What's new

Indian Agni BM Technology origin

If desiman wishes to start a trolling war then so be it. lol

India's Missile Shopping List

The Risk Report
Volume 1 Number 1 (January-February 1995) Page 9

India is still weak in many vital rocket technologies, and needs help in composites, electronics, computers, sensors, navigation, guidance, control and propulsion, according to a Pentagon study which ranks countries' military capabilities. To bolster its efforts in these areas, India is looking for imports.

Composites from America dried up in 1992 when the United States sanctioned the Indian Space Research Organization. Lightweight and heat-resistant composite materials are ideal for making rocket motor cases and nozzles. They improve a rocket's range as well as its engine thrust. The U.S. sanctions also dried up ISRO's American sources of application-specific integrated circuits, which are needed for rocket and missile guidance.

India also needs high quality gyroscopes and accelerometers for mis-sile guidance. India has some gyroscopes of its own, but Indian engineers are seeking better equipment "to improve the accuracy and stabilization of their missile systems," says one State Department analyst. India recently obtained U.S. ring laser gyro-scopes for fighter planes, but the gyros are difficult to adapt for missiles. "I don't think India can get there without a lot of help from the outside," the analyst says.

India also hopes to get high quality accelerometers to measure missile speed more accurately. In addition, India is shopping for laser radars to improve guidance, although India has not approached U.S. companies to buy them recently.

Computers are also on India's shopping list, according to the Pentagon study, which says that India has "limited" capability in digital computing, "no capability" in hybrid computing, but "capabilities in some critical elements" of advanced computing.

According to the Pentagon, computers play "a pivotal role in the development and deployment of missiles and missile systems." Digital computers can predict the behavior of entire weapon systems and are required to process space-borne sensor data in real time, the study says. The recent decontrol of computers may have helped India fill some of its needs.

1995 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: nice lol

---------- Post added at 06:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:43 AM ----------

India's Missiles - With a Little Help from Our Friends

By Gary Milhollin

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
November 1989, pp. 31-35

Last May 22, India became the first country to test a strategic missile derived from a civilian space program. The missile's first-stage rocket motor, heat shield, and guidance system all came from India's space effort -- generously launched and sustained by foreign help.

Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi claimed that the missile, called "Agni" (fire), is "an R&D vehicle, not a weapons system." Then he qualified the assertion. "Agni is not a nuclear weapons system," he said. "What Agni does is to afford us the option of developing the ability to deliver non-nuclear weapons with high precision at long ranges."

In the May test, the missile reportedly flew 625 miles. But it is designed to carry a one-ton payload 1,500 miles, far enough to hit cities in southern China. Carrying a half-ton atomic bomb, the Agni would be able to fly about 2,200 miles, far enough to hit Beijing.

Whether Agni eventually carries nuclear or conventional weapons, the missile should destroy any illusions about sharing technology in the interest of peaceful uses of outer space. The story of the Agni's development shows how difficult it is to separate civilian and military uses of technology, and just how futile may be the recent, belated attempts to control the proliferation of military missile technology. A control regime established by seven Western nations in 1987 seeks to prevent precisely this sort of development. [See the June 1988 Bulletin.] Yet the regime has no provisions for enforcement, and the Indian program continued full speed ahead, with some foreign - particularly West German - cooperation, after the regime was adopted.

Lessons in America


Agni's foreign ancestry dates from the 1960s. In November 1963, the United States began India's space program by launching a U.S. sounding rocket from Indian soil. (Sounding rockets fly straight up into the atmosphere to conduct scientific experiments. They are too small to launch satellites.) 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,[1] which the United States helped design. Thumba's first group of Indian engineers had learned rocket launching and range operation in the United States.

Among them was the Agni's chief designer, A. J. P. Abdul Kalam. In 1963-64, he spent four months in training in the United States. He visited NASA's Langley Research Center in Virginia, where the U.S. Scout rocket was conceived, and the Wallops Island Flight Center on the Virginia coast, where the Scout was being flown. The Scout was a low-cost, reliable satellite launcher that NASA had developed for orbiting small payloads.

Soon afterward, in 1965, the Indian government asked NASA how much it would cost and how long it would take to develop an Indian version of the Scout, and whether the United States would help. NASA replied that the Scout was "available . . . for purchase . . . in connection with scientific research," but warned that "transfer of this technology . . . would be a matter for determination by the Department of State under Munitions Control."[2] NASA nevertheless sent India technical reports on the Scout's design, which was unclassified. India's request should have raised some eyebrows: it came from Homi Bhabha, head of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission.

But Kalam had the information he needed. He returned to India and built the SLV-3 (Space Launch Vehicle), India's first satellite launcher. Its design is virtually identical to the Scout's. Both rockets are 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 would later become the first stage of the Agni.

