Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 01 May 2012 22:24

Some quotes from the article posted above by sumshaym:
First comes the rather silly statement:

Imagine an Agni-V that can be fired from your neighbourhood

But some interesting tid bits:

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), which is savouring the successful test-firing of the Agni-V, is now preparing for another test launch of the missile. This test will not be from Wheeler Island where the Integrated Test Range ( ITR) is located. "The missile will be put in a canister and launched. After the lid of the canister is opened, the missile takes off as a result of the high pressure generation of gas inside it," Avinash Chander, distinguished scientist and chief controller, R&D (missiles and strategic systems), DRDO, told TOI.

When the missile takes off from the canister, the flames will be seen only about 30 metres from above the ground in the Agni-V that will be tested fired sometime towards the end of the year.

So the 50 ton missile will have to be pushed up to 30m

by the gas generators!

"We are getting ready with two different types of canisters in which the missile can be placed and test fired. The armed forces will be able to fire the missile from anywhere," Avinash Chander said

Wonder what the two different type of canisters means?

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 01 May 2012 22:25

Have we tested the TNW that is supposed to deliver 200-250 kt even ONCE to its full (for the lack of a better word) power? I am not sure about the exact dhamaka that is to be delivered on top of A 3/4/5, so kindly adjust.

Yes we have a 'maal' ready but untested for the power that it is supposed to deliver. Yes I do have full faith in the genius and handwork of our nuclear scientists to deliver the goods just as much as I have in our rocket scientists. Yet, in-spite of all their genius, diligence and attention to details some rockets did not perform at all and corrections has to be incorporated later. I do realize that none of the rocket scientists or the nuclear scientists are gods and errors in design, fabrication, etc will creep in and will have to be ironed out later. How do we identify those errors that can only be caught in testing?

To restate: I am not going into the Fizzle debate. My point is that the TNW need to be tested to its full power irrespective of what happened the last time.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 May 2012 22:48

I can think off one is road based, that is fixed on a moveable arm to point the canister to sky, and the other type being fixed on the VLS type of launchers onboard surface ships or ground based canisters [fixed underground la silo- makes it three]. I may be wrong.. just a WAG.

btw, "peacekeeper" cansiter ejects the peace mijjle weight 80Tons to about 250' -> more than 30 meters.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 01 May 2012 23:23

gakakkad wrote:
SaiK wrote:^the window would be really short, and it is a requirement to prepare ourselves for testing.. not one, but many single, multiple and distributed tests.

all it takes is the khaans feels that their designs are outdated, and some power from east is outpaced them in designs.. 108 PSI will be applied for testing by the n-mullahs.

we are more than well prepared... A lot of work has been going on even in the nuclear segment . Only thing is that level of secrecy exceeds even the Missile program.. Missile program itself has had so many surprises .. How many new of Agni 4 or prahaar before they were testfired ? Prahaar was announced a week or two before being tested.. BRFITES were scratching their heads.. "err..where did this come from.. "

By 2020 we ll have a pu reproc .capacity , exceeded only by SU and US . (Check the bharat karnad dhaga for articles). In 1998 we had precious little Pu ..

We ll have extremely reliable delivery systems covering the whole world.. SLBMs /ICBMS/ MIRV/ nirbhay / Brahmos 2 /Hypersonic cruise missile..We had nothing in 98.

Fairly credible ABM ..

various indigenous designs of civilian reactors in various stages of development.

A GDP 15 times bigger than 98..

much weaker unkil and oirope..In 98 UNKIL was maha dada.. it was 7 years after cold war..

Gakakkad ji while I am with you on all counts but your comment - “By 2020 we ll have a pu reproc .capacity , exceeded only by SU and US . (Check the bharat karnad dhaga for articles). In 1998 we had precious little Pu ..”, would give very little comfort to SaiK bhaisahab to whom it was addressed. He is after the TN not after FBF. My own position is quite like his, yeh dil mange more!

What we are looking for is not Purex based Pu reprocessing, which will give us all the forms of Pu all mixed up. We need BARC to demonstrate mastery of the radiation driven implosion of a lithium ki ulti balti that will produce its own Tritium and fission in a Depleted Uranium ka Anda that will generate its own U235. If that’s done, I personally will not mind even a smaller reprocessing program, not even the four letter words that the Amrikhans like to hear so much.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 May 2012 23:27

SaiK wrote: Testing in space is not prohibitory, and there is nothing wrong in testing in deep space. No country will object

Testing of nuclear weapons in space is prohibited by the LTBT, which India has signed.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 01 May 2012 23:29

SaiK wrote:I can think off one is road based, that is fixed on a moveable arm to point the canister to sky, and the other type being fixed on the VLS type of launchers onboard surface ships or ground based canisters [fixed underground la silo- makes it three]. I may be wrong.. just a WAG.

btw, "peacekeeper" cansiter ejects the peace mijjle weight 80Tons to about 250' -> more than 30 meters.

