Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 19 May 2009 16:27

The question is whether the FBF is adequately reliable - probably yes - but to what yield ? Karand suggests A-II was designed for a 90-150KT payload which probably comes in at near the peak of capability, though I can't see why 200KT is not possible. The other thing to look out for is a 40-50KT fission weapon.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 May 2009 17:22

Sanjay wrote:The question is whether the FBF is adequately reliable - probably yes - but to what yield ?

I am not sure if there is a term called adequately reliable FBF , so we either got it right or didnt, according to BK the latter seems to be the case , so the simple way to do it is to test it , who knows we may get it right this time around

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 19 May 2009 17:25

Whats to stop us from doing a couple of tests 200-300 KT weapons and passing them off as earthquakes? Political willingness apart.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 May 2009 17:31

^at the very least, I should assume the waveforms will be different. for maasa tech.. its a piece of a cake to detect a test, unless its signature is so low to the levels of sub kilos.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 May 2009 17:38

I am not sure if there is a term called adequately reliable FBF , so we either got it right or didnt, according to BK the latter seems to be the case

And when was this presumed FBF weapon ever tested?

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 19 May 2009 17:40

The primary of S-1 was supposed to be FBF. Also I don't think BK said that aspect did not work.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 May 2009 18:03

Sanjay wrote:The primary of S-1 was supposed to be FBF. Also I don't think BK said that aspect did not work.

From the May 17, 1998 press conference - RC, AK, AK(K)

Q: We hear that Shakti 1 is not a thermonuclear device but a boosted fission device?

A: (RC) - As I said earlier, a thermonuclear device has two stages a fission trigger and a secondary stage. This was a thermonuclear device as it had two stages.

Q: What fraction of the hydrogen bomb energy is due to the thermonuclear part? What was the cost of the tests and weaponisation?

A: (K) - As regards cost, this does not amount to huge amounts. These costs were met from the budgets of our respective departments, over and above what we apportion for regular activities.

A: (RC) - As regards what fraction - the total was 45 kT. The fission trigger was equivalent to that of the fission device.

So... a boosted fission primary (12 kt yield) rather than an FBF Sloika type device with layered LiD and U.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 May 2009 18:13

vavinash wrote:Whats to stop us from doing a couple of tests 200-300 KT weapons and passing them off as earthquakes? Political willingness apart.

Because earthquakes and bombs each have clearly recognizable seismic signature nobody will be fooled.

shubho · Post by **shubho** » 19 May 2009 18:15

I have always wondered of one thing. when the RV is nearing its target say 3 km... 2km.... 1km ...

when and how to start the detonation of the Nuclear Device ?

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 19 May 2009 18:30

^^^
Because the depth from which an earthquack signature arises from is typically several several kilometers deep in the ground, while a nuke blast will originate less than a Km from the surface. The frequencies and amplitude of the waveforms are different.

wrt sublikoton blasts, I think, if there is an understanding, a small blast is OK if only a few nations know about it, wink each other and everyone keeps quiet. Except the meddling scandinavians and the sugary lizard will shout from the nearest pole if they detect anything wrt India.

Why is the maraging steel body of the Agni 2 not already tested and deployed? That picture was taken in 2006 with the body completed onlee. Why do we assume that the A2 is not A2AT already - if not complete, but in parts? Why is the A2 that was tested not A2AT + A3 with the laser ring gyro and maraging steel body with composite engines?

Why is India announcing increased range now? IIRC the generic for A2 was 2100 - 2200 Km.

I think New A2 = A2AT + A3 was tested.

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 19 May 2009 18:57

India test-fires nuke-capable Agni-II missile

HERE WE GO ! from yet to be formed GOI ! Timing is not bad !

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 19 May 2009 19:35

Valid point. That said I am reasonably certain of LiD being used. But will yield willingly until confirmation. To rephrase - Boosted Fission weapon yield 200kT or 150KT or 90KT or possible fission 40-50KT could be A-II warhead.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 19 May 2009 20:52

I would like to re-state the following:

Public information and trade estimates indicate following types of Indian RV warheads:

1. Mk-4: For light weight 17Kt Fusion Boosted Fission (FBF) warhead . Mass : ~180 Kg .
2. Mk-5: For 50Kt FBF or 200Kt Thermo Nuclear (TN) warhead . Mass: ~340 Kg
3. Mk-6: For 150Kt FBF warhead . Mass: ~550 Kg.

Code: Select all

Table 1: Comparative destruction area
      Warhead Yield    Destruction w.r.t 17Kt
         50 Kt                2.0
        150 Kt                4.2
        200 Kt                4.9
        500 Kt               10.3

If India wants to accede to CTBT it must conclude following tests in next nuclear test series:

1. 5 to 7 tests involving FBF's and TN's warheads of 150 Kt and 300-500 Kt ranges respectively.
2. 5 to 7 sub-Kt tests, to significantly improve the database for future ICF simulations.

