How many types of Ballistic missiles India has deployed?

[Nilgiri]

Tactical miniaturization is not required for MIRV...India has no interest in wasting its nuclear material on tactical nukes since we are not worried about capitulation of the country by Enemy conventional forces.....besides nuclear mines are way more effective for that endeavour.

Small tactical nukes have piss poor yield efficiency (for weight of material used). Going by the 5 kt claim on Nasr's maximum warhead yield (which I believe has been significantly overstated), you would still be creating about a 1km deadly airburst with about 150 m fireball....using up about 100kg of U-235

100 kg of U-235 is about a 22 cm diameter sphere. Add on top of this the conventional explosive needed (in fact it is the radius of this that severely restricts the yield in the first place for a tactical nuke) and the Nasr does not look like a viable carrier for even this amount over any significant distance (though I would have to do some calculations and estimations for this when I get some time if people are interested enough). I really wonder if they have gone for closer to the critical mass of U-235 (15kg) accepted the yield only around the 0.5kt (or even less) and decided to economize the material use. This would also make the claimed 60km range of Nasr make more sense. In which case 0.5 kt gives a blast radius of about 400 metres and fireball of 60 metres.

Using 100kg for a 5kt tactical nuke when you can get 100 kt from it (theoretically) might in fact illustrate that Pakistan has some serious problems with designing a nuke past the generation 1 type given their proper nuke tests were both boosted fission and gave 32kt and even 15kt (according to them - which many have since disputed).

 

[desimorty]

Reason is simple. India has failed to miniaturize nukes unlike Pakistan. As prahar can only carry 200kg or less,there are no nukes for it. But big fat Prithvi can carry 500kg or larger nukes which India has.
That's why no point in retiring Prithvi and replacing it with Prahar as gun is there,bullet isn't.

This also puts India's MREV/ MIRV capability as warheads have to be miniaturized for above capabilities.

Source: How many types of Ballistic missiles India has deployed?

I very much doubt this claim that India does not have miniaturized warheads. One would also want to ask the question if such warheads are of any use? Difference between tactical and strategic nukes is where you drop them. Not so much the size. As far as Prithvi is concerned, it may not be much for nuclear strike, but the IA does see conventional use in Agni Prithvi and Prahar. Just because you have nukes, doesn't mean you have to use missiles just for nuclear strikes.
As far as nuclear strikes on Pakistan, India has capability to be superior in the regard. But one must also look at Indian Nuclear doctrine. Its no first use policy means they require a redundant second strike capability. The as ensuring that they never use nuclear weapons unlike Pakistani nuclear doctrine.

 

[shaheenmissile]

Tactical miniaturization is not required for MIRV...India has no interest in wasting its nuclear material on tactical nukes since we are not worried about capitulation of the country by Enemy conventional forces.....besides nuclear mines are way more effective for that endeavour.

Small tactical nukes have piss poor yield efficiency (for weight of material used). Going by the 5 kt claim on Nasr's maximum warhead yield (which I believe has been significantly overstated), you would still be creating about a 1km deadly airburst with about 150 m fireball....using up about 100kg of U-235

100 kg of U-235 is about a 22 cm diameter sphere. Add on top of this the conventional explosive needed (in fact it is the radius of this that severely restricts the yield in the first place for a tactical nuke) and the Nasr does not look like a viable carrier for even this amount over any significant distance (though I would have to do some calculations and estimations for this when I get some time if people are interested enough). I really wonder if they have gone for closer to the critical mass of U-235 (15kg) accepted the yield only around the 0.5kt (or even less) and decided to economize the material use. This would also make the claimed 60km range of Nasr make more sense. In which case 0.5 kt gives a blast radius of about 400 metres and fireball of 60 metres.

Using 100kg for a 5kt tactical nuke when you can get 100 kt from it (theoretically) might in fact illustrate that Pakistan has some serious problems with designing a nuke past the generation 1 type given their proper nuke tests were both boosted fission and gave 32kt and even 15kt (according to them - which many have since disputed).

Cool, next time you do calculation, throw in Plutonium instead of Uranium, and also a layer of tritium and may be an external layer of uranium. And before I forget, in trigger mechanism, use modern plastic explosive instead of old heavy ones, and nasr will make sense.

