The Ancestry of Indian Missile

Discussion in 'Pakistan Strategic Forces' started by Cheetah786, Jul 11, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cheetah786

    Cheetah786 PDF VETERAN

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    9,006
    Ratings:
    +1 / 7,257 / -4
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    d08c03b279bf56736d83beb34fcf47af.gif

    Testimony of Gary Milhollin

    Professor, University of Wisconsin Law School and
    Director, Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control

    Before the House Committee on Science

    June 25, 1998


    I am pleased to appear today before this distinguished Committee. In accordance with the Committee's request, I will discuss the U.S. policy of cooperation with foreign space programs and the risk that this cooperation could contribute to the spread of missile technology.



    Helping India and Pakistan
    I would like to begin with a bit of history. There is an important lesson to be learned about the origin of India's largest nuclear-capable missile, the "Agni."

    In November 1963, NASA began the Indian space program by launching a U.S. rocket from Indian soil. Between 1963 and 1975, more than 350 U.S., French, Soviet and British rockets were launched from India's new Thumba Range, which the United States helped design. Thumba's first group of Indian engineers learned rocket launching and range operation from the United States.

    Among these engineers was A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, the Agni missile's chief designer. After the Indian nuclear tests last month, he was also hailed as the "father" of the Indian atomic bomb. In 1963-64, he spent four months in training in the United States. He visited NASA's Langley Research Center in Virginia, where the U.S. Scout rocket was conceived, and the Wallops Island Flight Center in Virginia, where the Scout was being flown. The Scout was a four-stage, solid-fueled launcher used to orbit small payloads. It was also used to test the performance of reentry vehicles--a technology necessary to deliver nuclear warheads. According to NASA officials, the Indian engineers saw the blueprints of the Scout during their visit.

    In 1965, the Indian government asked NASA for design information about the Scout. The request should have raised some eyebrows. It came from the head of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission. Nevertheless, NASA obligingly supplied the information. Kalam then proceeded to build India's first big rocket, the SLV-3, which was an exact copy of the Scout. The first stage of the SLV-3 is now the first stage of the Agni missile.

    The second stage of the Agni is based on a surface-to-air missile known as the SA-2 that India bought from Russia. But in order to build the second stage, India also had to learn about liquid propulsion. For this, India turned to France. The French willingly transferred the technology needed to build a powerful liquid-fueled rocket motor called the "Viking," which powers the European Space Agency's Ariane satellite launcher. Thus, India learned how to build the first stage of the Agni from the United States, and how to build the second stage from France and Russia. The U.S. and French help was supposed to be for peaceful space exploration, but it wound up helping India's missile program.

    The Agni also needed a guidance system. For this, India turned to the German Space Agency. In the 1970s and 1980s, Germany conducted an intensive tutorial for India in rocket guidance. The assistance--once again--was supposed to be for peaceful space exploration. But each step in the process for building a guidance system for India's space launcher moved India further down the road to building a guidance system for the Agni missile. In fact, India seems to have invented a new term to describe its progress. Again and again, India's Department of Space, in its annual reports, announced that it was able to "indigenize" another piece of essential equipment.

    Germany also provided other help. The German Space Agency tested a model of the first stage of the SLV-3 (identical to the Scout) in its wind tunnel at Cologne-Portz. That first stage is now the first stage of the Agni missile. The German Space Agency also helped India build rocket test facilities, and trained Indians in the use of the special composite materials needed to make rocket nozzles and nosecones. I have included a graphic and a table in my testimony that summarizes the extensive foreign help that India received.

    Thus, India's biggest nuclear missile is an international product. Under the guise of peaceful space cooperation, the United States, France and Germany helped create the most advanced nuclear missile in South Asia. The Agni's first stage, second stage and guidance system all come from Western technology, which proves beyond any doubt that you cannot help a country build space launchers without helping it build missiles.

    The story in Pakistan is similar. In 1962, NASA launched Pakistan's first rocket, a U.S. made Nike-Cajun, in a project led by Tariq Mustafa, the senior scientific officer of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission. NASA also trained Pakistani rocket scientists at Wallops Island. Other NASA-sponsored launches followed until 1970. Thus, the first rockets in both India and Pakistan were launched by NASA under a policy of peaceful space cooperation. The result of that cooperation, however, has been long-range missiles tipped with nuclear warheads.