Pending the verification of thermonuclear warhead the high-yield Boosted Fission warhead sets the upper limit of Indian warheads, thus Indian missile range is often quoted for 1,000 Kg payload.

“India-US Civil Nuclear Agreement” has for all practical purposes capped Indian ability to field test and proof high yield nuclear weapons till some time in future (about 20 years) when Indian three stage nuclear fuel cycle based on Thorium fuel matures into mainstream power production, thus eliminating Indian dependence on imported nuclear fuel from NSG countries or if there is a breakout in global nuclear test monitorium.

An alternative to field nuclear test for India is to test and validate the nuclear warheads by building two or more National Ignition Test Facilities (NITF). Incidentally NIFT is also required for stewardship of Indian Nuclear weapon.

Nuclear Stewardship and National Ignition Test Facilities

It is clear that nuclear weapons will continue to exist in world for the foreseeable future. In the absence of underground testing, the reliability, safety, and effectiveness of the remaining stockpile can be assured only through advanced computational capabilities and above-ground experimental facilities.

Indian Nuclear Stewardship program will involve:

1. An organization that will stay potent and survive lifespan of today’s weapon designers, fabricators and maintainers

2. Laser driven ICF (Inertial confinement fusion) experimental facility that strives to compress fissile and/or fusion fuel isentropically before raising its plasma temperature to reproduce high energy régimes encountered in boosted fission and fusion weapons. It is a potent tool in the hands of nuclear weapons physicists.

3. Two teams of numerical modeling physicists who for a given weapon design partition and validate weapon’s behavior model experimentally in various energy regime using ICF and computer modeling. At least two independent teams are required keep the deterrence honest and true .

4. Full experimental verification of FBF and Thermonuclear designs that couldn’t be tested in previous six years due to geo-political constrains.

5. Ensure credible enduring stockpile in spite of fissile material aging, replacement pit, newer and safer chemicals for explosive lenses, arming and inertial containment.

6. Develop and proof test newer thermonuclear warheads using newer schemes other than traditional TN devices using piston driven shock with a thermal precursor. P5 and other western nations are doing these experiments, including the Chinese who have a fine laser facility in Shanghai and another one for classified studies. These are the first steps to achieving the Holy Grail – The FISSIONLESS TRIGGER.

7. Stay abreast with worldwide development of Fourth Generation weapons (Small yield fusion nuclear weapons without fission chain reaction) .

India requires two NITF facilities one for classified weapons programs and other for scientific research in civil domain to unambiguously demonstrate Indian facilities and competence in high energy physics to develop and test fusion weapons. This will make credible Indian high yield FBF and TN weapons that are otherwise not field tested, thereby significantly increasing Indian deterrence and at the same time reduces total number of weapons required for credible deterrence. The NITF will cost the government about Rs.6,000 crore (US$ 1.3 billion).

Civil and Weapons Facility Separation

Indian weapons program has been intertwined with the nuclear power program to minimize cost as well to leverage on each other, including beating US/NSG ban on export of dual use material.

“India-US Civil Nuclear Agreement” now acknowledges the Indian weapons program, yet unlike the privileges enjoyed by other nuclear weapons states, it proscribes continued NSG enforcement of global ban on export of dual use material/equipment to Indian classified program consisting of not just weapons programs but also R&D of Thorium based 3 stage fuel cycle for power generation. The continued embargo will thus impose high cost on weapons program as well as thorium based electric power generation.

Per the separation plan most of the facilities will go to civilian side, yet the facilities in the classified weapons side are fast approaching end of life thus requiring even more investments. Lacking the investment of about US$ 30 billion over the next 5 years, it is clear that the nuclear weapons program will be crippled. The above cost is for:

1. 7 -10 research reactors (150 MW modified and scaled up R-5/Dhruv design)
2. 3 - 4 heavy water plants
3. 2 - 3 re-processing plants physically removed from the safeguarded sites
4. 2 - 3 fuel fabrication plants
5. Scientific facilities - hot cells, plutonium foundries, libraries etc.
6. Duplication and up gradation of scientific skills built on knowledge over 40 years
7. Laser Ignition ICF Facility including two independent design and review teams
8. Fast Breeder Reactor test facility
9. Physics collaboration programs in universities

[/color]

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 19 May 2009 20:55

The 800-900 Kg high yield FBF warhead is the original conservative design that was first envisaged as Indian long range missiles were being architected.

sum · Post by **sum** » 19 May 2009 21:21

Arun_S wrote:The 800-900 Kg high yield FBF warhead is the original conservative design that was first envisaged as Indian long range missiles were being architected.