I thing they are talking about this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_l ... old_launch

Seems like a desire to extract the max out of the 8 cells. And that leads us to the conclusion that Dhanush was not time pass.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 01 May 2012 23:37

Gerard wrote:
SaiK wrote: Testing in space is not prohibitory, and there is nothing wrong in testing in deep space. No country will object
Testing of nuclear weapons in space is prohibited by the LTBT, which India has signed.

What are the ways to get out of it?

Chinese are not in it. Lets build up Viets for this, they arent either!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 May 2012 23:41

Video of 104 ton SS-24 rail mobile ICBM being canister cold launched

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqoXdq8Ol1Q

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 02 May 2012 00:03

pankajs wrote:Have we tested the TNW that is supposed to deliver 200-250 kt even ONCE to its full (for the lack of a better word) power?

FWIW, neither Russia nor America have tested their post-1974 warheads to full yield.
The TTBT signed between the two limits yields to less than 150 kT.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 02 May 2012 00:09

ravi_g "What we are looking for is not Purex based Pu reprocessing, which will give us all the forms of Pu all mixed up. We need BARC to demonstrate mastery of the radiation driven implosion of a lithium ki ulti balti that will produce its own Tritium and fission in a Depleted Uranium ka Anda that will generate its own U235. If that’s done, I personally will not mind even a smaller reprocessing program, not even the four letter words that the Amrikhans like to hear so much."

one of the possible reasons why we were not able to test such a lithium ki ulti batti that can produce its own 3H in a u238 anda which can act as a "third stage"* in 98 is because we had very little wgpu needed in the phirst stage..
And We did not have enough HEU to use in the phirst stage because our enrichment program was in primitive stages in those days ...so a u-235 based first stage was out of question..first stage for Yindia had to be pu based..

...if we carried out more tests in 98 we would have none wgpu left for a spare bum in case such a need had arisen.. now we have more capacity for wgpu production..even if one test fizzles we can test more , without worrying about supply of wg-pu..hence the need for a massive purex prog..

* if i am not mistaken ravi_g is reffering to 238 encasing which itself is fissionable when neutrons from 2D-3T fusion bombard it (2nd stage neutrons) ..u238 not fissile but fissionable.. That can be called the "third stage" as it produces considerable energy itself..(however the term 3rd stage had been reserved for further fusion products) ..

Anyway once we have the basic material , there is no reason why the above cannot be demonstrated....

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 May 2012 00:17

Wasnt the LTBT signed during 1963 much before pok2?

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 02 May 2012 00:26

SaiK wrote:Wasnt the LTBT signed during 1963 much before pok2?

yup...India signed in 63..

http://dtirp.dtra.mil/pdfs/ltbt_signatories.pdf

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 May 2012 00:47

That SS24 launch almost fired at the last fraction of a second.. wow.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 02 May 2012 01:38

Gerard wrote:
pankajs wrote:Have we tested the TNW that is supposed to deliver 200-250 kt even ONCE to its full (for the lack of a better word) power?
FWIW, neither Russia nor America have tested their post-1974 warheads to full yield.
The TTBT signed between the two limits yields to less than 150 kT.

Mistakes to be attributed to the dumb bum sitting in-front of the computer banging out keywords after keywords trying to coax some secrets out of google chacha. All credits to google chacha if the information bears out.

On the development of the last 2 US warheads i.e W87 & W88, lets look at what http://nuclearweaponarchive.org has to say.
W87

Design traces its origin to the LASL device tested in the 250 Kt Almendro shot (Operation Toggle), 6 June 1973 (13:00:00.08 UCT). 10 nuclear tests were required to certify the W-87 for stockpiling, including a full yield test prior to March 1976. These tests were complete by mid-1983.

W88

Designed and developed by Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The design is based on work done before March 1976 Threshold Test Ban Treaty. Full yield tests of candidate designs were completed by that date.

Hope the site is not dud, for it validates my position on the need of full yield testing or rather the prudent practice of full yield testing.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 May 2012 02:03

Half knowledge is dangerous. Unfortunately pro-establishment figures don't get that.

Even the French tested at full yield before signing the CTBT in 1996.

The PRC tested at full yield even while Indian political leaders were visiting.

Its only Indian scientists who talk of scaling a non-linear phenomenon and adding vials or test tubes of gas.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 May 2012 02:26

slam!

