No. Carrier Killer is definitely being deployed. With China building 10 carriers, our message is that naval aream dominance is purely theoretical. In case of war we can definitely sink them as and when we please.
Agni & Prithvi Ballistic Missiles : News & Discussions
- Thread starter Sathya
- Start date
No. Carrier Killer is definitely being deployed. With China building 10 carriers, our message is that naval aream dominance is purely theoretical. In case of war we can definitely sink them as and when we please.
Very little evidence of MIRV'd MARVs in documentation. Agni-P was only first test-fired in June 2021. The 2 warhead test was with MIRVs, only the single-warhead test was MaRV. They still testing it now, but you're saying the MARVs are already deployed as MIRVs on a longer range weapon?
Agni-P - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
MIRV missles are there, they have not been revealed. Work on that has been going on for 30 years. We''ve had IRBMs for well over 30 years. First because of CTBT and now due to some strategic considerations we present our capability as being in intermedia range single warheard.
I'm not disputing the MIRVs part, only the MIRV'd MaRVs, i.e. multiple MaRVs on a single Agni-V. I can't find any evidence of that. It may well be planned for the future on Agni-VI, but nothing to date.
The stand I take is that anything that the government does not officially declare, is not there. And I believe there are good reasons for why they do the things they do, and WHEN they do them. There are lots of things you hear when you follow the defence industry in the country, but I for one would never be so bold as to declare that we have X or Y, until & unless the Govt has chosen to do so.
When the intent to demonstrate a certain technology is present, toward whatever geopolitical end, we do so without hesitation - regardless of the consequences. Case in point, the nuclear tests, the IGMDP, the ASAT test and so on...and then there are cases where we choose to present things in a certain way, like capping the Agni-V's range ~500km short of being a true ICBM. That's also done for a geopolitical reason.
So yeah, the MaRVs are demonstrated. MIRVs are not. MIRV'd MaRVs are certainly not. That's the bottom line.
We are putting pieces of the puzzle in place in order to facilitate the testing of multiple-splashdowns i.e. the Open Sea Test Range comprising the range ship INS Dhruv & other elements. So when the MIRVs or MIRV'd MaRVs come, we'll know.
Until then, India's ballistic missile deterrence posture consists only of unitary MaRV'd warheads. End of story.
When the intent to demonstrate a certain technology is present, toward whatever geopolitical end, we do so without hesitation - regardless of the consequences. Case in point, the nuclear tests, the IGMDP, the ASAT test and so on...and then there are cases where we choose to present things in a certain way, like capping the Agni-V's range ~500km short of being a true ICBM. That's also done for a geopolitical reason.
So yeah, the MaRVs are demonstrated. MIRVs are not. MIRV'd MaRVs are certainly not. That's the bottom line.
We are putting pieces of the puzzle in place in order to facilitate the testing of multiple-splashdowns i.e. the Open Sea Test Range comprising the range ship INS Dhruv & other elements. So when the MIRVs or MIRV'd MaRVs come, we'll know.
Until then, India's ballistic missile deterrence posture consists only of unitary MaRV'd warheads. End of story.
Last edited:
So you don't dispute that Agni-5 has MIRV? You also accept that Agni Prime has MaRV. But you have your doubt that Agni 5 has MIRV MaRV?
I think it has. Let's agree to disagree.
Agni V probably has MIRV by now and Agni-P has a single MaRV (or dual non-MaRV MIRV)but isn't quite fielded yet (nearly there though by the sound of it).
My bet is that Sentinel will be the same length as MMIII but will continue at base width all the way up, allowing for 4 RVs, which will be something akin to HP MaRV - manoeuvrable, stealthy and compact.
What Dr Chander said in that interview is that they developed the tech, and its the Govt call whether to put it into any specific missile because these are all strategic asset, so there is a political decision making process involved.
For me, given we want to run a set of SSBN with nuke tipped weapons, that have limited launch tubes, these additional capability is almost certainly there for induction at any short notice.
Its also 100% certain govt will never reveal like Nitin Gokhale said. As we can see now we went up the chain gradually A1 to A5 & now we are also coming down to A1P because we kept testing the parameters & refining those parameters, adding new modern technical capability to it is the reason. So this process will be like that.
For me, given we want to run a set of SSBN with nuke tipped weapons, that have limited launch tubes, these additional capability is almost certainly there for induction at any short notice.
Its also 100% certain govt will never reveal like Nitin Gokhale said. As we can see now we went up the chain gradually A1 to A5 & now we are also coming down to A1P because we kept testing the parameters & refining those parameters, adding new modern technical capability to it is the reason. So this process will be like that.
Last edited:
I think those are on the secret series of ICBM missiles. Without signing CTBT we ran the risk of sanctions for even accepting missiles beyond IRM range existed in our inventory. Now that we signed the treaty, I think slowly the details of other missiles will cone out.
what treaty are you referring to ? Sanctions are always present its just they are implicit & not official like Wassenaar club . CTBT is for nukes, MTCR for missiles.
MTCR
We are against both MTCR and CTBT because it creates a world of haves and have nots and is a way of arm twisting helpless countries to American Imperialism. Our moral compass points to our truest north pole- the greatness of our morality.
Its just not morality, its bcos both MTCR & NPT were India specific to begin with. These regimes were used to viciously target India's non military programs like space & weather forecasting for instance.
MTCR doesn't prevent domestically produced ICBMs, it only prevents the sale of missiles capable of carrying a 500kg warhead >300km.
It's 'Technology'. even an IC can be used to indicate that India used technology to illegally build missiles and sanction. Now that we have signed them as already having these technologies, no possibilities of sanctions.
No these are designed to create a world full of haves and have nots. Thank god we fought against them and refused to sign them,
No country has an ecosystem to build all components and even flimsy ecuses like 'oh you bought that Panasonic cable' can be declared as dual use for sanctions. Which is why we severely fought against it for decades and declared we did not accept a world of haves and have not on the basis of morality. Consequently some of pour missile projects were kept secret.
Now that we are signitories the sanctions are less of a problem and we can be more open about our ICBMs
Well clearly the US did when they built their first ICBMs. French M51s allegedly use all French components too.