India to Get Own Missile-Tracking Ship in December

[pachawry]

Weight does not guarantee range. Russian Topol is 45 Tons and has a range of 11000 Km, double that of Agni-5.
The thrust to weight ratio , shape of exhaust plume, length of burnout time, are the main characteristics which effect range.
Agni-5 has lower thrust per ton of fuel than more advanced missiles such as Topol and Trident, hence lower range.

About Indian MIRV, there has been no evidence as of yet. An MIRV needs conical or elliptical nose cone not pointy triangular. India has not demonstrated any large dia missile with elliptical nose cone.

Even the K-4 doesn't have the size and shape for being able to carry MIRV.

The official range of Agni 5 is "greater than 5000km" which is very vague. There is no reason to say that Agni-5 has just 5000km range. Even the altitude of Agni-5 was depressed to 600km which is quite odd for a ballistic missile of that size. China rightly pointed it out and called it a 8000-8500km missile. The actual altitude of Agni-5 is much higher and hence can take an orbital flight with low resistance towards the target at much higher range than 5000km. India regularly underplays the range of its missiles for various reasons.

Both Agni-5 and K4 have the size to carry MIRV but the MIRV has not yet been tested. The size and diameter is good enough for MIRV missile and the only change needed is in the third stage.

 

[Parthu]

@pachawry

The way A6 and K6 are being developed is so that land-based and submarine-based BMs have a great degree of commonality, which will lead to great cost-savings in future.

A6 is not a completely new missile - much of the R&D and tech that went into A5 will find application here as well. But it will see great improvements in propulsion (rocket motors), fuel make-up (current efficiency of our fuel is not as good as we'd like it to be) etc. which will lead to considerable payload gain.

We cannot have 6 and 10 MIRV buses which can accommodate our warheads on a missile with throw weight of just 1 or 1.5 ton.

Next generation of Indian ballistic missiles will see throw weight reaching upper limits of about 3 ton - almost doubling of what we have now. That's the payload capacity we need to fully realize the capability of MIRV.

 

[pachawry]

@pachawry

The way A6 and K6 are being developed is so that land-based and submarine-based BMs have a great degree of commonality, which will lead to great cost-savings in future.

A6 is not a completely new missile - much of the R&D and tech that went into A5 will find application here as well. But it will see great improvements in propulsion (rocket motors), fuel make-up (current efficiency of our fuel is not as good as we'd like it to be) etc. which will lead to considerable payload gain.

We cannot have 6 and 10 MIRV buses which can accommodate our warheads on a missile with throw weight of just 1 or 1.5 ton.

Next generation of Indian ballistic missiles will see throw weight reaching upper limits of about 3 ton - almost doubling of what we have now. That's the payload capacity we need to fully realize the capability of MIRV.

We don't need high payload but we need higher range and common ASAT missile. The Agni-5 is undergoing continuous modifications and the initial Agni-5 fired was only the first test form. There is no reason to say that the missile of Agni-5 itself will be altered so as to just keep the third stage changeable as per requirements and to replace it with ASAT kill vehicle, warhead or MIRV as per requirements.

This development is not Agni-6 but Agni-5 itself but with modifiable third stage. Also, I don't think that the motor or rocket is inefficient. It could be that India is purposefully downplaying the ability of the missiles. Almost all missiles of India are downplayed by 40-50% in range. I am unsure as to why this is being done. For example, Sagarika (K15) missile has 10 metre length and diametere 0.74meter, total volume of 17.2m^3 for a range of 750 km while the range of Agni-1 is 900km for volume of 47.1m^3 with 15 meter length and diameter of 1 meter! Even if we say that the missile is single stage and hence less range, the difference in range to too massive to ignore. Agni 2 missile has dimension 21mx1.3m, volume of 111.5 m^3 and range is 2500km while Agni 3 has 213m^3 volume with dimensions 17x2m and the range is 3500km! Agni-5 has volume of 220m^3 and has 3 stages with dimensions of 17.5x2m and range is 5500km!

The above numbers appear very suspicious and it is very likely that the range of the missile is much higher than what is being said and tested for. The high range achieved by Sagarika is for a low weight is something one must not ignore. That must be considered as a standard for checking the real range of Indian missiles.

 

[Parthu]

We don't need high payload but we need higher range

As far as land-based BMs go, the reverse of what you say is true.