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 02 May 2012 02:56

But how do we know for sure or verify independently that the french, PRC and others achieved their stated full yield ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 May 2012 02:58

The siesmic signature was not muffled!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 May 2012 03:03

I am saying, we can't get out of this muffle. So, we have no other option now having caught the live tiger's tail.

- lowest DAY yield test [x:Min] - our people have to bring this out.
- lowest yield containable [x:MinContainable] - we have to test this out.
- scalable model? [bring out the x,y,z..] - we have to prove this out.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 May 2012 03:07

Let the professionals decide.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 02 May 2012 03:07

seismic signatures are reliable for underground tests, what about atmospheric ones which was perhaps most of the tests for a long time. How many countries other then US/USSR were keeping tab on others tests. We got to believe what they stated as fact, isn't it ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 May 2012 03:18

Which atmospehric tests you are talking about?
India monitored most of the PRC atmospheric tests and shared the details with US during the 60s as per HN Sethna.

Sometime in late 70s PRC started UGTs after the Nixon rapprochment.

No one has tested in atmosphere since the 70s.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 May 2012 03:22

Absolutely. Me just throwing aam liners.

BTW, the arguements are valid either way. Pro and as well as against testing.

We can prove that underground signatures are not read correct, and hence pukka.
We can also prove that underground signatures did not result in correct values, and hence dud.

The beauty is inside.. unknown, as to what was the TNT. There exists a deterrent value there too.
And that beauty will get out and peek a little bit, if MIRV tests are done.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 02 May 2012 03:25

I came across these clips a while back regarding the nuclear deal and its crippling effect on our nuclear deterrent. I have my doubts on a future nuclear test happening.

[youtube]CuCDgkzWwXQ&feature=relmfu[/youtube]

[youtube]2JE3aDrxwA4&feature=relmfu[/youtube]

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 02 May 2012 05:57

I did hear from someone that US wanted to set up a monitoring network up in the Himalayas, but it was not sanctioned by the GoI. I was not aware that India was independently monitoring PRC atmospheric tests. I guess the remnants could be sniffed out, but I am not sure if yield can be measured from these tests remotely. I have not read up enough on the matter either. UG tests can of course be monitored remotely and yield calculated, though it is again model dependent.

SaiK, if UG signatures were either measured incorrectly or modeled wrong to calculate the yield, the same arguments can be made about "full" yield non-Indian tests too. So for aam junta it can never be convincing either way. Someone needs to have inside info to believe the others claim absolutely.

vina · Post by **vina** » 02 May 2012 07:09

Bade wrote:Someone needs to have inside info to believe the others claim absolutely.

Indeed. The Indian Nuke establishment would have drilled bore holes after the tests in 98 and got out isotope samples out of the hole. In fact only THEY will have the full facts in front of them, on whether it was a sizzle or a fizzle or a part fizzle or whatever and they sure as hell ain't going to talk.

Of course, the DRDO (was his name Santhanam?) person could say that his instruments didn't record a Mega Boom..possibly true,but then his opening his mouth and closing it and the storm in the tea cup it created along with the NYT op-ed titled "Just Say No" was just shadow boxing. There are no "facts" that came up and it all seems so much like a staged "debate" to make a case for further testing by the Ultra Chankian Yindoos , when the crunch came to counter some bad moves being made out there. The only effect of that is for Arun_S to exit BRF (a pity I think, ramana, you should tell him to come back here with his material. After all it is a dense fog , deliberately created so that it is close to impossible to penetrate and it is difficult to separate fact from fiction)

The real proof is only in the drilling and the detailed calculations and measurements made from that fact. Of course, no one outside will know of it, probably ever.

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 May 2012 07:25

Bade wrote:seismic signatures are reliable for underground tests, what about atmospheric ones which was perhaps most of the tests for a long time.

Iirc the atmospheric tests are easier to measure i.e. in layman's terms they go by the rough size of the fireball itself it gives a relative figure if not absolute.

In fact now that you brought this topic up if you will notice there has been a pattern to the way shitty bitty treaty and other toilet rolls p-5 came up with. Once the Unkil and chamcha#1 mastered their initial designs and tested in atmosphere to heart's content they came up with LTBT/PTBT (ostensibly to limit the fallout

) , obviously they did this only after having mastered the art of conducting underground tests and determining their yield with certain degree of accuracy . Finally when they attained their design goals and accumulated WMDs enough to blow earth umpteen times they came up with CTBT.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 02 May 2012 07:37

I think showing the whole world 6 on the Richter scale for 150 kt [to stay within TTBT] should be sufficient. The Shakti tests recorded anywhere from 4.7 to 5.2 on the Richter scale. Whether the world believes it to be thermonuclear and therefore believes India to be a "real" nuclear power or not is immaterial. Proving the warhead is the primary goal.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 02 May 2012 07:49

Detection of atmospheric tests may be easy if you have a fleet of satellites in the sky. Though how that info then gets churned out to give meaningful information is not a trivial exercise either and has its own uncertainties. Pre 1970s the methods were not all that developed even in the west. Best most could do then was to sniff around using aircrafts IMHO. Me no expert just getting interested in these topics, so take it fwiw.