NASA officials say U.S. aid to India in rocketry was limited to the program in the 1960s. In 1988, however, the United States agreed to supply an advanced ring laser gyroscope to help guide a new Indian fighter plane.[3] It is not clear what will prevent India from using it to guide missiles. The highly accurate device is essentially solid state, making it easy to adapt to the demands of missile acceleration.

French lessons: liquid fuel

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. But France's main contribution has been in the field of liquid propulsion. Under a license from France's Societe Europeene de Propulsion (SEP), India is building its own version of the Viking high-thrust liquid rocket motor, used on the European Space Agency's Ariane satellite launcher.[4] Indian engineers helped develop the Viking in the mid-1970s, then began a program of their own. India has now built an experimental model of the Viking engine, called the Vikas.

The training in liquid propulsion seems to have paid off. Just over a year before testing the Agni, Kalam tested a smaller predecessor, the "Prithvi" (earth), which uses a liquid-propelled motor to carry a one-ton payload 150 miles. It resembles the widely sold Soviet Scud-B. Indian sources say that the Agni's second stage is a shortened version of the Prithvi.[5]

A German intensive tutorial

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

The German government's aerospace agency DLR (Deutsche Forschungsanstalt fur Luftfahrt und Raumfahrt e.V.) began tutoring India in rocket guidance in 1976.[6] The first step was to put a German interferometer on an Indian sounding rocket. An interferometer works by using antennas placed at different locations on the rocket to measure the phase of a radio signal received from the ground. The phase difference among the antennas reveals their relative positions on the rocket and thus the rocket's attitude, which can be monitored and corrected from the ground. The first launch of an Indian rocket with a German interferometer was in 1978. By 1981 the project had been expanded to include an on-board DLR microprocessor. In April 1982, India tested its own version of the same interferometer.

The next step was to make a navigation system that did not depend on signals from the ground, one that could guide a payload through space by determining its position and speed at any moment. The "autonomous payload control system," which India proposed in July 1981, would provide "full autonomous navigation capability to spaceborne sensors," determining "position, velocity, attitude, and precision time in a real-time mode." India would supply the rockets and satellites; Germany would provide the brains of the guidance system. The key component would be an on-board computer, using a microprocessor based on the Motorola family M 68000, and the software to run it.

It must be noted that an inertial navigation system that can guide satellites can also guide warheads. The United States used NASA's experience in guiding the Titan II transtage, a "bus" designed for multiple satellite launchings, to develop a bus that would accurately deliver small nuclear warheads.[7]

The German-Indian plan was carried out. By January 1982, the two countries had agreed on a series of joint projects for the program. But at the same time, India announced that it was designing a new navigation system for its own space rockets: it would replace the "open loop" system used on its first launcher, the SLV-3, with a "closed loop" system for its Advanced Space Launch Vehicle and its Polar Space Launch Vehicle. An open loop system can only correct the rocket's attitude, not deviations from the planned flight path. A closed loop system can correct both, because it senses and determines the rocket's position in space. It amounts to an autonomous navigation system.

So while India's program with Germany, called APC-Rex for Autonomous Payload Control Rocket Experiment, was developing autonomous navigation for a satellite, India would develop autonomous navigation for its own rockets. India would need a brain for its space rockets' new closed loop system, which it would provide by developing the "Mark-II" onboard processor - "based on [the] Motorola 6800 microprocessor with 16-bit word length" - the same as that used in the German program. (Although Indian reports repeatedly refer to the Motorola "6800," according to Motorola the 16-bit chip is the M 68000.) The timing of subsequent events showed continued parallel developments in the two programs.

The German aid in guidance is apparently continuing, despite the Agni launch. In May 1989, a DLR official said that "the APC-Rex program has not yet been concluded, but it will come to an end in 1989."[8] West Germany was one of the seven countries that adopted the Missile Technology Control Regime in 1987, an agreement not to export items useful in making long-range missiles. That agreement barred the export of technology capable of real-time processing of navigation data, unless specific assurances could be given that the technology would not be used for, or transferred to, missile programs. If, as the evidence suggests, technology from APC-Rex has been used in India's rocket and missile programs, Germany may have violated the agreement.

India has not described the Agni guidance system. But when the missile was assembled in 1988, Indian rocket scientists had studied and developed only one brain for rocket guidance: the German system based on the Motorola microprocessor and its software. Over a decade, Germany's guidance tutorial helped India build and test a navigation package based on that system. Did that system go into the Agni, or did India invent from scratch some other system, not mentioned in any Indian space program report? If the latter, did the Indian rocket scientists block from their minds everything they had learned from the Germans? The evidence is strong that the Agni owes its brain to German engineering.

