Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Aug 2009 21:33

Gerard wrote:Where is India wrt high energy solid propellants?

The Topol-M for example is 22.7m x 1.95m / 47.2 tons / 3 stages / 11000km range / 1.2 ton throw weight.
What is needed to get that sort of performance from those missile dimensions?

I read Agni 3 HTPB fuel was highly energetic and best in its class

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Aug 2009 21:41

akula isn't a SSBN anyway, no VLS too. nothing to do with agni.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 15 Aug 2009 22:54

prataparudra wrote:Does India have any gravity nuclear bombs to drop from bombers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_bomb

Yes... those were our first operational nukes. Read Chengappa's WoP for info... the pylon dropped bomb was tested in Jan 2000 (IIRC)

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 16 Aug 2009 00:43

In case of hostilities with China, we can hit (conventional) the power stations and oil refineries across China, their economy would be severely degraded at least for a few months, which again is proportional to the damage, Agni s work for that scenario (nothing else reaches Beijing or Shanghai)

from their perspective, even if they hit ours (hopefully ABM comes along), they will be losing more, so they will want to hit the Agnis first, which are very few in nos, helps them as nuclear warheads aren't mated, no hesitation on their part. Not sure if the Agnis are even sufficient for nuclear deterrent alone

if Agni is declared Strategic only, and Nirbhay's with a 1000km range at most, the same confidence wrt TSP is missing against China

where are we heading in the conventional theater wrt China?

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 16 Aug 2009 00:57

vasu_ray wrote:...
if Agni is declared Strategic only, and Nirbhay's with a 1000km range at most, the same confidence wrt TSP is missing against China

where are we heading in the conventional theater wrt China?

Vasu ji, you suggested something there but didn't quite follow through. Why hold back?

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 16 Aug 2009 01:46

Ideally Agni MIRV's with sub kiloton warheads to deal with many non-population targets with fewer missiles, economy and territory are the Dragon's balls, we need to play with them under the nuclear threshold

or ramp up even longer range cruise missiles which might be a decade away

since Agni series can be dual use, there is a good chance of dabbling with this threshold and the hot line with the Chinese becomes all important

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Aug 2009 03:06

Three Gorges with conventional as first step on the escalatory ladder.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 16 Aug 2009 03:18

Gerard wrote:Where is India wrt high energy solid propellants?

The Topol-M for example is 22.7m x 1.95m / 47.2 tons / 3 stages / 11000km range / 1.2 ton throw weight.
What is needed to get that sort of performance from those missile dimensions?

Its apple and orange comparison between a land based Topol with sub launched A3SL.

The pivot point for sub-launched BM is
1) higher density fuel
2) mass fraction of all stages (I.e. composite case all the way)

I am sure A3SL will be all composite. The other arena of high density fuel is the next challenge.

-----------------Added later ----------
French M51 is the right model to take as reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M51_SLBM

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 16 Aug 2009 03:23

ramana wrote:Three Gorges with conventional as first step on the escalatory ladder.

Take out just one Three Gorges dam and in its cascade China is history.

With Chinese playing rough on Bharmaputra and the five rivers of Punjab, India has to stare down the Chinese face.

Start with conventional and then rain of Fire to wash away the Sin.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Aug 2009 05:50

Arun_S wrote:
Gerard wrote:Where is India wrt high energy solid propellants?

The Topol-M for example is 22.7m x 1.95m / 47.2 tons / 3 stages / 11000km range / 1.2 ton throw weight.
What is needed to get that sort of performance from those missile dimensions?
Its apple and orange comparison between a land based Topol with sub launched A3SL.

The pivot point for sub-launched BM is
1) higher density fuel
2) mass fraction of all stages (I.e. composite case all the way)

I am sure A3SL will be all composite. The other arena of high density fuel is the next challenge.

-----------------Added later ----------
French M51 is the right model to take as reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M51_SLBM

Topol-M is really 90's tech , things have moved on since then the Bulava SLBM project is far more challenging with stage composite all the way with 6 - 10x Active ~ 150kt TN warheads with a total weight of ~ 36.8T and throw up weight of ~ 1150 kg and range ~ 8000 km , although its still proving technically challenging source

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 16 Aug 2009 10:43

can the MIRV warheads (conventional) be stacked (2-3) since Agni 3 has better payload capacity and also is lower in height than Agni 2?

