What's new

Facts on the myth of India's indigenous Missiles

A border dispute is not the same as the threat of a full scale war or nuclear attack, is it? India-china are not natural adversary. IF China wanted a military solution to the border dispute, with our military power we could have done that long time ago. But no a single bullet has been fired at sino-india border for the last 40yrs. There's almost no chance of a war with China, your senior military personnel know that.

Yet India's military build up only shows India hegemonic intention. Do you need Agni 5 against Pakistan? Of course not, you guys already called it China killer. Are you in more dangerous position? Don't kid yourself. You didn't go to war with the two super powers, like we did. No threat was ever made against you by China, russia or US.
All these, you still have 1/3 of your population in poverty. And you dare to take a swipe at China with your initial post. It is India govt that needs alot of self reflection.

What was the need for China's extensive expenditure on it's military AFTER the threat from superpowers subsided? Let me guess, was it because it wanted to be a sovereign country with an advanced military? Especially for the fringe benefits that that came with it, including the development of a strong mil-ind complex?

Chinese people are still on average very poor, why doesn't China revert back to its communist/socialist roots and start handing out money to it's poor? The answer is simple, because it doesn't work. China is growing today because it has adopted state capitalism, including investment in human and capital infrastructure(read military development leading to civilian benefits).

China's military has only very recently begun extensive militarization and infrastructure works in its Chengdu military region. Agreed, China is no threat to India, it's got its hands full in the east. It certainly isn't a natural adversary. The border incursions are at best a show of force from local commanders.

Re: to the bolded part: Who's you guys? Do you mean India's free media, they can do what they like, their views certainly are not representative of the GoI. It's immature and incredible that there exist no panel for the establishment and maintenance of journalistic standards in the country.

Countries don't and shouldn't stop developing military technologies just because of a recent decline in relative capabilities for its enemies.

In a previous thread, you gave me the impression similar to that of my Singaporean mates here, usually intelligent and always sensible. Why change your tone now? Nationalism is not the same as patriotism.
 
You don't have to be one to know which DRDO project is on schedule and has not exceeded budget. zero

so you mean to say all the projects around the world except DRDO has completed on time and within the budget??.... funny you are arguing for the sake of argument.. Think a bit before you type here... try to accept the fact... it will not make you bad... it will show your humbleness
 
Earlier they used to tell that their missiles are superior to that of India. Now they can not say that since people will laugh at them. So they are saying that Indian missiles are of borrowed technology like their. |In fact Indian missiles are unique in many way right from the beginning. Prithvi 1 carried 1 ton payload. There was no missile in that category which as potent as prithvi was. Agni when first tested had a unique configuration of first stage solid and second stage liquid. Since then India has reached a stage where they can fire an ICBM with short 2 digit accuracy with Mach 25 speed which can be matched by US missiles only. We once again have Shaurya and K series missile which no other country than India possess. We were not given even computers with a fear that we shall design our space vehicle and missile with the help of that. Our rocket technology has reached a level where even developed countries can simply envy. What others can now do is to bluff on our achievements Since they can not match it.
 
But your weapon acquisition has gone multiple times of what that's required to deter your western neighbor, the money could be better used to fund education and social program for the poor folks, yet India military spending kept growing.

Our situation is the 60's is completely different.

every sector has a priority and importance, if we start diverting funds like this then you guys will forcifully take over India like you did with Tibet that is why all the chinese on this forumn has smoke coming out from their behind
 
Indians sure love to deny and delude themselves.

India is world's 'largest importer' of arms.With a $32.5bn (£20.2bn) defence budget, India imports more than 70% of its arms.
BBC News - India is world's 'largest importer' of arms, says study



India has emerged as the largest arms importer in the world. More than 70% of the needs of the Indian armed forces are imported
DRDO India's lumbering dinosaur

What is so surprising about that. China was their in No 1 place few years ago and second place now.
 
Its a shame China has to import 4th generation fighters after it has done unveiling its 5th Gen fighter :rofl: Bunch of pathetic liars they are !! :omghaha:
 
Even if Agni 1 and Prithvi began with borrowed designs, present missiles like Agni 3, 4, 5, Shaurya, Prahaar, K 15, K 4 etc are original efforts and such tremendous improvements that they're virtually unrelated to the earlier designs. And they're all on their way to induction. That's cause enough to celebrate.

