Apart from putting you exaggerated claim behind the veil of hypothetical design that you cooked based on so & so sources do you have any other explaination. Is that mean, all your exaggerated claims are all hypothetical ?Arun_S wrote: Kanson states:1. Yes, my Agni 3 page does indeed contain the statement "The primary warhead for the Agni family would be a 200-300 Kt fusion weapon based on the Shakti-1 (Pokhran-II) test in 1998." These are hypothetical designs, based on the analysis and interpretation of available information, while providing leeway for possibly exaggerated official claims. Anybody would agree that even venturing to place designs that even remotely pass off as actual configurations on a website, would be unwise.Kanson wrote:Thats a huge understatement. RC said the yeild can be upto ~ 200kt, but you increased that stock to 300 Kt And all the latest agni 3 diagrams show them equipped with TN device whereas no offical statement indicates any particular device. Thats stamped your signature that TN is authentic. No two ways about it.
Added later: 1.B. One comment on that BR Missile article by Shri Santhanam was "but America has capped Indian ability to realize and mount that small TN payload on its missiles with this India-US civil nuclear deal". So yes if India validated that TN weapon either by explicit test or ICF/LIF that shape size will be real and credible.
2. As will be noticed, I have used the term 200-300 Kt fusion weapon based on the S-1. It is an accepted fact by most credible sources that the boosted fission primary of S-1 worked flawlessly. Bearing this and the present ground realities/facts in mind, these hypothetical designs could be construed as comprising of the S-1 primary with a re-designed secondary, which would provide a TN device in the range of 300 kT, quite easily. This exercise, however will require further tests, backed up by extensive ICF/LIF experiments and simulations.
When you yourself claimed secondary of S1 didnt performed and it further needs validation, when the offical statement states upto 200 KT your description of 200-300KT is more colourful.
I hope you are not going to say you have conducted brain mapping analysis to claim this...3. RC's statement of ~200kT is surely based on package/weight constrain (in his head),