Does India need 8,000 Km Range missile?

[imperialmen]

Why would India having 8000+ km missiles piss off the West? Its not like we are gonna attack them... right?

 

[Raje amar]

I doubt the need of missile more than the current range. we better concentrate MIRV for the current missiles and also SLBM with MIRV & range of 5000km. when all these things are in place & inducted then only we should of missiles of ICBM catagory.

 

[Vibs]

It will bring in a lot of unwanted attention. Pro's would be that it would allow India to have missile silo's deep in South India with the ability to strike well within Chinese territory (That's the only percieved "threat" tagetted by the missile).
Con's
I suspect Australia won't be too happy with the development. There are certain maverick "experts" there who keep hyping up a potential future conflict with Asian powers (India and China).

 

[trinity]

It will bring in a lot of unwanted attention. Pro's would be that it would allow India to have missile silo's deep in South India with the ability to strike well within Chinese territory (That's the only percieved "threat" tagetted by the missile).
Con's
I suspect Australia won't be too happy with the development. There are certain maverick "experts" there who keep hyping up a potential future conflict with Asian powers (India and China).

I guess 1962 wasn't a conflict? I guess supplying Pakistan to counter any advantages we have is in our best interest? "Experts" like yourself dont; have a clue that any silo on land is as good as gone if a real conflict broke out and went all the away. The only nuclear missiles that owuld be out of harms way, at least with the best possible chance for survival would be underwater/ Subs. Now, the range in order to be effective should be the futher the better, coz Chinese attack subs maybe aided by Pakistan would be hunting for our subs in and around the INdian ocean. if our missiles had sufficient range, our subs could hide in the artic or South America or Mid Atlantic and fire to ensure a hit on any enemy including China if it came to it.

 

[Dillinger]

I guess 1962 wasn't a conflict? I guess supplying Pakistan to counter any advantages we have is in our best interest? "Experts" like yourself dont; have a clue that any silo on land is as good as gone if a real conflict broke out and went all the away. The only nuclear missiles that owuld be out of harms way, at least with the best possible chance for survival would be underwater/ Subs. Now, the range in order to be effective should be the futher the better, coz Chinese attack subs maybe aided by Pakistan would be hunting for our subs in and around the INdian ocean. if our missiles had sufficient range, our subs could hide in the artic or South America or Mid Atlantic and fire to ensure a hit on any enemy including China if it came to it.

I would have to concur with your post. Most people are blindsiding the fact that in operational use a ballistic missile that is meant to cover China must be able to do so from all viable points in India, specially in the case of an article like the Agni-5 which is road mobile (unlike the previous Agni iterations where their rail-mobility would have restricted the flexibility of launch point options RELATIVELY). A road-mobile missile becomes specifically deadly if it indeed can target the intended enemy nation (in its entirety) from the length and breadth of our nation- in case that is not possible then the utility of said missile is somewhat reduced. Now one can always argue that the real range of a missile like the Agni-5 is dependent upon many factors including the payload that it is carrying BUT in a situation as dire as a nuclear exchange - the only kind of situation which would actually necessitate the real usage of such a weapon- you really want to be able to utilize the maximum throw-weight of your missiles. Lets be clear that not being able to hit say Harbin from Thiruvananthapuram if its loaded to its maximum payload (the distance between the two is 6292.7 Kilometers / 3395.5 Nautical Miles) does not make the Agni-5 any less potent in absolute terms BUT it does put a certain limit on the flexibility of the system in relative terms (AND WHEN THE STAKES ARE AS HIGH AS NUCLEAR WAR YOU REALLY WANT EVERY BIT OF POSSIBLE ADVANTAGE ON YOUR SIDE)- however marginal that limit maybe. So if we build upon the previous point- ideally you want MAXIMUM flexibility and options which will enhance the survivability of the delivery system assets. Not to mention in the case of our opponent choosing to engage in a comprehensive counter-force strike on us the further our assets are from the launch points of the missiles of the opponent the greater the window of opportunity for them to either be launched in reciprocal action or for them to be moved away from harm. So practically speaking a road-mobile A-5 which has a max disclosed range of 5500KM with its max. payload (max. payload becomes very relevant if you intend to arm the missile with MIRVs and decoys to protect said MIRVs against ABM systems) is the first step but an effective step nonetheless and one which increases the potential of our deterrence BUT we will need to increase the range of our ballistic missiles in concert with the development of functional MIRV systems.


