Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 02 Feb 2009 16:05

Development vs operational tests is an artificial concept especially in the Indian context. There is no reason the two can't be combined. One of the reasons the Prithvi was tested so often was because of the intention to fully integrate it as an artillery weapon. As I re-iterate, there is no need to test beyond 3 times to declare a system operational. What needs to be done subsequently is batch testing every few years. To that end, I would view Agni-1 and Agni-2 operational, but not Agni-3. The reference: Karnad, India's Nuclear Policy: Praeger Security International 2008, @ page 83.

The Shaheen II was indeed tested 5 times. The difference I'd point out is that at least 2 of those tests - in 2008 were intended to send a political message to India rather than demonstrate or operationalize anything. That is simply being silly - especially since I am led to understand that the stockpile of Shaheen-2 stands at about 6 with an equal number of Ghauri-1.

If we have more than 12 Agni-1 and 24 Agni-2 I'd be shocked. Infact I'd say 12 A-1 and 18 A-2 at present could be viably used - at best. If the tests were successful, then do not expect missiles to be tested simply to make a political point or to satisfy certain views on the number of tests to declare a system operational.

Philip, I doubt Brahmos failed because of any deliberate interference - too petty, too silly. All that happened is something went wrong with the terminal seeker. This can and will happen. Remember you are testing a supersonic land-attack cruise missile and attempting to turn it into a PGM. Things can and will go wrong. Why is this being viewed by the media as the end of the world ? These things have to be expected - the US would have abandoned the Trident D-5 by Indian logic.

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 02 Feb 2009 16:15

Oops new twist :

http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/stor ... s7i|xOZ5Y=

BrahMos failed as US shut its eyes in the sky?

KOCHI: DRDO scientists have launched an investigation into the failure of the BrahMos army version missile, especially why its GPS system couldn’t link onboard computers with hovering satellites eventually crippling its guidance system and keeping it from achieving mission objectives.
The ambit of the probe will also examine why US satellites blinked during the test window, thereby denying the missile the crucial inputs needed for its guidance.
A primary analysis of the January 20 test has shown that the missile, a special version capable of hitting hidden targets like terrorist camps, performed the flight plan but missed the target. The missile was supposed to hit a rather insignificant target hidden among obstructions at the Pokharan range.
“It had an advance seeker which was to home in on the target using GPS data obtained through US satellites.
But it is a mystery why the SCAN technology failed to access the satellites,” said BrahMos sources.
The seeker, an advanced one developed to guide the missile to very insignificant targets, was a success during test flights. The seeker and the new software were tested extensively using fighter aircraft flying at top speeds.
“Once we were confident of their success, we decided to go in for the first test on the missile. But the failure is a mystery,” top sources told to The New Indian Express.The BrahMos special version, in spite of being an Indo-Russian venture, was fully dependent on US satellites. The Russian global positioning network is not usually used by Indian defence agencies for their strategic programmes. “This leads to speculation about why the entire galaxy of US satellites failed to provide signals to the missile. We need to solve the mystery of how the satellites suddenly failed over the Pokharan skies,” sources said.
The probe report is expected by Wednesday and will be submitted to the Defence Minister. Though the failure rattled the Army a bit, sources said its top brass was still for BrahMos missiles. “We will wait for the result of the February 20 tests.
The missile is still the best to hit a defined and designated target like an enemy depot or an airport. The wait-and-watch is only regarding the advanced version of BrahMos,” sources told to The New Indian Express

pkudva · Post by **pkudva** » 02 Feb 2009 16:50

Again, I dont agree with this news. I doubt wether we use GPS system for our strategic programme. In that case we should also use it for Agni Missiles.
India will definately trust the Glossnas but surely not the GPS, the americans are just waiting to get as much info on the russian/indian defence systems which we use.

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 02 Feb 2009 18:10

The Shaheen II was indeed tested 5 times. The difference I'd point out is that at least 2 of those tests - in 2008 were intended to send a political message to India rather than demonstrate or operationalize anything. That is simply being silly - especially since I am led to understand that the stockpile of Shaheen-2 stands at about 6 with an equal number of Ghauri-1.

