Agni 3 Payload

Discussion in 'Strategic Forces' started by trackwhack, Sep 30, 2011.

  1. trackwhack

    trackwhack Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    3,757
    Likes Received:
    2,573
    The Agni 3 has a payload in excess of 2 tonnes at 3500 KM Range. It is not MIRV'ed. Why would it need a payload in excess of 2 tonnes?

    Even a 3 decade old megaton warhead weight falls well below 2 tonnes, 200 KT warheads are sub 1 tonne.

    Why then design a missile for a 2.5 tonne payload? Can we only speculate? Would the Indian defense establishment be happy with a 'puny' 200 KT yield when the Big five have demonstrated capability of several megatons albeit that anything excess of 2 megatons is overkill even for a large city?

    Our nuclear doctrine states devastating consequences against nuclear aggression. Hmm.

    Using deductive logic the only thing that makes sense is that India's ballistic missiles are designed to carry warheads of some pretty high yield.

    What does not make sense is, if that were the case our deterrent is based on untested megaton yield weapons. Spooky. If I were to follow the same line of reasoning, we will very highly likely see another round of testing soon. Santhanams 'leak' was just step one. The NSG behaving like a pack of school kids should only strengthen our resolve and necessity to test, the message clearly being, like it or not, the Big 5 days are over.
     
    sayareakd likes this.
  2.  
  3. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,283
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Trackwhak,
    You don't need megaton warheads today. A few lower yield ones like Indias well directed on ape IOC targets like water supply and sewer system will do the trick.

    The high payload capacity if at all may be a pointer to future MIRV. nothing is certain about where the missile program is heading. Lots of new and unheard stuff happening.
     
    sayareakd likes this.
  4. sayareakd

    sayareakd Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    15,624
    Likes Received:
    11,703
    yeah over the years i always thought what is inside this
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    we have only this photo to look at as far as nuke is concern
    [​IMG]

    to my mind this would fit here in A2
    [​IMG]

    A3 is more advance then A2.
     
  5. trackwhack

    trackwhack Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    3,757
    Likes Received:
    2,573
    If we are to agree that we do not need Megaton warheads, the question simply become why a 2500 kg payload on an inducted missile. If we look at only a 250 KT tield, the payload should be well under a tonne. So logically the Agni 3 should have been optimized for a range of 6000 + km for a One tonne warhead.

    But, DRDO and the armed forces prioritized a 2.5 tonne payload over a possibility of a much longer range.

    Yes in future they might get MIRV'ed, but thats at least 5 years away. So it is extremely unlikely that the extra payload was future proofing the missile for a MIRV upgrade. What I am trying to indicate is that there is no reason to want such a high payload unless we have warheads that weigh so much.
    And considering that our Nuclear scientists are amongst the best in the world, weapons miniaturization should be a peice of cake.

    It just does not add up.
     
  6. Param

    Param Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,808
    Likes Received:
    647
    Location:
    TN
    Means that Agni 3 can reach much farther than 3500 kms with a warhead less than a tonne in weight. I think its a full fledged ICBM without MIRV.
     
  7. plugwater

    plugwater Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    4,149
    Likes Received:
    1,060
    trackwhack,

    We always keep our nukes separately, we will attach them with missiles according to the threat levels.

    According to some reports there is a SL version of A3 is underdevelopment so with 1000kg payload A3 can reach targets upto 7000km, which is still low for a SL variant. So my assumption is DRDO must have developed this missile with SL version in mind.

    I cant comment about our yield since not much information is available.
     
  8. utubekhiladi

    utubekhiladi The Preacher Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2010
    Messages:
    3,021
    Likes Received:
    1,423
    Location:
    TX, USA

    i think the reason might be is because AGNI III can carry both conventional warheads (like HMX, RDX, TNT, CL-20, etc) and also nuclear warheads with yield of 250 kt.