Interchangeable parts

The Indian space program first mentions the Agni in its 1982-83 annual report as a booster rocket for the Polar Space Launch Vehicle: six identical Agni boosters will lift the missile's first stage. The boosters, in turn, are adaptations of the first stage of the SLV-3.[9] Indeed, the SLV-3 is the only large booster motor that India has: it carries nine tons of solid propellant, as does the Agni first stage; no other Indian booster carries anything close to that amount. India has used the same booster to lift the Advanced Space Launch Vehicle.[10] After the Agni launch a number of sources, Indian as well as foreign, reported that the Agni first stage was identical to the SLV-3 first stage. Thus, the main rocket for India's missile program has come from India's space program.

This same rocket, in turn, owes much to German help. Wind tunnels are essential to the design of any rocket. In 1974-75, DLR tested a model of the first stage of the SLV-3 in its wind tunnel at Cologne-Portz. DLR also helped India build rocket test facilities, furnishing a complete facility design and training Indian engineers in high-altitude testing. India has said it will use this technology to test the liquid-fueled upper stage of the Polar Space Launch Vehicle, and it may already have done so. India may also have used it to test the Agni's liquid-fueled second stage, which must have been tested somewhere.

In June 1988, two Egyptian military officers were indicted for trying to smuggle carbon fiber composites out of the United States. Export of the composites was strictly controlled: the strong, lightweight, heat-resistant materials were being used for the nozzles and the nosecone of the MX, Trident, and Minuteman nuclear missiles.

But DAR began giving Indian scientists on-the-job training in composites at Stuttgart and Braunschweig in the mid-1970s. Subjects ranged from "glass fibre reinforced plastics via impregnated materials" to "carbon fibre reinforced composites." The Indians learned "composition, manufacturing processes, quality control, and error detection."

The German training allowed India to make rocket nozzles and nosecones of its own, which could be for either missiles or space launchers. To help the Indians use the composites, DAR supplied the documentation for a precision filament-winding machine, which India built and commissioned in 1985-86.

After the Agni test, Prime Minister Gandhi affirmed that one of the goals was to test "atmospheric reentry." Lower-ranking officials were more specific. They said that the goal was to test a "domestically developed heat shield."[11]

Target: China

No country, including India, has ever spent money on long-range rockets simply to explore space. The "satellites" launched by the SLV-3 were little more than flight monitors, used to transmit data on rocket performance, which was India's true interest. To launch real satellites, India could and did hire other providers of that service. The Soviets launched India's first two satellites; France's Ariane rocket and the U.S. space shuttle have launched others.

Nor has any country developed long-range missiles simply to deliver conventional bombs. The large cost of missile development is only justified by the ability to inflict strategic blows, which conventional warheads cannot do.

The Agni, therefore, can only be interpreted as a step toward a long-range nuclear strike force. As India progresses in guidance, the Agni's range should extend gradually to most targets in China.

India apparently has the material and skill to mass produce the Agni and arm it with nuclear warheads. The result will be a new nuclear equation in Asia. Across a common border, nuclear-armed rivals will confront each other, each with missiles, one or both vulnerable to a first strike from the other.

When India exploded an atomic bomb in 1974, the world was shocked. India had taken a Canadian reactor and U.S. heavy water both imported under guarantees of peaceful use and used them openly to make plutonium for a nuclear blast. That blast destroyed illusions about the "peaceful atom" and prompted changes in nuclear export policy. It is not surprising that India has again taken advantage of civilian imports and technology to further what appears to be a nuclear weapons program. What is surprising is that, given India's record, it was so easy.

How a Satellite Guidance System Gets into a Missile

(Excerpts from program reports)

1982-83

APC-Rex (German-Indian missile program satellite guidance program): received Motorola 68000 microprocessor

Indian space and missile program: "An engineering model of the Mark-ll based on the Motorola 6800 [sic] has been integrated and exhaustive tests are being carried out."

1983-84

APC-Rex (German-Indian missile program satellite guidance program): "Development of an on-board computer for autonomous payload control is in progress."

Indian space and missile program: "Design review was conducted on inertial navigation systems with the participation of international experts."

1984-85

APC-Rex (German-Indian missile program satellite guidance program): "Design of the on-board [guidance] packages was completed."

Indian space and missile program: "Design of on-board processors for SLV based on 16-bit microprocessors has been completed."

1986-87

APC-Rex (German-Indian missile program satellite guidance program): "Development and validation of hardware and software packages for APC-Rex are in their final stages."

Indian space and missile program: "Breadboard models of on-board computers based on microprocessors have been realized."



Sources:

1. P.D. Bhavsar et al., "Indian Sounding Rocket Program," Proceedings of the 4th Sounding Rocket Technology Conference (Boston: American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics, June 23-26,1976), pp. 101-07.

2. Letter from Arnold W. Frutkin, assistant administrator for international affairs, NASA, to Homi J. Bhabha, chairman, Indian Atomic Energy Commission, March 10, 1965.

3. Steven R. Weisman, "U.S. Clears Vital Gyroscope for Indian Jet Fighter," New York Times, April 7, 1988, p. A12.

4. David Velupillai, "ISRO, India's Ambitious Space Agency," Flight International (June 28, 1980), p. 1466.

5. "India's Agni Success Poses New Problems," Jane's Defence Weekly (June 3,1989), p. 1052.