The range of 5000km is sufficient to meet all our perceived threats. Every inch of China is within reach. Its unlikely that Indian land-based BMs will ever be officially acknowledged as having +5000km reach. However the capability will be there (in fact it already is).

The only Indian missiles which will be officially acknowledged as ICBMs will be the submarine-launched K-series. For them, its important for a range of 6500-8500km to appear on paper, otherwise they cannot effectively deter China as the SLBM launches will happen from deep within IOR.

A payload of 1 ton is simply not sufficient - you can change the RV bus as much as you like but unless the missile itself is improved, the throw weight will remain the same.

Exactly what level of payload-range matrix is needed is determined by Strategic Forces Command - not you or me. We don't know exactly whats the size & weight of the newer warhead designs, and exactly how much yield they have, and how much is determined to be needed per warhead as per SFC parameters.

Development of A6 is guided by these factors, information regarding which even RTI cannot give you.

You can say A6 is not needed all you want, but with respect, no one on this forum is informed enough to make that call. GoI/SFC are. And they say A6 is needed - which is why DRDO is developing it.

and common ASAT missile.

A large ASAT weapon will obviously have a boost stage derived from existing ballistic missiles. No one will develop a new boost stage for it.

This development is not Agni-6 but Agni-5 itself but with modifiable third stage.

A6 is more like "A5 Perfected".

 

[pachawry]

The range of 5000km is sufficient to meet all our perceived threats. Every inch of China is within reach. Its unlikely that Indian land-based BMs will ever be officially acknowledged as having +5000km reach. However the capability will be there (in fact it already is).

What is perceived threat and why should India prematurely decide as to what is a threat or not? How do you know if the threat will not change tomorrow? Obviously, the development of Agni-5 and K4 will be similar. So, the Agni-5 may be tested as K4 instead. Nevertheless, the range of ICBM must be tested for 9000km as that is the required range to cover all parts of Africa, Asia, Europe and Australia. How can one know if the missile can actually hit a longer range if it is not tested?

 

[Parthu]

What is perceived threat and why should India prematurely decide as to what is a threat or not? How do you know if the threat will not change tomorrow? Obviously, the development of Agni-5 and K4 will be similar. So, the Agni-5 may be tested as K4 instead. Nevertheless, the range of ICBM must be tested for 9000km as that is the required range to cover all parts of Africa, Asia, Europe and Australia. How can one know if the missile can actually hit a longer range if it is not tested?

If you wish to do the SFC's job for them, go ahead.

 

[pachawry]

If you wish to do the SFC's job for them, go ahead.

If something wrong happens, even I have to bear the brunt. So, I would not agree that some random SFC can take any decision they want

 

[Arpit]

What is perceived threat and why should India prematurely decide as to what is a threat or not? How do you know if the threat will not change tomorrow? Obviously, the development of Agni-5 and K4 will be similar. So, the Agni-5 may be tested as K4 instead. Nevertheless, the range of ICBM must be tested for 9000km as that is the required range to cover all parts of Africa, Asia, Europe and Australia. How can one know if the missile can actually hit a longer range if it is not tested?

So what is threat? Who is threat to us? United States?

 

[pachawry]

So what is threat? Who is threat to us? United States?

Is USA not a potential threat? What makes USA be a guaranteed non-threat to India permanently?

 

[Arpit]

Is USA not a potential threat? What makes USA be a guaranteed non-threat to India permanently?

Do we then consider developing a deterence against US assuming your threat perception and threat matrix?

Do you understand meaning of deterrence? The problem of reliability , technology , cost, and numbers itself.Then operationability, readiness.

Okey , leave that aside, prove it in the statistical and scientific manner that US as enemy in threat matrix.

I accept you that we should develop deterrence against US.

 

[pachawry]

Do we then consider developing a deterence against US assuming your threat perception and threat matrix?

Do you understand meaning of deterrence? The problem of reliability , technology , cost, and numbers itself.Then operationability, readiness.

Okey , leave that aside, prove it in the statistical and scientific manner that US as enemy in threat matrix.

I accept you that we should develop deterrence against US.

The edge USA has is that it has developed high end technology while India has not. Also, USA relies on petrodollars of Arabs to keep its strength. Deterrence against USA is to weaken petrodollars while at the same time developing high end technology.

Mass manufacturing is not a problem as India already makes 45lakh cars, 10 lakh tractors, 2.5 crore two-wheelers etc which is a huge number. So, conversion of civilian manufacturing into defence is easy. Technology development is the main goal.

