Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

[Indranil]

^^^ I have heard this many times. And probably should be one of the entries in the military assumptions thread. Missiles and rockets are different ball-game.

Ok, could you care to elaborate the difference between a rocket and a missile then ?

To a laymen like me it is:
A) Guided vs non-guided
Carries explosives vs carries satellites/vehicles
C) Go up and come down (re-entry) again simply guided And structural changes vs goes up only.

This difference in theory is non trivial it is not big in terms of rocket engineering.

The science of rocketry is the same, but the engineering of making a robust rugged missile which has a shelf life of 25-30 years is different. The missile has to be transported, stored and fired from mobile platforms. For launching a PSLV, you have start assembling it for at least 2 weeks at the launch pad. And then find a suitable window to launch it. This is not the case for a missile. You would get half an hour.

Secondly a missile is much more miniaturized than a space-faring rocket.

I think you have trivialized your points. One of the key technologies enabling Agni-5 was the discovering of composite materials for its re entry vehicle, which can sustain the heat and pressure, while safeguarding the payload. For Agni-6, the requirements are going to be higher. May the be the material used for Agni-5 is good enough, but may be not.

[SaiK]

4x250 MT petal I guess the strategy!

there 4 important cities - if that can be on the mission profile it would be just awesome.. from guanzhou to tianjin. and similarly from chi to pindi, we have A3++ bros to handle. Now a spread of 1000km is a possibility I suppose.. all depends on RV tech., especially the ones that can house an RV engine to guide and extend the profile.

I may be thinking too much on the independence value of RVs.

[ashish raval]

The science of rocketry is the same, but the engineering of making a robust rugged missile which has a shelf life of 25-30 years is different. The missile has to be transported, stored and fired from mobile platforms. For launching a PSLV, you have start assembling it for at least 2 weeks at the launch pad.

^^ is explained by point C) above. Again you have agreed that science is same. So once you have mastered basics there is no much difference.

And then find a suitable window to launch it. This is not the case for a missile. You would get half an hour.

^^
That is because it carries satellites and other sensitive on board equipments for various purposes.

Secondly a missile is much more miniaturized than a space-faring rocket.

^^ so what ? That is again point c) structural difference.

I think you have trivialized your points. One of the key technologies enabling Agni-5 was the discovering of composite materials for its re entry vehicle, which can sustain the heat and pressure, while safeguarding the payload. For Agni-6, the requirements are going to be higher. May the be the material used for Agni-5 is good enough, but may be not.

^^ again can be broadly covered under Points b) and c)

The fact is once you have good knowhow re-entry technoogy, MIRV and radar evasion (stealth not yet mastered) nothing comes closer. India has worked out reentry, MIRV is ongoing and stealth will be next. But with two things mastered pretty much no one picks up a fight.

[Indranil]

The science of rocketry is the same, but the engineering of making a robust rugged missile which has a shelf life of 25-30 years is different. The missile has to be transported, stored and fired from mobile platforms. For launching a PSLV, you have start assembling it for at least 2 weeks at the launch pad.

^^ is explained by point C) above. Again you have agreed that science is same. So once you have mastered basics there is no much difference.

Nope, I said science of rocketry is the same.

And then find a suitable window to launch it. This is not the case for a missile. You would get half an hour.

^^
That is because it carries satellites and other sensitive on board equipments for various purposes.

Then you must build warheads which are miniaturized and not so sensitive (while carry radioactive substances). The jury is still out on the size of Indian warheads.

Secondly a missile is much more miniaturized than a space-faring rocket.

^^ so what ? That is again point c) structural difference.

Well sir, if that is so easy, wouldn't you have built a smaller rocket in first place?

I think you have trivialized your points. One of the key technologies enabling Agni-5 was the discovering of composite materials for its re entry vehicle, which can sustain the heat and pressure, while safeguarding the payload. For Agni-6, the requirements are going to be higher. May the be the material used for Agni-5 is good enough, but may be not.