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 16 Aug 2009 11:08

Vasu saar, if you are referring to conventional warhead, a salvo of Nirbhay would be a better option.
Reason being,
1. Cost
2. The enemy would assume nuclear launch if they detect A3

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 16 Aug 2009 11:19

Pankaj, considering the best case scenario, if the MKIs launch the Nirbhay's over Tibet, would they still be able to reach Shanghai and Beijing getting past their air defenses?

cost is for launch vehicles and supporting equipment not for additional warheads

There is no other missile in the Indian inventory with such range, and you can't tie yourself down for the fear of nuclear miscalculation, hot-lines do exist

my concerns are more technical and related to capabilities, not policy making

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 16 Aug 2009 11:32

pankajs wrote:a salvo of Nirbhay would be a better option

Nirbhay can very well be dual role with both nuclear and conventional warheads. Are you relying on poor Chinese abilities in detecting a cruise missile intrusion?

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 16 Aug 2009 12:26

I was looking at Arun_S saar's range vs payload diagram.
It is interesting that he talks of Agni and Shaurya. He has not mentioned either Brahmos or Nirbhay.

I believe that in certain areas absolute clarity is required to prevent mis-calculations. Cruise missiles according to me would only be used with conventional warhead.

Also, nuclear war fighting should be taken with utmost seriousnesses and every effort should be made to prevent the same. If all our missiles are dual use, we will end up fighting a nuclear war no matter how the conflict starts, or forgo the option of using them.

The range thing is an aspect that needs to be discussed further.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 16 Aug 2009 13:01

Controversial Missile Idea Lingers

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Defense Department is leaving open the possibility of developing a conventional long-range missile for deployment on submarines, despite stern congressional warnings against fielding anything that might be mistaken for a nuclear weapon during launch (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2007).

Lawmakers voiced serious concerns that dual-loading the missiles on submarines introduced so much “ambiguity” that any Trident launch — nuclear or conventional — might trigger a hasty nuclear response from Russia or China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_(missile)

The primary drawback would have been establishing sufficient warning systems so that other nuclear countries would not mistake it for a nuclear launch which could provoke a counterattack. For that reason among others, this project raised a substantial debate before US Congress for the FY07 Defense budget, but also internationally.[7] Russian President Vladimir Putin, among others, warned that the project would increase the danger of accidental nuclear war. "The launch of such a missile could provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces," Putin said in May 2006.[8]

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Aug 2009 13:50

the only kind of CM thats worthwhile for a strategic nuclear role against PRC would be a 3000km range KH55ski. Nirbhay @ 700-1200km could only cover yunnan, sinkiang and tibet and maybe chengdu city at the most from NE. the thicket of PRC cities from harbin & shenyang in north to sanya/macau in south is outside of nirbhay envelope. so their underbelly is safe from nirbhay/shaurya unless we change the game by deploying a reasonble number of nuclear subs with purely SLCM/shaurya loadout - enough of tubes to cause some real serious damage and loss of face.

thats why I was kicking around the idea of buying the 2 x oscar2.

Mihir.D · Post by **Mihir.D** » 16 Aug 2009 15:24

Singha wrote:the only kind of CM thats worthwhile for a strategic nuclear role against PRC would be a 3000km range KH55ski. Nirbhay @ 700-1200km could only cover yunnan, sinkiang and tibet and maybe chengdu city at the most from NE. the thicket of PRC cities from harbin & shenyang in north to sanya/macau in south is outside of nirbhay envelope. so their underbelly is safe from nirbhay/shaurya unless we change the game by deploying a reasonble number of nuclear subs with purely SLCM/shaurya loadout - enough of tubes to cause some real serious damage and loss of face.

thats why I was kicking around the idea of buying the 2 x oscar2.

So what is going to hold us back from making a Nirbhay MK-II with a range of 3000 kms once the Nirbhay MK-I is in place ?

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 16 Aug 2009 16:55

Mihir.D wrote:
Singha wrote:the only kind of CM thats worthwhile for a strategic nuclear role against PRC would be a 3000km range KH55ski. Nirbhay @ 700-1200km could only cover yunnan, sinkiang and tibet and maybe chengdu city at the most from NE. the thicket of PRC cities from harbin & shenyang in north to sanya/macau in south is outside of nirbhay envelope. so their underbelly is safe from nirbhay/shaurya unless we change the game by deploying a reasonble number of nuclear subs with purely SLCM/shaurya loadout - enough of tubes to cause some real serious damage and loss of face.

thats why I was kicking around the idea of buying the 2 x oscar2.

So what is going to hold us back from making a Nirbhay MK-II with a range of 3000 kms once the Nirbhay MK-I is in place ?

Hold down your Horses mate.

