Indian Missile Technology Discussion

[Arun_S]

1. More importantly, is it a separating warhead ?
2. The missile is thin, can the warhead be MIRV'ed (is there any concept of RVs placed in tandem)
3. If not, why the 1 tonne payload ?

Good question.

Arun_S

Also interesting to see in Shourya the next type of multi-stage rocket that does not use the Agni-style truss based inter stage, this time the inter stage is well covered.

So separation cutting is by shaped charge or det cord. Probably the former.

I think so.
For clean separation of spent stage, near interstage one can see the bulge for retro rockets

There is some indication that the payload section has an relatively large integrated propulsion stage atop which the composite RV is attached. That could attest to DRDO claim of Shourya being resistant to ABM. That integrated stage does not seem to be re-entry capable, and likely does it job before crossing 70Km altitude on reentry.

[andy B]

Question or the mijjile Adminmullah from KhyberDurra (kinda rhymes... )

This puppy doesn’t go all the way up outside the atmos and but travels horizontally across right?

Now the news said that it had a rolling manoeuvre in order to keep it cool and dissipate the heat uniformly across the body right??

Now my question is, is this puppy enduring higher friction (and thus maybe higher temp on one part of the body or even the whole) as it is travelling in relatively thicker air compared to a traditional BM profile and is that the reason behind the rolling???
Also given that it doesn’t exit the atmosphere does it make this puppy a bit less efficient again compared to a traditional BM (burns a bit more fuel which i suppose has been compensated by advancement of technology in solid fuels)

Arun saar please forgive me if these questions are too obvious...

[Singha]

you are right on both counts...traditional ballistic path is most efficient in heat
and range. but the idea seems to be live with a reduced range of 1000-1300km
but make it harder to detect and target with ABM kit.

can almost say its a very high flying, very fast GLCM

this 'atmospheric' profile could be used to target the S300/400 radars in Tibet
for instance (see mil scenarios thread) but launching from central india.

[andy B]

Aaaahhh The Mystic Hammer makes its mark.

Singha saar. ala high flying GLCM was what I was thinking thank you for clearing that up...

[Lalmohan]

this 'atmospheric' profile could be used to target the S300/400 radars in Tibet
for instance (see mil scenarios thread) but launching from central india.

i like where you're going with this, explains the horizontal and relatively low speed profile and high maneouverability. the question is now about terminal seeking and guidance...

[Austin]

I still dont get it , why would it be difficult to target a "tailored trajectory BM" with AAD/S-300/400 system even assuming its manouverable.

These High end AD system are just designed for such task , the LRTR of such system can detect the BM in flight and then considering its speed is ~ M 6 in best of condition at 50 km altitude ( it rather slows down at a later stage , but achieves high accuracy ) , the AD system like AAD/PAD can hit it any ways .

A pure BM with a manouriving RV is a far greater challenging target with very high speed ~ M12 and not following a pure BM profile.

[sum]

Wanted to post in psy-ops thread....one of the perils of trying to post while chatting over phone!!!!

[Rahul M]

sum, wrong thread, remove this please.

[Rupesh]

yep. nothing to do with missiles...

Seems that its already removed

[geeth]

>>>I still dont get it , why would it be difficult to target a "tailored trajectory BM" with AAD/S-300/400 system even assuming its manouverable.

If it is a pure ballistic missile, all you have to do is to look up the sky - thousands of kilometres deep into space - done with radars. But how far you can look over the horizon? not much. So, a missile flying horizontally cannot be detected from a great distance away, thereby reducing the reaction time, even if you have a long range radar. The lower the altitude, the lesser the distance from which it can be detected.

[vsudhir]

>>>I still dont get it , why would it be difficult to target a "tailored trajectory BM" with AAD/S-300/400 system even assuming its manouverable.

