Agni III Test Tomorrow.

[indiatester]

France being a nuclear power according to NPT will face no problem testing nuclear weapons.

That will not be the case with India . We will have to face sanctions .

Unfortunately true. But still self imposed moratorium sucks.

 

[kurup]

Unfortunately true. But still self imposed moratorium sucks.

Self imposed moratorium is just plain words to satisfy the international audience .

The only reason we are not testing nukes is that the scientific community in India thinks that the capability we have right now is enough for near future .

If our threat perceptions change and the need for nukes with better yields arises , they will resume the testing .

 

[shiv]

there is no reason to antagonise the west by testing nuclear weapons .. As and when a country in our neighborhood tests we should be ready to test it again ..

 

[The Deterrent]

I would say your are entitled to your opinion.

Much appreciated.

Posting the picture is not going to help you prove your point. The Guy watching the key hand over is the highest authority of this exercise and he has categorically endorsed the test and given a comprehensive clarification of each and every point raised. Same is in public forum. Not only that, he and chidambaram has shown their willingness to discussed the issue if counter claim is made by any scientific community. I do not want to go in details of the seismic result obtained and how multiple explosion made the seismic signals so complex to analyze. And so far as baseless claim is concern, if I belive that Mr. Samantha's claim is right, obviously Mr. Kakodkar can not be right same time. I believe that Mr. Kakodkar and Mr. Chidambaram is the highest authority and hence the most believable.

Well then I must say that you are entitled to your beliefs.
If you have ever led a major project in a proper organization, you would know that to what extent the credibility of it is in question, when a certain person of your own team contradicts you about the project. Thats all I have to say.

Agreed. But it does not prove that A3 has a laser range than A4.

Neither does comparison of missile diameters.

You are right and I never said that A3 currently carries MIRV.

Right from the beginning, A3 was designed as a missile which can carry a huge load i.e Much more than standard 1 ton. So MIRV was the focus area. I do not say that it is equipped with MIRV, but certainly MIRV was focus. Looking the capability of A4, the claim of A3 carrying huge payload to a distance of 5500 KM is a very acceptable preposition.

If you look at A3 in light of Tassy thomas' statement that A3's weight was reduced to 22 tons, you will realize that A4 technology has flown down to A3.

But the thing you ignore is that Agni-III was designed much before Agni-IV. It wasn't a very efficient design, that is why it has lesser capabilities.

But that reduced-weight Agni-III has yet to be seen or tested.

No it is not related as you rightly said. I only said that we said that we have 0 cep in cruise missile and we have that (vIDEO). When our scientist said that we have it in ballistic missile, it must be there in place else they won't claim. You simply can not build a hypothesis that since some advance country do not have that so India will not it.

Dr. chander's said that about Prahar and tassy claimed that at 2nd test of A5. Her statement itself is more than any reference. Still I post one reference but I doubt that you will once again question the reliability of that reference too. We are currently at a stage where we will not at all happy to achieve 100 m CEP as you said is standard for these kind of Missile. We shall consider anything less than single digit accuracy not a success.


The ASL retrieved this intolerable deterrence situation somewhat with the accurate, lightweight, Agni-V missile. This Agni will eventually be all-composite, including the casing and rocket motors made of Kevlar-carbon-carbon, Guidance on Chip for terminal accuracy, and distributed communications nodes through the length of the missile to minimise wiring. As the two tests of this missile have proved, using the Russian Glonass GPS and the on-board inertial guidance system and ring laser gyroscope, 15-20 meter CEP (circular error probable — a measure of accuracy) at 5,500km range has been achieved. Moreover, armed with 4-8 MIRV (Multiple Independently-targetable Re-entry Vehicles) warheads — a technology permitting a single missile to carry multiple bombs for dispersed targeting that has been a “screwdriver’s turn away” from being test-ready but whose testing has not been approved by Manmohan Singh, the Agni-V range can be extended to intercontinental distances.

Nuclear effects of Agni-V -The New Indian Express

All I'm asking for is that how it was achieved. The RLG-INS can provided the best possible accuracy, but until before the re-entry process begins. The inaccuracy occurs during re-entry, and that is what I'm questioning. Because to achieve a single-digit CEP, some sort of terminal manoeuvring is required.

All I'm asking for is the explanation, on how it was achieved.

 

[The Deterrent]

And I guess you didnt see the statement of the government as well as his colleagues.

I did, and that contradiction of statements is exactly the problem.

Well,let me express my view-Agni III range is said to be 3500 km with a 2.3 tonne payload,and the heaviest warhead India has is 200 kT FBF weighing around 1 tonne used in earlier Agni s.The range is said to be 5000 km with a 1.5 tonne payload.

And now we are hearing about RVs that are designed for TNWs,any guesses about the range?