6. Many of the following details of the German-Indian space program are found in the proceedings of a January 27, 1982, colloquium of the DAR (then called DFVLR) and the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) in Bangalore, India, "A Decade of Cooperation in the Field of Space Research and Technology," and in annual reports of the Indian government's Department of Space.

7. Ted Greenwood, Qualitative Improvements in Offensive Strategic Arms: The Case of the MARV(Cambridge: Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Aug. 1973), p. 278.

8. Letter from Dietmar Wurzel, head of DAR's Washington, D.C., office, to Gary Milhollin, May 1, 1989.

9. "India The Way Forward," Spaceflight (Dec.1986), p. 434.

10. "India Aims for Self-Sufficiency in Space," Flight International (June 14,1986), p. 45.

11. Barbara Crossette, "India Reports Successful Test of Mid-Range Missile," New York Times, May 22, 1989, p. A9.

Do you know what Sounding rocket are ? Do some reserach and then come back kid.
 
Alright im off, i dont wish to engage in a one on one battle with Growler as he cant understand logic anyways. Good luck with your copy paste but please atleast use credible and up to date sources lol bye bye
 
Alright im off, i dont wish to engage in a one on one battle with Growler as he cant understand logic anyways. Good luck with your copy paste but please atleast use credible and up to date sources lol bye bye

Losers walk away. Yet again you proved to be a loser and a troller.
remeber trollers like you have no logic thus they lose. bye bye :wave:
 
LTI is a second hand source which does not conduct research on its own rather frequently use references from different sources. It relies on websites.
Where as, wisconsinproject conducts its own research and does not uses websites to rely on.
 
LTI is a second hand source which does not conduct research on its own rather frequently use references from different sources. It relies on websites.
Where as, wisconsinproject conducts its own research and does not uses websites to rely on.

Tall claims by a person who has started the thread based on Testimony of a University Professor and you call it research... Any guess, why I am not amazed at all...
 
All of Milhollin’s allegations are based on circumstantial evidence as opposed to any hard one. That is not to say that he was wrong in entirety. However he has cleverly left out some invisible dots and connected some obvious ones so as to lead his audience to his own preconceived conclusion, instead of their own. Following is a comparison between Scout and SLV-3. (NOTE: Given the time frame of Dr Kalam’s visit to Wallops Island, and the dimension of Scout, only Scout X-2 series can be compared to SLV-3. The various models of X-2 series are almost identical to each other.)

scoutvsslv32.jpg


Sources: Scout & SLV & NTI: Country Overviews: India: Missile Chronology

SLV-3 is, in all probability, based on Scout design. Being a proven system, with critical information about such successful system being publicly available and further, having officially studied the design, it made sense that Indian engineers based their first endeavor to launch satellite on the design concept of Scout. However claiming that SLV-3 is an _exact copy_ of Scout is pushing it a bit too far. The stages are clearly different in weights, dimension and burn time, the propellant used are different in the upper two stages and even the payload carried is different, SLV-3 carrying merely 60% of Scout’s payload.

One can’t help but wonder, what else is needed to be different to be not an _exact copy_ of another launch vehicle.
 
All of Milhollin’s allegations are based on circumstantial evidence as opposed to any hard one. That is not to say that he was wrong in entirety. However he has cleverly left out some invisible dots and connected some obvious ones so as to lead his audience to his own preconceived conclusion, instead of their own. Following is a comparison between Scout and SLV-3. (NOTE: Given the time frame of Dr Kalam’s visit to Wallops Island, and the dimension of Scout, only Scout X-2 series can be compared to SLV-3. The various models of X-2 series are almost identical to each other.)

scoutvsslv32.jpg


Few points to note. The comparison must be done with Scout A rather then XB.
Scout A and SLV-3 are very identical.

Launches: 11. First Launch Date: 1965-12-22. Last Launch Date: 1970-08-27. LEO Payload: 122 kg (268 lb). to: 185 km Orbit. Associated Spacecraft: Ariel, Owl, Transit. Liftoff Thrust: 513.400 kN (115,417 lbf). Total Mass: 17,850 kg (39,350 lb). Core Diameter: 1.01 m (3.31 ft). Total Length: 25.00 m (82.00 ft). Flyaway Unit Cost $: 8.610 million. in: 1985 unit dollars.

* Stage1: 1 x Algol 2. Gross Mass: 11,600 kg (25,500 lb). Empty Mass: 1,650 kg (3,630 lb). Motor: 1 x Algol 2. Thrust (vac): 564.245 kN (126,847 lbf). Isp: 255 sec. Burn time: 47 sec. Length: 9.09 m (29.82 ft). Diameter: 1.01 m (3.31 ft). Propellants: Solid.