When we move into the area of SLBMs then range becomes even more vital. The whole point of a SSBN is that its supposed to lay low and strike from far away, a nuclear submarine should not be forced to just loiter in the pond because of a limitation in the range of the ballistic missiles that comprise its strike package. The larger the operational area from where a SSBN can effectively target the opponent the harder it is for the opponent to track and/or kill it. The Americans are really that formidable not because of their super-carriers but rather because an Ohio class Submarine can target any of the major countries such as China or Russia from any corner of the world with overwhelming force- something that the Russians can still do but to a severely restricted level and something the Chinese still cannot do practically since they still do not have anything like the Typhoon class or Ohio class SSBN (although its just a matter of a few years till they bridge that gap to the FULL EXTENT). For our future SSBN force to be effective against a potential nuclear enemy they must be able to strike said enemy over a spectrum of all possible targets from an appreciable distance. For a SLBM to be truly effective it must really cross the 6000KM range. The K-15 and the initial K-4 variants are only fully optimal against a target like Pakistan. The PN cannot fan into an area extending 3000KM from their coastline and commit sufficient resources to hunt down an Arihant class sub specifically because they lack a nuclear hunter-killer sub and because the behemoth that the Indian navy is (in comparison) would be standing in the way. This would provide an Arihant sub with a relatively impenetrable zone from where to fire upon a target in Pakistan provided that they are using the K-4 while the utilization of the K-15 would require it to get dangerously close to Pakistani territorial waters. Again the advantage is relative, in both cases the Arihant could do its job and do it with a high probability of success BUT in the latter scenario with the K-15 the chances of success would be less in relative terms. In the case of the PRC even the K-4 AND its follow on version which also seems to be dubbed the K-4 (with a length of 12 meters rather than the 10 meter length of the initial K-4, a new SSBN class will probably be required to house the 2nd K-4 version due to its length) would both prove to be less than ideal with the max. range on the final K-4 iteration only reaching 5000KM. A completely effective system would require an SLBM that can hit from 6000-8000KM away. The range of such SLBMs should only be restricted by any potential technological limit or practical considerations (from cost-benefit to operational viability) rather than political expediency. Remember that if the US is bound to frown upon us for testing a 8000KM land based BM (THE REASON THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE PROPPING UP TO ARGUE THAT INDIA REALLY SHOULDN'T) then trust me they shall be EVEN MORE PISSED about an operational 6000KM SLBM in our hands since the latter would be far more damaging even to them in any unlikely scenario which would see us strike at them- case in point being that statically a sub with a 6K range SLBM has a higher chance of evading their massive navy and positioning itself in international waters from where it could launch at them- that is to say that a submarine can get close enough to do so relatively speaking while a 8K land based BM would pose no threat to them at all since it JUST CANNOT BE RE-POSITIONED OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL BOUNDARY OF OUR NATION.

 

[pakfoj]

I believe india is trying to be a regional power. For that it probably needs a maximum of 5000km of range. trying to make missiles with more range will be a waste of money. Plus the only problem for india is Pakistan and China, which can be easily reached with 5000, so trying to make missiles to reach other side of the world doesn't make sense.

 

[tvsram1992]

Better to concentrate directly on 8000km SLBM with MIRVs rather than making land based ICBM .