If it is a pure ballistic missile, all you have to do is to look up the sky - thousands of kilometres deep into space - done with radars. But how far you can look over the horizon? not much. So, a missile flying horizontally cannot be detected from a great distance away, thereby reducing the reaction time, even if you have a long range radar. The lower the altitude, the lesser the distance from which it can be detected.

Interesting.

The LRTRs for a horiz flying missile would have to be looking 'top-down', so to say. And the high speed of the BCM (Ballistic cruise missile ) would give it away as a non-aeroplane.

A geo-synchronous orbit sat would be at quite a distance to do this kind of looking down monitoring on a 24x7 basis. LEO sats wouldn't provide 24x7 coverage except if planned and used in tandem. Of ocurse, during tense times, an AEW and bringing together of space based assets would be in order.

[Rahul M]

>>>I still dont get it , why would it be difficult to target a "tailored trajectory BM" with AAD/S-300/400 system even assuming its manouverable.

If it is a pure ballistic missile, all you have to do is to look up the sky - thousands of kilometres deep into space - done with radars. But how far you can look over the horizon? not much. So, a missile flying horizontally cannot be detected from a great distance away, thereby reducing the reaction time, even if you have a long range radar. The lower the altitude, the lesser the distance from which it can be detected.

I think more important factor for a SRBM/MRBM would be predicting the trajectory.
interceptor missiles depend heavily on their radar & targeting system's ability to predict the trajectory of the 'bogey' in order to set up the interception course.
a pure ballistic trajectory would be much easier to predict. I think this is what Mr Natarajan meant.

Its velocity gradually tapered off during the remaining 300 km of its flight and then it plunged vertically over the targeted site in the Bay of Bengal.

clearly not a pure ballistic trajectory. this means it would be difficult to predict the final target even if detected by early warning systems.

[negi]

Rahul yeah extrapolating the missile path for a classic ballistic missile should be more easier.

In case of rockets/missiles which have been designed for depressed trajectories , the powered phase imo is longer than that of a ballistic missile (for the same range) , so the ABM system will in theory have lesser time to intercept such a target , other important aspect in my opinion is
it is easier to achieve hit to kill high up in the atmosphere where the drag due to dense air is less and one can achieve far more response from those lateral thrusters on the kill vehicle , while such maneuvers in lower atmosphere will bleed far too much energy to successfully intercept the target.

[Austin]

Yes Depressed Trajectory spends most of its time in atmosphere , making tracking and interception difficult and the rocket also experiences tremendous stress in such flight and not sure in practice how much of this is possible , not to mention it cuts down on range.

If if you have a rocket flying at 50 Km altitude at mach 5 , it still represents like a cruise missile flying at M 5 , it certainly can do terminal maneuvering at the cost of loosing its energy , but its certainly not an invisible system and you can track it well with layered system ( AWACS, LRTR/GP , GBR , OTH radar and IR sensors ) and can cue it with systems like AAD /PAD , S-300/400 & THAAD , PAC-3

These AD systems have energy and are maneuverable enough to deal with it .

Well the only point is , these selected system are operationally deployed by very few countries ( now and future ) , you dont expect your closest enemy to have it , so yes you have a good 2nd strike capability.

JMHO

[babbupandey]

If that be the case, then is it not better to have more R&D in the field of hypersonic planes such as AVATAR. Then the hypersonic cruise missiles, as envisioned by APJ Azad, can fly at Mach 7 to deliver the warhead and come back to the user.

Far more cost-effective and reliable, the additional Mach 2 of thrust is enough to beat the defence shield as PAD/AAD operate at around similar speeds.

I still feel that this missile has "something" more than what meets the eye. Maybe the missile test was a head-fake to test something else, I don't know. Subsequent posts by Arun_S(ir) has left me asking for more...

[Rahul M]

Yes Depressed Trajectory spends most of its time in atmosphere , making tracking and interception difficult and the rocket also experiences tremendous stress in such flight and not sure in practice how much of this is possible , not to mention it cuts down on range.

austin, as far as I understood this is not the simple depressed trajectory which is still a classical ballistic trajectory.
if this happens to do what I think it does then any ABM system would have a very hard time defending against it.

