Agni V Missile

[sayareakd]

@sayareakd sir, is it true, that porkis may have got mirv tech (from dragon) as claimed in this video?

Idea is to keep us busy with Pakistan. That proxy fighting your war, Pak in turn use terrorists proxies.
In UN, China protect Pak with terrorists.
Now wait and watch how China help them.
Lets wait and see who test MIRV first.
India or Pak?
I suspect we already tested something with second last Agni 5 test, no pic was released by drdo. Must be similar to Ababeel kind of structure design test. Thats why no pics.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Idea is to keep us busy with Pakistan. That proxy fighting your war, Pak in turn use terrorists proxies.
In UN, China protect Pak with terrorists.
Now wait and watch how China help them.
Lets wait and see who test MIRV first.
India or Pak?
I suspect we already tested something with second last Agni 5 test, no pic was released by drdo. Must be similar to Ababeel kind of structure design test. Thats why no pics.

record breaking satellite launches have already indirectly demonstrated MIRV capability/possibility

 

[no smoking]

Actually, Agni-5 has 3 stages and is the perfect missile for satellite killer job in the LEO. It can reach altitudes of over 1000km and strike almost all of the LEO satellites. GEO satellites are very difficult to kill, however.

No, most of MRBM have no problem to reach LEO orbit. The key problem for these missiles is the accelerating capability. Those satellite-killers are specifically designed with high thrust motor to push the missile into maximum speed asap. If you check the launching vedio of Agni-5, the burning time of first stage is generally 90 seconds while US/Russia missiles have 60 seconds and their satellite killers are faster. As a ballistic missile, that is fine, as platform of satellite-killer, you need a new engine, new missile structure.

Agni-5 has terminal speed of over 7km/s and weighs 50 tons, which is enough to carry a large warhead to ensure guaranteed destruction of enemy satellites. 3 stage missiles are the ones to do the satellite killer job as the heavy stages need to be dropped for better efficiency and increased altitude.

No, for LEO orbit, 3 stage missile is a waste. According to 1/2 rule of rocket, that a ballistic missile that can launch a given payload to a maximum range R on the Earth can launch that same payload vertically to an altitude of roughly R/2, any missile with 4000km range can reach 2000km altitude. So, generally 2 stage missile is enough. But I said previously, generally, people don't use ballistic missile for this mission as it is too slow.

 

[Jameson Emoni]

No, most of MRBM have no problem to reach LEO orbit. The key problem for these missiles is the accelerating capability. Those satellite-killers are specifically designed with high thrust motor to push the missile into maximum speed asap. If you check the launching vedio of Agni-5, the burning time of first stage is generally 90 seconds while US/Russia missiles have 60 seconds and their satellite killers are faster. As a ballistic missile, that is fine, as platform of satellite-killer, you need a new engine, new missile structure.

...


No, for LEO orbit, 3 stage missile is a waste. According to 1/2 rule of rocket, that a ballistic missile that can launch a given payload to a maximum range R on the Earth can launch that same payload vertically to an altitude of roughly R/2, any missile with 4000km range can reach 2000km altitude. So, generally 2 stage missile is enough. But I said previously, generally, people don't use ballistic missile for this mission as it is too slow.

You have a very poor understanding of how a large system such as a missile system is developed. This is why you are unable to understand how a new system can be developed leveraging an existing system.

What clearly distinguishes a ballistic missile from ASAT missile is the guidance system in the later. Of course, when you are going vertically up, you will need more thrust, Captain Obvious. No body is disputing that.

ASAT missiles typically use linked functions to predict the position of the satellite through discretely correcting the path. This is what makes ASAT missile different from ballistic missile. However, this is not necessary and you can quite easily predict the position of a satellite at a given future time by observing its orbit in advance, so you could theoretically intercept it by guiding the interceptor missile using pre-calculated data inputs. If you don't have faith in your calculation then as an alternative to kinetic kill, you could pack a small explosive in the ASAT missile.

Even China was able to do it with less than a million tests

 

[sayareakd]

No, for LEO orbit, 3 stage missile is a waste. According to 1/2 rule of rocket, that a ballistic missile that can launch a given payload to a maximum range R on the Earth can launch that same payload vertically to an altitude of roughly R/2, any missile with 4000km range can reach 2000km altitude. So, generally 2 stage missile is enough. But I said previously, generally, people don't use ballistic missile for this mission as it is too slow.

So basically, you want to say that with slow speed, you cant hit satellite for ASAT, specially with A5?

Your logic is flawed. A bird with slow speed could take out fighter jet.

 

[Jameson Emoni]

So basically, you want to say that with slow speed, you cant hit satellite for ASAT, specially with A5?

Your logic is flawed. A bird with slow speed could take out fighter jet.

