Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Oct 2013 16:32

Totally American in most respects. Negi and Nachiket are correct.

http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archiv ... -deterrent

Sorry for the light blogging of late. I got a chuckle out of this story:

US firms now control UK’s nuclear weapons plant

LONDON (AP) — Britain’s government said Friday that a state-owned nuclear group has sold its stake in the company that manages the U.K.‘s atomic weapons research center, bringing the facility under the control of U.S. companies.

British Nuclear Fuels PLC has sold a one-third share in Britain’s AWE Management Ltd. to Jacobs Engineering Group Inc, based in Pasadena, California. AWE Management has a contract to operate the government-owned Atomic Weapons Establishment, which has facilities in Aldermaston and Burghfield in southern England, through 2025.

The sale means that operations at the center, which makes and maintains warheads for Britain’s nuclear missiles, is now under the control of U.S. companies.

I think it comes as a shock to most people on either side of the Atlantic when they learn how much the UK depends on the United States for its nuclear deterrent. Even I was a little taken aback during my visit to Aldermaston when Don Cook, the Managing Director of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, began to address us in his flat American accent.

I thought “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Couldn’t they have found someone British?”

After a couple of days at the AWE, and a tour of the lovely historical collection, I accepted the reality that, no, the United Kingdom does not in any way, shape, or form have an independent nuclear deterrent.

I mean no disrespect to all the people at Aldemaston who endure the nightmarish hell of living in and around Basingstoke to keep their country safe from … well, anyway. And I understand the need for the polite fiction given political debates in the United Kingdom, but the UK suffers when US policymakers buy into London’s public relations strategy.

The fact that stunned me was the model, in the historical collection, of Red Snow — the UK’s first deployed thermonuclear weapon. (Forget Green Grass)

Red Snow is an “Anglicized” version of the US Mk-28. (Anglicized is the nice way of saying “copied”.) The first thing you observe about the the bomb is that compact little thermonuclear device is packaged into a GINORMOUS bomb casing.

The UK has executed three designs since Red Snow — Anglicized variants of the B61, the W59 and the W76.

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 08 Oct 2013 17:05

UK certainly has capability to design warheads and had indigenous warheads. But currently it sems they use US supplied warheads.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 08 Oct 2013 19:11

chaanakya wrote:And how many countries , which are in arms trade, have done that??

AFAIK US,Russia,France (not 100% sure) and India are the only countries with independent nooke programs rest have received copious amounts of help from the first two.

chaanakya wrote:Well you mean Nuke transfer or BM transfer to non nuke country? My question is whether any country has transferred BM to non Nuke countries and if so with Nuke or without Nuke?

Sagar originally postulated that BM transfer without Nuke tech is useless and no deterrence . So India has to transfer Nuke tech along with BM. Which I find unrealistic and has no parallel except for clandestine transfers.. Of course there could be other uses of BM with conventional payload which according to him is useless. I hope I am correctly reflecting his opinion.

Well you have changed your question now and it has been already answered. I was replying in context of "Vietnam/world hotspot's" so I think now you will understand why I was emphasizing on nooke transfer.

You are reading my opinion correctly and yes clandestine transfer it has to be.

BM ToT can happen to countries which don't have any nooke country as there enemy but doing the same w.r.t. a country having one is pointless.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 08 Oct 2013 19:12

alexis wrote:UK certainly has capability to design warheads and had indigenous warheads. But currently it sems they use US supplied warheads.

Which were so pathetic even after US hand holding that they had to copy designs from their guru.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 08 Oct 2013 19:15

mody wrote:In fact I would readily recommend, that all of IA and IAF's Prithvi's be moved out of SFC and be given a strictly tactical non-nuke role. They can be used to target, high value fixed targets like airforce bases etc.

Against whom China/Pakistan ??? What is the guarantee that they won't see it as a nuclear strike and retaliate with one ??? Are you expecting that in the middle of a war they will conduct an enquiry whether it was a nuclear strike or not ???

kit · Post by **kit** » 08 Oct 2013 22:19

sell a few high profile arms to iran and vietnam ., say brahmos and prithvi.. and hey you will get leverage vs America and China

Arms sales is not always about money

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 08 Oct 2013 23:00

Prithvi To Iran ??? They already have 2000 km range BM's but Iran is a good ex. why a nation with BM but minus nooke warhead isn't exactly a great threat.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 08 Oct 2013 23:45

What about the IRBMs sold by China to Saudi ? Non nukes ? With paki nukes ?