I have never understood the need for thousands of tests. As you go up the yield curve there is only so much you can destroy more given most cities have a characteristic radius. So the need to measure very large yield weapons repeatedly has only so much to gain. Naively, one could then claim the need for so many tests were perhaps due to difficulty in measuring the yields accurately. There is no other rationale I can think of.

There is always a case for more than a handful of tests (Indian case) while learning the business, I can buy that. But once you have already learned how to do it, why do thousands more.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 May 2012 07:52

For the psy ops effect. Indian neighbors demand it

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 May 2012 08:01

bade, ek chota baat. if we really wanted to show off to the world that we have arrived.. [I still remember ABV showing his hand, and saying "hamara paas abhi bum hai!"., I would expect the detonation intentionally set, to have UG signatures actually having least disturbances. One could think constructive, but when it comes testing, and quality deterrent needs, no logic will accept the fact that they can do away with a muffled one.

Also, please note that our NFU policy did not take place before pok2... and I don't want to say more on that.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 02 May 2012 08:02

For real psy ops it has to be a low threshold usable weapon. MAD scenario and deterrence then becomes an outdated idea.

vina, yes nothing can be more accurate than data from the boreholes for sure and they are naturally protected and never revealed.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 02 May 2012 08:20

Not getting into the fizzle/sizzle argument, since we can't tell.

But only one fission warhead has been tested yet, while two experimental devices, one boosted fission and one fusion were tested. The test of the fission warhead was preceded by a similar test of an experimental device (1974). Therefore the next series of tests should see the experimental devices from 1998 similarly being converted to warheads.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 May 2012 08:32

2022 perhaps the year going by 24 years of non-testing.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 May 2012 08:36

vina wrote:
Bade wrote:Someone needs to have inside info to believe the others claim absolutely.
Indeed. The Indian Nuke establishment would have drilled bore holes after the tests in 98 and got out isotope samples out of the hole. In fact only THEY will have the full facts in front of them, on whether it was a sizzle or a fizzle or a part fizzle or whatever and they sure as hell ain't going to talk.

Not necessarily, the establishment in this case includes both DRDO and DAE, and Santhanam was fairly convinced it didn't work out. Its interesting to see that everything from missiles to even the more mundane stuff has to be tested by industry and R&D before it works, and failures are very common (just check even ISRO with the GSLV), but somehow the first TN test, had to be absolutely cent per cent successful. What gives...?

Of course, the DRDO (was his name Santhanam?) person could say that his instruments didn't record a Mega Boom..possibly true,but then his opening his mouth and closing it and the storm in the tea cup it created along with the NYT op-ed titled "Just Say No" was just shadow boxing. There are no "facts" that came up and it all seems so much like a staged "debate" to make a case for further testing by the Ultra Chankian Yindoos , when the crunch came to counter some bad moves being made out there. The only effect of that is for Arun_S to exit BRF (a pity I think, ramana, you should tell him to come back here with his material. After all it is a dense fog , deliberately created so that it is close to impossible to penetrate and it is difficult to separate fact from fiction)

The real proof is only in the drilling and the detailed calculations and measurements made from that fact. Of course, no one outside will know of it, probably ever.

Arun S on BRF would indeed be a big plus. Does he write someplace or publish in any journal, So far I have only found his stuff on Scribd.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 May 2012 08:48

yes. he lives in india-forum.. he runs his own missile threads

--
yes, we can have fantastic design, but only when we test, we can validate it.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 02 May 2012 09:06

ramana wrote:
Its only Indian scientists who talk of scaling a non-linear phenomenon and adding vials or test tubes of gas.

This IMHO is for public consumption only . I am not sure if the scientists themselves believe that we don't need further testing... Imagine the consequences of saying that in public..In a country where any random punk is picked up by news channel and designated as egg-spurt ..

this would have been the outcome -News Flash "Scientist reveal the truth" flash "scientist says that h bomb fizzled " ,"scientist says bla..blaa..bla""

Than we ll have newshour debates featuring pro-fool , meghnad desai and co debating about seismic signtaures , non linear modelling , radionuclides , 3RD stage of ~~Darul uloom~~ teller ulam model etc...

whole world picks up the circus..