* Stage2: 1 x Castor 2. Gross Mass: 4,424 kg (9,753 lb). Empty Mass: 695 kg (1,532 lb). Motor: 1 x TX-354-3. Thrust (vac): 258.915 kN (58,206 lbf). Isp: 262 sec. Burn time: 37 sec. Length: 6.04 m (19.81 ft). Diameter: 0.79 m (2.59 ft). Propellants: Solid.

* Stage3: 1 x Antares 2. Gross Mass: 1,400 kg (3,000 lb). Empty Mass: 300 kg (660 lb). Motor: 1 x X-259. Thrust (vac): 93.094 kN (20,928 lbf). Isp: 293 sec. Burn time: 36 sec. Length: 2.90 m (9.50 ft). Diameter: 0.78 m (2.55 ft). Propellants: Solid.

* Stage4: 1 x Altair 2. Gross Mass: 275 kg (606 lb). Empty Mass: 37 kg (81 lb). Motor: 1 x X-258. Thrust (vac): 22.241 kN (5,000 lbf). Isp: 266 sec. Burn time: 28 sec. Length: 2.53 m (8.30 ft). Diameter: 0.64 m (2.09 ft). Propellants: Solid.



Sources: Scout & SLV & NTI: Country Overviews: India: Missile Chronology

SLV-3 is, in all probability, based on Scout design. Being a proven system, with critical information about such successful system being publicly available and further, having officially studied the design, it made sense that Indian engineers based their first endeavor to launch satellite on the design concept of Scout. However claiming that SLV-3 is an _exact copy_ of Scout is pushing it a bit too far. The stages are clearly different in weights, dimension and burn time, the propellant used are different in the upper two stages and even the payload carried is different, SLV-3 carrying merely 60% of Scout’s payload.

One can’t help but wonder, what else is needed to be different to be not an _exact copy_ of another launch vehicle.

SLV-3 is not a exact copy of Scout A but few modification were done for Indian specification.

LINK
Soon afterward, in 1965, the Indian government asked NASA how much it would cost and how long it would take to develop an Indian version of the Scout, and whether the United States would help. NASA replied that the Scout was "available . . . for purchase . . . in connection with scientific research," but warned that "transfer of this technology . . . would be a matter for determination by the Department of State under Munitions Control."[2] NASA nevertheless sent India technical reports on the Scout's design, which was unclassified. India's request should have raised some eyebrows: it came from Homi Bhabha, head of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission.
 
Last edited:
Few points to note. The comparison must be done with Scout A rather then XB.
Scout A and SLV-3 are very identical.

Launches: 11. First Launch Date: 1965-12-22. Last Launch Date: 1970-08-27. LEO Payload: 122 kg (268 lb). to: 185 km Orbit. Associated Spacecraft: Ariel, Owl, Transit. Liftoff Thrust: 513.400 kN (115,417 lbf). Total Mass: 17,850 kg (39,350 lb). Core Diameter: 1.01 m (3.31 ft). Total Length: 25.00 m (82.00 ft). Flyaway Unit Cost $: 8.610 million. in: 1985 unit dollars.

* Stage1: 1 x Algol 2. Gross Mass: 11,600 kg (25,500 lb). Empty Mass: 1,650 kg (3,630 lb). Motor: 1 x Algol 2. Thrust (vac): 564.245 kN (126,847 lbf). Isp: 255 sec. Burn time: 47 sec. Length: 9.09 m (29.82 ft). Diameter: 1.01 m (3.31 ft). Propellants: Solid.

* Stage2: 1 x Castor 2. Gross Mass: 4,424 kg (9,753 lb). Empty Mass: 695 kg (1,532 lb). Motor: 1 x TX-354-3. Thrust (vac): 258.915 kN (58,206 lbf). Isp: 262 sec. Burn time: 37 sec. Length: 6.04 m (19.81 ft). Diameter: 0.79 m (2.59 ft). Propellants: Solid.

* Stage3: 1 x Antares 2. Gross Mass: 1,400 kg (3,000 lb). Empty Mass: 300 kg (660 lb). Motor: 1 x X-259. Thrust (vac): 93.094 kN (20,928 lbf). Isp: 293 sec. Burn time: 36 sec. Length: 2.90 m (9.50 ft). Diameter: 0.78 m (2.55 ft). Propellants: Solid.

* Stage4: 1 x Altair 2. Gross Mass: 275 kg (606 lb). Empty Mass: 37 kg (81 lb). Motor: 1 x X-258. Thrust (vac): 22.241 kN (5,000 lbf). Isp: 266 sec. Burn time: 28 sec. Length: 2.53 m (8.30 ft). Diameter: 0.64 m (2.09 ft). Propellants: Solid.
Firstly I didn’t compare SLV-3 to the non-existing Scout XB but to Scout X-2B. I am assuming it is a typo on your part.