 

[vsdave2302]

Prithvi 1 2 3 + Agni 1 2 3 + Prahar + Shaurya = 8
Edit : Not sure about the status of Dhanush.

Where is Agni IV. It is alos deployed. I believ that K4's S to S version would have been tested a long back.

By the way we have a 0.5 kt tacticle warhead too( un boosted version of 17kt FBF) weighing only 100 kg but Its not deployed as doesn't suit in our doctrine.

I do not agree here. Un boosted version shall have atleast 1/3rd to 1/4 of yield. So it can ot just be 0.5 KT.

 

[knight11]

Cool, next time you do calculation, throw in Plutonium instead of Uranium, and also a layer of tritium and may be an external layer of uranium. And before I forget, in trigger mechanism, use modern plastic explosive instead of old heavy ones, and nasr will make sense.

Cool down my friend, Pls provide me link for the induction of NASR 1/2 Induction in service.

And for my Indian Friends
1. Prahar/Pragati --- My stand IA not interested, pls provide link for the induction Or Army Interest
2. Shaurya, Agni are tech demonstrator --- Pls provide link for the induction

 

[Nilgiri]

throw in Plutonium instead of Uranium

When we are talking about tactical nukes, the yield efficiencies of Plutonium versus Uranium do not come into play since the additional pressure needed to "extract" Pu-239 optimally comes at a weight compromise of additional explosive primer - such a tradeoff only becomes advantageous when you pass 20kt and above where the diminishing returns from using Pu vis a vis U start to fall significantly. The only reason to use Pu in such cases is its easier to produce compared to U.

Besides, Pakistan has not tested a Plutonium device so the point is a moot one to begin with.

and also a layer of tritium and may be an external layer of uranium.

Tritium boosting for this class of weapons double the yield of say 0.5kt yield of barely over critical mass material to about 1kt. After that this also suffers from major diminishing returns (given the compact volume vis a vis increased neutron flux density vis a vis material available for fission). You can check the specs of the American W-45 tactical warhead...and that was with the oblong shaped Robin Primary. The larger versions of this family (MADM) did reach 10 and 15kt yields but the mass of material increased a lot too, more than double (160kg) what was used in the smaller version (70kg) ( not feasible from what I see of Nasr's slim 400mm WS-2 based design.

An oblong shaped primary has also not been tested by Pakistan so again its a moot point....and an inefficient spherical geometry would only be worse. (China for example tested one only as late as 1992, much later than their 1964 "crude" test)

Besides most missile/warhead combinations in the range of Nasr size-wise going by history have a range of about 30 - 40 km for a 1 kt warhead using the same family of solid fuel that is still used today (thiokol and derivatives)....which may have improved incrementally at most.

We will need performance data for the Nasr missile to make any solid conclusions anyway and I would not venture to expect Pakistan has a tried and tested oblong design of pit (since it has only tested once). So I don't think personally we can expect much more than 1kt from the Nasr warhead. Of course Chinese help and assistance can change things, but that is another variable altogether.

And before I forget, in trigger mechanism, use modern plastic explosive instead of old heavy ones, and nasr will make sense.

Makes little difference. RDX was well established in world war 2 itself and its performance data (explosion power ~ detonation velocity vis a vis density) is not too different from the other ones used in modern day PBX's used for nukes (and is in fact still used).

Refer to:

Table of explosive detonation velocities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Explosive lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Polymer-bonded explosive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does make a difference is the change of geometry of the pit from circular to oblong (thus changing from concentric to linear implosion) but a country needs to test that particular design. India did so in 1998, 1974 test being the original circular implosion...(and part of the reason India confidently states it can scale up its fusion design to 200kt + Mirv them with suitable rocket carriers).

Whereas one would have to believe that Pakistan circumvented a basic circular design and tested an oblong design in its first test itself....which I find hard to believe....unless the design was given by the Chinese from their 1992 test.

Unless of course Pakistan is deciding to go fully with software projections and taking a gamble (assuming no Chinese assistance) that it will work when required....or go with the safe bet (circular) but keep the opponent guessing by stating a 5kt tactical capability. Its all part of MAD theory anyways.

If you have sources regarding any of this, I am all ears.

 

[surya kiran]

1. Prahar/Pragati --- My stand IA not interested, pls provide link for the induction Or Army Interest

Agni, which version?

Prahaar
This was the last update, I am aware of.