If we have more than 12 Agni-1 and 24 Agni-2 I'd be shocked. Infact I'd say 12 A-1 and 18 A-2 at present could be viably used - at best. If the tests were successful, then do not expect missiles to be tested simply to make a political point or to satisfy certain views on the number of tests to declare a system operational.

one of worlds largest armed forces and such small numbers do surprise me. our military generally has or always aims for large numbers, either its infantry, tanks, fighters or even warships. shouldn't ideal figure be atleast 100 IRBMs. I mean our military has hundreds of fighters, thousands of tanks, So why so small number of Strategic systems. we pour tens of thousands of crores to import sophisticated equipment but at end of the day strategic nuclear detterent is the most important thing considering both of enemies are nuclear powers.

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 02 Feb 2009 18:40

ajay_ijn wrote: one of worlds largest armed forces and such small numbers do surprise me. our military generally has or always aims for large numbers, either its infantry, tanks, fighters or even warships. shouldn't ideal figure be atleast 100 IRBMs. I mean out military has hundreds of fighters, thousands of tanks, So why so small number of Strategic systems. we pour tens of thousands of crores to import sophisticated equipment but at end of the day strategic nuclear detterent is the most important thing considering both of enemies are nuclear powers.

Good point ajay,beats me too,China has big edge over us by sheer number of ballistic missiles in its inventory,though their navy and airforce are not well equipped we can call them inferior to our navy and airforce but they have the advantage with the number of BMs.

Why we have such a small number of Missiles is a bouncer for me,its less than 1/2 of the number of tests we have done,Prithvi is first tested in 1988 it was tested many many times.even agni was tested many times in many variants if they didnt get 100% results then why they are boasting of Agni-5 5000 km Range etc etc its just fooling the tax payers.

if all is well then mass produce them,porkis will collapse trying to match us and we will match China and can dare to see them Eye to eye,and another advantage is that all can be locally produced so there wont be Hue and cry over price escalations arm twisting etc

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Feb 2009 18:48

I think that only if we know what the test paramaters were will we see more light on the failure,as this was a new version of the missile.As mentioned,this is a supersonic missile not a subsonic cruise missile,2.5 times as fast and which would require far more sophisticated terminal guidance seekers to accompany the terminal jinking to defeat SAMs to score a bulls-eye if pin-point accuracy was the goal.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 02 Feb 2009 18:49

I re-iterate, Agni-1 and Agni-2 have been adequately tested. Why so few ? The reason for small numbers of Agni-2 are simple - Agni-3 (and its derivatives) is the definitive IRBM variant. Any larger scale production will be of this variant and no other. As for Agni-1, I suspect production of it and of Shourya will increase substantially. Agni-2 production will continue until Agni-3 is ready to take its place in the arsenal.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 02 Feb 2009 18:58

SaiK wrote:may be army is point blank at this:-
The DRDO says that the cost escalation is due to the new price of Rs 27 crore being asked by the Russians for each missile compared to Rs 13 crore earlier.

Hey wait a minute ,what do they mean by"asked by the Russians " I thought at least the seeker was indigenous ... or was it?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Feb 2009 19:02

they aren't talking about the seeker but the basic missile HW which is essentially that of yakhont.

anyway always take unsourced reports emanating from DDM with a touch of salt.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 02 Feb 2009 19:12

Rahul M wrote:
anyway always take unsourced reports emanating from DDM with a touch of salt.

Yeah, if it did cost 27Cr.=~6M$ even the yanks wouldn't buy it.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Feb 2009 20:54

What is not public jaunting would be the thoughts after such media exposures..,

In the midst of media dorkieness, both IA and DRDO is basking their strategies under the very same cliche for ages now. This is what we need to change.