Again, India can develop defence against Europe by developing long range missiles and openly testing them. There is no need to pretend that Indian missiles are short ranged.

USA has been the main reason Pakistan and other Islamic states were emboldened into troubling India. Khalistan movement, Kashmir problems, 1971 war, internal interference in elections etc have been done by USA in the past. If not for USA, Pakistan would have been a weak state with hardly any military strength. Even today, it is the USA that is acting as world police and patrolling seas and oceans to maintain the favourability towards USA and to protect petrodollars. So, USA is definitely a threat and is one of the biggest threats of India.

 

[Arvind]

India does not need SSBN to strike Pakistan. Pakistan is barely next door. SSBN is to strike far off countries. No matter what, nuclear bombs don't cause total destruction. It is just a myth. Nuclear bombs are essentially mini cyclones and many structures can withstand it. SO, having a submarine to launch ballistic missile from underwater is not required at all for a close neighbour.

You are missing another use of SSBN i.e. last leg of nuclear triad, to be used if land and air based nuke launch mechanism are neutralized. Neighbor or no neighbor, SSBN will be consumed.

 

[Arvind]

So what is threat? Who is threat to us? United States?

Yes.

and Canada.

 

[pachawry]

You are missing another use of SSBN i.e. last leg of nuclear triad, to be used if land and air based nuke launch mechanism are neutralized. Neighbor or no neighbor, SSBN will be consumed.

In realistic scenario, underground nuclear silos can't be destroyed in first strike. Also, there will be thousands of missile silos all around and all of then can't be hit. Nuclear submarine can carry at the most 16 missile which is not enough to do serious damage.

SSBN is important to deter far off countries like USA rather than nearby countries as the accuracy of missiles may reduce as they travel half way around the world and hence there is a need to have deterrence nearby like the ballistic missile submarine

 

[Kvasir]

In realistic scenario, underground nuclear silos can't be destroyed in first strike.

Wasn't the initial logic behind concepts like Peacekeeper Rail Garrison and Midgetman that missile silos, even with their hardened doors, where vulnerable to first strikes?

More accurate MIRV and MaRV warheads where deemed to be a significant threat to missile silos, so yes, that actually was a very realistic scenario that's contributed to the lessening of missile silo basing versus mobile carriers. Additionally, the proliferation of satellites and aerial surveillance methods have rendered static basing increasingly vulnerable to both detection and mitigation. And while there are methods available to track mobile targets with significant accuracy, that I've touched upon on other forums, it's still far more difficult then finding a static base.

Neither the US nor Russia considered missile silos survivable, despite their hardening.

While both still maintain static basing for nuclear missiles, both are increasingly focused on maintainance of said bases, not development and are funneling resources into mobile missile solutions.

Both sides now focus on the development of silos for missile-defences, not nuclear deterrence.

 

[randomradio]

In realistic scenario, underground nuclear silos can't be destroyed in first strike. Also, there will be thousands of missile silos all around and all of then can't be hit. Nuclear submarine can carry at the most 16 missile which is not enough to do serious damage.

SSBN is important to deter far off countries like USA rather than nearby countries as the accuracy of missiles may reduce as they travel half way around the world and hence there is a need to have deterrence nearby like the ballistic missile submarine

Hardened silos were partially survivable when missiles were not very accurate. Now it's not the case.

SSBN is the prime choice for deterrence, regardless of distance.

 

[pachawry]

Hardened silos were partially survivable when missiles were not very accurate. Now it's not the case.

SSBN is the prime choice for deterrence, regardless of distance.

No ballistic missile is accurate to 10 metres or less. Unless a missile strikes directly to the bunker/silo, the silo will not collapse.

 

[randomradio]

No ballistic missile is accurate to 10 metres or less. Unless a missile strikes directly to the bunker/silo, the silo will not collapse.

Even a tactical nuke can make a 100m+ crater. That's plenty.

 

[_Anonymous_]

No ballistic missile is accurate to 10 metres or less. Unless a missile strikes directly to the bunker/silo, the silo will not collapse.

We used to have a member called Kshitij Sharma earlier. Are you him by any chance ?

 

[pachawry]

Even a tactical nuke can make a 100m+ crater. That's plenty.

I am sure that this 2kT tactical atom bomb will not cause 100 metre crater. I don't know where your misinformation comes from