Land Version of K 4 Under Development?

[IND151]

Ms. Thomas said that while the two-stage Agni-III missile capable of hitting targets up to 3,000 km away weighed 50 tonnes, the team was able to bring down the weight of the missile to 22 tonnes.

↑
https://defence.pk/threads/agni-v-vital-tessy-thomas.284269/

?????????????is she hinting at Land Version of K 4?

Mr. Chander too hinted about this version months ago in interview.

That must be the case, because by no way the weight of missile can be reduced that much (54.17%)

@Capt.Popeye @sancho @gambit

 

[kurup]

Ms. Thomas said that while the two-stage Agni-III missile capable of hitting targets up to 3,000 km away weighed 50 tonnes, the team was able to bring down the weight of the missile to 22 tonnes.

↑
https://defence.pk/threads/agni-v-vital-tessy-thomas.284269/

?????????????is she hinting at Land Version of K 4?

Mr. Chander too hinted about this version months ago in interview.

That must be the case, because by no way the weight of missile can be reduced that much (54.17%)

@Capt.Popeye @sancho @gambit

I don't think so . She was talking specifically about Agni 3 .

IMO , they must have incorporated the new technologies tested in Agni 4 on to Agni 3 .

We will have to wait for the next test of Agni 3 to know how much of this is true .

 

[IND151]

^^ Do you really think so much reduction is possible? I think its either about K 4 land version or its typo and right figure is 42 or 32 not22

 

[Anony]

If K-4 weighs only 17 ton then land version of it should weigh even less. Or is she hinting about new hybrid version of K-4, that can carry 2+ ton of weapon

 

[shiv]

50T reduced to 22T my A$$ !!

 

[kurup]

^^ Do you really think so much reduction is possible? I think its either about K 4 land version or its typo and right figure is 42 or 32 not22

No idea , we will have to wait for more news or the next test .

Every time a news about Agni 3 comes out it confuses you . Varying data revealed about it all the time , from range to payload .

 

[Dash]

Do we have @Kinetic around?

 

[IND151]

^^ I haven't seen him sicne months

 

[IND151]

If K-4 weighs only 17 ton then land version of it should weigh even less. Or is she hinting about new hybrid version of K-4, that can carry 2+ ton of weapon

Not necessary; the land version, may be, is being developed to carry more payload so it is more heavy (more propellant, bigger motors)

 

[JohnyD]

50T reduced to 22T my A$$ !!

As per Agni III Specs onWiki, the latest version weighs only 22k KG...

 

[kurup]

As per Agni III Specs onWiki, the latest version weighs only 22k KG...

Somebody updated it after the Tessy Thomas's speech .

The link leads to a report of her speech in Hindu .

 

[gambit]

^^ Do you really think so much reduction is possible? I think its either about K 4 land version or its typo and right figure is 42 or 32 not22

Yes, you can.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/c-4.htm

Inert weights were reduced with structures fabricated from composite graphite-epoxy materials which represent 40 percent weight saving compared to similar structures made from aluminum.

Technically speaking, a missile and a jet fighter are aircrafts. But the greatest difference between the two vehicles lies in the degree of dependency on aerodynamic exploitation. The missile have the least dependency. The jet fighter have the greatest.

The jet fighter need aerodynamic exploitation for flight, specifically the right combination of thrust and lift through large expanse of lifting surfaces, aka wings and even the fuselage. Large flight control surfaces also facilitate rapid, abrupt, and unpredictable flight deviations, aka 'maneuvers'.

The missile relies largely on sheer thrust for flight with a minimum of aerodynamic exploitation for stability, specifically structural longitudinal stability. The longer the missile, the greater the tendency to flex -- lengthwise. The more powerful the thrust, the greater the compression on that same length, which compounds that tendency. But since the missile is not required to make radical and abrupt flight deviations, aka 'maneuvers', the way the jet fighter does, the highest demand for structural robustness is in the longitudinal axis.

