K-15 Sagarika Missile SLBM

[Payeng]

@olivers what is the difference in launch mechanism between Sagarika viz a viz Brahmos SLBM?

 

[sayareakd]

@olivers does it matter to sub if it is slbm or slcm. Once it get out of water it does not matter. Plus stop comparing with standards set by others. We will do what is best for us. ATV & K15 are prime example of this fact. Both are unique and not done by any one.

 

[olivers]

@olivers what is the difference in launch mechanism between Sagarika viz a viz Brahmos SLBM?

The difference between an SLBM and SLCM is on operational policy. Do we have a policy of arming all our Brahmos with nuclear tips or even some of them? This is the doctrinal play. If you decide Brahmos is a nuclear missile then "any" brahmos launch will invoke a nuclear response.

When I talk about SLBMs which are the primary second strike weapon, we talk about distances of over 2000km. The trident and the Indian SLBM are stated according to AC and saraswat to be 10.2 meters long and eventually 13 meters. 13 x 2.2 meters or 10.2 x 2.2 meters is necessary to reach the Trident distances. Why is that important? Do we want to just stay in the Indian ocean or do we intend to be a true blue water navy and go on agressive patrols across the globe? I think we intend to go on agressive patrols across the globe with submarine numbers of 12 ( of which 9 will be available most of the time ...). This indicates big power ambition with some exclusive SLBM or largely SLBM submarines, some hunter-killer submarines etc. An SLBM submarine runs from the enemy or sonar contact. A hunter killer submarine runs towards any sonar contact.

Now if we have a SLCM enabled submarine, also enabled with SLBM. What is our defense posture? What is the doctrine? Do we run towards the sonar ping or run away from the ping? The answer cannot be depends on the situation, at least ideally ... (The communication lines to submarines during war time is radio silence most of the time. The submarine goes silent after it receives communication to launch missiles and even when war starts to be ready and to save its skin. So conflicting goals for the same crew carrying an SLBM is unlikely for pure second strike weapons.) Why? The only reason for existence of an SLBM carrying submarine is the survive ... Survive the destruction of your country and retaliate by destroying the agressor. There will be very few SLCM's involved in this role, if any ... If you think India is a global power or is moving towards that doctrine, then these configurations will look funny to you. I believe in this classic school for at least SLBM carrying submarines and Indian Navy does too. So the first second and third nuclear second strike submarines doctrinally should have no SLCMs ... unless those are the only weapons you have .... Their only goal is survive survive and launch an SLCM which destroys your enemy without having to go right next to the Chinese coast or pakistani coast or even some other coast. We can do that from the IOR .... (If you base your play off IOR you will invite the Chinese into your backyard and if you base this off the south china sea littoral waters... good luck in the south china sea its shallow waters in most places in the south china sea. So an SLCM based second strike is vulnerable ..) I hope you see where I am driving with this. Hunter killer submarines as a class are the ones which are not doing well today. Because the soviet union broke up. American assets are too many for the Chinese to track. So Americans have converted the hunter killers to ssgn roles with cruise missiles. We have a lot of diesels to do the ssgn role for now to turn to these configurations in the nuclear submarine area. At least initially.

Now the hybrid subs with SLCM's and/or the special ops are all littoral or near littoral operation submarines. They can ply longer and across the globe if they are nuclear but usually the mission calls for them to be near the shore 1000 to 1500 km to launch their wares and even closer to launch special ops. This is the kind of weapon you would use against special interest operations during war. If you rely on these as a second strike weapon, well that's not how I see the Indian 12 nuclear submarine program of 2020. There will be a place for these submarines. Definitely, but the primary goal is the classic one which runs from any sonar ping to save itself to serve the country when there isn't much of a country left ...

A ballistic missile has a ballistic trajectory above the sea. A cruise missile has a cruise trajectory like a low terrain hugging mode above the sea. A cruise missile as opposed to an SLBM has a smaller diameter(usually). This allows for many of these critters to be in the same launch tube. A ballistic missile on the other hand is 1.1 m to 2.2 meters to move them to ranges in excess of 2000 km and usually 5000km. The ballistic missiles also tend to be longer. These could be anywhere in the world when they launch. So we should have the ability to strike Chinese coast from even 10,000 miles away from the submarine to have a credible deterrence. If you look at the AC and saraswat disclosures on our SLCMs almost all of them are 10.2 to 13 meters long and 2.2 meters or so in diameter.

To draw an analogy from the Agni series on the surface, Agni III may never be fielded by India. Therefore some of the initial tests with 1500km range may never be fielded on an Indian submarine ...

On the launch difference, most of these are cold canister launched. The second difference is an SLCM rarely carries a nuclear ordinance. SLCMs are weapons you use to take out ships and air craft carriers and some land targets of high strategic importance. If you go nuclear with SLCM you reduce the nuclear threshold. India is a responsible power and you will not do this unless you have very few options left on the table. It's like the Nasar missile of Pakistan. Do we want to do that to our nukes? Any missile might be a nuke so therefore reply with a nuke? Remember we don't have enemies who are non nuclear powers ... MAD is stabilizing only when you can make rational decisions. If all bhramos or cm's are nuclear what do I do as your enemy? Simple, I retaliate with nukes ... So you will lose entire weapons platforms in the thousands if they "could" be nuclear.