[Sontu]

Is it's Flight Path is The point ...which made it to be said as very maneuverable ?
1. Reaches 50 Km vertical, after launch.
2. Goes horizontally towards the target (using a straight horizontal path or inclined/angled towards earth… one?).If it uses the Inclined path that means it will reduce the height also to avoid the detection from GBRs ?
3. Reaches Mach 5.0 at the end of powered path i.e. first 300-400 KM,Covers the half of the distance with high speed to reduce the reaction time of SAMs ?
4. Reduces the speed and does a roll to distribute the heat generated during the peak speed in atmosphere.
5. Flight speed reduced for last 300 KM …I guess now is takes a curved path towards target zone.
6. Reaches the target location (at what height?) and then dives vertically towards the target and accomplishes the task.

A High Speed Mixed (Part Balistic + Part Cruise) Flight Missile ?
Gurus..what do you say ?
Regards,

[Arun_S]

>>>I still dont get it , why would it be difficult to target a "tailored trajectory BM" with AAD/S-300/400 system even assuming its manouverable.

If it is a pure ballistic missile, all you have to do is to look up the sky - thousands of kilometres deep into space - done with radars. But how far you can look over the horizon? not much. So, a missile flying horizontally cannot be detected from a great distance away, thereby reducing the reaction time, even if you have a long range radar. The lower the altitude, the lesser the distance from which it can be detected.

Correct you hit the Chinese eye (forgive my twisted phrase, China is a better target than a poor bull's eye}.

If you notice all BM have a specification for not only the longest range but also the shortest range. That shortest range come from the lowest depressed trajectory you can fire and still get accuracy. This test shot was on validating the envelope for the depressed trajectory.

Question or the mijjile Adminmullah from KhyberDurra (kinda rhymes... )

This puppy doesn’t go all the way up outside the atmos and but travels horizontally across right?

Correct. But only for this test flight, does not mean it is the normal or preferred trajectory for this missile.

Now the news said that it had a rolling manoeuvre in order to keep it cool and dissipate the heat uniformly across the body right??

Now my question is, is this puppy enduring higher friction (and thus maybe higher temp on one part of the body or even the whole) as it is travelling in relatively thicker air compared to a traditional BM profile and is that the reason behind the rolling???

Yes in a very depressed trajectory, the small booster (the half stage) gets it to 1.1 Mach speed at a distance of ~6Km. The main motor reaches Mach2.5 (when significant skin heating starts) at ~13Km distance. At ~45 seconds the speed is Mach 3 at ~17Km distance and the drag is ~2,300Kg corresponding to 2.2MWatt heat generation. Speed of Mach-5 at 9Km altitude produces 5.2 MW heat, and this is just 60 seconds into the powered flight. When in air the missile will use body lift (using Angle of Attack > Zero) to offset Gravity, thus the skin heating will not be uniform. That is the reason one will like to keep it rolling to more easily handle the heat.

Now when a long range missile does rolling it does nasty things to its Inertial measurement Unit and INS system. Shourya did it all.

Bum Bum Bholay.

[Raj Malhotra]

1. At the height of 50km the horizon is around 800km away, so will this help reduce reaction time to the missile whose range in depressed trajectory is around 600km? the missile will be detected as soon as it reaches 50km height and the enemy will have around 20 min to react (??)