 

[trinity]

I would have to concur with your post. Most people are blindsiding the fact that in operational use a ballistic missile that is meant to cover China must be able to do so from all viable points in India, specially in the case of an article like the Agni-5 which is road mobile (unlike the previous Agni iterations where their rail-mobility would have restricted the flexibility of launch point options RELATIVELY). A road-mobile missile becomes specifically deadly if it indeed can target the intended enemy nation (in its entirety) from the length and breadth of our nation- in case that is not possible then the utility of said missile is somewhat reduced. Now one can always argue that the real range of a missile like the Agni-5 is dependent upon many factors including the payload that it is carrying BUT in a situation as dire as a nuclear exchange - the only kind of situation which would actually necessitate the real usage of such a weapon- you really want to be able to utilize the maximum throw-weight of your missiles. Lets be clear that not being able to hit say Harbin from Thiruvananthapuram if its loaded to its maximum payload (the distance between the two is 6292.7 Kilometers / 3395.5 Nautical Miles) does not make the Agni-5 any less potent in absolute terms BUT it does put a certain limit on the flexibility of the system in relative terms (AND WHEN THE STAKES ARE AS HIGH AS NUCLEAR WAR YOU REALLY WANT EVERY BIT OF POSSIBLE ADVANTAGE ON YOUR SIDE)- however marginal that limit maybe. So if we build upon the previous point- ideally you want MAXIMUM flexibility and options which will enhance the survivability of the delivery system assets. Not to mention in the case of our opponent choosing to engage in a comprehensive counter-force strike on us the further our assets are from the launch points of the missiles of the opponent the greater the window of opportunity for them to either be launched in reciprocal action or for them to be moved away from harm. So practically speaking a road-mobile A-5 which has a max disclosed range of 5500KM with its max. payload (max. payload becomes very relevant if you intend to arm the missile with MIRVs and decoys to protect said MIRVs against ABM systems) is the first step but an effective step nonetheless and one which increases the potential of our deterrence BUT we will need to increase the range of our ballistic missiles in concert with the development of functional MIRV systems.


When we move into the area of SLBMs then range becomes even more vital. The whole point of a SSBN is that its supposed to lay low and strike from far away, a nuclear submarine should not be forced to just loiter in the pond because of a limitation in the range of the ballistic missiles that comprise its strike package. The larger the operational area from where a SSBN can effectively target the opponent the harder it is for the opponent to track and/or kill it. The Americans are really that formidable not because of their super-carriers but rather because an Ohio class Submarine can target any of the major countries such as China or Russia from any corner of the world with overwhelming force- something that the Russians can still do but to a severely restricted level and something the Chinese still cannot do practically since they still do not have anything like the Typhoon class or Ohio class SSBN (although its just a matter of a few years till they bridge that gap to the FULL EXTENT). For our future SSBN force to be effective against a potential nuclear enemy they must be able to strike said enemy over a spectrum of all possible targets from an appreciable distance. For a SLBM to be truly effective it must really cross the 6000KM range. The K-15 and the initial K-4 variants are only fully optimal against a target like Pakistan. The PN cannot fan into an area extending 3000KM from their coastline and commit sufficient resources to hunt down an Arihant class sub specifically because they lack a nuclear hunter-killer sub and because the behemoth that the Indian navy is (in comparison) would be standing in the way. This would provide an Arihant sub with a relatively impenetrable zone from where to fire upon a target in Pakistan provided that they are using the K-4 while the utilization of the K-15 would require it to get dangerously close to Pakistani territorial waters. Again the advantage is relative, in both cases the Arihant could do its job and do it with a high probability of success BUT in the latter scenario with the K-15 the chances of success would be less in relative terms. In the case of the PRC even the K-4 AND its follow on version which also seems to be dubbed the K-4 (with a length of 12 meters rather than the 10 meter length of the initial K-4, a new SSBN class will probably be required to house the 2nd K-4 version due to its length) would both prove to be less than ideal with the max. range on the final K-4 iteration only reaching 5000KM. A completely effective system would require an SLBM that can hit from 6000-8000KM away. The range of such SLBMs should only be restricted by any potential technological limit or practical considerations (from cost-benefit to operational viability) rather than political expediency. Remember that if the US is bound to frown upon us for testing a 8000KM land based BM (THE REASON THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE PROPPING UP TO ARGUE THAT INDIA REALLY SHOULDN'T) then trust me they shall be EVEN MORE PISSED about an operational 6000KM SLBM in our hands since the latter would be far more damaging even to them in any unlikely scenario which would see us strike at them- case in point being that statically a sub with a 6K range SLBM has a higher chance of evading their massive navy and positioning itself in international waters from where it could launch at them- that is to say that a submarine can get close enough to do so relatively speaking while a 8K land based BM would pose no threat to them at all since it JUST CANNOT BE RE-POSITIONED OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL BOUNDARY OF OUR NATION.