There is lot more info on the web,but thats from a forum 'that shouldn't even be named here' ( or else I'd get banned ),So I cant post the link

I have read it all, about 2 years ago. And trust me, you guys are being fooled into DRDO's "awesomeness" just because they are revealing technical information. These components are used in every modern ballistic missile. Ever saw that small black tip on top of Shaheen-II's RV? Thats the multi-directional ablative carbon-carbon re-entry nose tip. Now just because NESCOM is tight-lipped, doesn't means that advanced technologies aren't being incorporated in Pakistan's weapons systems as well.

And about that site...people who describe Agni-II's primitive RV design (having fins) as an advanced, lift-augmented re-entry vehicle, and boast of extraordinary ranges by just reducing payload don't deserve any appreciation.

 

[saikumar]

go india go

 

[The Deterrent]

MIRVs are already under development.
And Agni III range is 3500 km with a 2.5 tonne payload.With a 1.5 tonne payload,the range is 5000 km.

And of course,there is no Indian RV weighing 2.5 tonnes,heaviest one is 200kT FBFs weighing around a tonne,used on earlier Agni s

And the Agni III RV is optimised for a TNW,

Agni [Strategic Ballistic Missile]

I know MIRVs are underdevelopment, and I feel that Agni-III will be used as a test bed for them instead of Agni-V, because it has a greater area than Agni-V to house a MIRV-bus with a redesigned RV casing/fairing.

 

[HariPrasad]

Much appreciated.

Thank you.

Well then I must say that you are entitled to your beliefs.
If you have ever led a major project in a proper organization, you would know that to what extent the credibility of it is in question, when a certain person of your own team contradicts you about the project. Thats all I have to say.

What you are saying is some inference or opinion formed by you out of your experiences in past. It is not a rule. I do not know about you but I am not a knowledgeable in this area. My knowledge is confined to what I read and understand. So far as believing something, I would like to believe what our highest ranked scientist have said rather than inferring something. I wold like to infer only when there is an information missing from reliable source.

All I'm asking for is that how it was achieved. The RLG-INS can provided the best possible accuracy, but until before the re-entry process begins.
The inaccuracy occurs during re-entry, and that is what I'm questioning. Because to achieve a single-digit CEP, some sort of terminal manoeuvring is required.

I am not in a position to give you any technical answer since I am not a missile technologist but management accountant. I believe that because our top scientist said that.

I believe that India has the technology (And it uses the same) to maneuver the missile in terminal Phase. If you observe the warhead of Agni series missile, you will either find fins or find small vents for exhaust of motors fitted for terminal maneuvering.

 

[HariPrasad]

But the thing you ignore is that Agni-III was designed much before Agni-IV. It wasn't a very efficient design, that is why it has lesser capabilities.
But that reduced-weight Agni-III has yet to be seen or tested.

Designs are evolutionary. As we go on developing technology, that certainly finds its way into something already developed. Tassy's statement is already an evidence of the fact that new technology developed for A IV and AV has made its way into A III (22 tons and near Zero CEP).

It is difficult to say whether it is tested or not as the Agni program is not as transparent as it used be in past. No video of IInd test of A V or user trial of A III is released. One thing is very sure, if all these technologies have not flown down to A III, they will certainly be incorporated very shortly. Improved Guidance seem to have made its way to A III as they said that they they were targeting near Zero CEP.

Neither does comparison of missile diameters.

Whwther one compare it or not, Dia and size tells certain facts which can not be overlooked.

 

[The Deterrent]

What you are saying is some inference or opinion formed by you out of your experiences in past. It is not a rule. I do not know about you but I am not a knowledgeable in this area. My knowledge is confined to what I read and understand. So far as believing something, I would like to believe what our highest ranked scientist have said rather than inferring something. I wold like to infer only when there is an information missing from reliable source.

Then I guess I'll leave you to your opinions.

I am not in a position to give you any technical answer since I am not a missile technologist but management accountant. I believe that because our top scientist said that.

I believe that India has the technology (And it uses the same) to maneuver the missile in terminal Phase. If you observe the warhead of Agni series missile, you will either find fins or find small vents for exhaust of motors fitted for terminal maneuvering.

Both the fins (on Agni-II) and exhaust vents of thrusters (on Agni-III/V) on the rear of the RVs are for post-boost phase trajectory correction, and the whole correction system is jettisoned after the RV's flight path has been corrected and it has been spun up for re-entry.
For surgical precision, some sort of manoeuvring is required during re-entry.

Designs are evolutionary. As we go on developing technology, that certainly finds its way into something already developed. Tassy's statement is already an evidence of the fact that new technology developed for A IV and AV has made its way into A III (22 tons and near Zero CEP).

It is difficult to say whether it is tested or not as the Agni program is not as transparent as it used be in past. No video of IInd test of A V or user trial of A III is released. One thing is very sure, if all these technologies have not flown down to A III, they will certainly be incorporated very shortly. Improved Guidance seem to have made its way to A III as they said that they they were targeting near Zero CEP.