^^ again can be broadly covered under Points b) and c)

The fact is once you have good knowhow re-entry technoogy, MIRV and radar evasion (stealth not yet mastered) nothing comes closer. India has worked out reentry, MIRV is ongoing and stealth will be next. But with two things mastered pretty much no one picks up a fight.

Well, re-entry technology is not the same on all kinds of missiles. Agni V cannot use the materials used in Agni-3 for example.

The time difference between PSLVs first flight and Agni-Vs first flight is 19 years. So it is either not trivial or Indian missile scientists must be really stupid. You can pick your choice.

[Sanku]

The important thing to note is that VKS is NOT saying what Amit purports him to be saying.

It is fine to draw one's interpretation from others, but it is not fine to push it as a fact.

[jamwal]

ashish raval sahib,
just compare size of a rocket and an ICBM. Just because you can launch a satellite in to space doesn't mean that you can hit a city on other end of planet too.

[member_20317]

While trying to figure out some evasive capabilities for Missiles, against preemptive strikes, I came across a series of experiments by US and Romania which involved Rockets on a Balloon (at the time when we had an under-sea silo being discussed here). This made the rocket very light. The lightest rockets are effectively within the weight category of the heaviest missiles.

More then the weight it is the mission profile and the designing around the mission that constitutes the difference between a rocket and a missile. Actually even the mission profile may not distinguish properly. So the distinction is pragmatic and not academic. But typically in the context being discussed, reentry is a good mark for distinction.

[amit]

The important thing to note is that VKS is NOT saying what Amit purports him to be saying.

It is fine to draw one's interpretation from others, but it is not fine to push it as a fact.

Aha I was wondering when you'd weigh in with anal ysis of what VKS is saying, what he really meant and what he should be saying. I wonder whether you're applying your "limited sense" to interpret VKS and justify why you think he's correct in a "limited sense".

However, I have no wish to give you another opportunity to disrupt another thread yet again. So have it your way and best of luck in convincing others.

[ashish raval]

Then you must build warheads which are miniaturized and not so sensitive (while carry radioactive substances). The jury is still out on the size of Indian warheads

.

^^ and who gives that jury ? If you are out for verdicts from FAS and likes of other keep waiting. They laughed off China for a long time too, now west is caught with their pants down on basically every single point about china.

Well sir, if that is so easy, wouldn't you have built a smaller rocket in first place?

Who is 'you' here, me, india or drdo ?

Well, re-entry technology is not the same on all kinds of missiles. Agni V cannot use the materials used in Agni-3 for example

^^ that is called evolution of technology it applies in every single thing in technology including Microsoft windows. It be diifcult to install windows 8 on Pentium 1.

The time difference between PSLVs first flight and Agni-Vs first flight is 19 years. So it is either not trivial or Indian missile scientists must be really stupid. You can pick your choice.

This difference can be explained by the remit of each agency. Every other nation which can fire rockets in space and missile developed these technology simultaneously. India took time due to sanction regime, bad management/ direction, building skills and then having attrition to Industry/working abroad, less budget, lack of incentives yada yada.
I strongly believe, Indian engineers/scientists are on par with any other engineers/scientists on the planet. The only concern is that India (society/governments) did not did enough in the past due to large number of reasons for people to stick to what they were doing.

[Indranil]

Ashish sahab,

The Russians tried to use R-7 (the same rocket to launch Sputnik) as the world's first ICBM. At the heights of cold war it took them five years to modify that rocket. But even then they found it highly impractical as a missile. You can read about it.

All this talk started with saying that a country having the knowhow to launch satellite into orbit means also has the knowhow for an ICBM. Now you say that it is an evolutionary technology. What is your stand?

[Pranav]

Are there any lessons to be learned from Israel's ongoing air strikes on Syria?

It seems Syria has mostly Soviet / Russian air defense systems and they have not been very effective so far. Need to understand causes of failure.

