Prithvi missiles to be replaced by more-capable Prahar: DRDO

[kurup]

I think we already have that as we're developing MIRV tech for A-5 which will be ready and might be tested within 1 year.so,without tactical nuke,whats the usage of MIRV???and its quite understandable as we've a long history of nuclear research and India showed its capability to develop miniaturized nuke during Pokhran II..so,it is quite logical if I say yes,we've them.

a good article on it...

Does India Need Tactical Nuclear Weapons

MIRV have nothing to do with tactical nukes .The MIRV warheads usually have yield of several hundred KT . OTOH , tactical nukes are the ones with sub-kiloton yield , afaik .

For eg , Peacekeeper ICBM of US carries up to 12 W87 warheads per missile . Each W87 warhead have a yield of 300KT.

 

[GR!FF!N]

Im not "claiming" anything... the proof is there... or maybe u are just foolish to think tht ISPR is lying... and tht they developed a 60KM ranged highly accurate(with each TEL having 4 or more Nasr missiles) nuclear capable missile... tested it ... and bluffed the world.... including india... into believing tht its a nuclear missile ...

Fake Nasr or Haft IX:


Enjoy...

I think we'll never believe Pakistan after Kargil debacle.but thats entirely different matter.claiming something and original fact is entirely different matter.see,Pakistan's desparation is so much high that they developed a battle field missile to nuke Indian conventional forces its own land(pakistan) and are ready to start a nuclear war.so,bluffing in desparation is nothing new.but then again,I'm not doubting Pakistan's capability.I'm simply claiming that India has the capability of making "miniaturized nukes" and I think we already have them.simple..peace.

 

[kurup]

You dumb DRDO miniaturised Nuclear reactor for submarine , they build nuclear reactors & fast breed reactor for power generation then how do you think they are unable to miniaturised nuclear weapon & for forgive me to call you fool because I am kidding

Miniaturising a nuclear reactor into fit inside a submarine and miniaturising a nuclear warhead are two different things .

We already have a naval reactor and we are currently working on MIRV.

 

[GR!FF!N]

MIRV have nothing to do with tactical nukes .The MIRV warheads usually have yield of several hundred KT . OTOH , tactical nukes are the ones with sub-kiloton yield , afaik .

For eg , Peacekeeper ICBM of US carries up to 12 W87 warheads per missile . Each W87 warhead have a yield of 300KT.

what I actually meant is "miniaturized nuke".and I've already stated that "tactical" word generally vary for each copuntry.we don't know about the level of miniaturization is achieved or how many nukes A-5 will carry.so,I'll assume that each MIRV(if A-5 holds 5 or more MIRVs) will hold nuke with a yield of few KTs.I'm not expecting something in USA's level.

 

[Manindra]

Miniaturising a nuclear reactor into fit inside a submarine and miniaturising a nuclear warhead are two different things .

We already have a naval reactor and we are currently working on MIRV.

If India cannot miniaturised nuked on that time then MOD take issue very seriously after test of Nasr just like they do on test of cruise missile Babur . But Mod & DRDO does not take seriously it reflects from answer of Shivshanker menon.

 

[kurup]

If India cannot miniaturised nuked on that time then MOD take issue very seriously after test of Nasr just like they do on test of cruise missile Babur . But Mod & DRDO does not take seriously it reflects from answer of Shivshanker menon.

I never said we don't have miniaturisation capability .We already have it . But miniaturisation is just one aspect of MIRV.

 

[Dillinger]

@On topic @kurup @manindra

1st:- MIRVs do require a certain miniaturization of warheads without compromising yield. AND NO, the MIRVs used by the US do not carry megaton loads- the W88 warhead used by the States comes in at 475Kt. As BMs grow more accurate the idea of pumping off megaton yield warheads grows more redundant. Miniaturization of warheads itself is not an issue for us- MIRVs by themselves are always the real technological hurdle- as in the RVs themselves.

2nd:- Miniaturization of a nuclear reactor has absolutely NOTHING to do with miniaturizing nuclear warheads. A reactor needs to sustain a nuclear reaction- contain it safely- ensure that nothing more than the accepted levels of radiation leaks out and must have certain safety/cut-off mechanisms. A warhead on the other hand remains inert till the "trigger" sets it off, you could plonk a road-train onto one and at most you might cause some irradiation to the immediate surroundings within a certain radius. Miniaturizing a reactor is FAR more complex than anything that can be done with a warhead.

3rd:- That having been said, please read the article carefully, statements coming from the DRDO chief should not be conflated with operational and doctrinal change. The Prithvi is going no where since it is highly accurate and versatile in terms of payload carried. Prahar on the other hand is meant and tailored for a very different purpose and thus this article- as most which come out of IDRW- makes a mockery out of the term "in context". In short it is less than accurate and that is still a charitable description.

Lastly, @DESERT FIGHTER is correct in stating that Pakistan probably does have miniaturized warheads meant for the Nasr system with relatively low yields- its not going to be pushing dozens of Kt- but they're there and they seem to be embraced well enough by their users within the ambit of their nuclear doctrine. Just because exhaustive tests of the warhead itself have not been seen does not mean that they haven't succeeded in miniaturization- no matter how much the "western experts" sneer. Now as to what are the implications of such a strategy, of deploying TNWs, is a whole different issue altogether and can be discussed somewhere else.