So, surely we must have reduced the weight of the warhead by now? (Of course, it is all untested)

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 19 May 2009 21:33

Arun, wouldn't a caveat be that your estimates and views are still an opinion - just like nearly everything else we say on the Forum ? I don't make a judgment as to the veracity of your views, just placing a caveat on them as indeed anything I say as well.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 19 May 2009 21:41

My above post in navy blue highlight is an excerpt from the article published in Indian Defense Review that went though Lancer/IDR's review by other experts on the matter.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 May 2009 21:50

Sanjay wrote:That said I am reasonably certain of LiD being used

Which suggests that the A2 warhead may be a TN device with yield <=200 kt as per tested Pok2 design and public statements from RC et al.
If no LiD is being used, then a fission device (possibly boosted) of full yield 12 kt.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 19 May 2009 21:54

Gerard wrote:
Sanjay wrote:That said I am reasonably certain of LiD being used
Which suggests that the A2 warhead may be a TN device with yield <=200 kt as per tested design and public statements.

As an aside, LiD and LiT is the prime material candidates in FBF weapons; and for high yld FBF designs fusion portion of the yield can be significant (~20% of total).

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 19 May 2009 22:01

Gerard - possibly. Look, let's face on thing - almost everything we are saying is speculation and based on informed estimation.

Arun, IDR does not do peer or expert review of articles for the truth contained therein. They encourage research and opinion from a broad spectrum. Your article sinks or swims on your own research (again I make no judgment as to its veracity and fully support your right to research and come to conclusions) and not on the basis of being printed in IDR. IDR never claims that the articles contained therein are anything more than the views of the authors.

There is a danger for all of us to become a bit carried away with our assessments. We need (and that includes me) to be a bit more circumspect and realise our limitations.

Again, I make no claim one way or another for the veracity of your claims - just putting a caveat on everything we say.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 19 May 2009 22:14

Arunji

the only boosted fission weapons where LiD and LiT are used are Sloikas AFAIK. These may havea fusion yield of upto 20% of the total yield. Usually boosted weapons are gas boosted.

Recently there was an announcement in a DRDP publ. about a scientist receiving an award for a new "multipoint implosion system" reducing the weight of the original system by 35%. Maybe this makes FBF weapons lighter ?

Also, in our arsenal, high yield FBF weapons right now are more credible than two stage TN weapons. The constraint on testing seems to be the reason why Israel may have gone the sloika way.

Till the three stage program matures and allows a break out, around 400-500 150-200kt FBF/Sloika weapons should be the target. Along with sufficient numbers of Agni III and Agni V (prefarably one warhead per missile with the excess payload used for decoys, penetration aids, etc). Not impossible- 500 SS-20s were a small fraction of the total Soviet forces.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 May 2009 22:25

Also, in our arsenal, high yield FBF weapons right now are more credible than two stage TN weapons. The constraint on testing seems to be the reason why Israel may have gone the sloika way.

But India tested in 1998.

If sloikas were designed and stockpiled in the arsenal, why would they not have been tested?

A TN was tested. Why is this less credible than a sloika which has never been mentioned or hinted at anywhere in the press, in any statement by scientist, defense babu or neta?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 19 May 2009 22:57

ramdas wrote:Arunji

the only boosted fission weapons where LiD and LiT are used are Sloikas AFAIK. These may havea fusion yield of upto 20% of the total yield. Usually boosted weapons are gas boosted.

Yup. Good post.
And I didn't say it was one way or another.

My observations on FBF design options are just musing of an informed paan chewing bhayyia.

Till the three stage program matures and allows a break out, around 400-500 150-200kt FBF/Sloika weapons should be the target. Along with sufficient numbers of Agni III and Agni V (prefarably one warhead per missile with the excess payload used for decoys, penetration aids, etc). Not impossible- 500 SS-20s were a small fraction of the total Soviet forces.

Tatha-stu.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 19 May 2009 23:05

ramdas wrote:Recently there was an announcement in a DRDP publ. about a scientist receiving an award for a new "multipoint implosion system" reducing the weight of the original system by 35%. Maybe this makes FBF weapons lighter ?

Strange number.
35% weight reduction on 800Kg original design translates to 520 Kg. For some strange reason I posted this a an hour ago excerpts of the IDR article:

3. Mk-6: For 150Kt FBF warhead . Mass: ~550 Kg.

Surprise, surprise!!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 May 2009 23:47

X-posted...

Gerard wrote:http://www.drdo.com/pub/nl/2009/may09.pdf

Ms Ritu Khurana, Sci C, Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory (TBRL), Chandigarh, for her commendable work in theoretical analysis and mathematical modelling of detonation and shock wave phenomena, which formed the basis for numerical simulation of multipoint initiated implosion system. She was instrumental in the design and development of hybrid spherical wave lens will achieve 35 per cent reduction in weight and 15 per cent reduction in size in the new system.