This is the same reason fractional orbital weapons are banned. The legal trick being you can test fractional orbital weapons but not do live tests with nukes on them Russia had a few of these fractional orbital weapons which can only be detected by satellites. If you follow the news, India wants to detect BM launches using satellites ...

We don't blindly follow the international standards, but they exist for very good reasons ... A 2.2 x 13 meter missile has a launch weight of x tons. Therefore a stable submarine to launch sub a missile from x depth needs to be of x displacement .... And silos are 2.2 to 2 meters internationally for a good reason ... Thats how big it needs to be to reach trident distances without having too much of a length beyond 13 meters so they can be maneuvered and can avoid detection ... So yes SLBM and SLCM's being discussed as if they are the same animal is crazy to me. Yes even those SLBM carrying submarines may have a few SLCMs to kill selected targets like a pesky carrier which is targeting it, in their primary mission of evading detection. But other than this minmal area where they should align we will be crazy as a nation to have too many roles for this one ... if we want deterrence ...

 

[sayareakd]

When I talk about SLBMs which are the primary second strike weapon, we talk about distances of over 2000km. The trident and the Indian SLBM are stated according to AC and saraswat to be 10.2 meters long and eventually 13 meters. 13 x 2.2 meters or 10.2 x 2.2 meters is necessary to reach the Trident distances. Why is that important? Do we want to just stay in the Indian ocean or do we intend to be a true blue water navy and go on agressive patrols across the globe? I think we intend to go on agressive patrols across the globe with submarine numbers of 12 ( of which 9 will be available most of the time ...). This indicates big power ambition with some exclusive SLBM or largely SLBM submarines, some hunter-killer submarines etc. An SLBM submarine runs from the enemy or sonar contact. A hunter killer submarine runs towards any sonar contact.

Now if we have a SLCM enabled submarine, also enabled with SLBM. What is our defense posture? What is the doctrine? Do we run towards the sonar ping or run away from the ping? The answer cannot be depends on the situation, at least ideally ... (The communication lines to submarines during war time is radio silence most of the time. The submarine goes silent after it receives communication to launch missiles and even when war starts to be ready and to save its skin. So conflicting goals for the same crew carrying an SLBM is unlikely for pure second strike weapons.) Why? The only reason for existence of an SLBM carrying submarine is the survive ... Survive the destruction of your country and retaliate by destroying the agressor. There will be very few SLCM's involved in this role, if any ... If you think India is a global power or is moving towards that doctrine, then these configurations will look funny to you. I believe in this classic school for at least SLBM carrying submarines and Indian Navy does too. So the first second and third nuclear second strike submarines doctrinally should have no SLCMs ... unless those are the only weapons you have .... Their only goal is survive survive and launch an SLCM which destroys your enemy without having to go right next to the Chinese coast or pakistani coast or even some other coast. We can do that from the IOR .... (If you base your play off IOR you will invite the Chinese into your backyard and if you base this off the south china sea littoral waters... good luck in the south china sea its shallow waters in most places in the south china sea. So an SLCM based second strike is vulnerable ..) I hope you see where I am driving with this. Hunter killer submarines as a class are the ones which are not doing well today. Because the soviet union broke up. American assets are too many for the Chinese to track. So Americans have converted the hunter killers to ssgn roles with cruise missiles. We have a lot of diesels to do the ssgn role for now to turn to these configurations in the nuclear submarine area. At least initially.

Now the hybrid subs with SLCM's and/or the special ops are all littoral or near littoral operation submarines. They can ply longer and across the globe if they are nuclear but usually the mission calls for them to be near the shore 1000 to 1500 km to launch their wares and even closer to launch special ops. This is the kind of weapon you would use against special interest operations during war. If you rely on these as a second strike weapon, well that's not how I see the Indian 12 nuclear submarine program of 2020. There will be a place for these submarines. Definitely, but the primary goal is the classic one which runs from any sonar ping to save itself to serve the country when there isn't much of a country left ...

A ballistic missile has a ballistic trajectory above the sea. A cruise missile has a cruise trajectory like a low terrain hugging mode above the sea. A cruise missile as opposed to an SLBM has a smaller diameter(usually). This allows for many of these critters to be in the same launch tube. A ballistic missile on the other hand is 1.1 m to 2.2 meters to move them to ranges in excess of 2000 km and usually 5000km. The ballistic missiles also tend to be longer. These could be anywhere in the world when they launch. So we should have the ability to strike Chinese coast from even 10,000 miles away from the submarine to have a credible deterrence. If you look at the AC and saraswat disclosures on our SLCMs almost all of them are 10.2 to 13 meters long and 2.2 meters or so in diameter.

To draw an analogy from the Agni series on the surface, Agni III may never be fielded by India. Therefore some of the initial tests with 1500km range may never be fielded on an Indian submarine ...

On the launch difference, most of these are cold canister launched. The second difference is an SLCM rarely carries a nuclear ordinance. SLCMs are weapons you use to take out ships and air craft carriers and some land targets of high strategic importance. If you go nuclear with SLCM you reduce the nuclear threshold. India is a responsible power and you will not do this unless you have very few options left on the table. It's like the Nasar missile of Pakistan. Do we want to do that to our nukes? Any missile might be a nuke so therefore reply with a nuke? Remember we don't have enemies who are non nuclear powers ... MAD is stabilizing only when you can make rational decisions. If all bhramos or cm's are nuclear what do I do as your enemy? Simple, I retaliate with nukes ... So you will lose entire weapons platforms in the thousands if they "could" be nuclear.