Meanwhile, those who have engaged their afterburners can go apply some Burnol. :rofl:
 
Haq's Musings: India's "Indigenous" Copies of Foreign Nukes, Missiles

India's "Indigenous" Copies of Foreign Nukes, Missiles
A Times of India report last year claimed that "Pakistan has surged well ahead of India in the missile arena". It also lamented that "the only nuclear-capable ballistic missile in India's arsenal which can be said to be 100% operational as of now is the short-range Prithvi missile".

Along with raising the alarm, the Indian report offered the usual excuse for the alleged missile gap by boasting that "unlike Pakistan, our program is indigenous".

Let's explore the reality of the "indigenous" claim repeated ad infintum by Indian government and New Delhi's defense establishment.

US-European Origins of Indian Missile Program:

APJ Abul Kalam is credited with designing India's first satellite launcher SLV3. Its design is virtually identical to the American Scout rocket used in the 1960s. According to the details published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Abul Kalam spent four months in training in the United States in 1963-1964. He visited NASA's Langley Research Center in Virginia, where the U.S. Scout rocket was conceived, and the Wallops Island Flight Center on the Virginia coast, where the Scout was being flown. Soon after Abul Kalam's visit, India requested and received detailed technical reports on the Scout's design, which was unclassified.

Indian+Agni+Origin.gif


US Scout and India's SLV3 are both 23 meters long, use four similar solid-fuel stages and "open loop" guidance, and lift a 40-kilogram payload into low earth orbit. The SLV's 30-foot first stage later became the first stage of the Agni.

The United States was followed by others. Between 1963 and 1975, more than 350 U.S., French, Soviet, and British sounding rockets were launched from India's Thumba Range, which the United States helped design. Thumba's first group of Indian engineers had learned rocket launching and range operation in the United States.

India's other missile, the "Prithvi" (earth), which uses a liquid-propelled motor to carry a one-ton payload 150 miles, resembles the widely sold Soviet Scud-B. Indian sources say that the Agni's second stage is a shortened version of the Prithvi, according to Gary Milhollin of the Wisconsin Project.

France also launched sounding rockets from India, and in the late 1960s allowed India to begin building "Centaure" sounding rockets under license from Sud Aviation.

The aid of the United States and France, however, was quickly surpassed by substantial West German help in the 1970s and 1980s. Germany assisted India in three key missile technologies: guidance, rocket testing, and the use of composite materials. All were supposed to be for the space program, but all were also used for military missiles.

The cryogenic stage used in a recent failed satellite launch by India was a copy of the Russian cryogenic rocket engine and the cryogenic technology transferred to India in the 1990s. According to Non-proliferation review of 1997, it has emerged that Russia continued transferring rocket engine technology to India in 1993 after its agreements with the United States stop such transfer under MTCR. This reportedly resulted in the completion of 60 to 80 percent of the transfers to India.

North American Origins of India's Nuclear Bomb:

India's nuclear program would not have advanced without a lot of help from Canadians that resulted in Indian copies of Canadian reactors to produce plutonium for its nuclear bombs.

India conducted its first atomic bomb test in 1974. Indians used 40 MW Canadian Cirus reactor and U.S. heavy water both imported under guarantees of peaceful use and used them openly to make plutonium for its 1974 nuclear blast.

In 1972, Canadian-built 100 MWe Rajasthan-1 nuclear power reactor became operational, serving as the model for later unsafeguarded reactors. Another Rajasthan unit started operating in 1980 and two units in 2000. In 1983, India's 170 MW Madras-1, a copy of Canadian Rajhastan-1 reactor, became operational. A second Madras unit followed in 1985. According to the Risk Report Volume 11 Number 6 (November-December 2005), the heavy water and other advanced materials and equipment for these plants were smuggled to India from a number of countries, including the USSR, China and Norway, according to The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Some of the firms, such as West German firm Degussa, were caught and fined by the United States for re-exporting to India 95 kg of U.S.-origin beryllium, usable as a neutron reflector in fission bombs.