Lastly, a humble request, please be specifically careful when evaluating articles published by IDRW. They have a poor grasp on such matters at most times and are usually pushing some harebrained agenda or the other.

 

[IND151]

Sir are you really tht foolish to claim tht the tactical nukes were used in pokhran ? As for MIRV... are you sure MIRVs use tactical or miniature nukes with very small nuclear yields? if so than i guess the idea of MIRV is flawed... tactical or miniature nukes have very small nuclear yield... for example NASR is to be used against advancing enemy divisons ... and not "cities or towns"... as for Pakistani MIRV who knows...... or should i say rumours... although an SLV is a reality..

http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...lready-have-operational-tactical-nukes-3.html

 

[Manindra]

I never said we don't have miniaturisation capability .We already have it . But miniaturisation is just one aspect of MIRV.

Thats why I am saying India is not much serious about Nasr.

I never said we don't have miniaturisation capability .We already have it . But miniaturisation is just one aspect of MIRV.

Thats why I am saying India is not much serious about Nasr.

 

[GURU DUTT]

Yes good question ?

i beleive it depends upon what degree of miniaturization of nuclear warhead india has achieved .Pakistan is rumoured to have tactical nukes .lets see can india do that for Prahar .

If india do that for prahaar ,it going to be an important asset for India's CSD

CHEERS

strange a person of your calliber is saying this but any way india had tacticaql neukes from as earli as say late 90s even the pokhran 2 in 1998 had one too(a low yeald one) and what makes you think india hasent done anything in this area well to my knowledge prhar was basicalli designed to carry these tactikal neukes ...

 

[indoPunjabi]

You dumb DRDO miniaturised Nuclear reactor for submarine , they build nuclear reactors & fast breed reactor for power generation then how do you think they are unable to miniaturised nuclear weapon & for forgive me to call you fool because I am kidding

:banghead: when did I say DRDO is unable to miniaturized nuke? I said they should build miniaturized Nuke to counter "nasr like" threat.
Don't quote me again idiot

 

[Gessler]

@DESERT FIGHTER and at any others with the doubts.

1. India's doctrine does not call for usage of tactical nukes on enemy forces at close range,
because the conventional forces (and larger number of battlefield missiles with conventional
warheads) are to be used to quell the opposition.

Thus India does not call it's smaller-yield warheads as a tactical nuke, because they are not
widely used in tactical role. They are referred to as Miniature Nukes, purely on basis
of their size (because the technology to make miniature nukes have multiple-kiloton yield is well
underway (and much has been completed successfully) in India since last 2 decades.

So if you see a TNW in Pak inventory having a yield of 0.3KT (sub-kiloton), and then you see an
MNW (Miniature Nuclear Warhead) in Indian inventory with the same size as Pak's TNW, capable
of fitting into the same space, having a yield of 1.5-2.0KT, don't be surprised.

I think I have somewhat neatly explained what I wanted to explain by now.

2. India does not need TNWs, it's not like we need it but are unable to make it, whoever believes
that this is the case is no better than a fool.

3. There is no changing the fact that India is several decades ahead of Pakistan when it comes
to development of nuclear technology.

4. No MIRV supposed to go onboard a missile like Agni-V will ever be of the tactical/miniature type.
It will be of several double-digit kiloton yield atleast. Although triple-digit KT bombs are
believed to be in possession of India's Strategic Forces Command since many years.

However development of an MIRV system sure includes the use of technology needed to have
warheads have a big yield while occupying lesser space and being of lesser size. The aspect that
India is developing MIRVs for use on IRBM/ICBM-type missiles shows that we have not only developed
but also perfected the said technology.

5. A missile is nuclear-capable (a word most often used by Western analysts/watchers) does not mean
a nuclear warhead is readily on that missile. It could be just an assumption that because they have a
short-range nuclear missile, they could have a TNW, or maybe they plan to develop it in future and wanted
to have the platform for the TNW ready before the actual TNW comes into effect.

Secondly, BrahMos Block-II/Block-III are also referred to as nuclear-capable at the other hand.

Sir are you really tht foolish to claim tht the tactical nukes were used in pokhran ? As for MIRV... are you sure MIRVs use tactical or miniature nukes with very small nuclear yields? if so than i guess the idea of MIRV is flawed... tactical or miniature nukes have very small nuclear yield... for example NASR is to be used against advancing enemy divisons ... and not "cities or towns"... as for Pakistani MIRV who knows...... or should i say rumours... although an SLV is a reality..

How many satellites can it put into orbit in a single flight and what how many missions has it
accomplished?

I need the info please...

 

[vsdave2302]

Sir Nasr is TNW capable missile with a range of 60 Kms...

Amazing!!


TNW for tactical missile?????

 

[kurup]

Amazing!!


TNW for tactical ballistic missile?????

TNW as in Tactical Nuclear Weapon not Thermal Nuclear Weapon.

 

[vsdave2302]

India must have small tactical nukes. India has a highly developed nuclear program with our capabilities ranging from thermonuclear weapons to plasma physics to nuclear submarines to fast breeder reactors etc. We are working on nuclear propulsion for space rockets.

Very very interesting. Any link? Any information on AM rail gun?