Secondly, Dr Kalam was in US for 4 months during '63-'64. Scout-A at that time probably didn't even exist or even it did it was only on paper and nothing more. However Scout - X series rockets were being regularly fired during that time frame. Also when Indian government requested for Scout 'designs' in 1965, the Scout-A probably wasn't tested yet. Scout A was tested for the first time at the end of 1965. It is logical that Indian scientist would have gone for a proven platform rather than the one which was yet to be tested.

Further, even if we compare Scout A to SLV-3, the difference couldn't be starker. SLV-3 could ferry merely 34% of Scout A’s payload to 900 Km apogee. However, Scout A’s apogee(sic) was 185 Km, while Scout X-2B/2M had an apogee of 900 Km – similar to SLV-3. Even in terms of stage dimension, weight, burn time, Scout A doesn’t seem to be too different from Scout X-2 series.

Just because a system _looks_ identical to some other system it doesn’t mean that it is based on that system. There are several other variables that one has to consider. Regardless of the nitpick, I would love to hear how SLV-3 is ‘identical’ to Scout A.
SLV-3 is not a exact copy of Scout A but few modification were done for Indian specification.

LINK
Let me remind you of Milhollin’s comments in the OP.

‘It was an exact copy of the Scout’

Glad that this canard has been shot down and is acknowledged. If Scout design was modified by Indians to suite Indian needs – and there were several modifications, primarily of the propellant which required a much larger propellant tank that had a cascading effect of increasing launch weight and decreasing payload capacity and changed L/D ratio (Length to Diameter ratio) – then the Indian scientists deserve every bit of the credit that is given to them.

My job here seems to be over for now. But before I forget, Dr Kalam didn’t build SLV-3 alone. He was responsible for the fourth stage only. Also, it appears that NASA had transferred technical ‘reports on design’ and not the design itself.
 
Secondly, Dr Kalam was in US for 4 months during '63-'64. Scout-A at that time probably didn't even exist or even it did it was only on paper and nothing more. However Scout - X series rockets were being regularly fired during that time frame. Also when Indian government requested for Scout 'designs' in 1965, the Scout-A probably wasn't tested yet. Scout A was tested for the first time at the end of 1965. It is logical that Indian scientist would have gone for a proven platform rather than the one which was yet to be tested.
Still does not change the fact that SLV-3 was based on Scout missile.




Further, even if we compare Scout A to SLV-3, the difference couldn't be starker. SLV-3 could ferry merely 34% of Scout A’s payload to 900 Km apogee. However, Scout A’s apogee(sic) was 185 Km, while Scout X-2B/2M had an apogee of 900 Km – similar to SLV-3. Even in terms of stage dimension, weight, burn time, Scout A doesn’t seem to be too different from Scout X-2 series.
Its quite logical that india could not produce a engine of American equivalent. India did not had technical capability to produce a engine of american equivalent.
Just because a system _looks_ identical to some other system it doesn’t mean that it is based on that system. There are several other variables that one has to consider. Regardless of the nitpick, I would love to hear how SLV-3 is ‘identical’ to Scout A.
Are you still in denial that SLV-3 is based on Scout missile program because its just indian?

Also, it appears that NASA had transferred technical ‘reports on design’ and not the design itself.

:lol:
 
Still does not change the fact that SLV-3 was based on Scout missile.
It refutes the allegation that SLV-3 was an 'exact copy' of Scout.

Besides the part of my reply that you have highlighted, was not an argument to deny that SLV-3 may have been based on Scout rockets. It was to refute your claim that Scout A is 'identical' to SLV-3. Please pay attention while replying.

Its quite logical that india could not produce a engine of American equivalent. India did not had technical capability to produce a engine of american equivalent.
And yet you continue to try and prove that Indian scientists got the 'designs' of Scout and almost nothing about SLV-3 is indigenous. Here, you are unwittingly acknowledging that the SLV-3 engines were indigenous and hence not of American standards.

This is a fine example of cognitive dissonance.

Are you still in denial that SLV-3 is based on Scout missile program because its just indian?
That sentence is weird. Anyway, I am not in denial and if you had read my earlier post you would have come across these lines:

'SLV-3 is, in all probability, based on Scout design. Being a proven system, with critical information about such successful system being publicly available and further, having officially studied the design, it made sense that Indian engineers based their first endeavor to launch satellite on the design concept of Scout.'

Anyway, I am still waiting for your explanation of why Scout A should be compared to SLV-3 and more importantly how much of Scout A is identical to SLV-3, apart from the looks.

That's Growlerspeak for 'I have no clue about the difference between 'reports' and 'designs''.
 
Find more than one source, Wisconsin project feels biased to me.

kindly read.

As a result of the Project’s research and revelations in the press, Israel was forced to return nuclear material it had imported for improper purposes from Norway, Germany overhauled and strengthened its export control system, the U.S. Congress tightened restrictions on the sale of American supercomputers, and the U.S. Commerce Department restricted trade with 63 organizations in Pakistan and India following those countries’ nuclear weapon tests. The United States, the United Nations and the European Union also used the Project’s research to identify Iranian entities linked to nuclear and missile work whose assets should be frozen.