Excellent argument!

I would like to augment it further by pointing out that any form of radiation seeking missile has to start out slow first. This is because it first determines the general direction in which to travel. Afterward, at a high frequency, it discreetly makes course corrections. As the velocity of the interceptor missile increases, its ability to make drastic course correction diminishes. This is why, against radiation seeking missiles, military transport aircraft are able to defend themselves by merely deploying flares and this is why fighter pilots as a last resort train to perform abrupt maneuvers to beat a radiation seeking incoming missile.

 

[Kshithij]

No, most of MRBM have no problem to reach LEO orbit. The key problem for these missiles is the accelerating capability. Those satellite-killers are specifically designed with high thrust motor to push the missile into maximum speed asap. If you check the launching vedio of Agni-5, the burning time of first stage is generally 90 seconds while US/Russia missiles have 60 seconds and their satellite killers are faster. As a ballistic missile, that is fine, as platform of satellite-killer, you need a new engine, new missile structure.

The satellites are not revolving near the atmosphere to need fast acceleration immediately. Slow acceleration is fuel efficient as it reduces velocity based drag where atmosphere is thickest.

MRBM can go to low level LEOs not the higher LEOs. To reach higher LEO, one needs a more powerful missile. ASAT missile is targeted at a known orbi of a satellite and is not a quick reaction missile. The argument of 90 or 60 second initial stage makes no sense as all of this goes into calculation beforehand and the target is having known trajectory

No, for LEO orbit, 3 stage missile is a waste. According to 1/2 rule of rocket, that a ballistic missile that can launch a given payload to a maximum range R on the Earth can launch that same payload vertically to an altitude of roughly R/2, any missile with 4000km range can reach 2000km altitude. So, generally 2 stage missile is enough. But I said previously, generally, people don't use ballistic missile for this mission as it is too slow.

3stage missile may be excessive for certain LEOs whereas LEOs with 1200km altitude needs 3 stage missile. If the LEO is 800km, then Agni-3 is enough. You are referring to flight altitude without considering the interception speed. It is undesirable to have slow speed at LEO due to loss of sped over flight trajectory for interception. So, there will be requirement for more efficiency and hence 3rd stage will be important.

Ballistic missiles are not ideal for interception but are viable. Ballistic missiles have excess power and payload carrying ability than what is needed and is slightly excessive but it helps keep logistics cost low by not needing to have multiple different missiles. So, it is a cost efficient option. The ASAT weapons are needed only in a fe tens or atmost 100 whereas ballistic missiles are needed in thousands. It is not worth to make a separate missile just for 100 or less ASAT

 

[sayareakd]

Excellent argument!

Thanks, BTW i am lawyer by profession :biggrin2:

 

[no smoking]

So basically, you want to say that with slow speed, you cant hit satellite for ASAT, specially with A5?

No, you certainly can use A5 to hit satellite, but since you only got a very narrow window to shoot the satellite down, of course the low speed will impact your chance of hit.

I haven't talk about the preparing time, maintenance cost, etc.

Your logic is flawed. A bird with slow speed could take out fighter jet.

Yes, but how many countries are still using the low speed air-defense missiles?
Instead, the trend is air-defense missiles are becoming faster and faster.

 

[no smoking]

The satellites are not revolving near the atmosphere to need fast acceleration immediately. Slow acceleration is fuel efficient as it reduces velocity based drag where atmosphere is thickest.

You only get a narrow shoot window, reducing the flying time is far more important. When your missile gets enough height to reach the altitude, fuel efficient is not your concern.

MRBM can go to low level LEOs not the higher LEOs. To reach higher LEO, one needs a more powerful missile.

2000km altitude is perfectly within any MRBM with 4000km range.

ASAT missile is targeted at a known orbi of a satellite and is not a quick reaction missile. The argument of 90 or 60 second initial stage makes no sense as all of this goes into calculation beforehand and the target is having known trajectory

You didn't think the whole fight scenario. In the war, your missile is not sitting there waiting the satellite to pass over your head. Your missile has to be maneuvered into the best launch site, then erect and shoot. With fast reaction missile, you can soon finish and leave. With ballistic missile, however, the whole process time will be much longer, which will increase the risk of being found by enemy.

3stage missile may be excessive for certain LEOs whereas LEOs with 1200km altitude needs 3 stage missile. If the LEO is 800km, then Agni-3 is enough. You are referring to flight altitude without considering the interception speed. It is undesirable to have slow speed at LEO due to loss of sped over flight trajectory for interception. So, there will be requirement for more efficiency and hence 3rd stage will be important.

You are using the kinetic vehicle to hit satellite, not missile itself. As long as the vehicle has hit the satellite, the speed of satellite itself is enough.