So already we can see that the missile is a far less complex vehicle than the jet fighter in terms of structural engineering. The Agni-3's estimated weight is about 50 tons, but that is fuel-ed weight. No missile is deployed for combat readiness with no fuel, solid or liquid. What good is it? If the missile is solid fuel, then its specified weight includes the solid fuel.

For comparison, the F-111A's EMPTY WEIGHT is 45 tons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardvark

The variant had a maximum takeoff weight of 92,500 lb (42,000 kg) and an empty weight of 45,200 lb (20,500 kg).

Look at the weight difference between fuel-ed and empty weight of the Saturn V...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

The S-IC stage had a dry weight of about 131 tonnes (289,000 lb) and fully fueled at launch had a total weight of 2,300 tonnes (5,100,000 lb).

So if we take a defuel-ed the missile and disassemble it -- empty weight -- then absolutely with the right materials and new structural engineering knowledge we can have high empty weight reduction approaching the 50% range or more.

Here is the better deal...

Improved materials and structural engineering reduced empty weight but still retains the same fuel quantity capability. We now have, not only higher thrust-to-weight ratio, but also because of the lower empty weight, the same quantity of fuel now extends the range as well. We can swap some of that fuel load for more warheads, for example, and keep the original range.

 

[Anony]

Not necessary; the land version, may be, is being developed to carry more payload so it is more heavy (more propellant, bigger motors)

That's what I meant, when I said hybrid version of Agni III and K-4, which can carry 2+ ton of payload

 

[Raje amar]

Why are we not implementing to the whole range of missiles we have?

This will definitely help to reduce the weight and size. The reduced size and weight means more agility in terms of deployment and movement / transportation.

 

[IND151]

Yes, you can.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/c-4.htm

Technically speaking, a missile and a jet fighter are aircrafts. But the greatest difference between the two vehicles lies in the degree of dependency on aerodynamic exploitation. The missile have the least dependency. The jet fighter have the greatest.

The jet fighter need aerodynamic exploitation for flight, specifically the right combination of thrust and lift through large expanse of lifting surfaces, aka wings and even the fuselage. Large flight control surfaces also facilitate rapid, abrupt, and unpredictable flight deviations, aka 'maneuvers'.

The missile relies largely on sheer thrust for flight with a minimum of aerodynamic exploitation for stability, specifically structural longitudinal stability. The longer the missile, the greater the tendency to flex -- lengthwise. The more powerful the thrust, the greater the compression on that same length, which compounds that tendency. But since the missile is not required to make radical and abrupt flight deviations, aka 'maneuvers', the way the jet fighter does, the highest demand for structural robustness is in the longitudinal axis.

So already we can see that the missile is a far less complex vehicle than the jet fighter in terms of structural engineering. The Agni-3's estimated weight is about 50 tons, but that is fuel-ed weight. No missile is deployed for combat readiness with no fuel, solid or liquid. What good is it? If the missile is solid fuel, then its specified weight includes the solid fuel.

For comparison, the F-111A's EMPTY WEIGHT is 45 tons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardvark

Look at the weight difference between fuel-ed and empty weight of the Saturn V...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

So if we take a defuel-ed the missile and disassemble it -- empty weight -- then absolutely with the right materials and new structural engineering knowledge we can have high empty weight reduction approaching the 50% range or more.

Here is the better deal...

Improved materials and structural engineering reduced empty weight but still retains the same fuel quantity capability. We now have, not only higher thrust-to-weight ratio, but also because of the lower empty weight, the same quantity of fuel now extends the range as well. We can swap some of that fuel load for more warheads, for example, and keep the original range.

I know composite materials and composite motors reduce the weight of missile.

However propellant accounts for 75 to 80 % of missile weight, so unless a very powerful propellant has been used which results in dramatic decrease in mass and weight of propellant, the missile can not lose so much weight.