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 02 Feb 2009 22:28

Rahul M wrote:sunil, could you drop me a mail (in my profile signature) about the michael wood vids ?
regards.

edited...finally saw it...email sent

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Feb 2009 23:39

Philip wrote:Sanjay,some media reports tracking Kimchi missile development quote US sources that say that N.Korea has extensively tested its short range solid fuelled tactical missiles with a range of upto 200km.The larger longer ranged missiles have been tested less,wiith Ding-Dong-2 yet to be a success.

What is the further news of the allegation that the last Brahmos test which failed in its terminal stage was because of US sat interference,making the missile's GPS system malfunction? I thought that our missiles used the Russian GLONASS system,where we are supposed ot be partcipating in the project.

Hats off for following this aspect! the subsequent reprot shows it could be the case.
But why did they announce the date and get suckered? A good way is to see what happens on Feb 20th date if they recieve signals or not! Better yet shift the date.

From the earlier news report the seeker was already tried out and then integrated with the Army version which was from stock. So all in all its not a wash. Its upto the scientists to go over the telemetry and figure out what happened. Should have been done by now.

About cost escalation looks like they are getting squeezed by the Russians who make the whole vehicle except for the guidance package which is what makes it accurate. Need to find an alternate. Or else this story will repeat.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 02 Feb 2009 23:40

Sanjay wrote:I re-iterate, Agni-1 and Agni-2 have been adequately tested. Why so few ? The reason for small numbers of Agni-2 are simple - Agni-3 (and its derivatives) is the definitive IRBM variant. Any larger scale production will be of this variant and no other. As for Agni-1, I suspect production of it and of Shourya will increase substantially. Agni-2 production will continue until Agni-3 is ready to take its place in the arsenal.

This is the exact reason why DDM fears that Pakistan is ahead in inducted missiles. We need a serious push in production and field testing of Agni missile series. In conventional and empirical comparisions with other countries our missiles appear to be not adequately tested to a lot of people. Agni is India's last ditch strategic defense weapon, I would much rather have it over tested than rely on bare minimim needed test plan.

Developmental trials are significantly different than user trial, you can combine them to some degree but one can't replace one with other IMO. Scintists test subsytems, performance etc with extream care and with the help of numerous instruments in a test range. The goal of testing are very different while a user would like to test it suddenly while missile was being moving cross country to see the crew preparedness and robustness/stability of missile.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 02 Feb 2009 23:48

Another thought that would explain the lack of tests by users is that the nuclear deterrent is not very dependent on the Agnis. If aircraft remain the primary delivery mechanism, then we can afford to take our time finetuning the missiles.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 02 Feb 2009 23:57

Katare, your argument is not correct - consider that PLA, Pakistani and NK IRBM tests are all from carefully pre-surveyed launch sites and the argument that somehow operational tests are of systems in the field doesn't hold water. What does operationalization mean ? It means that the users know how to use the thing in the event of having to do so. Nothing stops a development test and a user trial from being fully integrated. No IRBM is going to be launched from any rough and ready place - despite the systems' mobility.

Furthermore, where is this sacrosanct figure of 10 launchers coming from ?

My basic point is this - India's professionals who examine these issues considered the point carefully and came up with the figure of 3. Nothing has convinced me that they were wrong in their calculations or that they don't know what they are doing. Moreover, the DDM has made no effort to acquaint itself with any aspect of missile development and their apprehensions in this regard are in large part of their own making.

Vera_K, that is untrue. The nuclear deterrent is very dependent on the Agnis - and some of the 180 Prithvis.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 03 Feb 2009 00:24

Sanjay,

You have an openion about the issue and so do others in media and at BRF. Lets leave it at that.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 03 Feb 2009 02:11