2. Also is it 1.5 stage or 2.5 stage missile??

[Lalmohan]

Now when a long range missile does rolling it does nasty things to its Inertial measurement Unit and INS system.

presumably not to a ring laser gyro - which is what i understood the DRDO to have cooked up

[Arun_S]

Now when a long range missile does rolling it does nasty things to its Inertial measurement Unit and INS system.

presumably not to a ring laser gyro - which is what i understood the DRDO to have cooked up

The harder you kick a goose the more it cries, no matter the IMU is using Ring Laser or Dry Tuned Gyro. It is no mean feat/capabelity.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Shourya missile test still leaves many basic questions unanswered like:
1. Mass of the missile
2. Range of the missile (the current news report only state the test flight range)
3. Diameter of the missile

And here the unnamed Defense ministry official says it has no link with Sagarika missile.


India successfully test-fires Shourya missile

The new Shourya (Valor) missile has a range of 600 kilometers, the ministry said in a statement that hailed the technology as “state of the art”
AP

New Delhi: India successfully test-fired a medium-range, surface-to surface missile on Wednesday, the defence ministry said.

The new Shourya (Valor) missile has a range of 600 kilometers, the ministry said in a statement that hailed the technology as “state of the art.”

India and longtime rival Pakistan routinely test-fire missiles. They usually notify each other ahead of missile launches in keeping with an agreement between the two nations.

“The high maneuverability of the missile makes it less vulnerable to available anti-missile defense systems,” the ministry said.

A ministry official earlier said the weapon tested was a nuclear-capable K-15 missile, an undersea submarine-launched ballistic missile with a range of up to 700 kilometers. He spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to media .

The Shourya missile was fired from a test range in Balasore in eastern Orissa, nearly 1,300 kilometers southeast of New Delhi, the ministry said.

India’s current crop of missiles are mostly intended for confronting neighbouring archrival Pakistan, but the country’s longest-range missile, the Agni 3, is designed to travel 3,000 kilometers — putting China’s major cities well into range, as well as targets deep in the Middle East.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars since their independence from Britain in 1947. They have been holding peace talks since 1994 aimed at resolving their differences, including their dispute over the Himalayan region of Kashmir.

Meanwhile, PTI quoted DRDO sources saying the speculation that the missile was a land version of the under development K-15 submarine launched ballistic missile was not right.The surface-to-surface missile had nothing to do with K-15 ’Sagarika’ project, DRDO sources said.

[Singha]

here is a scenario question:-

the southern side of PRC logistical route in Tibet stretches from kashgar in the west
through aksai chin, along the tsangpo valley to Lhasa and points further east.

there is a great range of mountains and high plateau to the north of this.

further to the north is their northernly logistical route in tibet stretching from qinghai
province to urumqi side.

N-S there is Lhasa-Qinghai railway and highway.

they will deploy S-300 batteries along this southern axis, around Lhasa, into the aksai chin bulge, into the trijunction area of Sikkim, near Thag La in AP.

YLC-n 3D radars will be placed on strategic sites, perhaps high up in the slopes to
the north of the southernly axis to get a better LOS.

ABM radars if any similarly emplaced.

himalayas are a 15000ft-20000ft wall to the south, which permit creeping attacks to
popup from low level and hide their movements within India. I dont think a AWACS with
a ceiling of 35000ft and flying 100km north of the nepal border can get a huge looksee
into our corner? same lack of visibility goes for us.

given tibets vast area its difficult to imagine that purely IMINT can locate the big
radars quickly as they are truck moveable and no doubt will change locations to pre
surveyed sites on a daily or twice daily basis.

[a] how do we get a good position fix on these big 3D and ABM radars without risking
lives?

whats the best way to take them out ? note, some could be as much as 500+km
north of the border and atleast 100-200km north is for sure.

my theory:-

[a] we need a stealthy very high flying passive EW platform like a Ghawk (65000ft ceiling)
that can fly for tens of hours and gather sigint, a few of them could network their
intelligence and better triangulate on _approximate_ location, the emitters being 100s
of km away to north.

other than Ghawk nothing exists with such a ceiling. the Eitan UAV maxes out at 30kft
and ghawk sure isnt for sale. we need urgent work on high ceiling platform version of
the HAHE (high alt high endurance), it will need a low bypass turbofan engine and long
U2 style sailplane wings, make extensive use of composites and stealth techniques.

a manned platform like Mig31/25 has the payload and ceiling but not the endurance
or stealth. we cannot guarantee when important signals can be captured, so manned
platform appears unlikely to be useful.