So they have new weapon system configuration ~ 35 % less weight and 15 % smaller. So more range and better bang

----

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 20 May 2009 00:15

Arun Boss
With this kind of weight reduction doesn't that setup Agni for MIRV. Here is my line of thought.
MK6 Wt-550kg with range of 3000km
MK1 Wt-1000kg with range of 2000km
2xMK6 with range of 1700km if launched from Ambala, 72 singing praises at Islamabad. Not sure if my numbers work out but you get the idea.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 20 May 2009 00:48

The Minister of State for Defense said (wrt the A3)

"the strategic payload of the missile is between 100 kg to 250 kg"

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 20 May 2009 01:05

Gerard, think about the quality of India's defence reporting and consider if the Minister might have said 100(0)kg to 250(0)kg ?

Not saying this is so - just saying consider it.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 20 May 2009 01:10

Quite possible.
'3m x 2m' missiles are regularly tested after all.

It is the only hint we have (besides the yields stated by RC) of what these warheads might be.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 20 May 2009 01:37

Agni-II test-fired -Hindu
http://www.hindu.com/2009/05/20/stories ... 331300.htm

DRDO sources told The Hindu that the complete operations, including the pre-launch exercise and the launch from a sophisticated computer, were carried out by an Army team.

The missile, which was picked randomly from one of the production lots, was launched from a rail mobile system around 10.05 a.m and tracked by all the radars of the Integrated Test Range located along the coast at Balasore, Dhamra, Paradeep and Konark till its splashdown into the sea after a 10-minute flight.

Data relating to various parameters of the mission’s objectives was being analysed, the sources added.

A new technology — a state-of-the-art high accuracy navigation system — was for the first time used in Agni-II.
...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 May 2009 02:53

improved CEP much < 40 meters?

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 20 May 2009 03:07

SaiK wrote:improved CEP much < 40 meters?

A3 within a A2 skin

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 May 2009 03:11

Arun_S, What is its apogee for it to take 10 min ie 600 secs of flight to reach ~ 2500km range? Was the HAM doing manouvers?

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 20 May 2009 03:39

ramana wrote:X-posted...
So they have new weapon system configuration ~ 35 % less weight and 15 % smaller. So more range and better bang

----

"multipoint implosion system" and "hybrid spherical lens" bothers me....a lot !

"Hybrid" might stand for a hybrid of fast and slow explosives. It might mean that we still do not have a two point, air lens, hollow pit implosion system. This is the starting point for reducing the diameter and weight of the system and also for going to prolate designs, which are a better fit for warheads. Hollow pits are more reliable for FBF designs and give better efficiency as well.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 20 May 2009 05:30

Okie I am not racket scientist or budding physicist but I do feel very paranoid of all the stuff that people are discussing on this thread...should we be diggin this deep in this field...JMT

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 20 May 2009 05:56

Many times, I get a feeling that this thread is an example of psy-op against the paklurkers and anti-Bhaaratiyas...

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 20 May 2009 07:53

My take on the DRDO newsletter update was that the 35% reduction was in the weight of the spherical chemical implosion system. Not a 35% reduction in wt. of the entire warhead.

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 20 May 2009 16:33

Agni II test failed?

BHUBANESWAR: Agni-II, countrys nuclear counter strike capability ballistic missile has reportedly failed to deliver desired result.

The trial was conducted from Wheeler Island, part of the integrated test range of Orissa coast on Tuesday at about 10 am.

Reliable sources at the Wheelers Island said the countdown was normal, liftoff was smooth and then disaster struck as the 2000 kms plus range Agni-II missile instead of traveling on the pre-determined trajectory started wandering midway.

The missile deviated from its path after the first stage separation and was meandering at an angle of 180 degree midway. Though it was coordinated to cover a distance of nearly 2000 km, within just 127 seconds it covered 203 km before plunging into the sea, said the source.

The guidance system can correct the missiles midway path deviation if it behaves erratically at an angle of 40 to 60 degree but not beyond that, said a defence scientist. The disaster might have happened due to design and manufacturing faults, he added.

link

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 May 2009 16:41

I am actually wondering if they are testing Agni-2AT in the guise of this test , much like they tested Shourya in the guise of solid fuel Prithvi.

Although the failure is a bad news hope they rectify this soon.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 May 2009 16:46

The guidance system can correct the missiles midway path deviation if it behaves erratically at an angle of 40 to 60 degree but not beyond that, said a defence scientist. The disaster might have happened due to design and manufacturing faults, he added.

Thought this was a stock missile!! IF true, the entire stock could have this flaw?