This is the same reason fractional orbital weapons are banned. The legal trick being you can test fractional orbital weapons but not do live tests with nukes on them Russia had a few of these fractional orbital weapons which can only be detected by satellites. If you follow the news, India wants to detect BM launches using satellites ...

We don't blindly follow the international standards, but they exist for very good reasons ... A 2.2 x 13 meter missile has a launch weight of x tons. Therefore a stable submarine to launch sub a missile from x depth needs to be of x displacement .... And silos are 2.2 to 2 meters internationally for a good reason ... Thats how big it needs to be to reach trident distances without having too much of a length beyond 13 meters so they can be maneuvered and can avoid detection ... So yes SLBM and SLCM's being discussed as if they are the same animal is crazy to me. Yes even those SLBM carrying submarines may have a few SLCMs to kill selected targets like a pesky carrier which is targeting it, in their primary mission of evading detection. But other than this minmal area where they should align we will be crazy as a nation to have too many roles for this one ... if we want deterrence ...

Sir K15 is only 700 km range max at 1200. Plus ATV is design for stealth and not to out run.

BTW i did like your long posts. :thumb:

 

[sayareakd]

One target of interest has two S-300 site protecting it from one direction. We can have three options for that site, K15 ballistic trajectory, K15 semi ballistic, K15 glider trajectory and Nirbhay Cruise missile, or all of these going at this site at the same time.

 

[Payeng]

@olivers

Ok it seems like you are indicating about operational doctrine, pardon me that I m not gone through your previous post (I am a lazy kind)

What I think Indian Nuke subs with a K-15 nuclear warhead would not actually ever leave of patrol duties with the exception of combat status patrolling, first of all we wont have the numbers and by the time we have the numbers K-15 would probably be decommissioned in favour of A-III/V styled SLBMs, Plus I dont think Indian missiles are mated with nuclear warheads as per national policy, well by the time we are able to have our own long range heavy SLBMs things may change with time, New policy and threats may persist, Last checked even PRC is not known to deploy SSBN with SLBMs in active patrolling. You wont really like to entrusting the red button in the hands of a few during peace time, US or Russia is a bit different for us to copy that. Note: Nukes are to the most defensive postures for us, a final resort or a middle finger shown to those nation who might do a nuclear blackmail, but not really an active patrolling doctrinal requirement. Neither do we have such an efficient foreign policy.

 

[olivers]

@olivers

Ok it seems like you are indicating about operational doctrine, pardon me that I m not gone through your previous post (I am a lazy kind)

What I think Indian Nuke subs with a K-15 nuclear warhead would not actually ever leave of patrol duties with the exception of combat status patrolling, first of all we wont have the numbers and by the time we have the numbers K-15 would probably be decommissioned in favour of A-III/V styled SLBMs, Plus I dont think Indian missiles are mated with nuclear warheads as per national policy, well by the time we are able to have our own long range heavy SLBMs things may change with time, New policy and threats may persist, Last checked even PRC is not known to deploy SSBN with SLBMs in active patrolling. You wont really like to entrusting the red button in the hands of a few during peace time, US or Russia is a bit different for us to copy that. Note: Nukes are to the most defensive postures for us, a final resort or a middle finger shown to those nation who might do a nuclear blackmail, but not really an active patrolling doctrinal requirement. Neither do we have such an efficient foreign policy.

Na we are getting there. Our doctrine calls for carrying the warheads on these submarines. It's a survivable second strike weapon. Look at related news on Very Low frequency transmitter and an additional transmitter (I am lazy and I am not going to google it.) We are using both systems instead of one. In addition I am not sure if we are also investing or interested in laser communication devices. So the nukes will be on deterrence patrol all the time under-sea.

The unmated thing is only with respect to the land deterrence. We don't comment on submarines nor does any other country. K4 and K15 were not disclosed until operational. Even these disclosures were made only when necessary. It did become necessary two years or so ago and is increasingly relavent today as well. You will notice the red terror requirements.

Initially the K4 or an SLCM may be deployed. Your guess is as good as mine as to the exact range of these missiles, given the lack of clarity on the exact length of the January 27 2013 missile. So estimating range is difficult. We already did a lot of plantoon launches over the years. So the SLCM might be operational and the SLBM might be just getting there. Akula is already on lease and on patrol. Akula cannot carry the SLBMs. So it may be carrying these SLCMs in the configuration you stated.

Arihant will carry the SLBMs in my opinion. In addition it will not be a 700km or 1200km missile which it carries. It will be a 3500km+ missile. Our first step from the platform is a 700km missile to check if the cold canister works, does the missile then ignite above the sea and can we then blow off the submersible launch caps and then get the missile going in the right direction and hit the target within required CEP etc. So don't read too much into the ranges right now. AC and Saraswat have the right road map for 2 to 3 years when the missiles will be ready for induction ... Canister launch of A5 will tell you when the submarine variant has been tested or is near completion. The level of shared systems in our missile program is possibly among the highest in the world. One system feeds off the other, so three or four tests are possibly enough as the same INS system is used everywhere with dual redundancy. If one of these fails like in the case of Nirbhay then all others get a diagnostic check. So with 3 tests each we will have the same confidence level as the USA or USSR over a period of 10 to 15 years as is the case with our IDMP (Integrated missile development program). Canister launches started with Brahmos and then it went into the plantoon launches. Then we were shown a glimpse of what Arihant will do on Jan 27, 2013.