In May 1998, India conducted two rounds of nuclear weapon tests. Last year, the media reports indicated that Kasturiranga Santhanam, the coordinator of India's 1998 nuclear tests, went public with allegations that India's Pokhran II test of a thermonuclear bomb in 1998 was actually a fizzle. The device, designed to generate 45 kilotons, yielded an explosion equivalent to only 15 to 20 kilotons of TNT.

Heavy Dependence on Imports:

India is overwhelmingly dependent on foreign imports, mainly Russian and Israeli, for about 70 per cent of its defense requirement, especially for critical military products and high-end defense technology, according to an Indian defense analyst Dinesh Kumar. Kumar adds that "India’s defense ministry officially admits to attaining only 30 to 35 per cent s elf-reliance capability for its defense requirement. But even this figure is suspect given that India’s self-reliance mostly accrues from transfer of technology, license production and foreign consultancy despite considerable investment in time and money".

On the same theme, Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that "India has had little success with military equipment production, and has had problems producing Russian Su-30MKI fighter jets and T-90S tanks, English Hawk training jets and French Scorpene submarines."

On India's perennial dependence on imports, here's how blogger Vijainder Thakur sees India's loose meaning of "indigenous" Smerch and other imports:

"The Russians will come here set up the plant for us and supply the critical manufacturing machinery. Indian labor and technical management will run the plant which will simply assemble the system. Critical components and the solid propellant rocket motor fuel will still come from Perm Powder Mill. However, bureaucrats in New Delhi and the nation as a whole will be happy. The Smerch system will be proudly paraded on Rajpath every republic day as an indigenous weapon system.

A decade or so down the line, Smerch will get outdated and India will negotiate a new deal with Russia for the license production of a new multiple rocket system for the Indian Army.

China will by then have developed its own follow up system besides having used the solid propellant motors to develop other weapon systems and assist its space research program."

India does export some armaments but its modest record of producing and exporting weapon systems is evident from the fact that India’s defense annual exports averaged only US$ 88 million between 2006-07 and 2008-09. By contrast, Pakistan exported $300 million worth of military hardware and munitions last year.

Summary:

There is plenty of evidence and documentation from sources such as the Wisconsin Project to show that the Indian missiles and bombs are no more indigenous than Pakistan's. The fact is that neither India nor Pakistan were first to split the atom, or to develop modern rocket science. The Industrial Revolution didn't exactly start in India or Pakistan or even in Asia; it began in Europe and the rest of the world learned from it, even copied it.

The differences between India and Pakistan in terms of the technology know-how and the knowledge base are often highly exaggerated to portray India as "technology power house" and Pakistan as a backwater. Some of these analyses by Indian Brahman pundits and commentators have racial and religious overtones implying that somehow Brahmin or Hindu minds are superior to those of the people of other religions or castes in South Asia.

What is often ignored by such anti-Pakistan Indian analysts is the fact that neither of the two Indian pioneers, nuclear scientist Homi Bahbha and rocket scientist Abul Kalam, belong to the Hindu faith or the Brahmin caste. The false sense of Indian superiority is pushed by self-serving Indian and some western analysts to justify their own biased conclusions.

These analysts have fed what George Perkovich described in his book "India's Nuclear Bomb" on page 410 as "general Indian contempt for Pakistan's technical capabilities" and may cause serious miscalculations by the Indian security establishment about Pakistan's defense capabilities. Indian chauvinistic analyses have been put in perspective by another piece in Newsday (Friday, May 15, 1998; Page A5: "India Errs Nuclear Power Isn't Real Power"), in which George Perkovich talked about the rise in India of a radicalized, ultra-nationalistic BJP for the "glory of the Hindu race and rashtra (nation)". Perkovich added that "the Bharatiya Janata Party, has long felt that nuclear weapons offer a quicker ride to the top. Like atavistic nationalists elsewhere, they believe that pure explosive power will somehow earn respect and build pride."