According to the Indian Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) chief Avinash Chander, “We are withdrawing the tactical 150 km-range Prithvi missiles and will replace them with the Prahar missiles, which are more capable and have more accuracy.” According to Chander, the Prithvi I missiles withdrawn from service would be upgraded to be used for longer ranges, he said. Defense-Update reports. Prithvi I (also known as SS150) was the first tactical ballistic missile inducted into service by the Indian military.

After 17 years in service, the Prithvi I missile will give way to smaller and better Prahar | Defense Update:

Shaurya
Shaurya testing was completed. Last update was that the missile testing is over and production has started. This was 2011: India successfully test-fires Shourya missile - The Hindu

 

[sudhir007]

Is SHAURYA induct when and how many B. Missile india have Tull date and what is production rate

 

[Skillrex]

India is not interested in miniaturing nukes.. secondly MIRV is in advance stage as reported in this very forum. and lastly India has NFU.. but india's policy is very clear.. you attack indian armed force anywhere in the world with miniature nuke or nuke as large as Eiffel tower includng biological/chemilca warheads.. india will retaliate with everything its got.. everything..

 

[knight11]

Agni, which version?

Prahaar
This was the last update, I am aware of.

According to the Indian Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) chief Avinash Chander, “We are withdrawing the tactical 150 km-range Prithvi missiles and will replace them with the Prahar missiles, which are more capable and have more accuracy.” According to Chander, the Prithvi I missiles withdrawn from service would be upgraded to be used for longer ranges, he said. Defense-Update reports. Prithvi I (also known as SS150) was the first tactical ballistic missile inducted into service by the Indian military.

After 17 years in service, the Prithvi I missile will give way to smaller and better Prahar | Defense Update:

Shaurya
Shaurya testing was completed. Last update was that the missile testing is over and production has started. This was 2011: India successfully test-fires Shourya missile - The Hindu

Agni-4 !!

For Shourya give me any link, article, news of induction not the sucessfull test

For Pragati, there is no missile name Pragati, only Prahar -- Give me a reason for having tactical ballastic missile requirement in Indian Army -- BEST 120 KM GPS guided MBRL, and who says Prithvi 3 with solid fuel which will replace both Agni -1 and Agni -2 in one go cannot be used for 150 km range target.

 

[AnnoyingOrange]

Agni-4 !!
For Shourya give me any link, article, news of induction not the sucessfull test

Dude... user trials were completed in December 2014 .

India successfully tests nuclear capable Agni IV missile - IN SCHOOL - The Hindu
Agni—IV has already been inducted into the army, said DRDO sources.

 

[knight11]

Is SHAURYA induct when and how many B. Missile india have Tull date and what is production rate

Its just a technology demostrator till now.

Dude... user trials were completed in December 2014 .

India successfully tests nuclear capable Agni IV missile - IN SCHOOL - The Hindu
Agni—IV has already been inducted into the army, said DRDO sources.

Thats the link of the sucessful test fire, what if I says that its the technology demostrator for the Agni 5.

 

[AnnoyingOrange]

Thats the link of the sucessful test fire, what if I says that its the technology demostrator for the Agni 5.

Not a test fire.. but a user trial.. that is done after the weapon is inducted. Read last line on the news item.

 

[knight11]

India is not interested in miniaturing nukes.. secondly MIRV is in advance stage as reported in this very forum. and lastly India has NFU.. but india's policy is very clear.. you attack indian armed force anywhere in the world with miniature nuke or nuke as large as Eiffel tower includng biological/chemilca warheads.. india will retaliate with everything its got.. everything..

Now you hit the right button. Indian Nuclear is clear, that the Ballastic Missile is the delivery platform. Thats why Shaurya which is one of the best delivery weapon won't be inducted because it will risk our nuclear threshold of the nuclear deterrant. These weapon of mass destruction are not meant for the general use, rather a Deterrent show piece to scare the enemy. The Depressed trajectory, or the small range battle field BM will create problem in its used for the conventional use, because, the trajectory detected by the ground radar could wrongly trigger the nuclear war.

Not a test fire.. but a user trial.. that is done after the weapon is inducted. Read last line on the news item.

Bro let me check out then

 

[danish_vij]

@Nilgiri & @amardeep mishra
i bet these 2 guys are gonna b think tanks very soon!!!!
its a treat reading your informational posts.....for me u guys are think tanks