I don't think we are going to lag behind USSR or USA in nuclear posture. Britain and France have similar second strike capability. We didn't go nuclear without looking at all requirements. When we decided to go nuclear, it was Narashimha Rao who kept the diya alive and then it was passed onto Vajpayee. Even after we went nuclear, it there was a road-plan on what next. Please do read the 2001 parliament Q&A on the devices tested and the yields. It will show you what the national plan always was. We seek parity with the nuclear five. Minimum credible includes survival against a surprise strike. So the authorization to strike will come from the right person through the Very Low Frequency radio signal. The missile will be fired only with the right code.

PRC did not have an Aircraft carrier for ages. So comparing our Navy with PRC isn't the right yard stick. Look west at UK and France. Look at where IAC 2 is headed.

Now look at this bit of game theory. Lets assume India and Pakistan are engaged in a war. Pakistan strikes Indian territory with nukes. India will retaliate against Pakistan. Do you think this is a rational play? It's only partly rational. The real rational player will strike both Pakistan and China. What do you think two front war means? Prepare for a two front war is a signal from Raksha Mantri. If you induce war in this region we will retaliate with a "second" strike. A rational game theory requires you to destroy as much of China as possible after your population centers in India are taken out. You will cease to be a viable "second" strike power after the war is over with Pakistan. Therefore as a rational nuclear player you will strike Chinese population centers. They may hit back at India but then most of our population centers are gone. Shyam Saran also hinted at this recently when he said the traditional bipolar nuclear analysis does not apply to India.

So what does China do? You tell me. If this is the "two-front" war. What is the incentive of USA and UK incase Pakistan nukes India with permanent deterrent patrols and without deterrent patrols?

Without permanent deterrent patrols:
a) Nuke Pakistan to stone age under UN authority;
b) Try and seize Indian nukes to prevent India escalating the war to China even if China induced the war;
c) a and b;
d) Let the war escalate to China with possibility of a scorched China being as rational as a rational nuclear player India ...


If I am an Indian planner I will definitely look forward to permanent defensive patrols. This is the only rational option. To me "two-front" war is synonymous with this rational player. Therefore, our doctrine is to make Indian nukes as good as the best. Survivable, global patrol with MIRV SLBMs. This is a credible deterrent for a rational player.

Therefore based on these reasons I believe we will have permanent deterrent patrols. 2/3rd of our nuclear assets by 2020 or 2025 will be submarine based. Most of these will be MIRV missiles with ranges in excess of 10,000km. Please put this in perspective with what AC says, "Eventually the Agni VI and SLBM variant will be 13 meters long and (2.2 meters in thickness ... )". Arihant will have a diameter of 13 meters at the minimum. Also look at my other posts on our enrichment plant expansion. This will help you relate the rest of the information on the number of submarines and similar details.

Also relate back to what the goals of Agni V are: an ICBM, an emergency satellite launcher, an ASAT weapon. All of these are weapons of the first class. Only three countries have them. USA, China and Russia in varying measures. Look at our other programs, hypersonic aircraft. Only USA has an equivalent program. The objective on India in weapons technology is to be part of a club of two. We don't believe in being the third best. Our doctrine is not based on being the third best. DRDO or at least part of it isn't based on third bests. APJ always stated we should break the sixth country to do xyz etc. A lot of what the missile development and the other projects are doing is breaking into exclusive clubs of one or two. MARV and MIRV isn't part of the PRC program or wasn't until we said we are going to do this. Only Russia and USA have MARV. Our MIRV and MARV are almost necessary programs. We can't talk of a ballistic missile shield if we don't already have these under our belt. So I am always amused by how the western analysts view the missile program and our doctrine ... It's also something I am happy to hear from them. Let all of these continue for as long as it can. Only then will we get over critical problems which we need to solve.

I look forward to the day we have our own fab. That's the day when we will be truly independent. I am sometimes saddened by how long its taking .... We wasted a good three years again with the recent tenders and talks ...

Anyways, I think again time for me to stop before I become irrational actor. BTW, I expect to find copies of this elsewhere soon. Ideas will be stolen from this ... Well anyways, I suppose ideas are worth spreading. Maybe people can credit DFI for it. Oh well anyways ...

 

[sayareakd]

@olivers

Ok it seems like you are indicating about operational doctrine, pardon me that I m not gone through your previous post (I am a lazy kind)

What I think Indian Nuke subs with a K-15 nuclear warhead would not actually ever leave of patrol duties with the exception of combat status patrolling, first of all we wont have the numbers and by the time we have the numbers K-15 would probably be decommissioned in favour of A-III/V styled SLBMs, Plus I dont think Indian missiles are mated with nuclear warheads as per national policy, well by the time we are able to have our own long range heavy SLBMs things may change with time, New policy and threats may persist, Last checked even PRC is not known to deploy SSBN with SLBMs in active patrolling. You wont really like to entrusting the red button in the hands of a few during peace time, US or Russia is a bit different for us to copy that. Note: Nukes are to the most defensive postures for us, a final resort or a middle finger shown to those nation who might do a nuclear blackmail, but not really an active patrolling doctrinal requirement. Neither do we have such an efficient foreign policy.