The extreme right-wing influence on South Asian analysts has the potential for serious miscalculations by either India or Pakistan in the nuclear and the missile arena, and it does not augur well for the future of Indo-Pak region and the world at large.

Pakistan ahead of India in missile tech BS again?Produce an ICBM/QBM/SLBM then only come to talk.

For SLV-3 = Scout BS

It has been repeatedly asserted that India's missiles were developed "with a little help" from America and her friends (1). It has been repeated often enough that it has become axiomatic (1-3). We shall examine, in detail, the credibility of the various allegations that are made. Further, we shall explore whether the spotlight on the claimed pedigree is warranted. Finally, we shall examine the purpose of these attempts to discredit and misinform.
Before proceeding any further, we must examine the scientific and engineering method. The issue of pedigree in the context of engineering design is critical in debating whether Indian missiles were either "imported directly, or copied from imported designs." One of the greatest mathematicians this millenium, Sir Isaac Newton said: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." From a technical standpoint, for a rocket to be "derived" from another, it must be obtained from the "original" either by copying the designs, or by some slight, non-critical modifications of the original. Mere juxtaposition of information to suggest linkage is technically insufficient. Sony invented the Walkman, but numerous other firms have their versions of the same concept on store shelves. This does not imply that the electronic innards of these are copied, or derived from Sony. Only the concept was copied, and this is the hallmark of the scientific method. Newton called it standing on the shoulders of giants.
It is alleged that India’s Agni missile is the result of American, German and French help to India’s space program. Briefly, it is alleged that the first stage of the Agni is the first stage of the SLV-3 rocket, and that the SLV-3 rocket is "an exact copy" of the American Scout rocket (1, 2). It is then alleged that the second stage of the Agni is "its version" of the French Viking (1). The guidance, composite materials and rocket testing technology are alleged to have been "given" to India by the Germans(1). Finally, it is alleged that India’s next generation of missiles will be designed with American equipment (3), in the form of computers and printed circuit boards.
Rockets and missiles are a highly complex combinations of complex systems. To allege that India's SLV-3 is "an exact copy of the Scout,"(2) implies that every system was merely assembled and integrated from a detailed design of the Scout. We must recall that the design specifications for any rockets runs into thousands of pages. There is no evidence that any such blueprints were transferred, or copied by Indian engineers. Unclassified technical reports on the Scout are acknowledged to be transferred, but not actual blueprints(1). The designs of the Scout, and the rocket itself has been transferred to other European nations, which have not gone on to develop the launch capability that India has developed.
Is it even honest to assert that the SLV-3 was derived from the Scout? India's Space Research Organization's (ISRO) SLV-3 was designed to fulfill the same role as the Scout (i.e., put small satellites in Low Earth Orbit). It is therefore not surprising that there is superficial similarity in their shapes. However, it requires significant evidence to jump from this superficial similarity to the claim that "its design is virtually identical to the Scout's." It is necessary to re-emphasize that rockets are highly complex systems, and to compare two rockets by their external appearance is highly dubious.
Even a slightly deeper analysis will indicate that the SLV-3 rocket stages have a different diameters, and different L/D ratios. The various Scout stages were culled together from an inventory of military rocket motors and consequently used a variety of solid fuels including polyurethane. The SLV-3 used hydroxyl terminated poly butadiene (HTPB) in all its stages (4). The second stage of the Scout used the Castor stage. The Castor motor used HTPB as the solid fuel. Significantly, the Castor used a different oxidiser with the Castor stage using acrylic acid (5), whereas the SLV-3 used red fuming nitric acid (RFNA) (4). It is unsurprising then, that propellant weights were also different. The information about the fuels is key, given the relatively short spectrum of solid fuel chemicals. The thrusts and burn times of the different stages are all different. Moreover, the SLV-3's payload is considerably lighter and its fairing is shaped differently. Additionally, the SLV-3 was the first rocket to use proportional control for its first stage control systems with a sharing logic software (6). Given the extent and depth of difference, it is clear that the SLV-3 is neither a "copy" nor "derivative" of the Scout. It is worth recalling the words of a far more technically astute person, Werner Von Braun: "If you want to do anything in rocketry, do it by yourself. SLV is a genuine Indian design." (4)