[c] building a desi-U2 is not reqd when a UAV will be cheaper.

[d] once approx location is fixed, we need quick revisits from imagery sats to generate
exact locations quickly (within 4 hrs) to have any impact. for this we probably need a
constellation of 9 sats in three orbital tracks over tibet, 3 sats in each track with high
resolution < 50cm cameras, SAR payload for bad weather and high payload of fuel for
orbital manouvering...in a 500km MEO. i.e. desi KH12. price tag will be in billions
and we need GSLV mk3 to loft such heavyweight 7-8t sats into orbit (massive fuel
must be carried for long life)

[e] high capability compute farm to receive Gbps of imagery and use AI/pattern matching
to locate possible military targets for human analysis, or match the UAV gathered locations to military targets automatically

[f] air launched brahmos can atmost reach 300km for a hi-alt Mach1 launch. it may be
able to target the S-300 type radars but not the big radars further up north.

[g] we need Nirbhay ALCM barrages launched from gangetic-brahmaputra plains and
programmed to stay well below the himalayan level, climb up steadily and crest over
the himalayas with bare minimum AGL clearance then dive down again into tibet
lo-lo-lo to lose themselves in the ground clutter. with a proposed range of 1000km
this should work. radar and IR stealth is a must ...even in early-80s the boeing 400km
SRAM missile had a 2cm of rubber coating and plastic fins.

[h] the hypersonic brahmos (if 300km range) can be used for heavily defended hard
targets like the tombstone/gravestone battery radars or missile launch TELs themselves.
a ARM seeker would be most useful. At mach6 will radio signals still work near the
nosecone? ....read something about 'plasma interference'

the Shourya can be utilized to attack logistical nodes and command targets
of high value , including the northern logistics in tibet and the lhasa-quinghai route
if the CEP is good, else Nirbhay is only option. but its a expensive missile unlikely
to be there in large quantity for tactical tasks.

[SSridhar]

Opening up new options - Editorial in The Hindu

The Indian missile programme has been forging confidently ahead in recent years. On Wednesday, the Defence Research and Development Organisation successfully launched Shourya, a land-based version of the K-15 (Sagarika) ballistic missile that is designed for launch from a submarine. The Sagarika was test-fired from a submerged pontoon in February this year. An underwater launch requires gas generators that can eject missiles from the tubes in which they are carried onboard a submarine. The same technology has now been used to create a land-based missile that can be stored and fired when needed from a canister. The closed canister serves to protect the missile from temperature fluctuations, dust, and vagaries of the weather. These missiles can be easily stored, handled, and transported. The protection of the canister also gives them a longer life. In addition, the Shourya is said to be highly manoeuvrable, making it less vulnerable to interception by anti-missile defence systems.

If further tests confirm the Shourya’s reliability under operational conditions, it is conceivable that this missile and its successors would be considered for a variety of roles. For one thing, India’s strategic forces will potentially have one more avenue to ensure the survival of their nuclear-tipped missiles. Hitherto, the country’s land-based nuclear-armed missiles have been designed for mobility by road and rail so as to make it difficult for hostile forces to locate and destroy them. The Shourya test has established that placing missiles in underground silos is another option. Canister-based missiles can also be transported on and launched from mobile platforms. Thus, with a range of about 600 km, the solid-propellant-based Shourya might become a replacement for the Prithvi, a cumbersome liquid-propellant missile that has a maximum range of over 300 km. If it turns out that a canister-based missile like the Shourya has significant operational advantages, the DRDO may want to consider a similar storage mode for its long-range ballistic missiles like the 2,000-km range Agni-II and the 3,500-km range Agni-III as well as for the 5,000-km range Agni-V that is currently under development. It is worth noting that China’s two frontline solid-propellant long-range ballistic missiles, the DF-21 with a range of 3,000 km and the new DF-31 with a range of up to 14,000 km, are both canister-based. Thanks to the DRDO’s vigorous development efforts, the country is today better placed to protect itself from nuclear threats than ever before. Yet, while such technological advances enhance defence capability, the need for continuing the efforts to build bridges of friendship and trade with countries such as Pakistan and China cannot be overemphasised.