Pay, check

Yusuf, name was changed to confuse the those who want to get info about our project (C-I-A). It was tested 10 times as SLBM and land version 4 times so total tests are 14. In 2011 they started production of this missile and yesterday test was final developmental test.

BTW Sagarika/K15/B05 are all name of same missile.

here is the news report

Developed by DRDO, the B-05 missile, formerly known as K-15 is about 10 metres in length and about one metre in diameter besides its launch weight about ten tonnes. This missile uses solid propellant. It can carry a conventional payload of about 500 kg and also be fitted with tactical nuclear warhead.

Launched underwater, it surges to the surface and is the world's best weapon in this class. The missile will equip the country's first nuclear-powered submarine ANS Arihant and if every thing goes as per the plan, the missile will soon be test fired from the indegenously built submarine. Meanwhile, the DRDO has begun the production of the missile.

India successfully test fires underwater missile B-05 - The New Indian Express

So missile is under production, it will be tested on ATV, real range i think is about 1200 km, anything smaller then that wont be useful and in fact it will put ATV in danger. Indian Navy must have given NSQR for this missile, plus it is brain child of Dr. Kalam.

Yeah till now we dont have live nukes on missile, after ATV become operational, we will have live nukes, called nukes on hair trigger alert on sub. So this is quite a change from the warhead, trigger and missile being kept separate.

 

[olivers]

I had earlier hinted at what exactly India is doing. We are moving towards a mated second strike capability. The stored separately bullshit is gone. Anytime, anywhere launch within minutes is our current doctrine for "second strike." We also know "second strike" can be triggered by "any" nuclear launch including battlefield tactical weapons. Prahaar is also being inducted in the 150km range role and Prithvi forward is being withdrawn and refurbished with newer guidance systems. Although, the submarine arm is not discussed we should read this as the new doctrine, mated warheads with a ready to launch second strike within "minutes". Canister launched, indicates the warhead is also going to be embalmed in the missile for long term storage, not just the missile from the reply given. Notice the induction of missiles being talked about. AIII to AV. They are being inducted simultaneously, should reveal a lot. They are essentially the same, except the cost involved and ranges for the three. The AIII has one state which isn't all-composite. The AIV is all composite, with a 1.1 meter counterstrike function. The AV uses more composites than AIII. The path to AVI was revealed by the former DRDO chief. Essentially, the final missile. As indicated AVI is not a "priority". A.K. Anthony, indicated as much and asked DRDO to finish what they already have and induct it before they think of "further" systems.

If you notice, it's very very sensible planning. What is the use of an ICBM if we can't physically project power beyond 7000kms? Sure we will have the ICBM building blocks ... and even some ICBMs tested with the 10k+ range under garb of AV tests, which at last count were extended to five or six tests. They may not be tested to full range, by using a ridiculous payload of 3 tonnes. A 3 tonne AVI will have a range "comparable" to the current A V.

The DRDO "inspired" leaks are just that. They are policy signals, to indicate we are ready to be a regional power but at present we don't fancy joining the bigger table. Not just yet. Why not? Ok we project power beyond 7k, what next? Is our economy as big as that to need that? Do we need to "influence" interests right now with those "revealed" ranges? Do we have a global positioning system with that reach? Do we have a blue navy just yet? Do we have enough ssbn and hunter killers and aircraft carriers to get to the next level on the table?

The Indian policy seems as always to be measured. We project as much as we absolutely have to. Our capability may let us stretch a bit more right now, but it isn't all "in place" just yet to go knocking on the door of the world.{Read global IRNSS, on-demand satellite launch, 12 nuclear submarines, at least 3 aircraft carriers, a strategic bomber ... etc } We were once excluded from the world market after a nuclear test, we are making sure we send the right signals, but the elephant is moving the post, slowly and methodically.

We have arrived as a rational nuclear player. An ostensible "second-strike" power bound to be a "second-strike" power because we are rational, and not because we are a second-rate power. Surendarji, espoused a doctrine for India, well that doctrine is officially been declared null and void, it's been mutated to almost a first-strike minus level. No first stikes is still the policy, because we say so and that is unlikely to change, everything else is mutable. Explains why the policy hasn't been made public yet. The components will take years to get in place. I am extremely impressed with our rational play so far. It's uncharacteristically non-Indian!!!

I have seen some people raise questions about ELF antennas not indicating a second-strike within minutes policy or not going on deterrent patrols. They just don't get what ELF is. An ELF antenna is often 50 or so miles long!!! Every nuclear power has one, including USA, Russia, Britain and France. This is in addition to the VLF transmissions. ELF can transmit deeper. Russia for example uses a huge antenna which transmits at 8hz. ELF is old technology btw. The newer technology in this area is laser where the research is ongoing. The current generation technology being "researched" or "used" is HAARP. Look at the objective of HAARP. One of the laid out objectives is to transmit at or near alven frequencies and low hz frequencies. So does india have any HAARP or HAARP like projects? Look at Tirupati for answers ... also check out the legal fiction on ownership when you get the answers from Tirupati ... will tell you a lot ...