They are gonna test the sub launched Cruise missile in a year or two.Apart from the things you see publicly,the Cruise missile development is going on mach levels as compared to other developments.
MOD and forces changed their priority in regarding this.You might sweeten your mouth by mid 2010.and when ATV is ready for equipping with missiles you forsure party with Vodka since we are testing two many sub-launched missiles both ballistic and cruise on it.As i said earlier the present ATV is purely a TD.It is meant to help the yindo`s in terms of testing all their balls( from nuclear to missiles and sonars).While the next two hulls being bigger than the current will serve the purpose of temporary deterrent by carrying the already tested missiles by then.
Once the primary induction of these missiles is done, their counterparts, i.e the extended versions will be put down in place.

ATV TD is designed in such a way that ,it can be weaponised with missiles.Say cruise/ballistic/supersonic/hypersonic in mind.What i meant to say is , its canisters are multipurpose and the CG of the whole sub will never shift from the actual even though you load with different missiles in different canisters.
And the under-water missile testing will move ahead on pace once the TD-marine reaches its weapon testing stage.
And regarding the ATV ,a new active cum passive sonar which is in final stages of development will be tested as well.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Aug 2009 18:10

Singha wrote:the only kind of CM thats worthwhile for a strategic nuclear role against PRC would be a 3000km range KH55ski. Nirbhay @ 700-1200km could only cover yunnan, sinkiang and tibet and maybe chengdu city at the most from NE. the thicket of PRC cities from harbin & shenyang in north to sanya/macau in south is outside of nirbhay envelope. so their underbelly is safe from nirbhay/shaurya unless we change the game by deploying a reasonble number of nuclear subs with purely SLCM/shaurya loadout - enough of tubes to cause some real serious damage and loss of face.

thats why I was kicking around the idea of buying the 2 x oscar2.

1) Even with the current capabilities, limited as they appear, the potential to creep nearer to those targets is a fear that they have to overcome
2) The limitation placed by the MTCR can only be overcome by an Indian missile. India is forbidden to get a missile from abroad and others are forbidden to sell India such a missile. However, based on the experience gained from various older projects India is free to design/build a longer range missile. ManTech (more on BrahMos web site) seems to be the answer to this man made riddle called MTCR.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 16 Aug 2009 18:16

Nirbhay or Nirbhay++ and a couple of SSGN(Arihant variant's) on permanent patrol in the south china sea should act as balm to the jingo heart

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Aug 2009 18:37

pankajs wrote:Nirbhay or Nirbhay++ and a couple of SSGN(Arihant variant's) on permanent patrol in the south china sea should act as balm to the jingo heart

IMHO, better to saturate IOR with listening devices and see if India can build a dependable longer range deterrence.

The density of listening devices in the China Sea should be going up, and, up, and up ........ Let those two guys deal with it.

In the event that things get bad, then conditionally India can send a sub or two there. But, to have them on permanent patrol does not make much sense. After all (IMVVVHO) Chicom barks more than bites. IOR based subs should be enough noise cancellation (IMHO).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Aug 2009 18:43

One more side point. No matter who decides to arm/help BOTH Pakistan and/or China, a point in time is bound to arrive when these two yahoos will be a threat to those providing assistance. This point was made some 10 years ago and we see that happening in Pakistan. China is equally stupid, even though they are better at planning and much harder working people (than Pakis in general).

India, IMHO, therefore can afford to put just enough effort to keep the Indian boat afloat. And, let the others do the heavy pulling - in both the nations.

Having said that it would be of GREAT help to India if India can stop shooting herself in the foot - 40% over budget, 1 year delay in FBR - informing people at the 11th hour and the like. Indians need to be more transparent to themselves.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 16 Aug 2009 18:59

Rao saar, my suggestion was only in the case of Chinese getting a toe hold in the IOR region and starting active patrol. It wouldn't be neighborly if we did not return the favour.

Ofcourse, we should first secure our pond and have a plan of action for all entry and exit points.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 16 Aug 2009 19:12

40% over budget, 1 year delay in FBR

Development delays and cost overruns are a feature of projects in all countries.
The Japanese FBR Monju started up almost 3 years late and billions over budget. It shut down a year later (1995) and they are still trying to restart it. The Japanese Supreme Court cleared the way in 2005 but technical problems since then keep delaying it. Last year the JAEA said October 2008. Then February 2009 etc.

kit · Post by **kit** » 16 Aug 2009 19:17

NRao wrote:
Singha wrote:the only kind of CM thats worthwhile for a strategic nuclear role against PRC would be a 3000km range KH55ski. Nirbhay @ 700-1200km could only cover yunnan, sinkiang and tibet and maybe chengdu city at the most from NE. the thicket of PRC cities from harbin & shenyang in north to sanya/macau in south is outside of nirbhay envelope. so their underbelly is safe from nirbhay/shaurya unless we change the game by deploying a reasonble number of nuclear subs with purely SLCM/shaurya loadout - enough of tubes to cause some real serious damage and loss of face.

thats why I was kicking around the idea of buying the 2 x oscar2.