K

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 08 Oct 2013 23:53

IIRC China had supplied nooke warheads to the kingdom which had caused massive khujli to joo ess, besides they have joo ess to fight their wars so no worry.

John · Post by **John** » 09 Oct 2013 03:53

kit wrote:sell a few high profile arms to iran and vietnam ., say brahmos and prithvi.. and hey you will get leverage vs America and China Arms sales is not always about money

For starters due to our much closer relations with israel i doubt we would ever sell to iran and besides Brahmos sales requires Russian approval. Also with Russia selling Yakhont at a cheaper rate Brahmos would be tough sell, Vietnam has already purchased land based Yakhont Bastion.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Oct 2013 04:06

Folks this is INDIAN missiles and munitions(PGM) discussion thread...

Hence massively being hijacked.

Do you need mods to tell you that?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Oct 2013 07:49

jamwal wrote:Now this report says that it's liquid fueled

Same paper

No solid fuelled prithvis exist, its a myth created by bad reporting.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 09 Oct 2013 13:06

That is what I was asking above. Is it required to be fueled before firing? How much time it will taken fuel it.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 09 Oct 2013 13:12

Prithvi III

Prithvi III class (codenamed Dhanush meaning Bow) is a two-stage ship-to-surface missile. The first stage is solid fuelled with a 16 metric ton force (157 kN) thrust motor. The second stage is liquid-fueled. The missile can carry a 1,000 kg warhead to a distance of 350 km and a 500 kg warhead to a distance of 600 km and a 250 kg warhead up to a distance of 750 km. Dhanush is a system consisting of a stabilization platform and the missile. It is a customised version of the Prithvi and is certified for sea worthiness. Dhanush has to be launched from a hydraulically stabilized launch pad. Its low range acts against it and thus it is seen a weapons either to be used to destroy an aircraft carrier or an enemy port. The missile has been tested from surface ships of the navy many times.

Prithvi III was first tested in 2000 from INS Subhadra, a Sukanya class patrol craft. The missile was launched from the updated reinforced helicopter deck of the vessel. The first flight test of the 250 km variant was only partially successful.[14] The full operational testing was completed in 2004.[15] The following year in December, an enhanced 350 km version of the missile was tested from the INS Rajput and successfully hit a land-based target.[16] The missile was again successfully tested-fired from INS Subhadra, which was anchored about 35 km offshore from the Integrated Test Range at Chandipur on December 13, 2009. It was the sixth test of the missile.[17]

As of 2013, this missile has not been deployed due to logistical deficiencies. It requires explosive liquid fuel which is difficult to store; and it cannot be launched vertically which forces all missiles to be stored on the surface of the ship. Vertically launched missiles can be stored internally in the hull of a ship. This deficiency also means that it will not be used in submarines or underwater systems. Its accuracy is also supposed to be less than that of BrahMos cruise missile.

it from wikipedia so dunno how accurate

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 09 Oct 2013 13:17

http://missilethreat.com/missiles/prithvi-3/

Originated From:India
Possessed By:India
Alternate Name:Prithvi III
Class:SRBM
Basing:Road-mobile, Submarine-launched
Length:8.56 m
Diameter:1.0 m
Launch Weight:5,600 kg
Payload:Single warhead, 500-1,000 kg
Warhead:Nuclear 10-20 kT, HE, submunitions
Propulsion:Two-stage solid propellant
Range:300-350 km
Status:Development

Not to be confused with the Prithvi P-3 (SS-350) which was terminated, the Prithvi 3 is a solid propellant, short-range, road-mobile, ballistic missile that started development in 2000. The Prithvi 3 model is a departure from the propulsion system of the Prithvi SS-150 and Prithvi SS-250, as it employs a two-stage, solid propellant motor. The longest-ranged member of the Prithvi family of missiles, it was most likely designed for use as a tactical weapon against Pakistan and China.