[ashish raval]

The Russians tried to use R-7 (the same rocket to launch Sputnik) as the world's first ICBM. At the heights of cold war it took them five years to modify that rocket. But even then they found it highly impractical as a missile. You can read about it

^^ can't compare something that was attempted 50 years and took 5 years will necessarily take 5 years today. Remember technology takes a few years to develop, mature and become robust with extensive use. If that was the age of birth, today it is almost youth.

All this talk started with saying that a country having the knowhow to launch satellite into orbit means also has the knowhow for an ICBM. Now you say that it is an evolutionary technology. What is your stand?

^^ the context behind this was that if one country has mastered rocket science,it will take only some years during which they will figure out the things to make a missile. All the other associated things gets developed along this, I.e. miniaturisation, reentry, navigation yada yada.

[ramana]

The interview does not settle the fizzle vs sizzle debate. That would be your own inferences. Let the facts speak for themselves.

[Katare]

Who's facts? Is there a general agreement on the facts?

There are still 9% of American's that don't believe that a fellow American landed on the moon. Too them it was all staged for the TV and they will give you many facts and trash your facts with spicy logics.

People look at the available (mis)information to select their facts to make their infrenses/conclusions based on their sociopolitical leanings. Complete objectivity in most real life incedents/cases is almost impossible to achieve.

So is the sizzle/fizzle debate settled - For some it is for other it's still an open case and for a few, it'll probably be never settled, no matter what.

So is VKS's statement is a fact? Well it is as much of a fact as Santhanam's facts!!

[amit]

+100

Somehow I get the impression of drowning men clutching at straws.

Perhaps the best way to settle this debate is to get Santhanam and VKS in a cage and have them fight it out. We can believe the winner.

On a more serious note, our deterrent is not an static unchanging thing like the Pyramids. It is something that is constantly evolving. I'm sure quite a considerable amount of work has gone into it over these years.

The AEC had always maintained that it worked in Pokharan. DRDO, after Santhanam's comments "appeared" at a divergence. Now the DRDO chief has closed this divergence. One can think that VKS is lying or one can try to cut and dice his comments to suit a particular POV. However I'll sleep easy at night as I suspect millions of other Indians would after VKS' comments.

I find it inconceivable that the head of the agency tasked to make the vehicles which would deliver our "detergent" to clean up dirty places does not know - or would lie about - the packages and its content and cleaning power. But then that's me, not everyone has to be the same.

Added later: There's also another possibility. It could also be that Santhanam and Chidambaram played out the good cop-bad cop routine. If one recalls this controversy came up around the time when the Ayatollahs were staging a rear guard action to get India to sign all those three letter treaties around the time of the nuclear deal. Maybe the controversy allowed Indian negotiators to say that it was not politically possible to sign due to this divergence among the top officials?

While we are at it why not consider this possibility as well? Santhanam was ideally placed to be the bad cop. He was a top and highly respected scientist, recently retired and so could "act" like a loose cannon...

[Prem Kumar]

Amit: I dont want another sizzle vs fizzle debate, so will make only 1 post on this.

VKS clarified the reasons why we have a nuclear weapons program and the fact that 2 out of the 3 legs of the triad are ready (with the 3rd one coming along fine). Coming on the heels of Shyam Saran's speech, this seems to be a coordinated move with a nod from the GOI to assuage fears and probably send a message as well. There has been an artificial build-up of negative propaganda on the reasons for the Indian nuclear program (i.e. it was "prestige" related), how Pakistan is miles ahead and other such drivel. VKS interview and Shyam Saran's speech are to dispel any such notions.

Pallav didnt ask him about the size of the payloads & whether we have weaponized & proven TNs - and VKS didnt mention it either. The main sizzle-fizzle argument was whether the TN capacity was proven and if so, what designs/payloads were validated. This was not even remotely the point of the interview.

However, if this interview assuages doubts if you had any, that's fine.

[amit]

Amit: I dont want another sizzle vs fizzle debate, so will make only 1 post on this.