Pervobitch and Jakharia writes in NY times.."India may test an H-BUM soon, bliss to cancel the n-deal."

Some idiotic liberal senator might eat ombabas head and force him to call MMS ... ombaba calls mms and talks about the weather and the last delhi chaat he had...

Do you want the above sequence of events now ?

Why blame the scientists ?

We could have tested in 60s before China..If we tested before Panda we would have been a de juris nuke state..SU was strong then..amreeka would not dare.. we could have weaponised in 74... we could have tested in pre 96 era.. In fact PVNR wanted to test.. but amreeka pressurised him not too FOR OBVIOUS REASONS ...They were waiting for the french to finish off their final tests in 96 and enact the CTBT....We kept missing opportunities for 3-4 decades , why is it that only the post 98 people are blamed ...

why is it that only ABV and MMS are blamed ..and not nehru , IG and pvnr ?

People are talking about n-deal impeding the tests .. How does it do so ? If we were truly sold , MMS could have signed the CTBT and handed over the wgpu to IAEA..

@roy g
What would happen if we test now ? amreeka would stop cooperating with us on civil nuclear front...are we taking any thing from them yet ? so what did we lose by the N-deal ? An obsolete 50s reactor that was going to close down anyway ....And that amounts to selling the nation..vow..

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 02 May 2012 09:07

Its interesting to see that everything from missiles to even the more mundane stuff has to be tested by industry and R&D before it works, and failures are very common (just check even ISRO with the GSLV), but somehow the first TN test, had to be absolutely cent per cent successful. What gives...?

The stated knowledge (could be reverse psyops refer FAS) is that all nuclear tests have been a success the first time for most who tried. The hard part to get it right is not nuclear physics but the enabling technology to get the nuclear physics going, which needs to be tested and can be done without a full blown test as many times as one wants. My suspicion is that exact yield values for each test will vary considerably irrespective of how well one tested the other parts. And it is inherent to the process and not much can be done about it. In that case the need arises to see what the variation in yield is for identical configurations and hence the multitude of tests in the past. As time passes the core physics processes are also being measured independently and getting understood better and hence may be the need for tests also decreases.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 02 May 2012 09:39

Satellite Imagery Detects Thermal 'Uplift' Signal of Underground Nuclear Tests

Lead author Paul Vincent, a geophysicist at Oregon State University, cautions that the findings won't lead to dramatic new ability to detect secret nuclear explosions because of the time lag between the test and the uplift signature, as well as geophysical requirements of the underlying terrain. However, he said, it does "provide another forensic tool for evaluation, especially for the potential explosive yield estimates."

"In the past, satellites have been used to look at surface subsidence as a signal for nuclear testing," said Vincent, an associate professor in OSU's College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences. "This is the first time uplift of the ground has correlated to a nuclear test site. The conditions have to be just right and this won't work in every location.

"But it is rather interesting," he added. "It took four years for the source of the uplift signal – a thermal groundwater plume – to reach the surface."

The focus of the study was Lop Nor, a nuclear testing site in China where three tests were conducted – May 21, 1992; May 15, 1995; and Aug. 17, 1995. Vincent and his colleagues analyzed interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) images from 1996-99 and detected a change in the surface beginning four years after the tests.

Vincent said the analysis of nuclear explosions has become a specialized field. Seismology technology can provide an initial estimate of the energy of the explosion, but that data is only good if the seismic waves accurately reflect coupling to the connecting ground in a natural way, he explained. Efforts are sometimes made to "decouple" the explosive device from the ground by creating specializing testing chambers that can give off a false signal, potentially masking the true power of a test.

"Subsidence data combined with seismic data have helped narrow the margin of error in estimating the explosive yield," Vincent noted, "and now there is the potential to use test-related thermal expansion as another forensic tool."

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 May 2012 09:42

Bade wrote: I have never understood the need for thousands of tests.

No one has advocated thousands of tests

As you go up the yield curve there is only so much you can destroy more given most cities have a characteristic radius.

No that is not true; one of the primary end goals is to achieve miniaturisation (sizewise) of the warhead, which apparently is only possible by following an incremental approach which obviously needs to be tested.

Naively, one could then claim the need for so many tests were perhaps due to difficulty in measuring the yields accurately. There is no other rationale I can think of.

Well achieving designed yield and accurately measuring the same are important however what is equally important is to give the end user a sense of confidence that a bomb picked at random from the production lot will function as designed. The repeated tests of the 'same'/'unchanged' design validate exactly the above. That is why Angi-III is being put through repeated trials.