    Cooperation with China
    This past March, the Administration invited China to join the Missile Technology Control Regime. In a memorandum dated March 12, White House staff member Gary Samore stated the reasons for making the offer. If China joined, the memo stated, China could expect "substantial protection from future U.S. missile sanctions."

    Mr. Samore could have said "complete protection." Under Section 73 of the Arms Export Control Act, sanctions would not apply to a Chinese company if China joined the MTCR even if the company transferred complete missiles to Pakistan. Sanctions would be avoided if the sale were legal under Chinese law, or if China took action against the company, or if China found the company to be innocent. In effect, the Administration offered China a complete shield against U.S. sanctions law. The result would be to allow China to continue its sales of missile components and technology to Pakistan with no fear of punishment by the United States.

    In addition, China's own missile and space effort would probably get a boost from American imports. The United States now requires an export license for a missile-related item shipped to any country except Canada. It is likely that China would enjoy a presumption of approval for such licenses if China were admitted to the MTCR. Earlier this year, the pro-export Commerce Department announced that applications for dual-use nuclear exports to China would begin to benefit from a presumption of approval instead of a presumption of denial because of the new China-U.S. nuclear cooperation agreement.

    China's missile firms would also find it easier to import American goods that are not on the control list. An example would be a powerful computer operating at a speed just under the present control level, or a machine tool with an accuracy just under the control level. As things stand now, if a U.S. exporter gets an order from a known missile maker in China, the exporter cannot make the sale without notifying the U.S. government and getting an export license. This is required by Section 744.3 of the Export Administration Regulations. If China were to join the MTCR, however, no license would be required for such a sale. U.S. firms could deliberately outfit Chinese missile manufacturing sites without telling anyone.

    There is also a risk that China could undermine the MTCR by making use of the knowledge it would gain by membership. The countries that participate in the MTCR notify each other of sales that they deny. If the United States decides, for example, not to sell a vacuum furnace to India, the United States notifies the other members of the MTCR of the denial so that the other members will not let their firms step in behind the American company and make the sale. In light of China's past behavior on missile exports, there is a concern that China would pass the denial information along to Chinese firms that would make the sale.

    It is important to remember that the firms with which we are cooperating in satellite launches are the same Chinese firms that are proliferating missile technology to Iran and Pakistan. Who are these companies? China Great Wall Industries, China Aerospace International Holdings Ltd. (CASIL, of Hong Kong) and their parent, China Aerospace Industry Corporation. These companies launch U.S.-made satellites on China's Long March rockets. The United States has sanctioned both China Great Wall and China Aerospace Corporation in the past for supplying missile technology to Pakistan, and the intelligence community reports that the exports are still going on.

    It is also important to realize that a satellite launch contract is one of the most lucrative things a Chinese aerospace company can get from the United States. It is a major source of revenue. By continuing our space cooperation with companies that sell missile technology to Iran and Pakistan, the United States is putting money into the pockets of companies that are directly undermining our nonproliferation policies. This is one of the clearest instances in which space cooperation contributes to missile proliferation.

    Although I have not had time to research fully the question of American missile help to China, there are at least a few facts that the Committee might like to know. They concern the educational backgrounds of China's leading rocket scientists. One of China's most celebrated rocket scientists is Qian Xuesen, who studied at both the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technology, where he received his doctorate in 1938. He later taught at both MIT and Cal Tech before returning to China to lead its missile programs. Another leading rocket expert, Tu Shoue, received a master's from MIT in aviation engineering before going home to design China's launch vehicles as well as several intermediate-range missiles. A third is Liang Shoupan, who after getting the same master's degree from MIT, taught at the military engineering academy of the People's Liberation Army and served as China's chief systems designer for ballistic missiles. And one might also mention Huang Weilu, a missile guidance specialist who studied at the University of London, and Ren Xinmin, a liquid propellant specialist who got a Ph.D. in engineering mechanics from the University of Michigan.