Exactly bro, good post. A missile limited by range even if its underwater would be easy for military strategists to map. They could easily pinpoint areas where our subs would loiter due to its limited strike range. This would immensely aid in any search and give their military a huge advantage while our's would be at a disadvantage.

 

[trinity]

Space (including agriculture), Missiles tech, deep sea mining, and Computer hacking/tech are core areas where we should develop complete expertise. This would give us a place in the future and ensure we have tactical advantages. There are many areas I would love to add but based on limited resources I thought of this. Ultimately, a true power would invest in every sphere small, or big. A country like India has capability but an investment vehicle should be created with strict accounting and penalties such as death. Education is pathetic due to lack of skilled professors. Khan academy would do wonders for India.

 

[tvsram1992]

I believe india is trying to be a regional power. For that it probably needs a maximum of 5000km of range. trying to make missiles with more range will be a waste of money. Plus the only problem for india is Pakistan and China, which can be easily reached with 5000, so trying to make missiles to reach other side of the world doesn't make sense.

Who knows future ? You know how was the friendship of US-Pakistan 10 years ago . What happened now ? Would the US use you as a base and kill your citizens and soldiers illegally if you have ICBM ? Ps I know India never puts herself in a similar situation but its for future . For now we need SLBM and MIRV capabilities to deter China from comfortable position .

 

[IND151]

I would have to concur with your post. Most people are blindsiding the fact that in operational use a ballistic missile that is meant to cover China must be able to do so from all viable points in India, specially in the case of an article like the Agni-5 which is road mobile (unlike the previous Agni iterations where their rail-mobility would have restricted the flexibility of launch point options RELATIVELY). A road-mobile missile becomes specifically deadly if it indeed can target the intended enemy nation (in its entirety) from the length and breadth of our nation- in case that is not possible then the utility of said missile is somewhat reduced. Now one can always argue that the real range of a missile like the Agni-5 is dependent upon many factors including the payload that it is carrying BUT in a situation as dire as a nuclear exchange - the only kind of situation which would actually necessitate the real usage of such a weapon- you really want to be able to utilize the maximum throw-weight of your missiles. Lets be clear that not being able to hit say Harbin from Thiruvananthapuram if its loaded to its maximum payload (the distance between the two is 6292.7 Kilometers / 3395.5 Nautical Miles) does not make the Agni-5 any less potent in absolute terms BUT it does put a certain limit on the flexibility of the system in relative terms (AND WHEN THE STAKES ARE AS HIGH AS NUCLEAR WAR YOU REALLY WANT EVERY BIT OF POSSIBLE ADVANTAGE ON YOUR SIDE)- however marginal that limit maybe. So if we build upon the previous point- ideally you want MAXIMUM flexibility and options which will enhance the survivability of the delivery system assets. Not to mention in the case of our opponent choosing to engage in a comprehensive counter-force strike on us the further our assets are from the launch points of the missiles of the opponent the greater the window of opportunity for them to either be launched in reciprocal action or for them to be moved away from harm. So practically speaking a road-mobile A-5 which has a max disclosed range of 5500KM with its max. payload (max. payload becomes very relevant if you intend to arm the missile with MIRVs and decoys to protect said MIRVs against ABM systems) is the first step but an effective step nonetheless and one which increases the potential of our deterrence BUT we will need to increase the range of our ballistic missiles in concert with the development of functional MIRV systems.