The news article:

As Defence Minister A.K. Antony leaves on a 4-day official visit to China on Thursday, the first by a Defence Minister in seven years, new facts about the direction India's nuclear missile programme is taking could send out an unprecedented message. In details revealed for the first time in an exclusive interview to Headlines Today, the new chief of the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) Dr Avinash Chander has revealed that one of his key mandates as the head of the country's military research complex, is to drastically reduce the time India will take for a potential nuclear counter-strike.

Unlike China, India has been typically timid about its strategic programmes. The DRDO chief's revelations make for a rare, bold message about the goings on within the country's most advanced weapons laboratories.

"In the second strike capability, the most important thing is how fast we can react. We are working on cannisterised systems that can launch from anywhere at anytime," said Dr Chander. "We are making much more agile, fast-reacting, stable missiles so response can be within minutes." India has a no first use policy for nuclear weapons, and its current response time for a retaliatory strike is classified. The DRDO chief's task is to whittle it down by a substantial degree to provide the Strategic Forces Command (SFC) with a literally 'anywhere-anytime' ability.

DRDO's new chief Dr Avinash Chander.


Dr Chander, formerly director with the Advanced Systems Laboratory (ASL) in Hyderabad and renowned as the spearhead of the Agni family of missiles, was made chief of the DRDO last month.
India's current land-based nuclear weapon delivery systems include the 1,250-km range Agni-I, 2,000-km range Agni-II and 3,500-km range Agni-III. The DRDO chief has expressed confidence that 2 of India's two most ambitious nuclear missiles under test, the 4,000-km range Agni-IV and 6,000+ km range Agni-V, will both be inducted into the strategic arsenal within two years.

"We'll induct the Agni IV and V inducted in the next two years. It's the first time we will be inducting strategic missiles with such long ranges together. Agni III, IV and V are going to be the thrust areas. They give us the reach which we need, and are our highest priority now. Within two years we have to make sure that it happens," said Dr Chander.

Asked about whether India needed an inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM), with ranges in excess of 10,000-km like China's DF-31 and other in-development weapons, Dr Chander said his missile laboratories could develop and deploy an ICBM in as little as three-five years. "As we see today, we don't find the need for ranges more than 5,000-6,000 km. The technology building blocks required to build a longer range missile already exist. We are in a position to activate any such system at very short notice," said Dr Chander.

An Inter Continental Baliistic Missile (ICBM), the Agni V reportedly has a range of 5,500-5,800 kms.


Asked about how India's missile programme squared off against China's, he said, "Comparisons are odious, always difficult, and many times taken out of context. If you see at the capability level, our missiles, radars are comparable with the Chinese and other friends around us."

New chief of India's military research complex reveals brave new mandate : India, News - India Today

 

[sayareakd]

when K15 will be in active service then it will be change of our nuke doctrine from physically separated nukes from missile to nukes on hair trigger alerts.

 

[Yusuf]

when K15 will be in active service then it will be change of our nuke doctrine from physically separated nukes from missile to nukes on hair trigger alerts.

That remains to be seen. The Chinese still don't go on bit patrol. Solid Command and control structure has to be in place to send hot patrols. It i have read a statement by some official that the Arihant will go on hot patrols. Lets see how it goes. It will no be immediate though. Only after a few years.

 

[Bheeshma]

Chinese don't have the capability to go on a hot patrol. Their nuke subs are too noisy, IN wants the SSBN's on hot patrol but how soon remains to be seen.

 

[Yusuf]

Chinese don't have the capability to go on a hot patrol. Their nuke subs are too noisy, IN wants the SSBN's on hot patrol but how soon remains to be seen.

How good our subs are reasons to be seen. How noisy it silent. We will not go on a hot patrol till the end of this decade in all likelihood

 

[olivers]

How good our subs are reasons to be seen. How noisy it silent. We will not go on a hot patrol till the end of this decade in all likelihood

Do you know for sure we don't do it right now? The question is rhetorical. Submarine patrols are never disclosed. Even if we have them on deterrent patrols we will never tell anyone we are on deterrent patrols.

We are already doing some deterrent patrols with the Akula. Now the question is what do these Akula carry? Bhramos tipped with nukes? or are they not carrying any nukes? We will not know. Mum is the word on anything submarine. That's the way every country operates. Unfortunately, India does have to disclose some things from time to time to prevent neighbors from agreeing to whatever is printed by Janes Defense and western non-proliferation experts.

DRDO, Shyam Sharan have already given them indigestion. They are yet to digest Indian missiles with the possibility of ABM avoidance and canister launched weapons. They seem to still be in the world of Pakistan is better than India. India has stayed stagnent for decades at 100 while Pakistan caught up. All silly notions. Fissile material production has been going on for the past 10 years. Remember Indian nukes are dual use domestic reactor based. We lost some in the civil nooclear deal. Otherwise there was no stoppage in production. A lot of the separated plants went under safeguards much later ...

 

[Yusuf]

Do you know for sure we don't do it right now? The question is rhetorical. Submarine patrols are never disclosed. Even if we have them on deterrent patrols we will never tell anyone we are on deterrent patrols.

We are already doing some deterrent patrols with the Akula. Now the question is what do these Akula carry? Bhramos tipped with nukes? or are they not carrying any nukes? We will not know. Mum is the word on anything submarine. That's the way every country operates. Unfortunately, India does have to disclose some things from time to time to prevent neighbors from agreeing to whatever is printed by Janes Defense and western non-proliferation experts.