The cooperation between Germany (Deutsche Forschungsanstalt fur Luftfahrt und Raumfahrt e.V. - DLR) and India (ISRO) receives special attention from Milhollin. Milhollin claims that Germans gave India help in guidance, rocket testing and composite materials (1). The assertion that India tested her SLV-3 in a German wind tunnel contradicts the earlier assertion that the SLV-3 is an "exact copy of the Scout."(2) Clearly, if one is merely assembling a copy there is no need for verificatory wind tunnel tests. In the context of the alleged indispensability of the help received from the Germans, it is necessary to return to the discussion about the scientific method. Training in unclassified (albeit high tech) areas, that are often available in any reputable graduate program does not constitute anything more than just that -- training. This training is an integral part of science. If it was not, consistency of logic insists that any textbooks of advanced physics or applied math be regarded as "dual use" items, worthy of control. The relationship between DLR and ISRO was one of cooperation for mutual benefit. The development of autonomous payload control was a joint venture that took over 6 years to complete. To claim that "the Agni owes its brains to German engineering," Milhollin is reduced to obliquely asking whether it is possible that Indian scientists could "block from their minds everything they had learned from the Germans?" If one can honestly comprehend the scientific method, it is not necessary to demand that Indian scientists "block everything they had learned" earlier as they build newer and better systems. Milhollin makes a similar claim with respect to cooperation with the French in liquid fuel propulsion. Milhollin notes that India's Vikas engine is "its own version of the Viking," and then contradicts himself when he admits that Indian scientists were part of the development of the Viking itself. Finally, the Agni’s liquid fuelled second stage is not based on the Viking engine, and does not use the fuel and oxidizer combination used in it.
The issue of computers is rather interesting. India has developed and sold some of the fastest supercomputers in the world in the last decade. Much of its progress in this field coming as a direct result of its difficulty in obtaining a supercomputer from Cray. Neither of the two computers that Milhollin refers to is even close to being the fastest computer in Indian Institute of Science (IISc), the institute in question. The first Indian Supercomputer developed by the Center for the Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC) called PARAM has the ability to perform 100 billion floating point operations per second (100 Gigaflops), compared to the 6 Gigaflops performance of the IBM obtained by IISc (7). Both the Bhabha Atomic Research Corporation and the Defence Research and Development Organization have their own supercomputers capable of faster speeds than either of the imported computers. Clearly, Mr. Milhollin’s claims are devoid of substance and nothing more than oblique suggestions masquerading as intelligent analysis.
Throughout this article, the resonant theme is that of scientific pedigree. Present advancement based on, now obvious, earlier advancements are the very foundation of scientific progress and method. The focus on technology transfer is of understandable importance given the centrality of nuclear weapon and missile non-proliferation in the West. Policy formulation demands clarity in the distinction between actual transfer of technology (as in Chinese espionage, Chinese nuclear and missile proliferation to Pakistan, and Chinese, North Korean and Pakistani collaboration in missile development, etc), and technology development. The American space and missile program was literally built by German engineering under the stewardship of Von Braun. However, it is clearly naïve to claim that any achievement of the American space establishment owes its "brains to German engineering." The Indian space program was not built on the back of stolen, copied or transferred technology. There is no denying that some of the best Indian rocket scientists were trained abroad, but it is equally undeniable that some of the best of them were also homegrown. The Indian space program is founded on a solid, committed, technical base. It is the same commitment which has resulted in India being home to the second largest scientific manpower in the world, and in supplying American graduate schools with their brightest and most successful students. Ultimately, the entire thesis built up by Milhollin consists of oblique suggestions, careful juxtaposition, half-truths and baseless extrapolation combined with an ignorance of technical detail.
It is not without good reason that these allegations are made. They are directly linked to the injunction to preserve the status quo in global geopolitics. The critical determinants for achieving great power status are security surplus, military, scientific and economic hard power, and political, social and intellectual soft power. Creating paranoia regarding the "dual use" of advancements in science and technology is aimed at restricting the flow of scientific information to developing countries such as India. This is designed to prevent their acquisition of scientific and economic hardpower. Further, these allegations are designed to extract information from India regarding its advances in these fields. In recent years, following the 1998 nuclear tests, we have witnessed both aspects of this technique. Indian scientists were prevented by immigration impediments from attending conferences in the US, and American scientists were barred from attending conferences in India. The doubts exhibited in the Western media and US Congress regarding the success of the Indian tests is an example of the latter aspect of this technique. Despite this, it is important that these allegations be rebutted. In the case of the nuclear weapons program, the aim is diminishing the credibility of the Indian deterrent. A final aspect of this technique is that it serves to diminish Indian achievements, and consequently detracts from the commercial and other opportunities possible.**