VKS clarified the reasons why we have a nuclear weapons program and the fact that 2 out of the 3 legs of the triad are ready (with the 3rd one coming along fine). Coming on the heels of Shyam Saran's speech, this seems to be a coordinated move with a nod from the GOI to assuage fears and probably send a message as well. There has been an artificial build-up of negative propaganda on the reasons for the Indian nuclear program (i.e. it was "prestige" related), how Pakistan is miles ahead and other such drivel. VKS interview and Shyam Saran's speech are to dispel any such notions.

Pallav didnt ask him about the size of the payloads & whether we have weaponized & proven TNs - and VKS didnt mention it either. The main sizzle-fizzle argument was whether the TN capacity was proven and if so, what designs/payloads were validated. This was not even remotely the point of the interview.

However, if this interview assuages doubts if you had any, that's fine.

Prem Kumar,

I appreciate your well thought out response. I’ll also stick to one response to your post as I don’t want another debate on an emotive subject as that’s invitation for trolling by usual suspects.

I agree the NDTV reporter did not ask about the size of the payload and VKS didn’t offer any information either.

However, the question I ask myself (and I did the same when we had that famous debate) is this: Does size matter? Or is it more important that whatever the size it does its job? Deterrence fails the day the rose petals start their flight.

When nuclear bombs became fashionable and various countries had big lumbering ICBMs to deliver them, the tonnage used by measured in megatons. However, nowadays the fashionable size is 250 kt. Now is 250 kt less reliable than one megaton and above? Do adversaries laugh at the punny size of the 250 kt when compared to their larger size megatons?

We’ll never know if the TN capacity was proven or not – at least not until some classified documents are declassified at some future point of time. Hence the sizzle vs fizzle debate was ultimately Santhanam’s word vs those of Chidambaram and Kakodkar. But more importantly the debate – as it was fashioned during that time – was also a DRDO (as neutral observers) vs BARC/AEC debate, with the later being painted as the villains who let the country down at Pokharan.

That’s why when the DRDO chief says our deterrent is robust and reliable I'm happy - I believe this is the first time since the sizzle vs fizzle debate that a DRDO chief has made such a categorical observation. I’m not too worried if the bombs are fission or TN or whether they are 20kt or 300 kt.

If indeed as you speculate Saran and VKS were sending out messages, one can either choose to believe these messages or not. I don’t think an option exists to believe a part of the message and disbelieve the other part – that is for lay persons like us, since we do not have access to data and can only go by what is publicly available. To wit, IMHO one cannot believe that India has a robust deterrence and also believe that it does not have a working TN that can be delivered using Agni 4 or 5.

As an aside, I found this particular para in the VKS interview interesting:

The notion that many analysts have are purely based upon their perception of things and comparison with other countries. I think every country has deterrence capability based upon its capacity, based upon evolving threats and also (takes into consideration) the ecosystem and the environment in which this deterrence has to work. So one need not compare whether country A has a better one (deterrence) or country B has a better one. It is what India needs. Do we have that? I can assure that India has the required deterrence capability in all forms. The triad is getting completed and I have no doubts that we will match with the best in the world.

At the end of the day, your point about a negative build up on perception about India’s nuclear deterrent is well founded. However, unfortunately I think Indians contribute as much to it as NPA Ayatollahs and other assorted creatures.

To sum up my thoughts let me repeat what I wrote earlier: Is size important or is effectiveness? The sizzle vs fizzle debate was ultimately one man’s word against the other(s). What was added IMHO was an “artificial” disagreement between two government institutions responsible for our deterrent: DRDO and BARC/AEC. Hence my point about VKS’ comments clearing up this “artificial” disagreement.

PS: I also realize that my conclusions are mine alone and others can have different opinions. Let’s just keep it at that.

[Sanku]

The interview does not settle the fizzle vs sizzle debate. That would be your own inferences. Let the facts speak for themselves.