When we move into the area of SLBMs then range becomes even more vital. The whole point of a SSBN is that its supposed to lay low and strike from far away, a nuclear submarine should not be forced to just loiter in the pond because of a limitation in the range of the ballistic missiles that comprise its strike package. The larger the operational area from where a SSBN can effectively target the opponent the harder it is for the opponent to track and/or kill it. The Americans are really that formidable not because of their super-carriers but rather because an Ohio class Submarine can target any of the major countries such as China or Russia from any corner of the world with overwhelming force- something that the Russians can still do but to a severely restricted level and something the Chinese still cannot do practically since they still do not have anything like the Typhoon class or Ohio class SSBN (although its just a matter of a few years till they bridge that gap to the FULL EXTENT). For our future SSBN force to be effective against a potential nuclear enemy they must be able to strike said enemy over a spectrum of all possible targets from an appreciable distance. For a SLBM to be truly effective it must really cross the 6000KM range. The K-15 and the initial K-4 variants are only fully optimal against a target like Pakistan. The PN cannot fan into an area extending 3000KM from their coastline and commit sufficient resources to hunt down an Arihant class sub specifically because they lack a nuclear hunter-killer sub and because the behemoth that the Indian navy is (in comparison) would be standing in the way. This would provide an Arihant sub with a relatively impenetrable zone from where to fire upon a target in Pakistan provided that they are using the K-4 while the utilization of the K-15 would require it to get dangerously close to Pakistani territorial waters. Again the advantage is relative, in both cases the Arihant could do its job and do it with a high probability of success BUT in the latter scenario with the K-15 the chances of success would be less in relative terms. In the case of the PRC even the K-4 AND its follow on version which also seems to be dubbed the K-4 (with a length of 12 meters rather than the 10 meter length of the initial K-4, a new SSBN class will probably be required to house the 2nd K-4 version due to its length) would both prove to be less than ideal with the max. range on the final K-4 iteration only reaching 5000KM. A completely effective system would require an SLBM that can hit from 6000-8000KM away. The range of such SLBMs should only be restricted by any potential technological limit or practical considerations (from cost-benefit to operational viability) rather than political expediency. Remember that if the US is bound to frown upon us for testing a 8000KM land based BM (THE REASON THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE PROPPING UP TO ARGUE THAT INDIA REALLY SHOULDN'T) then trust me they shall be EVEN MORE PISSED about an operational 6000KM SLBM in our hands since the latter would be far more damaging even to them in any unlikely scenario which would see us strike at them- case in point being that statically a sub with a 6K range SLBM has a higher chance of evading their massive navy and positioning itself in international waters from where it could launch at them- that is to say that a submarine can get close enough to do so relatively speaking while a 8K land based BM would pose no threat to them at all since it JUST CANNOT BE RE-POSITIONED OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL BOUNDARY OF OUR NATION.

good analysis

that why DRDO is planning 6,000 KM SLBM and its Land Version

and I don't think Europe and US will feel threatened with it (US at least)

its follow on version which also seems to be dubbed the K-4 (with a length of 12 meters rather than the 10 meter length of the initial K-4, a new SSBN class will probably be required to house the 2nd K-4 version due to its length) would both prove to be less than ideal with the max. range on the final K-4 iteration only reaching 5000KM.

its K 5

i think K 6/A 6 will be 14 meter tall with 2 meter diameter and ability to carry 3 60 KT warheads along with decoys

 

[Dillinger]

its K 5

i think K 6/A 6 will be 14 meter tall with 2 meter diameter and ability to carry 3 60 KT warheads along with decoys

Sorry sir. There is very limited information available regarding the K missile series to us common folk so I had to refer to the Wiki page on the K missiles (K Missile family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The page lists the K-4 Mark1 (3500 KM range and 10 m length) and the K-4 Mark2 (5000 KM range and 12 m length) and then skips over to the the K-5 (Listed as the SLBM variant of the A-6 with a range of 6000 KM sans any information on the dimensions). Ergo the part which you've quoted above. But please..IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INFORMATION THEN I'D BE TERRIBLY OBLIGED IF YOU'D SHARE IT WITH ME SPECIALLY SINCE WIKI DOESN'T REALLY COUNT AS THE BEST CHOICE FOR REFERENCE MATERIAL.