1) Even with the current capabilities, limited as they appear, the potential to creep nearer to those targets is a fear that they have to overcome
2) The limitation placed by the MTCR can only be overcome by an Indian missile. India is forbidden to get a missile from abroad and others are forbidden to sell India such a missile. However, based on the experience gained from various older projects India is free to design/build a longer range missile. ManTech (more on BrahMos web site) seems to be the answer to this man made riddle called MTCR.

I do beg to differ ., the range limitations are only in paper , ie, you will say and write only so., just like all legal documents, but in practice it does differ

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Aug 2009 20:52

It wouldn't be neighborly if we did not return the favour.

Sure.

May I, then, add "in kind" to that?

However, it may be no use to getting into a p****ing game with them. Let them stew in their own juices and let others take care of the, for they will be a greater threat to others before them become a threat to India. Just a cost issue.

Development delays and cost overruns are a feature of projects in all countries.
The Japanese FBR Monju started up almost 3 years late and billions over budget. It shut down a year later (1995) and they are still trying to restart it. The Japanese Supreme Court cleared the way in 2005 but technical problems since then keep delaying it. Last year the JAEA said October 2008. Then February 2009 etc.

Hmmmmmmmmm...............

Notwithstanding that it is a "Japan model", all I am asking for is more transparency in all dealing (not just civilian nuclear issues) in non-strategic related systems/components/etc (granted it is a nebulous statement). Point being that if India can get that dreaded underground economy to surface and cut inefficiencies ................ game over. But, India tends to give a Bollywood star being detained for just 2 hours more importance than plenty of other far more important issues. Imagine IF India were to be as quick in resolving other problems as someone in the GoI wanted to "take it (the detention) up with the US government'.

I do beg to differ ., the range limitations are only in paper , ie, you will say and write only so., just like all legal documents, but in practice it does diffe

My conjuncture is that ManTech is there JUST to remove these paper restrictions. So that the fearless leader (God, sounds more like a NK leader) can say with a straight face 'yes, Indian made mizzile' and boldly print on it 'With love from India. RIP'.

Just BTW, was watching Military Channel yesterday. States that the USN has tested their sub launched missile 144 times - without a single hitch!!!!! I am just saying.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 16 Aug 2009 23:30

if we tie Agni 3 (or any ballistic missile) with nuclear role only, China can easily exploit that uncertainty to stop the only missiles that can from landing on their heads

btw, BR's Missile page also refers to conventional warheads for Agni series

if we are talking about a 0-3 year window for hostilities with China, can't rely on missiles in development

targeting their economic centers and being open about it is a deterrence goal

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 16 Aug 2009 23:56

The problem with "Prompt Global Strike" and such conventional ballistic missile schemes is that a nuclear armed adversary has no way to tell if an nuclear armed opponent is firing a conventional payload or attempting a decapitation strike.
While the Chinese don't have "launch on warning", such schemes are destabilizing. This imposes an unstated prohibition on the use of long range ballistic missiles except for nuclear strikes.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 17 Aug 2009 00:19

IMHO The only feasible non-escalatory answer to the range question of conventional delivery systems is to go for Nirbhay on SSGN operating in the south china sea. Let the beast stay in our pond during peace times.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 17 Aug 2009 00:46

I take that as we will use our long range missiles only if they use theirs, rest of the conventional deterrence is based on current missile development, apart from dominating the Tibetian skies and use of SSGNs

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 17 Aug 2009 01:16

Google Earth gives a ruler distance of 1400 miles to Beijing or Shanghai from the eastern tip of Assam/ ArPr. I can't find a great circle mapper for general navigation.

Also consider about 200 miles north of Eastern India, one can ride the Asian jet stream making range and speed, fuel and endurance considerations for Indian ordinance easier (suitability of 10k approach for a missile may be dubious unless heavily stealth).

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 17 Aug 2009 01:19

One of the astonishing aspect of the ATV project launch is that no one talks of the other capability(SSGN) that it reflects. Granted, boomers are our primary goal.
Let us for argument's sake assume that we had a tiff with Australia and wanted to give them a flypast to remember, similar to NoKo did with Japan. Why use Agni when a Nirbhay would do just fine, launched from a SSGN somewhere around Australia.
Now does that not open up a range of conventional responses that was unthinkable to couple of years back.