Ramana garu, I see that your "advice" is being ignored, since this discussion is OT for this thread, I shall not further escalate the debate and ignore both advice and thread discipline, and I am sure, no want wants to take this latest reiteration over to the Nuclear thread once more.

I only want to make a small point, why is there such a pressing need to put words in Shri VKS mouth in some quarters? Even at the cost of basic courtesies such as thread discipline, advice and common sense, makes me wonder for sure.

[ramana]

I too agree that the deterrent is credible and leave it at that. In fact it was I who posted the Shyam Saran speech at IIHC.


Prem Kumar, India currently has a tri-service deterrent (IAF, IA and IN) since ~1999. After the INS Arihant is proofed and goes on its deterrent patrol it will be a triad.

[SaiK]

A6.MARV yeah!!!2017 time frame. Hope the babooze don't spoil the agenda. 3 MARVs with a tonner each! chippanda land sathya naas

[RoyG]

A6.MARV yeah!!!2017 time frame. Hope the babooze don't spoil the agenda. 3 MARVs with a tonner each! chippanda land sathya naas

I wonder if this means our TN capability fizzled. Shouldn't the payload be less? FBF are a bit heavier so this may account for weight. The missile has to be hardened against laser, emp, and has to rival that of the rs-24 Yars wrt to boost phase speed so that it minimizes vulnerability to land/sea/air based laser weapons should they become operational.

[Singha]

where did the 1t payload come from in VKS interview? I see Saik's post above mentions it but cannot see it in VKS interview. lets not start off on a wrong premise.

[dinesha]

^^^^^^ The total Payload would by 3 tonnes.. It would be 10 MaRV@ 250-300 Kgs..
Ajai Sukla has added lots of his own masala and spin in the article below..

Advanced Agni-6 missile with multiple warheads likely by 2017
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 034_1.html

By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 8th May 13

Ending worldwide speculation about the futuristic Agni-6 missile, the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) has briefed Business Standard about the direction of India’s ballistic missile development programme after the Agni-5 enters service, probably in 2015.

DRDO chief Dr VK Saraswat, and missile programme chief Dr Avinash Chander, say the Agni-6 project has not been formally sanctioned. However, the missile’s specifications and capabilities have been decided and development is proceeding apace. Once the ongoing Agni-5 programme concludes flight-testing, the defence ministry (MoD) will formally okay the Agni-6 programme and allocate funding.

Chander says the Agni-6 will carry a massive three-tonne warhead, thrice the weight of the one-tonne warhead that Agni missiles have carried so far. This will allow each Agni-6 missile to launch several nuclear warheads --- Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Warheads (MIRVs) --- with each warhead striking a different target. Each warhead --- called Maneuverable Reentry Vehicle (MARV) --- performs evasive maneuvers while hurtling down towards its target, confusing enemy air defence missiles that are trying to destroy them mid-air.

The DRDO is at an advanced stage of developing these warhead technologies. But the difficult challenge is building a booster rocket that can propel a three-tonne payload to targets 5000 kilometres away. This weighs almost as much as the satellite payload carried by the Indian Space Research Organisation’s much larger and heavier Global Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV).

“Our ballistic missiles must be compact and road mobile, even the Agni-6 with its heavy payload. We will do this by building the first stage with composites, fitting the Agni-6 with India’s first composite 40-tonne rocket motor. This is a technical challenge but we have good capability in lightweight composites,” says Chander.

The road mobile Agni-6 would also have stringent limits on its length. “It must be carried on a standard size trailer that can move from one part of the country to another, turn on our roads, cross our bridges and climb our heights. As the payload weight increases, we will require more advanced technologies to keep the missile’s length constant,” explains Chander.

Coaxing higher performance from smaller rockets becomes especially important in submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), which can be no longer than 13 metres so that they can fit into the cramped confines of a submarine. Even long-range SLBMs that can fly 14,000 kilometres, like the Chinese JL-2, are built no longer than 13 metres. The DRDO faces this challenge as it develops the K-4 SLBM for the country’s Arihant-class nuclear-propelled ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs).