The Project has also provided direct assistance to U.S. and foreign government agencies to help them improve their export controls. In cooperation with the U.S. Defense and State Departments, the Project has trained nearly 800 export control officials in some 30 countries around the world. This initiative began in 1998, with countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. It has since expanded to include countries elsewhere that are of concern for transshipment and diversion.
 
It refutes the allegation that SLV-3 was an 'exact copy' of Scout.
Taking words out of context are we?

And yet you continue to try and prove that Indian scientists got the 'designs' of Scout and almost nothing about SLV-3 is indigenous. Here, you are unwittingly acknowledging that the SLV-3 engines were indigenous and hence not of American standards.
Taking words out of context are we?
You are just coming up with words that suites your purpose of hiding from the reality.
I am under impression that you think that the words used to describe SLV as "exact copy" as essentially everything even electronics are Scout's. In fact SLV-3 used Scout as model platform, mostly Germans and French provided electronics, guidance systems, sensor and propulsion technologies. Thats why the end product of SLV-3 is different from Scout not that the SLV-3 was a new product solely developed by India.

This is what "Pentagon" study had to say about "indian indigenous" Missile technology in 1995.
India is still weak in many vital rocket technologies, and needs help in composites, electronics, computers, sensors, navigation, guidance, control and propulsion, according to a Pentagon study which ranks countries' military capabilities. To bolster its efforts in these areas, India is looking for imports.


Whether India succeeds will depend on help from abroad. India has long claimed that it has a perfect right to run a space program, and India has never promised not to make nuclear-capable missiles. India is not seen as a "rogue country." Yet, India has consistently used foreign help to convert its space rockets to nuclear-capable missiles. Imports, some clandestine, some overt, have nourished India's nuclear and rocket efforts from the start.
India built the medium-range Agni missile by taking a first-stage rocket from a small space launcher and combining it with guidance technology developed by the German space agency.

One of India's ablest students was A. P. J. Abdul Kalam. While training in the United States, he visited the space centers where the U.S. Scout rocket was conceived and was being flown. Kalam returned home to build India's first space rocket, the Satellite Launch Vehicle - SLV-3, a carbon copy of the Scout. NASA made Kalam's task easier by supplying unclassified technical reports on the Scout's design.

But aid from America and France was soon dwarfed by aid from Germany. In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Germany helped India with three indispensable missile technologies: guidance, rocket-testing and composite materials. Earmarked for the space program, all were equally useful for building missiles.

In 1978, Germany installed an interfero-meter on an Indian rocket to measure, from the ground, a rocket's angle of flight. Four years later, India tested its own version. From 1982 to 1989, Germany helped India build a navigation system for satellites based on a Motorola microprocessor. During the same period, and following the same steps, India developed its own navigation system for missiles and rockets based on the same microprocessor.
 
Last edited:
Taking words out of context are we?


Taking words out of context are we?
You are just coming up with words that suites your purpose of hiding from the reality.
I am under impression that you think that the words used to describe SLV as "exact copy" as essentially everything even electronics are Scout's. In fact SLV-3 used Scout as model platform, mostly Germans and French provided electronics, guidance systems, sensor and propulsion technologies. Thats why the end product of SLV-3 is different from Scout not that the SLV-3 was a new product solely developed by India.

This is what "Pentagon" study had to say about "indian indigenous" Missile technology in 1995.
India is still weak in many vital rocket technologies, and needs help in composites, electronics, computers, sensors, navigation, guidance, control and propulsion, according to a Pentagon study which ranks countries' military capabilities. To bolster its efforts in these areas, India is looking for imports.


Whether India succeeds will depend on help from abroad. India has long claimed that it has a perfect right to run a space program, and India has never promised not to make nuclear-capable missiles. India is not seen as a "rogue country." Yet, India has consistently used foreign help to convert its space rockets to nuclear-capable missiles. Imports, some clandestine, some overt, have nourished India's nuclear and rocket efforts from the start.
India built the medium-range Agni missile by taking a first-stage rocket from a small space launcher and combining it with guidance technology developed by the German space agency.

One of India's ablest students was A. P. J. Abdul Kalam. While training in the United States, he visited the space centers where the U.S. Scout rocket was conceived and was being flown. Kalam returned home to build India's first space rocket, the Satellite Launch Vehicle - SLV-3, a carbon copy of the Scout. NASA made Kalam's task easier by supplying unclassified technical reports on the Scout's design.

But aid from America and France was soon dwarfed by aid from Germany. In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Germany helped India with three indispensable missile technologies: guidance, rocket-testing and composite materials. Earmarked for the space program, all were equally useful for building missiles.