Singha wrote:thats why I was kicking around the idea of buying the 2 x oscar2.

Singha saar our own oscar equivalent is on the way, though it will take some time to get it operational given that our 1st priority will be the SSBN.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 17 Aug 2009 01:38

pankajs wrote:...
Let us for argument's sake assume that we had a tiff with Australia ...

Might just be my personal opinion but I think elevating the disagreement with Australia over NPT, CTBT, and Climate Change controls into a military engagement is gross sensationalisation and something best left to DDM.

There is no need for flypasts or acts of intimidation - then we're just playing into the hands of the mindless Australian strategists who put China and India into the same threat category.

Australia has certainly been keeping tabs on India through spying / intelligence gathering networks. India can return the favour. But I see no need to escalate into the military domain.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 17 Aug 2009 01:46

PratikDas wrote:There is no need for flypasts or acts of intimidation

Saar some clarification.
1. Gets too boring talking of China day in and day out.
2. When China gets into the picture lot of folks assume that the only route to China is over the Himalaya. Almost all folks start calculating the distance to Beijing from Arunachal/Assam and then the chorus starts our missile short range only. Has any one calculated the distance of Beijing and other high valued economic centers from the sea and tried to judge if Nirbhay is good enough if deployed in the only operational scenario that IMVHO suits such a class of weapon. The example was also meant to set folks thinking that firing Nirbhay from within our border or deploying it with a MKI are not the only option.
3. Also wanted to highlight that it could be any country any where in the world if our neta/babu have the balls.
4. Just an example

If the mods so desire the story can be changed. It has already distracted us from the main topic and real content of my message seems secondary now.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 17 Aug 2009 02:08

PratikDas wrote:There is no need for flypasts or acts of intimidation - then we're just playing into the hands of the mindless Australian strategists who put China and India into the same threat category.

Indeed.

And as Ramana has recently reminded us, Admiral Cunningham of the Royal Indian Navy warned many years ago: "Naming enemies is creating enemies."

John · Post by **John** » 17 Aug 2009 08:49

It would be great if we can use the Brahmos Tatra TEL for Shaurya, the missile is larger than Brahmos but not by much.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 17 Aug 2009 15:07

With respect to hitting China conventionally, i dont think we have capability to do so even in next 5 years.

We cannot use Agni 3 missiles with conventional payload for three reasons - 1) Escalation of nuclear war, china taking A 3 as nuclear attack and launches its own missiles. 2) No of missiles (A3) in inventory might not be sufficient enough for strategic deployment 3) Cost consideration.

I think all countries have verbally agreed to the fact that BMs will not be used for conventional role. Cruise missiles are required for that.

Our current cruise missiles (Incl russians) are not more than 500 Kms in range. Even with Nirbhay, it will be around 1000 - 1500 Kms at the most.

Also, there are only 2 CM known in the world having range of more than 3000 kms. Besides these CM have their dedicated carrier (Bombers) which we don't have and many of us believe we don't need them.

The only way we can hit them at their heart is to have SLCM (nirbhay with 1500Km)with sub in Yellow sea or east china sea at the most. But that puts the sub at disproportionate risk

I sincerely hope and pray we accelerate our CM program and go beyond Bramhos to develop high range missiles. With our declared NFU policy, i think Long range cruise missiles requires atleast equal focus as BM, if not more

-Nitin

James B · Post by **James B** » 18 Aug 2009 04:44

Nice close-up pics of Brahmos at MAKS 2009, Russia.

http://maks.sukhoi.ru/media/photo/maks2 ... dm4143.jpg

http://maks.sukhoi.ru/media/photo/maks2 ... dm4145.jpg

http://maks.sukhoi.ru/media/photo/maks2 ... dm4142.jpg

http://maks.sukhoi.ru/media/photo/maks2 ... dm4144.jpg

http://maks.sukhoi.ru/media/photo/maks2 ... dm4146.jpg

http://maks.sukhoi.ru/media/photo/maks2 ... dm4147.jpg

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 18 Aug 2009 05:09

Yesterday saw 20 Century Battlefields on Military channel Britian vs. Argentina...Argentina equipped with 5 exocet missiles and a few fighter regiments sunk 5 British ships and almost changed the course of the battle. Now think of 100s of Su 30MKI equipped with 100s of Brahmos - if lizard in the north is scared today it will be a paranoid once we stock up on Sukhoi and Brahmos. The only way they could level the field is by nuclear attack submarines or Gwadar airfield. They are pursuing both.