 

[Dillinger]

Space (including agriculture), Missiles tech, deep sea mining, and Computer hacking/tech are core areas where we should develop complete expertise. This would give us a place in the future and ensure we have tactical advantages. There are many areas I would love to add but based on limited resources I thought of this. Ultimately, a true power would invest in every sphere small, or big. A country like India has capability but an investment vehicle should be created with strict accounting and penalties such as death. Education is pathetic due to lack of skilled professors. Khan academy would do wonders for India.

You know..I really cannot thank you enough for this post. Specifically the fact that you've highlighted agriculture, education and if I'm not wrong then space management really makes your post the most succinct albeit super-simplified yet perhaps the most relevant gospel for our nation's future. People tend to forget that a hungry nation is not a fighting nation, the very fact that we were able to win three wars in the past with the factors that burdened us is worth spending more than just a few bravado filled moments over. We've got some serious issues with irrigation and storage that have been severely hampering the agricultural sector. In fact Israel specifically offered to provide us their expertise in drip irrigation and management of arable land (refer to the video provided at the bottom of the post to watch Mark Sofer, the Israeli ambassador to India, talking about such plans) -let us not forget that it is not a hyperbole to term them as the world leaders in agricultural tech. More than half of Israel's land area is desert, and the climate and lack of water resources do not favor farming. Only 20% of their land area is naturally arable. YET they are a major exporter of fresh produce. Sadly while everything from their AEW&C to their LGBs have become common fare in India our government has not stepped on the gas as far as utilizing their expertise in this area is concerned or at least we've just not capitalized on it enough to make any remarkable progress. Imagine the benefits that we as a nation could reap in sectors of agriculture and water management (the latter being an issue which is of near paramount importance and something that we Indian members on PDF are doubly aware of )

Defense expenditure, procurement and development are areas that we shall never truly compromise on but agriculture, management of tangible geographical space (doubly important given our population density) are also going to be equally important factors. Again..such an assertion would not be a hyperbole or devoid of reason..these factors shall effect our economy and the quality of life of the Indian people. The requirements in the Cyber defense sector are already well known to most members here and it seems that our armed forces have taken cognizance of the situation. Education on the other hand has again fallen behind; proper, A-grade quality education is really going to be the Midas touch to India's rusting mantle. Hopefully our leaders will wake up to these realities soon enough. Because we common people sure as hell have.

NDTV Hindu - A Special Guest-Mr Mark Sofer-The Ambassador of Israel to india on Night Vision - 1 (2) - YouTube

 

[surya kiran]

Only thing I would like to add is, we would need one with SLBM capability of 5000 kms also. This is to ensure that we have the ability to launch from the Pacific in to the eastern sea board. Why? Because, in the future most of the ABM assets would look west for any launches. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Dillinger]

Only thing I would like to add is, we would need one with SLBM capability of 5000 kms also. This is to ensure that we have the ability to launch from the Pacific in to the eastern sea board. Why? Because, in the future most of the ABM assets would look west for any launches. Correct me if I am wrong.

Surya sir, please clarify what you're trying to say. If you're referring to future PRC ABM systems then in that case they shall be facing both the west and the east, in fact the concentration would be higher towards the east since an attack from the American west coast or from American subs parked in the Pacific would be far more likely not to mention more devastating since the time between launch warning/detection and impact would be far lesser as compared to the time available in the case of BMs inbound from the west. In fact the US pacific fleet is bound to be far more formidable than their Atlantic fleet thanks to the PRC's rise. The US "pivot towards Asia" idea envisages two things- 1) A commitment of 60% of the USN's resources in the associated region and theaters AND 2) Treating the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean as natural extensions of each other in terms of their importance and in recognition of the fact that both must be simultaneously defended and dominated in order to achieve any tangible success in either theaters. This means the PRC will face far greater threats from the Eastern and South-Eastern waters. But we do need a long range (ICBM range) SLBM to be able to ensure a more relevant and potent deterrence against the PRC. BUT then I've said all I could about that in my previous post...so thus far I've finished my part.