Eventually the Agni-6 will be no taller than the Agni-5, i.e. about 17 metres, says Chander. It will, however, be heavier and thicker --- slightly over 2 metres --- which will cater for the different shape of the MIRV payload.

“The timeframe for developing a new missile system is about 5 years and the DRDO has mostly achieved this in the Agni programme,” says Chander. Calculating five years from April 2012, when the Agni-5 had its debut launch, the first test of the Agni-6 could happen in 2017.

The DRDO says the Agni-6 will have a longer range than the 5000-kilometre Agni-5, but is not mentioning figures. “The MARVs and MIRVs will give us extended range. I will not be able to tell you how much because that is secret,” Saraswat told Business Standard.

Ballistic calculations, however, suggest that at least some of the MIRV warheads on the Agni-6 would reach at least 6,000 kilometres. In a missile that travels 5,000 kilometres, the last MIRV warhead released flies an extra 1,000 kilometres.

Currently, the DRDO is readying for the second test next month of the Agni-5 Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM). This will be fired in the same configuration as its debut test a year ago, in order to establish the missile’s reliability. A third test by end-2013 will see the missile fired from a canister.

“We will conduct at least 5-6 more Agni-5 tests before the missile enters operational service. After the repeat test this month or the next, we will conduct two test firings from a canister. Then the military units that will operate the Agni-5 will conduct 2-3 test firings as part of the induction process. Even after induction, the users conduct test firings as part of the Strategic Forces Command (SFC) training plan,” says Avinash Chander.

The Agni-5 is a three-stage, solid-fuel missile but its first stage consists of a metallic rocket motor, while the second and third stages have composite motors.

[SaiK]

roy ji, i never said anything about payload petal config. of course, it is all masala till the launch date and more info comes through and the ddm is validated. but, i am happy that the progress towards marv config means, and the hidden config info would keep us all guessing till it takes shape. always, thinking positive.

[dinesha]

CLUB-CLASS: India now eyes ICBM Agni-6, even as A-5 readies to spit fire | Work on MIRV, MarV possibilities begin
http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/2012/01/cl ... gni-6.html

Avinash Chander, Chief Controller, R&D (Missiles and Strategic Systems), DRDO, told Express over the phone from New Delhi that his team has definitely taken stock of the road ahead. “Future systems may carry different types of payloads such as high energy weapons. All these technology developments are within the horizon. Further systems whenever planned, will have some of these (read as MIRV\MarV) features,” Avinash said. However, he refused to comment on Agni-6.

[SaiK]

sounds like anything an A6++ should be strategically kept at around 6K range. A double value is an impending possibility for our enemies.

[dinesha]

^^^^That way everybody is kept in good humor..
However message will reach to the intended..

[Singha]

A5 being fired from a cansister will be a great moment to watch. I have always had a fetish for those russian icbm launch videos. its definitely a "statement" plus a weapon system as someone was saying about the SS18 launches.
had the look and size of a tibetan mastiff with the surly mood to match.

> a 17 m x 2.5m missile with a 3t payload going 6000km away onlee - how dharmic and sikular. love the panchsheel thing

[SaiK]

oh those russkie icbm launch videos are simply exhilarating

[ramana]

CLUB-CLASS: India now eyes ICBM Agni-6, even as A-5 readies to spit fire | Work on MIRV, MarV possibilities begin
http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/2012/01/cl ... gni-6.html

Avinash Chander, Chief Controller, R&D (Missiles and Strategic Systems), DRDO, told Express over the phone from New Delhi that his team has definitely taken stock of the road ahead. “Future systems may carry different types of payloads such as high energy weapons. All these technology developments are within the horizon. Further systems whenever planned, will have some of these (read as MIRV\MarV) features,” Avinash said. However, he refused to comment on Agni-6.

DineshA, Indian missiles are MARV as they are guided all the way to the target.

Pay attention to the high energy weapons. Avinashji is telling us a roadmap.