Sources indicate that the Prithvi 3 has a range of 300 to 350 km and an impressive accuracy of 25 m CEP. It is fueled by a two-stage solid propellant motor. The missile has a 500 to 1000 kg payload, with a 10 to 20 kT nuclear warhead. It is also reported that the Prithvi 3 has four fixed tail fins and uses four control fins near the nose of the missile in order to maneuver within the lower atmosphere. Its range and payload are not sufficient to be used against strategic targets, although its high accuracy and mobility are ideal for use against military targets. 1

Prithvi 3 was first tested in January 2004 with a second test in October 2004. In October the missile was launched from the Interim Test Range at Balasore, and was tracked by several ground stations including down-range stations. The missile flew what the Indian Ministry of Defense described as a “perfect trajectory, as per design projections.” In May 2005 reports suggest that the system was also tested from underwater launchers with some success. Reports suggest the possibility of both land and sea-based Prithvi 3 missiles. 2 A contract was signed with Bharat Dynamics for a more extensive order of this weapon system, following this test. Thirty missiles were ordered in 2004 followed by an additional 54 in 2006. 3 As of 2006, Prithvi 3 was not fully operational and unable to be deployed. 4

Reports suggest that there is a similarity between this project and the Dhanush missile system. The similarities between the two systems suggest the possibility of identical projects. They both share a common ship-based launch system, and the two missiles seem to have the same projected range approximations. The Prithvi 3 is projected to have a two stage solid propulsion system, and the Dhanush is thought to be expanded into a two stage liquid and solid propulsion weapon. It is possible that Dhanush is simply a technology demonstrator for certain aspects of the Prithvi 3 program.

Reports suggest that a submarine-launched version of the Prithvi 3 is in development. This version would likely have a substantially increased range between 600 and 1000 km. 5

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Oct 2013 13:44

All these reports are dodgy at best. I remember being at a DRDO briefing about Dhanush at some seminar, and there was no mention of any solid fuel whatsoever. As I remember, they increased the amount of fuel it could carry, and improved the onboard INS for better range.

negi · Post by **negi** » 09 Oct 2013 15:06

I always go by launch video only the liquid and solid fuel have very different plumes in fact latter has a thick smoke trail. I am yet to see a video of Prithvi which does not have the characteristic plume and instead has a thickish Agni series like smoke trail.
A very generic search on google images returns this

https://www.google.co.in/search?q=prith ... =809&dpr=1

None of the Prithvis have a smoky trail they have a characteristic plume akin to all liquid fueled rockets/missiles.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Oct 2013 15:10

+1
Also, if Prithvi had moved to solid fuel, there would be no need of Prahaar.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Oct 2013 18:30

negi, You are graduating!!!
Good thinking.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 09 Oct 2013 22:18

What about this one ? Or is it just due to night time ?
Also, Prithvi seems to have 4 jets of flame during the launch. Is it something related to engine design or just me

I've been wondering about it for some time. How do they store PAD with it's liquid fuel ? If it's supposed to be a quick reaction defence, it has to be ready all the time. In case it's kept in ready to launch mode, there has to be something special about it's liquid fueled stage. If there is, may be Prithvi is using something related too.

The Wiki is highly confusing in this case. The page says that Prithvi 3 is single staged solid fuel missile. But the news item it quotes, says that it's liquid fueled.

Karan M,

IMO, Prithvi's image is of a nuclear missile. in case of Pakisatan, it's almost a strategic threat for them. Any deployment of Prithivi missiles will be a brown salvar moment for them.
With Prahaar, DRDO is trying to create a missile which has no overt nuclear role. Prahaar which is just a step up from MBRLs can be deployed without raising threat level that much.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 09 Oct 2013 22:51

Prithvi has two liquid fuel motors hence two jets of flame.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Oct 2013 01:07

They are the old SA-2 Guideline style motors.

John · Post by **John** » 10 Oct 2013 01:46

Karan M wrote:+1
Also, if Prithvi had moved to solid fuel, there would be no need of Prahaar.

