China thread ?