Ballistic missiles are not ideal for interception but are viable. Ballistic missiles have excess power and payload carrying ability than what is needed and is slightly excessive but it helps keep logistics cost low by not needing to have multiple different missiles. So, it is a cost efficient option. The ASAT weapons are needed only in a fe tens or atmost 100 whereas ballistic missiles are needed in thousands. It is not worth to make a separate missile just for 100 or less ASAT

You got one thing wrong, the major job of ASAT is actually anti-missile. So, yes, everyone thinks it is worth to make a separate missile.

 

[porky_kicker]

No, you certainly can use A5 to hit satellite, but since you only got a very narrow window to shoot the satellite down, of course the low speed will impact your chance of hit.

I haven't talk about the preparing time, maintenance cost, etc.



Yes, but how many countries are still using the low speed air-defense missiles?
Instead, the trend is air-defense missiles are becoming faster and faster.

You on a trolling spree ?

Did it not cross your mind that base A3/4/5 will act as the carrier missile.

That the boost phase will be provided by the anyone of same mentioned above.

The coast phase stage will be drawn from anyone of the ABM interceptors stage.

And the terminal stage will be the kill vehicle itself which will have the required terminal speed high velocity for end game.

And what narrow window you talking about ?

Stupid logic has its limits. You troll

Do you think we will not factor in the time of arrival of the satellite at the calculated interception point and launch the ASAT correspondingly to cater to our own interceptor speed / time of arrival and speed / time of arrival of the satellite to be intercepted ?

Some expert lolzzzz

No please spare us and don't bother about the preparing time, maintenance cost, etc.

You probably discounted the ability of others to come up with cannisterized ready to fire ASAT systems because unlike you we don't steal or copy we come up with our own solutions to our problems. For you If there is nothing to steal or copy then it means it can't be done.

And seriously give me a break , you are the last person to judge a trend. You need brain cells for that.

System parameters of a missile are a fine tune blend of capabilities based on requirements , operational scenarios and in house capabilities.
Eg I remember some idiots ( the iron brothers :biggrin2: ) commenting on how LRSAM does not have the velocity to engage the high speed targets.
The ignorant fools did not have a clue about the different engagement scenarios like head on or tail chase or cross over etc. And importantly the functionality of 2 pulse motors , the 2nd pulse motors fires at terminal stage to speed up the missile > 4 mach more than enough for any hostile target be it Supersonic missiles or aircrafts. Guess nowadays they don't have much to say on the matter.


And importantly you are a perfect personification of what is known as " empty vessels make much noise "

 

[Kshithij]

You only get a narrow shoot window, reducing the flying time is far more important. When your missile gets enough height to reach the altitude, fuel efficient is not your concern

That narrow window is well.known as satellite trajectory is predictable and hence is already calculated for the interce0t point. So, it is not as difficult as interception of ballistic missiles which have only 10 minutes for interception from the blast of 3rd stage

2000km altitude is perfectly within any MRBM with 4000km range

The MRBM is not fit for 2000km. We don't want a straight up moving missile but a maneuvering missile which also has horizontal velocity to kill the satellite. So, travelling straight up will.not help. Horizontal maneuver to correct wind and atmospheric fluctuations is important

You didn't think the whole fight scenario. In the war, your missile is not sitting there waiting the satellite to pass over your head. Your missile has to be maneuvered into the best launch site, then erect and shoot. With fast reaction missile, you can soon finish and leave. With ballistic missile, however, the whole process time will be much longer, which will increase the risk of being found by enemy.

The satellite is not an incoming ballistic missile. It already exists in orbit and it is already well.known of the trajectory. Solid fuel Ballistic missile is fired instanly. There is no need for any delay. The speed of flight of the missile is also part of calculation

You are using the kinetic vehicle to hit satellite, not missile itself. As long as the vehicle has hit the satellite, the speed of satellite itself is enough.

Yes, the third stage of the missile will be replaced with a maneuvering vehicle, not the re-entry warhead for the kinetic kill. But the other 2 stage can be the same. It is obvious that the 1.5ton payload will not be used for taking down a satellite. Instead it will be a maneuvering payload with lots of fuel, antenna for radar guidance and seekers to home in on the satellite.

 

[Chinmoy]

You on a trolling spree ?

Did it not cross your mind that base A3/4/5 will act as the carrier missile.

That the boost phase will be provided by the anyone of same mentioned above.

The coast phase stage will be drawn from anyone of the ABM interceptors stage.

And the terminal stage will be the kill vehicle itself which will have the required terminal speed high velocity for end game.

And what narrow window you talking about ?