Karan, they two very different class of missiles Prahaar is long range MLRS, where as Prithvi is a theater ballistic missile. Russian have something very similar planned with new Long range MLRS even though they have SS-21.

negi · Post by **negi** » 10 Oct 2013 01:46

This is what Prithvi uses for propulsion:

http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/am ... n/ex/4.htm

The composition of Inhibited red fuming Nitric Acid(IRFNA) and the N2o4 being used in Prithvi is very similar to AK27 series. The use of fuming nitric acid as oxydizer dates back to German waserfall rocket from WWII era. Actually the same exact fuel and oxydizer combination is known by AK27 (oxydizer) and TG-02(fuel) designations in Russia.

The brown colour of fumes during the launch is due to release of nitrogen dioxide when the fuel and oxidizer react.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Oct 2013 01:54

I have an old book on the Waaserfall and how it spiraled many rocket programs.
Let me locate it and see.

Can you check the design details of SA-2 SAM and see any spinoffs?

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

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Oct 2013 01:58

An MBA capsule course on IGMP:

IGMP pdf

Chacko Joseph's work on history of Valiant engine

Liquid Proplusion Engine Development at DRDL

Adn on the Evolution of Project Devil

And Surface to Surface model of Devil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-45_Missile

Looks like Prithvi precursor.

Again hats off to ArunS.

Chacko Very good history.

member_27847 · Post by **member_27847** » 10 Oct 2013 06:34

del.

when someone makes what is clearly an OT comment, we would prefer if you don't make our job harder by replying to that OT issue with a series of increasingly irrelevant posts.
-Rahul.

member_27847 · Post by **member_27847** » 10 Oct 2013 06:34

double post deleted.

member_27847 · Post by **member_27847** » 10 Oct 2013 06:42

member_27847 · Post by **member_27847** » 10 Oct 2013 06:42

double post

member_27847 · Post by **member_27847** » 10 Oct 2013 06:42

double post deleted.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 10 Oct 2013 06:48

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 10 Oct 2013 06:49

member_27847 · Post by **member_27847** » 10 Oct 2013 06:55

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 10 Oct 2013 06:56

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Oct 2013 07:15

Guys, keep the discussions related to missiles and munitions built by lesser mortals only. Thank you.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Oct 2013 17:28

Moderator note

Austin wrote: Naive as I may sound but what happened to the celestial weapon that ancient Indian scriptures spoke about in Mahabharata , Ramayan and others ..... are those lost completely ? All the weapons we have till date would be like a Toy weapons if those ancient high energy weapons would ever get realised today.

Austin ji,

There was no need for this comment which eventually led to the derailment of this thread. Please be careful next time. You might attract a warning.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 11 Oct 2013 20:57

Just checking out the Bhramos missile on wiki and I read that the initial test of Bhramos failed in 2009. The reason given was that Obama was sworn into office as president on that day and the US shut off GPS.

That is so outrageous it is specious in thinking. GPS is relied upon not just by the US military but by many, many commerical applications such as the airline travel industry. It is an essential tool forthe safety for everyone. To think that the authorities would shut down GPS worldwide for a presidential inauguration and completely ignore commercial safety aspects of this is simply incredible.

I'm not saying that GPS can't be shut down because it can. In fact, in various theaters of war it has been shut down from time to time. But not globally. Does anyone have any evidence of deliberate global shutdown w/o warning by the US government? If so, I would like to see it. If a global shut down happened, I would wager that it occured on 9/11 but I have never heard of that.

I admit to an acccidental possibility of global shutdown but *not* due to a presidential inauguration. The safety considerations for the travel industry and the military are enormous.

http://www.equipmentworld.com/gps-shutd ... umstances/

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Oct 2013 22:36

indranilroy wrote:Austin ji,

There was no need for this comment which eventually led to the derailment of this thread. Please be careful next time. You might attract a warning.

Indranil , Didnt realise that comment of mine generated further discussion as most got deleted by the time i checked the thread though that comment was made in good faith and not with any intention to derail our discussion since I was seriously interested to know if such a thing existed as is documented in ancient scriptures and we have grown up reading or watching some TV serials etc

Having said that I dont want to pursue this further and I am sorry this caused so much headache to mods.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Oct 2013 23:08

Indranil, i believe that comment by Austin was meant in true curiosity and proper spirit and not meant to troll. I understand moderators have to look at all angles, but from a common perspective, it came across as a honest, knowledge based query.