Of course, thats true specially about the guidance systems, which are strap-on these days.
We'll have to wait for the actual flight test of that sort of Agni-III then.

Whwther one compare it or not, Dia and size tells certain facts which can not be overlooked.

 

[HariPrasad]

Both the fins (on Agni-II) and exhaust vents of thrusters (on Agni-III/V) on the rear of the RVs are for post-boost phase trajectory correction, and the whole correction system is jettisoned after the RV's flight path has been corrected and it has been spun up for re-entry.
For surgical precision, some sort of manoeuvring is required during re-entry.

I do not exactly understand what you want to say. A4 and A5 has thrust victor in all stage and RV has trejectory correction mechanism. So these systems have trajectory correction mechanism through out its flight path.

 

[Broccoli]

TNs have been tested already,and new RVs are made for 200kT TNs (400 kg ).

India has tested only one TN device and failed to produce yield claimed, and there is no evidence to back up claim that India is manufacturing 200kt warheads weighting 400kg.

If you have reliable evidence to back up those claims show it.

 

[The Deterrent]

I do not exactly understand what you want to say. A4 and A5 has thrust victor in all stage and RV has trejectory correction mechanism. So these systems have trajectory correction mechanism through out its flight path.

Take this Minuteman ICBM flight trajectory for instance:

Now, during the boost phase (till 3rd Stage Thrust Termination), the missile is roughly (not very accurately) guided by the missile's flight control computer, by using data from INS and comparing it with pre-fed trajectory. The exhaust vanes at the tail of the rocket motors are used to vector the missile accordingly.

Then where it says PBV (Post-Boost Vehicle) Burn and Axial Attitude Control, the thrusters aboard the PBV/TCS are used to fine-tune the trajectory to the best possible path.

After that, the PBV/TCS is jettisoned and RVs are deployed (see RV Deployment and Backaway).

The RVs are totally unguided after that (from here on, they can give a ~60-100m CEP). They are spun up for re-entry (for stabilization) and because they are spinning, it is very difficult to use any sort of guiding mechanism during re-entry. That is what I'm asking, how DRDO was able to achieve such accuracy without using (apparently) any sort of terminal manoeuvring system.

 

[HariPrasad]

Take this Minuteman ICBM flight trajectory for instance:

Now, during the boost phase (till 3rd Stage Thrust Termination), the missile is roughly (not very accurately) guided by the missile's flight control computer, by using data from INS and comparing it with pre-fed trajectory. The exhaust vanes at the tail of the rocket motors are used to vector the missile accordingly.

Then where it says PBV (Post-Boost Vehicle) Burn and Axial Attitude Control, the thrusters aboard the PBV/TCS are used to fine-tune the trajectory to the best possible path.

After that, the PBV/TCS is jettisoned and RVs are deployed (see RV Deployment and Backaway).

The RVs are totally unguided after that (from here on, they can give a ~60-100m CEP). They are spun up for re-entry (for stabilization) and because they are spinning, it is very difficult to use any sort of guiding mechanism during re-entry. That is what I'm asking, how DRDO was able to achieve such accuracy without using (apparently) any sort of terminal manoeuvring system.

60 to 100 M CEP is not at all bad but DRDO is targeting 0 CEP, there may not be the case precisely as you said. If you can recall the statement of V K Saraswat at the time of second test of A4, he clearly stated that missile flew withing the 100 m of predetermined Path during the whole flight path. So your statement that third stage glided missile roughly (Or not very accurately) doesn't hold good.

All these missiles contains more than one guidance system and has the mechanism to guide the RV upto the point of Impact. They would not have targeted Zero CEP otherwise. After all they achieved that in AV.

 

[The Deterrent]

60 to 100 M CEP is not at all bad but DRDO is targeting 0 CEP, there may not be the case precisely as you said. If you can recall the statement of V K Saraswat at the time of second test of A4, he clearly stated that missile flew withing the 100 m of predetermined Path during the whole flight path. So your statement that third stage glided missile roughly (Or not very accurately) doesn't hold good.

All these missiles contains more than one guidance system and has the mechanism to guide the RV upto the point of Impact. They would not have targeted Zero CEP otherwise. After all they achieved that in AV.

Ofcourse 60-100m is great for a nuclear missile. No, during the boost phase, the missile is guided only roughly because of the shocks it receives (because of rapid acceleration, stage separations, ReV separation) which affect its trajectory. Correction systems are used precisely to correct these trajectory offsets.

Of course the missiles are guided by INS + Satellite navigation + Stellar guidance, but the missile can be guided only so much until before re-entry. It is the re-entry which offsets the ReV from a predicted near zero CEP (because of course correction in space) to ~60-100m.