Katare, it's not a question of opinion. Not to be offensive but back in the 1990s a lot of this was discussed openly - and this was from the time of the Agni-TD - and some of those discussions might be useful again. Let's just say I'm not exactly speaking from a position of doing no research on it. The same arguments were made back then and were refuted then. For the media to resurrect them without analysis is very retrograde. Moreover, I have seen not one media source analyse either flight performance, trajectory or any other data from a single Pakistani test. You cannot make a statement about Pakistan being "ahead" without doing that. In such a situation the journalist is passing off opinion as fact and with inadequate research. Opinion that is not based on research is not very helpful. Now, if research is done and different opinions and views offered, then that makes for productive discussion and analysis. I had done a few articles on the subject in the 1999-2000 period and had written at least one piece in Force on the subject (a period in my life I'd like to forget) but I did a section in my book on the subject in which I'd cited some analysis of the Nodong tests to illustrate the fallacy of the "Pakistani missiles being more tested" argument. BTW - one thing Pandit did not say was that the last Agni-2 test was a contained test-fire with full military participation. I wonder if the media confuses "operationalization" with "batch-testing" ? In terms of numbers, Pakistan is also inferior with only about half a dozen Shaheen II and Ghauri IRBMs inducted along with some 64 shorter ranged missiles. India's arsenal comprises some 12 Agni-1 18-24 Agni-2 and some 180+ Prithvi. I agree India needs to step up production but there is no evidence of Pakistan being "ahead".

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 03 Feb 2009 05:45

And this over shoot by a KM comment is again DDM at its best. Based on the videos I have seen, in its terminal stage Brahmos comes in almost horizontal. A missile which misses the bulls eye by 10 m will continue to fly and hit the ground much further away; hence the overshoot by a Km.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 Feb 2009 06:09

Nitesh wrote:Oops new twist :

http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/stor ... s7i|xOZ5Y=

BrahMos failed as US shut its eyes in the sky?

KOCHI: DRDO scientists have launched an investigation into the failure of the BrahMos army version missile, especially why its GPS system couldn’t link onboard computers with hovering satellites eventually crippling its guidance system and keeping it from achieving mission objectives.
The ambit of the probe will also examine why US satellites blinked during the test window, thereby denying the missile the crucial inputs needed for its guidance.

“It had an advance seeker which was to home in on the target using GPS data obtained through US satellites.
But it is a mystery why the SCAN technology failed to access the satellites,” said BrahMos sources.
The seeker, an advanced one developed to guide the missile to very insignificant targets, was a success during test flights. The seeker and the new software were tested extensively using fighter aircraft flying at top speeds.

If DRDO is building a missile that depends on GPS for mid course updates, they really deserve the brick bats they receive. Such a weapon simply can not be inducted by the armed forces, because doing so is equivalent to handing over your offensive sword arm to the US.

GPS signals - particularly the L1 signals - are very easy to jam and besides that, current generation of GPS Satellites have a jammer on board, that can jam the GPS signal over selected geographical areas without a widespread disruption of the positioning service. GPS can be used in an offensive manner only in case you have absolute supremacy over the airwaves.

Having said that, I feel this article is bogus. Any engineer who knows even ABCs of DSP and positioning knows these issues with GPS. Apart from that, GPS is used for inexpensive munitions like JDAMs and Tomahawks. For a missile that costs Rs 13-27 Crore, why go with a cheapo GPS receiver? It simply does not make sense. Good, cheap INSs are what we need and what was probably put in the new Brahmos version.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 03 Feb 2009 06:14

Sanjay,

We all know your work and the reasons behind minimizing number of developmental tests. The Agni series is well developed but the argument about low number of user and total number of testing still remains. The whole 'Pakistan is ahead of us' theory/inference is a well-established DDM but the reasons for DDM to claim it, however wrong it is, are somewhat valid. You have a well researched and educated opinion but that doesn't mean other are shooting blindly.

Barak an off the shelf matured purchase was tested some 12 times by navy (IIRC) before declaring it operational. Brahmos an offshoot of Yakhont has been tested 22 times and more to come. A strategic system that we'll fire when millions of our fellow citizens have been slaughtered and existence of our civilization is on stake has to be tested more than what a DRDO committee said is the minimum number for operationalization.

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 03 Feb 2009 06:48

sudeepj wrote:
Nitesh wrote:Oops new twist :

http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/stor ... s7i|xOZ5Y=

BrahMos failed as US shut its eyes in the sky?