    'Kunal Biswas' and 'lethalforce' are experts on this matter. please ping them or send a PM. :)
     
    trackwhack likes this.
  9. trackwhack

    trackwhack Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    3,757
    Likes Received:
    2,573
    The A3 has to be 5000+ km missile. And the A5 has to be close to 10 K missile if not MIRV'd. The Chinese know it, the Americans know it, but it would be a foriegn policy blunder to openly acknowledge it as India would lose its pacifist image in the world. The results would be sanctions against defense procurements.
    I think this also explains India's recent posturing in the South China Sea. Bejing is now in a catch 22 situation and cannot be the aggressor.

    plugwater said : We always keep our nukes separately, we will attach them with missiles according to the threat levels.

    I think this is a myth. You cannot have No first strike and low level integration working together. If you have a policy of No first strike, then you dont have the luxury of a few hours to get your delivery systems ready.
     
  10. plugwater

    plugwater Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    4,149
    Likes Received:
    1,060
    A3 and A5 have almost same range if we change the payload . A5 has only 1500kg payload.

    IMO A3 is basically for submarines and A5 is land based because of mobility and canister.

    We do keep our nukes separately.
     
    trackwhack likes this.
  11. ace009

    ace009 Freakin' Fighter fan Elite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,662
    Likes Received:
    513
    Location:
    New England, USA
    Trackwhack - there can be multiple reasons for a 2.5 tonne warhead -

    1. Conventional warhead with large charge to take out a military base / airfield.
    2. Conventional MIRV to be used against a naval fleet
    3. Nuclear MIRV with hundreds of tactical nukes to be used against fast moving enemy armor/ infantry.
    4. A nuclear warhead with several LARGE fusion bombs in it to take out a large city.

    So - pick your poison ... I still cannot understand why India needs to develop any strategic weapon at all - tactical nukes shuold be good enough as a deterrant.
    At most a dozen strategic fusion bombs are all that is needed for second strike capabilities and create a nuclear holocaust ...
     
    trackwhack likes this.
  12. utubekhiladi

    utubekhiladi The Preacher Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2010
    Messages:
    3,021
    Likes Received:
    1,423
    Location:
    TX, USA
    plugwater is correct. we keep nukes and missiles separately.. experts told me that during the crisis we can assemble and lunch any nuclear capable missiles in about 60 minutes.
     
  13. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,283
    Location:
    BANGalore
    When you gave a second strike doctrine, it makes all the more sense to keep nukes in component form and separate from delivery systems. It's all for surviving a first strike. If we keep the nukes mates with the missiles and it gets taken out in a first strike, you are done!!
     
  14. sayareakd

    sayareakd Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    15,624
    Likes Received:
    11,703
    What will happen when ATV will go on nuke petrol ??? nukes and missiles wont be separated then.
     
  15. LurkerBaba

    LurkerBaba Staff Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    6,769
    Likes Received:
    3,678
    Location:
    India
    AFAIK megaton nukes were made to destroy heavily fortified installations like NORAD. Do the Chinese have anything similar ?

    ( Also, do we have something of that sort ?)
     
  16. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,283
    Location:
    BANGalore
    No the megaton devices were made to cover for the inaccuracies of the missiles of the time.
     
  17. Param

    Param Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,808
    Likes Received:
    647
    Location:
    TN
    And what if the nukes are not mated and still the missiles get taken out? What good is a nuke when the missiles get taken out?
     
    trackwhack likes this.
  18. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,283
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Change of doctrine. BTW Chinese boomers don't carry hot nukes on patrol.
     
  19. plugwater

    plugwater Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    4,149
    Likes Received:
    1,060
    Yes, nukes wont be separate in submarines and also when we have nukes aboard ATV we will be following a new set of protocols to launch missiles.
     
  20. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,283
    Location:
    BANGalore
    All missiles are not stored in the same place. That's why we have road and rail mobile missiles. Make it hard for the enemy to take out all nukes and all missiles. That's the idea of second strike. Keep survivable options.

    Just an example: if all missiles get taken out, we still have nukes that can be put of fighter bombers.
     
  21. Param

    Param Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,808
    Likes Received:
    647
    Location:
    TN
    That still does not explain the need to keep the warheads separate. Already mated warheads atleast in a few missiles would mean retaliation in minutes and not hours.
     

Share This Page