    These scientists were no doubt welcomed to the United States under the assumption that they would use their learning for peaceful space exploration. We now realize, however, that American universities taught many of China's leading scientists how to make better long-range missiles.

    It is difficult to see how it would be prudent to allow China to join the MTCR at this time. China has repeatedly failed to comply with MTCR guidelines since promising to do so in 1992 and 1994. There is no real evidence that China has changed its ways. Thus, the main effect of the offer may be to insulate Chinese aerospace companies from U.S. sanctions laws so that satellite launches can continue.

    The lesson from what I have said above is clear. The United States and its allies should only cooperate with countries that share our commitment to nuclear and missile non-proliferation. U.S. space cooperation should be a reward for countries that are part of the solution to proliferation, not a bribe to those that are part of the problem. That principle excludes, at a minimum, China, India, Israel and Pakistan. The latter three have rejected the Nonproliferation Treaty and China, while nominally a member, continues to spread missile technology through its exports. If we look back on our space cooperation with India and Pakistan, we can see that it was a mistake. Those countries are now poised to mount nuclear warheads on rockets, and those rockets were built from programs we have nurtured.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Missile Helpers
    India did not build its missiles alone. The world's leading rocket producers gave essential help in research, development, and manufacture.

    France


    Licensed production of sounding rockets in India

    Supplied the liquid-fuel Viking rocket engine, now the "Vikas" engine of the PSLV second stage

    Tested Indian-produced Vikas engine in France
    Germany


    Delivered measurement and calibration equipment to ISRO laboratories

    Trained Indians in high-altitude tests of rocket motors and in glass and carbon fiber composites for rocket engine housings, nozzles and nose cones

    Designed high-altitude rocket test facilities

    Conducted wind tunnel tests for SLV-3 rocket

    Developed radio frequency interferometer for rocket guidance

    Developed computers for rocket payload guidance based on U.S. microprocessor

    Supplied documentation for a filament-winding machine to make rocket engine nozzles and housings

    Helped build Vikas rocket engine test facilities

    Designed hypersonic wind tunnel and heat transfer facilities

    Supplied rocket motor segment rings for PSLV
    Russia


    Supplied surface-to-air missiles which became the models for the Prithvi missile and the second stage of the Agni medium-range missile

    Sold seven cryogenic rocket engines
    United Kingdom


    Supplied components for Imarat Research Center, home to the Agni missile

    Supplied magnetrons for radar guidance and detonation systems to Defense Research and Development Laboratory
    United States


    Launched U.S.-built rockets from Thumba test range

    Trained Dr. Abdul Kalam, designer of the Agni

    Introduced India to the Scout rocket, the model for the SLV-3 rocket and the Agni first stage

    Sent technical reports on the Scout rocket to Homi Bhabha, the head of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission

    Sold equipment that can simulate vibrations on a warhead
    http://www.wisconsinproject.org/pubs/testimonies/1998/6-25.html
     
  2. con

    con FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    582
    Ratings:
    +0 / 10 / -0
    So you can build a 3 tonne payload rocket and a IRBM by visiting a NASA facility for four months?
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  3. joey

    joey SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,163
    Ratings:
    +0 / 23 / -0
    Most of this report is wrong, and of sheer generalisation as con has mentioned.

    I'd recommend for enthusiastic folks to read Raj Chengappas Weapons for Peace and Kalams Wings of Fire to understand Indian Missile Cronology.

    Other than the building test facilities which it reports right and is same for any other nations, like say for example the report states France build the Vikas-Viking engine for India which is wrong, instead it was a joint developement, similarly France seeked help in its Ariane launched Indian APPLE satellite that used the 4th stage of SLV-3 as apogee boost motor of Damien 3BC rocket. There are lots of such mistakes in the article.

    This was clarified by Hol'bl Kalam in CNES lecture this month,

     
  4. Eagle_Defender

    Eagle_Defender FULL MEMBER

    New Recruit

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    23
    Ratings:
    +0 / 1 / -0
    indian missile are russsian made but paint in india
     
  5. Ababeel

    Ababeel FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Messages:
    949
    Ratings:
    +0 / 659 / -1
    When some one declares the true origin of Indian missiles, he/she is wrong and when the same people declares same thing about Pakistani or Iranian missiles they become right.
    What a double standard!!!
     