For Rest of the BS-Canada providing India with Nuclear reactor designs or heavy water would not equal to providing a nuke bomb design.

And the fact is that India now have advanced Nuclear reactor designs-PHWRs of 700 MW,Thorium reactors of 600 MW & 500 MW Fast Breeders.So keep whining :wave:
@Fattyacids

RLG based INS & MINS of Agni V were Indian designed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pakistan taught us the basics of nuclear reaction.. They taught us the periodic table ! ;)
 
Where is the old man himself!Looks like he outsourced the posting work to an offshore office in Malaysia
 
What was the need for China's extensive expenditure on it's military AFTER the threat from superpowers subsided? Let me guess, was it because it wanted to be a sovereign country with an advanced military? Especially for the fringe benefits that that came with it, including the development of a strong mil-ind complex?

Chinese people are still on average very poor, why doesn't China revert back to its communist/socialist roots and start handing out money to it's poor? The answer is simple, because it doesn't work. China is growing today because it has adopted state capitalism, including investment in human and capital infrastructure(read military development leading to civilian benefits).

China's military has only very recently begun extensive militarization and infrastructure works in its Chengdu military region. Agreed, China is no threat to India, it's got its hands full in the east. It certainly isn't a natural adversary. The border incursions are at best a show of force from local commanders.

Re: to the bolded part: Who's you guys? Do you mean India's free media, they can do what they like, their views certainly are not representative of the GoI. It's immature and incredible that there exist no panel for the establishment and maintenance of journalistic standards in the country.

Countries don't and shouldn't stop developing military technologies just because of a recent decline in relative capabilities for its enemies.

In a previous thread, you gave me the impression similar to that of my Singaporean mates here, usually intelligent and always sensible. Why change your tone now? Nationalism is not the same as patriotism.

After much effort of the 60's, you're not going to dump all your ICBM programs just because there's no immediate threat, are you? Even cars and machinery modernize with times, no different for military machinery and technology. Bearing in mind, the country was ravaged by civil war and WW2, millions massacred. Then, we were threatened by two superpowers. India didn't even go thru 1/10 of we had gone thru. The psyche of the nation is different: China need a strong defence. India purely wants hegemonic power, to boss things around Asia. Who can India call good friends in South Asia? None. You're oblivious to India's image in your region. China borders 14 countries, but only two border disputes, even than we've good ties them.

Chinese on average poor? Our top tier cities income per capital is on par with many developed countries, rural areas are not, but we have 1.3 billion people. Overall income per capital is still 4 times higher than India. Our foreign reserves are the biggest in the world. Yet Chinese military spending is 2% of GDP, India is 2.5% with almost 2 times more poverty, 30% more illiteracy and more social problems than China. Self Reflection? Who is India threat? none. For you to take swipe at china, shouldn't India take care of these issues first.

I'm Chinese. My tone has never changed, just calling a spade a spade. Indeed, nationalism is not the same as patriotism, please look into the mirror.
 
with your multi megaton nukes did u have the balls to throw out portugal from Macau ? If i would have been in your place i would have died of shame !

You must be still living under a rock for the past many years because Portugal is already thrown out of Macau !

fattyacids,, india imports bcoz we can., we are not an outcasts or thieves., if you didnt steal,, the world would have been generous to you too,, but true to your natural instinct ,, you stole,, instead of working hard for it.,

You mean like India stealing nuke technology from Canada's Candu Reactors and then labeling it indigenous ?
 
Back
Top Bottom