DRDO, Shyam Sharan have already given them indigestion. They are yet to digest Indian missiles with the possibility of ABM avoidance and canister launched weapons. They seem to still be in the world of Pakistan is better than India. India has stayed stagnent for decades at 100 while Pakistan caught up. All silly notions. Fissile material production has been going on for the past 10 years. Remember Indian nukes are dual use domestic reactor based. We lost some in the civil nooclear deal. Otherwise there was no stoppage in production. A lot of the separated plants went under safeguards much later ...

Yeah right Brahmos tipped with nukes. a 300 kms range missile forms deterrent patrol

Akulas have vertical launch tubes for launch of missiles?

US has accounts for the number if deterrent patrols carried out and just recently Hans Kristnesen wrote a piece on how the number of deterrent patrols have fallen. You can get info on sub patrols using te US equivalent of RTI.

Rest of your post was OT and irrelevant to the subject

 

[olivers]

Yeah right Brahmos tipped with nukes. a 300 kms range missile forms deterrent patrol

Akulas have vertical launch tubes for launch of missiles?

US has accounts for the number if deterrent patrols carried out and just recently Hans Kristnesen wrote a piece on how the number of deterrent patrols have fallen. You can get info on sub patrols using te US equivalent of RTI.

Rest of your post was OT and irrelevant to the subject

Look at my answer: "Now the question is what do these Akula carry? Bhramos tipped with nukes? or are they not carrying any nukes? We will not know."

If you think what I told you is equal to we are having deterrent patrols with 300km missiles. Then I can't help you. For all I know they might even be carrying k series missiles which were tested 10 times last decade. {The point being we really don't know what is the real range of any of our subs...} Deterrent patrol can also be within the IOR for now with a limited objective to preserve some second strike capability even if we have to get within 1000 km of shore. Akula is pretty effective in sonar signature and I would think since we operated it in 1990's, we already know what we want to do with it.

I don't know the range of the armaments carried by the Indian Akula or the "real" range of bhramos. The US version of those patrols don't show anything I am interested in. As far as I know Akula has vertical missile launch tubes. Did they remove the vertical missile launch tubes on the version provided to India? (which btw is a lease is something I am not privy to ..., neither are you.)

On the US information, I don't care. They are the ones who suggested we will never have MIRV, never have thermonukes as part of our policy, no mated-warheads and so on...{This is where the rest of my previous post fits in which you term irrelevant} The reports and everything produced in US is based on rational self-interest. They will suggest Indian sukois are better than F22's if it will help them get what they want at that point in time. None of the reports or released information is free of spin. On a second note the akula came in recently and therefore this information is not yet available.

What is the status of Akula btw? We will be going to sea trials? We will be testing missiles from Akula? Again I don't know the answer to this question as well. So the submarine force of ours has too little information in the open for us to know. Anyways, good luck with finding out what the submarine force is doing ...

 

[arnabmit]

AFAIK...

1) Akula does not have VLS cells to launch missiles

2) Lease agreement mandates India not to use any nuclear weapons from Akula.

However from the last para you wrote, i somehow have a feeling hat you have confused Arihant wih Akula.

Look at my answer: "Now the question is what do these Akula carry? Bhramos tipped with nukes? or are they not carrying any nukes? We will not know."

If you think what I told you is equal to we are having deterrent patrols with 300km missiles. Then I can't help you. For all I know they might even be carrying k series missiles which were tested 10 times last decade. {The point being we really don't know what is the real range of any of our subs...} Deterrent patrol can also be within the IOR for now with a limited objective to preserve some second strike capability even if we have to get within 1000 km of shore. Akula is pretty effective in sonar signature and I would think since we operated it in 1990's, we already know what we want to do with it.

I don't know the range of the armaments carried by the Indian Akula or the "real" range of bhramos. The US version of those patrols don't show anything I am interested in. As far as I know Akula has vertical missile launch tubes. Did they remove the vertical missile launch tubes on the version provided to India? (which btw is a lease is something I am not privy to ..., neither are you.)

On the US information, I don't care. They are the ones who suggested we will never have MIRV, never have thermonukes as part of our policy, no mated-warheads and so on...{This is where the rest of my previous post fits in which you term irrelevant} The reports and everything produced in US is based on rational self-interest. They will suggest Indian sukois are better than F22's if it will help them get what they want at that point in time. None of the reports or released information is free of spin. On a second note the akula came in recently and therefore this information is not yet available.

What is the status of Akula btw? We will be going to sea trials? We will be testing missiles from Akula? Again I don't know the answer to this question as well. So the submarine force of ours has too little information in the open for us to know. Anyways, good luck with finding out what the submarine force is doing ...

 

[olivers]

AFAIK...

1) Akula does not have VLS cells to launch missiles

2) Lease agreement mandates India not to use any nuclear weapons from Akula.

However from the last para you wrote, i somehow have a feeling hat you have confused Arihant wih Akula.

I could be wrong about any or all of the stuff that follows, but feel free to connect the dots that exist.