  6. Marathaman

    Marathaman BANNED

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    567
    Ratings:
    +0 / 5 / -0
    Yeah. We, unlike some people here, don't believe the first piece of crap that we read. This article has so many factual errors, its a joke to even consider it.

    But, whatever makes you guys happy :enjoy:
     
  7. Adux

    Adux SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,856
    Ratings:
    +0 / 111 / -0
    Funny article, The two dont even look the same, unlike Ghauri, NoDong adn Shahab. I am sure US and all the other people are stupid and is pandering India for heck sake
     
  8. Ababeel

    Ababeel FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Messages:
    949
    Ratings:
    +0 / 659 / -1
    No, no USA is not stupid. It's a ruthless conspirator against the Muslim world and specially Pakistan so as to strip it of it's Nuclear weapons to safeguard Israeli interests in any future conflicts with Arab states since blackmailing of Arab states will not be possible in the presence of these weapons.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  9. The Wisdom Tree

    The Wisdom Tree BANNED

    New Recruit

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    76
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    kbagdadi, while you took pains describing US in your own meticulous words.

    You have actually missed what Adux was trying to say. :)
     
  10. The Wisdom Tree

    The Wisdom Tree BANNED

    New Recruit

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    76
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    and Cheetah dear friend, when looking at things of as big a magnitude as India's missile program - it is always sane to go with the largely general view amongst the media from all over the globe, and not with one stupid report.

    It is largely indegenous, and Pakistan has been "largely" importing or stealing such technologies - according the such sources as well. I'm sure Google is not banned the way it is in China, so you can make use of it.

    Nevertheless, it doesn't matter all that much, because a missile is a missile, and everybody knows you have it. (For those who dont, you make sure to thump your chest so loud that they OUGHT to know it by now) but then, dont really have to claim the indegeneous part just because India does so.

    India does so many more things, and you better make a line for yourself soon.. rather than become hopeless later. It will do a world of good to everyone.
     
  11. con

    con FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    582
    Ratings:
    +0 / 10 / -0
    Do you have any thing other than religion in your mind?
    For you,ANY bloody issue in the world is the usual Christians-Jews-Hindus conspiracy against Muslim.
    Grow up.

    If you have no idea about defence/tech system(which you displayed more than once that you dont even have a clue), then your are posting on the wrong forum.
     
  12. Kashif Nadeem

    Kashif Nadeem MEMBER

    New Recruit

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0 / 1 / -0
    so we agree that what ever India Does is without any guidance or support from any third party and every technology or weapon with Pakistan is either stolen or donated by some other nation. Brilliant.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  13. Bull

    Bull ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Messages:
    6,850
    Ratings:
    +0 / 270 / -0
    Introduce yourself at the into thread dude. :enjoy:
     
  14. aksingh

    aksingh BANNED

    New Recruit

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2007
    Messages:
    75
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Indians are some of the worlds smartest brains...... Go abroad and see........
    We are too big a nation to be anyone's proxy and we source weapons and technology from all over the world and at the same time develop our own... unlike the isolated state of Iran which basically re-engineers stuff... and the state of Pakistan which earlier used to rely upon USA and now upon China for its military needs...

    Please read academic journals of neutral and free countries since they don't have any hidden propaganda....
     
  15. Munir

    Munir PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,757
    Ratings:
    +11 / 2,594 / -1
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Germany
    That is why every major programs end up as not even capable to reach basic parameters? I don;t think that Indians are not good enough but they did copy and buy major foreign items. Brahmos is just TOT. Cyrogenic engine is a spy-case from Russia. And there are hardly Indian parts in Indian programs. I agree that some tech is bough and used but don't start pointing out that it is Indian invention.

    Just read DRDO or HAL stories and we will see how well India is performing...

    Pakistan is not the best example to compare with but the difference is that they do projects very well. Mushaq, K8, Fc1, Khaled, Zarrar, Babur etc etc... The list is longer then Indian achievements.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.