[RoyG]

What does he mean by high energy weapons?

[Singha]

EMP is one. nirbhay might be the carrier or shourya.
http://mccoyote.wordpress.com/2012/06/1 ... -gulf-war/

[dinesha]

Problem in Nirbhay cruise missile identified: Antony
http://www.ptinews.com/news/3616682_Pro ... d--Antony-

New Delhi, May 8 (PTI) Scientists have identified the problem in Nirbhay cruise missile, which led to its malfunction during the first test flight last month, and corrective design is being implemented, Defence Minister A K Antony today said.

In a written reply in Rajya Sabha, he said, "Scientists have identified that Inertial Navigation System has malfunctioned and corrective design/modification are being implemented."

On whether the missile achieved only partial success, Antony said, "Yes.

Problem in Nirbhay cruise missile identified: Antony
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 450_1.html

Scientists have identified the problem in Nirbhay cruise missile, which led to its malfunction during the first test flight last month, and corrective design is being implemented, Defence Minister A K Antony today said.

In a written reply in Rajya Sabha, he said, "Scientists have identified that Inertial Navigation System has malfunctioned and corrective design/modification are being implemented."

On whether the missile achieved only partial success, Antony said, "Yes. Except for covering the full range by flying in all way points, all the objectives set for the cruise missile functionality have been met fully."

Maintaining that the missile had a perfect launch with the navigation systems correctly touching the "first way point", he said, "Deviation was observed while going to second way point. When the deviation extended the safety limit, mission abort command was issued from the ground and the destruction mechanism inside the missile was activated."

In reply to a separate question, the Minister said DRDO has proposed to set up a missile testing centre and a launch pad at Machilipatnam in Andhra Pradesh at an estimated cost of Rs 1200 crore.

"The proposal is at a very initial stage. So far, only proposal for requirement for land has been initiated with the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

[dinesha]

Pay attention to the high energy weapons. Avinashji is telling us a roadmap.

Yes, DEW as offensive missile payloads would be quite a ballgame..I wounder how would they implement ..

[Klaus]

^^^ A5 having an alternative role as ASAT weapon and A6 as being able to launch an orbiting DEW payload?

[Singha]

A5 ASAT ..as you can see in link below the fulcrum, the loin of the whole thing is the comms and navigation sats which hang out at 20,000km orbit . a modified 3rd stage should be able to release some KV maybe....typically PSLV can reach such higher orbits so A5 may not be big enough.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... orbits.svg

the shourya is smaller, cheaper and should be able to knock out comint/imint sats that typically move in 700km orbits down to around 300km even.

[darshhan]

I have a query wrt MIRVs. What is the maximum spread (as in Geographical size) that MIRVs aboard a single missile can achieve ?

In other words can we target Beijing,shanghai and guangzhou with a single missile

Or

is it that MIRVs atop a single missile can only be used to target a much limited area; say like Shanghai and Pudong.

[member_20317]

^
Think R-36 ORB fractional orbital systems.

[RoyG]

I have a query wrt MIRVs. What is the maximum spread (as in Geographical size) that MIRVs aboard a single missile can achieve ?

In other words can we target Beijing,shanghai and guangzhou with a single missile

Or

is it that MIRVs atop a single missile can only be used to target a much limited area; say like Shanghai and Pudong.

Normally legacy MIRV systems (warheads lacking guidance package) are used to inflict heavy damage to a limited geographic area. However, when you have MIRV systems with MARV you are able to pull sharp maneuvers during reentry (ex. porpoise), counter ABM defenses, and extend the range by at least a few hundred miles.

[darshhan]

Normally legacy MIRV systems (warheads lacking guidance package) are used to inflict heavy damage to a limited geographic area. However, when you have MIRV systems with MARV you are able to pull sharp maneuvers during reentry (ex. porpoise), counter ABM defenses, and extend the range by at least a few hundred miles.

I was thinking the same, because even a very slight change made in space by MARV, can make a huge difference on Earth.