Airhant was supposed to go out to sea trials in 2010. It did not. Akula was delayed by a couple of years before it got to us. This was roughly during the same period. I am not confused about Akula vs Arihant. Where does Akula fit in? Will it be going to "sea trials"? Please co-relate this with the recent news on Arihant going to trials after monsoon. Akula has a role to play in this, which arrived recently. It could be logistic, it could be tracking, it could be used for training the crew before they perform similar roles on Arihant and plenty of other things. Maybe test only the undersea part of "an indian missile" before ignition using Akula to determine what effect the sudden reduction in weight will have on the stability of the platform experimentally on a known stable platform before trying it on the new platform.

I would like open-source literature for 1 and 2. I don't know if they are true or false. For 2, even if such a clause exists the wording of the restriction is very critical.

Eg.

India will not use Akula for launching nuclear weapons. vs.
India will not use Akula to launch ballistic missiles.

The second restriction is more stringent than the first.

If 1 is true and there are no VLS cells then 2 does not make too much of a difference. I haven't seen any credible reference on the VLS tubes being absent in open literature.

As much as Russia is a party to the restrictions on the MTCR and other restrictions. They don't apply to everyone. Please read the wiki links on semi-cryogenic technology co-operation with Ukraine(?) Uncle sam and Ukraine had quiet a big consultation. It is not related to our missile program. Just to make this abundantly clear, but the technology we are currently getting "consultation and design help" is MTCR technology. Similarly MTCR did not prevent UK from getting and using ballistic missiles for their subs from US. Theoretically MTCR prohibits that transfer. The same is true for a lot of projects.

The French and the Russians will work around the restrictions for India. Similar to how UK and US will work around restrictions when it suits them. It's never officially on paper though, except when you have cases like the wiki-leaks cable with Ukraine. Anyways, it will be fun to watch the "trials" of Arihant being reported in the media.

My personal take on this, these tests were completed or already showing early signs of success. Some missiles were fired etc. This has always been how the submarine force has acted in India with the missile tests. I will be surprised if any of these "fail" after the monsoon, but that's just me. I don't have literature to back this claim except to point to the 10 launches from under-sea platforms in the last decade or so, which was replaced in open-literature with the 2013 successful launch of K-15 with a video. Either the earlier 10 launches news reports were untrue or the 2013 was a spin on the reality to distort the intelligence gathering efforts and serve a different objective.

 

[sayareakd]

^^^ Everything Is Fair In Love And War.

This pertains to our nukes and delivery so let it be secret.

 

[arnabmit]

Akula does not have VLS cells. It can fire cruse missiles out of its torpedo tubes (AFAIK) limited to 300km. It is out on almost non-stop patrols since commission in a hunter-killer role. Akula is not meant for deterrence, it is an SSN, not an SSBN.

Arihant will never take up hunt-kill role as it is not sufficiently powered for such. its sole role is deterrence by placing itself in a slow and stealthy approach to enemy waters. It is a pure SSBN with no very limited SSN capabilities.

I could be wrong about any or all of the stuff that follows, but feel free to connect the dots that exist.

Airhant was supposed to go out to sea trials in 2010. It did not. Akula was delayed by a couple of years before it got to us. This was roughly during the same period. I am not confused about Akula vs Arihant. Where does Akula fit in? Will it be going to "sea trials"? Please co-relate this with the recent news on Arihant going to trials after monsoon. Akula has a role to play in this, which arrived recently. It could be logistic, it could be tracking, it could be used for training the crew before they perform similar roles on Arihant and plenty of other things. Maybe test only the undersea part of "an indian missile" before ignition using Akula to determine what effect the sudden reduction in weight will have on the stability of the platform experimentally on a known stable platform before trying it on the new platform.

I would like open-source literature for 1 and 2. I don't know if they are true or false. For 2, even if such a clause exists the wording of the restriction is very critical.

Eg.

India will not use Akula for launching nuclear weapons. vs.
India will not use Akula to launch ballistic missiles.

The second restriction is more stringent than the first.

If 1 is true and there are no VLS cells then 2 does not make too much of a difference. I haven't seen any credible reference on the VLS tubes being absent in open literature.

As much as Russia is a party to the restrictions on the MTCR and other restrictions. They don't apply to everyone. Please read the wiki links on semi-cryogenic technology co-operation with Ukraine(?) Uncle sam and Ukraine had quiet a big consultation. It is not related to our missile program. Just to make this abundantly clear, but the technology we are currently getting "consultation and design help" is MTCR technology. Similarly MTCR did not prevent UK from getting and using ballistic missiles for their subs from US. Theoretically MTCR prohibits that transfer. The same is true for a lot of projects.

The French and the Russians will work around the restrictions for India. Similar to how UK and US will work around restrictions when it suits them. It's never officially on paper though, except when you have cases like the wiki-leaks cable with Ukraine. Anyways, it will be fun to watch the "trials" of Arihant being reported in the media.

My personal take on this, these tests were completed or already showing early signs of success. Some missiles were fired etc. This has always been how the submarine force has acted in India with the missile tests. I will be surprised if any of these "fail" after the monsoon, but that's just me. I don't have literature to back this claim except to point to the 10 launches from under-sea platforms in the last decade or so, which was replaced in open-literature with the 2013 successful launch of K-15 with a video. Either the earlier 10 launches news reports were untrue or the 2013 was a spin on the reality to distort the intelligence gathering efforts and serve a different objective.