In 1978, Germany installed an interfero-meter on an Indian rocket to measure, from the ground, a rocket's angle of flight. Four years later, India tested its own version. From 1982 to 1989, Germany helped India build a navigation system for satellites based on a Motorola microprocessor. During the same period, and following the same steps, India developed its own navigation system for missiles and rockets based on the same microprocessor.

If we had copied Technology from Abroad, we wouldn't be the ones who put 10 Satellites into the orbit in one go at cheaper cost than other organisations.



There is a difference between giving equipments for use and transfering a technology.

You people use F-16's But i Bet you cannot develop its turbine blades in house unless until Americans dont give you the technology.
That's the difference.
 
Last edited:
Taking words out of context are we?


Taking words out of context are we?
Amazing. It is you who has decontextualized my reply in the first place. Selective reading is not going to help.

You are just coming up with words that suites your purpose of hiding from the reality.
I am under impression that you think that the words used to describe SLV as "exact copy" as essentially everything even electronics are Scout's. In fact SLV-3 used Scout as model platform, mostly Germans and French provided electronics, guidance systems, sensor and propulsion technologies. Thats why the end product of SLV-3 is different from Scout not that the SLV-3 was a new product solely developed by India.
You are now trying to raise a strawman in an attempt to obfuscate and weasel your way out.

Firstly, I have never for once mentioned anything about electronics or guidance systems or sensors. You are more than welcome to fight your own shadow.

Secondly, term 'exact copy' or 'carbon copy' (refer the so called Pentagon report below) can mean only one thing. That SLV-3 is one-to-one replica of some version of Scout - internally and externally. No matter how hard you try to spin, it can't have a different meaning.

Thirdly, if end product of SLV-3 is _different_ from Scout then how come SLV-3 is not a new product. The only similarity with Scout, that I am seeing, is that SLV-3, just like Scout was a rocket that carried a satellite to LEO and had four stages. Everything else is different. Its like saying all sedans are same because they have the same 3-box design, with four wheels, four doors and an engine at the front. Therefore sedans made by Mercedes are same as those made by, lets say, Toyota, and are not different products.

Again, a cognitive dissonance. You are finding it hard to rationalize this contradiction - how can a system be different from another and yet be 'exact copy' or 'carbon copy' of the later.

This is what "Pentagon" study had to say about "indian indigenous" Missile technology in 1995.
India is still weak in many vital rocket technologies, and needs help in composites, electronics, computers, sensors, navigation, guidance, control and propulsion, according to a Pentagon study which ranks countries' military capabilities. To bolster its efforts in these areas, India is looking for imports.


Whether India succeeds will depend on help from abroad. India has long claimed that it has a perfect right to run a space program, and India has never promised not to make nuclear-capable missiles. India is not seen as a "rogue country."(Nice to know) Yet, India has consistently used foreign help to convert its space rockets to nuclear-capable missiles. Imports, some clandestine, (example of such 'clandestine' imports?) some overt, have nourished India's nuclear and rocket efforts from the start.
India built the medium-range Agni missile by taking a first-stage rocket from a small space launcher and combining it with guidance technology developed by the German space agency.

One of India's ablest students was A. P. J. Abdul Kalam. While training in the United States, he visited the space centers where the U.S. Scout rocket was conceived and was being flown. Kalam returned home to build India's first space rocket (Dr Kalam was responsible for the 4th stage of the rocket. Three others were responsible for the other three stages. There was a separate establishment that developed the indigenous propellant), the Satellite Launch Vehicle - SLV-3, a carbon copy of the Scout.(What does 'carbon copy' mean? Hasn't it been proved that Scout is far from being a 'carbon copy'? Or does the new definition of 'carbon copy' include different launch weight, height, L/D ratio, stage dimensions, burn times, payload capacity, propellant etc. Got to get that new dictionary) NASA made Kalam's task easier by supplying unclassified technical reports on the Scout's design.(Strange. They keep repeating about how 'reports' were transferred not about 'designs'. Why?)

But aid from America and France was soon dwarfed by aid from Germany. In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Germany helped India with three indispensable missile technologies: guidance, rocket-testing and composite materials. Earmarked for the space program, all were equally useful for building missiles.

In 1978, Germany installed an interfero-meter on an Indian rocket to measure, from the ground, a rocket's angle of flight. Four years later, India tested its own version. (What does 'own version' mean here?) From 1982 to 1989, Germany helped India build a navigation system for satellites based on a Motorola microprocessor. During the same period, and following the same steps, India developed its own navigation system (Seriously? And yet nothing is indigenous about it?) for missiles and rockets based on the same microprocessor.
My replies are in blue. I have changed the highlights as well.

One FYI thing before I forget. SLV-3's 1st stage used PBAN based propellant, while Agni-I's 1st stage uses HTPB based propellant.

I am still waiting for your explanation. Why should Scout A be compared to SLV-3 and how is the former 'identical' to the later.
 
Back
Top Bottom