Stupid logic has its limits. You troll

Do you think we will not factor in the time of arrival of the satellite at the calculated interception point and launch the ASAT correspondingly to cater to our own interceptor speed / time of arrival and speed / time of arrival of the satellite to be intercepted ?

Some expert lolzzzz

No please spare us and don't bother about the preparing time, maintenance cost, etc.

You probably discounted the ability of others to come up with cannisterized ready to fire ASAT systems because unlike you we don't steal or copy we come up with our own solutions to our problems. For you If there is nothing to steal or copy then it means it can't be done.

And seriously give me a break , you are the last person to judge a trend. You need brain cells for that.

System parameters of a missile are a fine tune blend of capabilities based on requirements , operational scenarios and in house capabilities.
Eg I remember some idiots ( the iron brothers :biggrin2: ) commenting on how LRSAM does not have the velocity to engage the high speed targets.
The ignorant fools did not have a clue about the different engagement scenarios like head on or tail chase or cross over etc. And importantly the functionality of 2 pulse motors , the 2nd pulse motors fires at terminal stage to speed up the missile > 4 mach more than enough for any hostile target be it Supersonic missiles or aircrafts. Guess nowadays they don't have much to say on the matter.


And importantly you are a perfect personification of what is known as " empty vessels make much noise "

Please enter a message with at least 30 characters.

 

[Jameson Emoni]

No, you certainly can use A5 to hit satellite, but since you only got a very narrow window to shoot the satellite down, of course the low speed will impact your chance of hit.

I haven't talk about the preparing time, maintenance cost, etc.



Yes, but how many countries are still using the low speed air-defense missiles?
Instead, the trend is air-defense missiles are becoming faster and faster.

No body is saying that A5 is slow. People are just humoring your slow start logic because it is stupid. In other words, you are being beaten at your own game.

 

[sayareakd]

No, you certainly can use A5 to hit satellite, but since you only got a very narrow window to shoot the satellite down, of course the low speed will impact your chance of hit.

I haven't talk about the preparing time, maintenance cost, etc.

You are again flawed in your stupid theories.

Here is how it will be targeted.

From drdo presentation posted by me, few years ago.

 

[no smoking]

The MRBM is not fit for 2000km. We don't want a straight up moving missile but a maneuvering missile which also has horizontal velocity to kill the satellite. So, travelling straight up will.not help. Horizontal maneuver to correct wind and atmospheric fluctuations is important

You are right about the limit of maximum of MRBM. I didn’t think this through.

The satellite is not an incoming ballistic missile. It already exists in orbit and it is already well.known of the trajectory. Solid fuel Ballistic missile is fired instanly. There is no need for any delay. The speed of flight of the missile is also part of calculation

That is happening only in optimal situation, everything goes as planned or calculated. But in the reality, there is always some problems: your missile TEL didn’t get into the launch position in time, there is technical issue when the missile is erected, the first missile malfunction, etc, etc. A higher speed missile means your missile can cover a larger shooting window, certainly give you higher redundancy. And contrast to specific interception missile, the ballistic missile can’t be kept long time launch-ready status.

 

[cannonfodder]

Idea is to keep us busy with Pakistan. That proxy fighting your war, Pak in turn use terrorists proxies.
In UN, China protect Pak with terrorists.
Now wait and watch how China help them.
Lets wait and see who test MIRV first.
India or Pak?
I suspect we already tested something with second last Agni 5 test, no pic was released by drdo. Must be similar to Ababeel kind of structure design test. Thats why no pics.

Dragon has been getting away every time giving away nuke tech to worthless failed states .. UN is a complete joke and worthless institution :biggrin2:. we must expedite our BMD/mirv tests. Porkis will drain their economy trying to keep up.

 

[Kshithij]

Dragon has been getting away every time giving away nuke tech to worthless failed states .. UN is a complete joke and worthless institution :biggrin2:. we must expedite our BMD/mirv tests. Porkis will drain their economy trying to keep up.

Porkies don't have the technical manpower to make high end equipments. Research requires patience and knowledge none of which porkies have. India already is testing ABM missiles and must focus on improving accuracy ad range.

 

[no smoking]

You are again flawed in your stupid theories.

Here is how it will be targeted.

View attachment 26572

From drdo presentation posted by me, few years ago.

We are talking about the effective shoot range of the defense missile, which is decided the speed, accelerating capacity and maximum attitude. The defense missile can only launch when the target enters this range no matter how far your radar can detect the target.

 

[sayareakd]

We are talking about the effective shoot range of the defense missile, which is decided the speed, accelerating capacity and maximum attitude. The defense missile can only launch when the target enters this range no matter how far your radar can detect the target.

why on earth would ASAT missile be short range, it will be at least have range to reach satellite target to be ASAT. First make your fundamentals clear then post it.