[Raj Malhotra]

Assuming that 600km was the depressed trajetory minimum to mid rage for this missile, then max range would be anything from 1200km to 3000km.

Also we don't know the dia, weight and no of stages in the missile, it can be:-


1/2 + 1

1/2 + 1 + 1

1/2 + 1 + 1 + 1/2

[Amitabh]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Shourya missile test still leaves many basic questions unanswered like:
1. Mass of the missile
2. Range of the missile (the current news report only state the test flight range)
3. Diameter of the missile

For (3) check here.

[geeth]

I feel 20-30 feet deep pits can be dug in Destroyer class ships and above. It will be a potent weapon from surface ships as well.

[krishnan]

You dont dig pits in ships

[Austin]

I feel 20-30 feet deep pits can be dug in Destroyer class ships and above. It will be a potent weapon from surface ships as well.

one might have to design a destroyer from scratch to accommodate Shourya MRBM , not sure what useful purpose a surface ship will provide with a BM , at best you have one more solution against pak , but its redundant .

Its better to arm surface ship with Nirbhai Cruise missile with ~ 2000 km range , and its more useful to have 10 ATV with Shourya , than 20 destroyers with it

[Anabhaya]

How many Shaurya missiles can an ATV carry?

6 X 3 - 18?

That would be a potent force if the missile can go beyond 1000kms.

[Sontu]

I think ATV will carry 3 x 4 K-15 Sagarikas..

[geeth]

>>>one might have to design a destroyer from scratch to accommodate Shourya MRBM ,

Present destroyers, which can accommodate brahmos can take these toys as well with some modifications (VLS is ideal). From available information it is not a MRBM

>>> not sure what useful purpose a surface ship will provide with a BM , at best you have one more solution against pak , but its redundant .

Again, from the news available, it doesn't follow a pure ballistic trajectory and is difficult to detect. A pit onboard a moving ship in high seas is much more difficult to detect than a land based silo

>>>Its better to arm surface ship with Nirbhai Cruise missile with ~ 2000 km range , and its more useful to have 10 ATV with Shourya , than 20 destroyers with it

It is reported that the cruise missile is a subsonic one - making it vulnerable to SAMs. Given a choice, I would fill the ATVs with far more potent weapons. And for the cost of 10 ATVs, we could probably make 50 Destroyers.

[SaiK]

we are talking meters and not feets. 30 meter underground launch is something to protect for second strike. The hindu link says it clear, that we are planning the same for Agni-V, for chink specific counters.

also, we could have these underground silos, and perhaps covered the top with some huts or some camouflage that reflects land terrain, then its a hide for satellite as well. on a click of a button, as the top opens up, onleee when one sees something rising.

of course, these second strike silos as to be strategically places, either from villages and farmlands, or mountain ranges, and that is impossible for the enemy to keep the epicenters for their first strike. these sites must be operated via NBC CnC trucks or on "SHQ" signals.

[geeth]

>>>we are talking meters and not feets. 30 meter underground launch is something to protect for second strike. The hindu link says it clear, that we are planning the same for Agni-V, for chink specific counters

Let us not use lahori logic here. For a 10-11 metre long missile, you need only that much depth onboard a ship. Extra length can be accommodated as a super structure above the weather deck.

If we are planning for Silos, nobody is asking us to stop putting in ships. Ofcourse, Chindu may still wish us Yindus take permission from Chinis, lest they feel offended..