KOCHI: DRDO scientists have launched an investigation into the failure of the BrahMos army version missile, especially why its GPS system couldn’t link onboard computers with hovering satellites eventually crippling its guidance system and keeping it from achieving mission objectives.
The ambit of the probe will also examine why US satellites blinked during the test window, thereby denying the missile the crucial inputs needed for its guidance.

“It had an advance seeker which was to home in on the target using GPS data obtained through US satellites.
But it is a mystery why the SCAN technology failed to access the satellites,” said BrahMos sources.
The seeker, an advanced one developed to guide the missile to very insignificant targets, was a success during test flights. The seeker and the new software were tested extensively using fighter aircraft flying at top speeds.
If DRDO is building a missile that depends on GPS for mid course updates, they really deserve the brick bats they receive. Such a weapon simply can not be inducted by the armed forces, because doing so is equivalent to handing over your offensive sword arm to the US.

GPS signals - particularly the L1 signals - are very easy to jam and besides that, current generation of GPS Satellites have a jammer on board, that can jam the GPS signal over selected geographical areas without a widespread disruption of the positioning service. GPS can be used in an offensive manner only in case you have absolute supremacy over the airwaves.

Having said that, I feel this article is bogus. Any engineer who knows even ABCs of DSP and positioning knows these issues with GPS. Apart from that, GPS is used for inexpensive munitions like JDAMs and Tomahawks. For a missile that costs Rs 13-27 Crore, why go with a cheapo GPS receiver? It simply does not make sense. Good, cheap INSs are what we need and what was probably put in the new Brahmos version.

Isn't GPS used to correct INS errors. So even if its Jammed, INS would work. ultimately its better to have terrain based nav system.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 03 Feb 2009 07:03

ajay_ijn wrote:Isn't GPS used to correct INS errors. So even if its Jammed, INS would work. ultimately its better to have terrain based nav system.

I would serriously doubt the ability to function of TERRCOM matching nav system given the speed at which the Brahmos would be operating...

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 03 Feb 2009 07:16

andy B wrote:
ajay_ijn wrote:Isn't GPS used to correct INS errors. So even if its Jammed, INS would work. ultimately its better to have terrain based nav system.
I would serriously doubt the ability to function of TERRCOM matching nav system given the speed at which the Brahmos would be operating...

no GPS, no TERCOM, then what would assist INS?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 03 Feb 2009 07:21

Sanjay wrote:Katare, it's not a question of opinion. Not to be offensive but back in the 1990s a lot of this was discussed openly - and this was from the time of the Agni-TD - and some of those discussions might be useful again. Let's just say I'm not exactly speaking from a position of doing no research on it. The same arguments were made back then and were refuted then. For the media to resurrect them without analysis is very retrograde. Moreover, I have seen not one media source analyse either flight performance, trajectory or any other data from a single Pakistani test. You cannot make a statement about Pakistan being "ahead" without doing that. In such a situation the journalist is passing off opinion as fact and with inadequate research. Opinion that is not based on research is not very helpful. Now, if research is done and different opinions and views offered, then that makes for productive discussion and analysis. I had done a few articles on the subject in the 1999-2000 period and had written at least one piece in Force on the subject (a period in my life I'd like to forget) but I did a section in my book on the subject in which I'd cited some analysis of the Nodong tests to illustrate the fallacy of the "Pakistani missiles being more tested" argument. BTW - one thing Pandit did not say was that the last Agni-2 test was a contained test-fire with full military participation. I wonder if the media confuses "operationalization" with "batch-testing" ? In terms of numbers, Pakistan is also inferior with only about half a dozen Shaheen II and Ghauri IRBMs inducted along with some 64 shorter ranged missiles. India's arsenal comprises some 12 Agni-1 18-24 Agni-2 and some 180+ Prithvi. I agree India needs to step up production but there is no evidence of Pakistan being "ahead".

Sanjay, the production rate of the Paki missiles is currently higher than the Agni..Its corroborated by many sources now, including the latest book by Bharat Karnad..

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 Feb 2009 07:38

ajay_ijn wrote:Isn't GPS used to correct INS errors. So even if its Jammed, INS would work. ultimately its better to have terrain based nav system.

I would serriously doubt the ability to function of TERRCOM matching nav system given the speed at which the Brahmos would be operating...
no GPS, no TERCOM, then what would assist INS?

A good enough INS will not need any assistance. Launchers would drive to a pre-surveyed location (one among thousands) and launch at targets. Real time information would represent a challenge, but not an insurmountable one.

Its almost guaranteed that GPS signals would not be available to India in case of any India Pakistan conflict.

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 03 Feb 2009 07:41

Sanjay wrote:I re-iterate, Agni-1 and Agni-2 have been adequately tested. Why so few ? The reason for small numbers of Agni-2 are simple - Agni-3 (and its derivatives) is the definitive IRBM variant. Any larger scale production will be of this variant and no other. As for Agni-1, I suspect production of it and of Shourya will increase substantially. Agni-2 production will continue until Agni-3 is ready to take its place in the arsenal.

can understand about A-II.
but why even smaller numbers for A-I. I mean its Pakistan specific missile and hence big numbers would be needed. if A-I production started in 2002-03 and if we are having 12 Agni-Is and tested 5 to 6, are we producing 3 missiles/year?

in older news reports it has been claimed that BDL can produce atleast 10 Agni-IIs per year. So what is real problem with BDL?

from a Strategic point of view, mass producing them is more important than any other indigenous defence program.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Feb 2009 08:26

The three successive tests without failures comes from probability tables. The 22 tests for Brahmos or the 17 tests for Barak are different trajectories and missions. So its not the same thing.

Its the funding and not the production capability.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 03 Feb 2009 08:53

Ramana,

It is same thing to me....

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Feb 2009 08:56

Whatever.

parshuram · Post by **parshuram** » 03 Feb 2009 11:15

Last Night the "India lacks missile strength then pakistan "propoganda was hiked for every hindi chanel telecasting that only prithvi is functional . and rest all are way behind to be inducted

I am little confused about the things discussed here 'A' need to tested n number of times before getting inducted may i ask why ? I mean going by doubts here that we have only "tiny" number of missiles in comparison to a country who don't even deserve a comparison . How do we apprehend that the information is credible?. I mean going by history A-1, A-II were tested without failures and still were inducted after some good number of tests , we trusted our scientists and Government . A-III failed and in third test project director was heard of saying proudly A-III is ready to menace the enemy . we trusted them then too and backed our scientists and government .

i guess our scientists and government need some space to breathe

nash · Post by **nash** » 03 Feb 2009 12:20

As far as Agni series is concern we should take it as a whole system not by individual missile.

Because the basic technologies should be same in all missile in a series like avionics,navigation and control,propulsion with some modification for different missile,different alloys,composites or metal,etc.

All army need is some hands-on experience on agni missile, mean launching the missile without any guidance from DRDO.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 03 Feb 2009 12:49

Page 132 of Karnad's latest book places production of M-9/M-11 in Pakistan at 14/yr plus 3 under assembly. Prithvi production at present is about 15-20 per year but the potential is about 40-50 per annum. Agni production capacity was raised to a potential of 12-18 per year, however, it is underutilized. Page 132 goes on to say that Agni-2/-3 production is gearing up to surpass Pak production figures. Therefore I am not at all certain of Pakistan's production surpassing India. Karnad does confuse designations so he does not mention that Shaheen-2 seems to be the M-18. Again, who in the Indian media has explored production rates other than that of the Prithvi ? Simply making claims without evidence makes no useful contribution to the debate. Page 83 also notes that each test costs India Rs20-30 crore. Regarding the Agni-3 test, the pattern followed the Agni-TD pattern where the system was also declared useable after 2 successful tests. I don't see why it isn't useable but it is clear more testing is needed of the system with at least one user involved trial being necessary.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 03 Feb 2009 13:05