[Austin]

Present destroyers, which can accommodate brahmos can take these toys as well with some modifications (VLS is ideal). From available information it is not a MRBM

I dont see how the present destroyers P-15 or even future destroyers P-15A can accommodate Shourya , unless you rip off some component (SAM/AShM ) and make space for it ,weapon system are decided well in advance , shourya should atleast weigh couple of tons.

More than anything what purpose would a BM on surface ship would serve ? ( we ofcourse had/have the Dhanush on OPV as stopgap solution )

Again, from the news available, it doesn't follow a pure ballistic trajectory and is difficult to detect. A pit onboard a moving ship in high seas is much more difficult to detect than a land based silo

A ship is still a vulnerable target , could be tracked by ASW Aircraft and submarine other ships.

It will be difficult to detect if its on a submarine ( SSBN/Conventional SSK ) , I would say design the next AIP equipped P76 SSK around 8 Shourya/Brahmos , provides stealth , punch.
( on 2nd thought at 11 or 10m the Shourya on any conventional SSK will have a small hump ala Delta 2 )

It is reported that the cruise missile is a subsonic one - making it vulnerable to SAMs. Given a choice, I would fill the ATVs with far more potent weapons.

Subsonic yes , but a stealthy , low flying , low cost cruise missile is a difficult to deal with and cost effective

[Austin]

I dont think its a good idea to have a silo based system in the 21st century , specially when we have a small nuclear force.

It should be 50 % Rail Mobile and 50 % Road Mobile for our Land Forces , the least vulnerable and one that provided maximum mobility is rail mobile system

[Singha]

I doubt anyone has put 30 ft long missiles in VL tubes on ships _except_ the 30ft long Granit missiles on Kuznetsov (55000t) and the Kirov class CGN (25000t each).

no chance of putting on a 12000t DDG without serious stability issue imho.

the thaad and SM3 are around 6.5m each. brahmos is 6m.

[Sontu]

I dont think its a good idea to have a silo based system in the 21st century , specially when we have a small nuclear force.

It should be 50 % Rail Mobile and 50 % Road Mobile for our Land Forces , the least vulnerable and one that provided maximum mobility is rail mobile system

I feel we should never everhave any rail mobile syatem..
-It's easy to track.
-Looking to various organizations and agents working one behalf of our enemies and their sympatisers in side our country..Rail mobile system will be prone to sabotage and it will become imovable during any future confrontation.

Offcource Road mobile ones would be the best SSM optins ..i feel also I remember how the Pokhran-2 strategy to use unpreapared wells were very succesfull in fooling US and other spying countries . Same strategy can be applied for Shourya s also ..quick and evassive preparation, quick deplpyment and difficult to identify the site.

Since Shourya is canisterized and solid fuelled..will need little and no maintanence and long shelf life, hence it is suitable for deployment and launch from this kind of semi prepared launch site/wells

Regards,

[Singha]

but the need for security around such places (the sealed cansister will have a nuke afterall to be considered a deterrent) will be a giveaway. we cant just drop the tubes into every abandoned borewell in the village.

road, rail and sea a good mix is the way to go. rail can be quite difficult to track given
the sliding roof camouflaged design we have. and the security detail is invisible in the other
wagons.

[Avinash R]

The decision for having rail mobile BM systems has already been taken and necessary modifications to the transport carriers have also been carried out that has been pointed out in previous threads. And no it's not easy to track rail mobile system and the reasons you make for not having such systems are not valid. if we go by your reasons then we as well not have those missile systems. hey somebody on behalf of our enemies may steal them. isn't it?

[Sontu]

... hey somebody on behalf of our enemies may steal them. isn't it?

I didn't mean stealing..but said can be made imovable thru sabotage ..by field agents/sympathisers and their huge network . It's easy derail or blow off the rails ..with kind of RDX or explossives now a days easyly available in our country.