Sanjay,

Per Sanjay's book, as also many other sources, the IA is not terribly enthused with the Prithvi as an operational platform. they have stuck to it more due to the TINA factor, and also for training up the crews in basic drills etc. Therefore, the primary nuke missile platform for India is expected to be the Agni series. And production of that is still at snail's pace - its perpetually "under induction"..Successive SFC commanders, including Air Marshal Bhavnani, have said that the aircraft remains the primary vestor for our nuke capability.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 03 Feb 2009 13:10

Somnath, I don't recall ever writing that the army wasn't enthused with the Prithvi. I do know they aren't keen on it as a nuclear platform. As a conventional platform their concerns were with liquid fuelling. However for a system they aren't ethusiastic about, accepting nearly 200 isn't bad. Agni production is too low - but then how intense is our warhead production ? Agni-1 has been fired at least once by the army however, I am not sure about whether the 2004 test of Agni-2 was done solely with army personnel. I'd be a bit careful about what the SFC says in term of aircraft being the primary delivery system. Certainly more gravity bombs are in service than missiles but whether the balance hasn't shifted is not at all certain.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 03 Feb 2009 13:22

Sanjay,

The problems with Prithvi have been well documented. For a nuke platform, it has legs that are "too short" (hence has to be placed too close to the border), and its logsitics chain too long to be discreet. As a conventional platofmr, there are issues with its CEP and its liquid fuelled nature..The reason why it has stuck to it and inducted 200 is, as I said, TINA..

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 03 Feb 2009 13:44

Somnath, again, Prithvi has achieved accuracies of up to 10m from a 67km range from pre-surveyed launch sites - see my book for the citation of the source for that. It has a range now exceeding 300km - it has been tested to 330km. The liquid-fuelled nature is an issue but procedures have been worked out. Perfect ? No. Works ? Yes.

My grouse with naysayers in the media and elsewhere is the notion of "ahead" and that Indian missiles aren't "operational". Nobody has defined or produced evidence to say what either means. If somebody wants to say too few Agnis have been produced and there is not enough information being divulged about the size and scope of the arsenal and the build up of infrastructure then say so and say so directly. Don't come at it from an evidentially nebulous angle.

One thing did surprise me in Karnad's book - as compared to his other writings - is the indication of intense discussion, debate and action towards building up a very substantial nuclear infrastructure.

One thing about numbers - there was a time when only a handful of Prithvis was "in service" (about 12) when BDL had over 50 completed and useable examples in stock. There was a discrepancy between production and induction. I wonder if the same is not true for the Agni series ?

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 03 Feb 2009 14:10

Sanjay wrote:see my book for the citation

Please provide more details for the uninitiated

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 03 Feb 2009 14:15

Sanjay,

Agree with you on the point on the confusion on "induction", "production" and "deployment"..But then that has been the whole story about our entire nuke programme - seems to be designed in such a fashion.

But a 10 m CEP on 67 km range - is that acceptable for a conventional strike? Given the payload, maybe..But then again there is a question of cost..What would be the marginal cost of a Prithvi round v/s a salvo of the Smerch rockets - latter will have more CEP, but delivers the punch over a wider area, so somewhat compensates?

I agree with your view on BK's book..But as he quotes Ashley Tellis, sometimes in the drive to get the fanciest thing, we dont build up on first basics, reliable stuff..It is quite a shame if we (with all our prowess in software and system design in general) cant set up a C4ISR network before Pakistan. Or if a country of such undoubted strategic intellect, our SFC is still manned by generalists (10 years after Pok II)..

The Agni story is sometimes mystifying - why hasnt the production handed over to BDL yet? Is DRDO a "production" agency? Do they "hand make" each missile? !12-18 Agnis constitute nothing for countering a China threat, given that you would assume at least half of them would be takn out in case of a first strike.

about your question on warhead production - it has to keep pace with delivery platforms, isnt it? A warhead designed for the cone of the Agni will be different from one carried by M2000 in toss bomb format...But even assuming the conservative estimate of "bombs" (50-75), less than a dozen Agnis seems too low, and rightly cant claim to be "operationalised"..

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Feb 2009 14:39

FWIW

When I spoke to a gent from DRDO 5 years back , when they had tested this missile for a range of 330 km , it achieved a CEP of 9 m