Agni V Missile

porky_kicker

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Messages
6,024
Likes
44,577
Country flag
I doubt anyone thinks that we are not capable of MIRV. It has always been the political decision not to do it (not sure why. I highly doubt it will lead to an arms race).
Even if we do use similar bus configurations and nose cone shapes from PSLV, we still need to test them a few times to be sure don't we?
Bhai PSLV is totally irrelevant here . except for the technology demonstrated / used in it .

Take a deep breath and forget about PSLV and think only about " technological blocks "

As for testing mirvs why do you think I asked this question previously ( highlighted in red )

Yes and no

Floating test range is required to test

1. BMD at full desired capability
2. Payloads with widely dispersed RVs spanning a very large geographical area.


Correlate the geography of porkistan and the possible targets. Keeping in mind the above, validating ~ 3 MIRVs with the required dispersion is more than feasible with the existing land based and limited ship based sensors to the desired splash points.

And don't know weather you guys noticed the post boost vehicle in the relevant Agni missiles.
Same where the GNC module is housed , its self explanatory why .

And why DRDO goes to the trouble of doing numerous tests with both depressed and lofted trajectories ?
Is it with regard to the missile itself or the RV(s) or both


Just saying it could be argued that the reduced range test zones (notams) falls within the existing range capability of the land / ship sensors to generate or validate test points pertaining to the you know what.
See the big picture and please don't mention PSLV bro :biggrin2:
 

Arihant Roy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2018
Messages
1,493
Likes
12,471
Country flag
Sir where did I say they are explicitly compatible ?

One cannot simply take a civilian system and utilise it perse , I mentioned SWaP , optimisation engineering , technology blocks didn't I ?

Why are you mentioning Agni 2 ? It is irrelevant in the discussion. It sports a single RV

Agni 3 has 3 mirvs but does not follow the above template , it uses a different payload bus configuration designed with a little help from the ruskies .

I was alluding all along to Agni 6 , k 4/5 etc those missiles which have ( will have ) ogival nose cone shape . Why do you think I kept mentioning DRDO IIT slides in the relevant posts of mine ?

Also from guys I know , they alluded that the PSLV trans stage post boost control system ( PBCS ) can be considered equivalent to US multiple launch technology. Though they added optimisation and certifying the same is a entirely different ball game and takes lot of effort and time. Infact it involves herculean effort

That little help wasnt little. It was substantial. Phoren tech helped us to leapfrog into the big league. We didn't have to start from scratch.

Have also heard that we had got some help in the K-4/5 missile program. Came as a complete package.
 

porky_kicker

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Messages
6,024
Likes
44,577
Country flag
Have also heard that we had got some help in the K-4/5 missile program. Came as a complete package.
IMO not totally correct

Most help is consultancy, DRDO runs into technological bottlenecks etc the ruskies step in to troubleshoot based on their vast experience albiet at a huge cost. Though limited older technology in bits and pieces has been transferred which needed a complete revamp by DRDO

Infact it helps them considerably because they get access to DRDO work.

It's a two way street but we end up paying the heavier price.

Afaik A5 not K had run into a problem wrt ejection , the ruskes helped to isolate the fault and advice the corrective measures.
 
Last edited:

Arihant Roy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2018
Messages
1,493
Likes
12,471
Country flag
IMO not totally correct

Most help is consultancy, DRDO runs into technological bottlenecks etc the ruskies step in to troubleshoot based on their vast experience albiet at a huge cost. Though limited older technology in bits and pieces has been transferred which needed a complete revamp by DRDO

Infact it helps them considerably because they get access to DRDO work.

It's a two way street but we end up paying the heavier price.

Afaik A5 not K had run into a problem wrt ejection , the ruskes helped to isolate the fault and advice the corrective measures.
What I had heard is they helped us in the field of solid propellants. Higher ISP ones.
We hadn't talked on the cost. But he did say that the Russians were generous in tech transfer albeit of an older generation.
 

Aaj ka hero

Has left
Banned
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
1,872
Likes
4,532
Country flag
it's look like agni-5 only carry one warhead, that is another wait for the next missile in the series for mirv capability.
 

Kay

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
1,029
Likes
1,354
Country flag
We have proven MIRV technology for civilian use. The problem is untested and unproven miniaturized warheads. We have limited number of missiles - better to use tested and reliable (atleast 25-40 KT Shakti 2warheads ) than taking unnecessary risk with untested warheads.
I believe the thinking in our defense establishment is that it is simply not worth the price:-
a. MIRV means storing, securing and maintaining more warheads - wasted money for something that will potentially never be used untill armageddon and apocalypse. Better to use the money for potential conflicts.
b. At this point of India' s global stature, it gives more negative publicity than positive. This will surely change later.
c. We have minimal credible deterrence (MIRV will not be minimal , nor credible due to lack of testing)
d. If security situation deteoriates, we can simply add more missiles with tested weapons. For MAD, we only need to bust a handful of cities. Everything else is overkill. The nuclear winter that our current weapons can deliver should ensure Mad Max movies become reality.
 

Skdas

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
204
Likes
427
View attachment 30288

View attachment 30290

Another question

What are the circular vents ( bleed ports ? / thruster vents ? / etc etc ) for ? 4 in no .

Look at the base of the cone 1st pic ( 2 of such are visible ) 2nd pic 2 of such are visible

I am sure our Chinese comrades will be happy to help us ( Just do a small favour and don't state the obvious facts like it is Agni 3 blah blah ........ )

Anybody ? :biggrin2:
Hmm if I am not mistaken, those are post seperation attitude control using RCS. They couldn't possibly hold enough fuel or have enough thrust to maneuver the warhead once inside the atmosphere...

Edit: I also think they might be there to impart a spin on the warhead during its re-entry. Gyroscopic stability for better CEP
 

power_monger

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
642
Likes
653
Country flag
We have proven MIRV technology for civilian use. The problem is untested and unproven miniaturized warheads. We have limited number of missiles - better to use tested and reliable (atleast 25-40 KT Shakti 2warheads ) than taking unnecessary risk with untested warheads.
I believe the thinking in our defense establishment is that it is simply not worth the price:-
a. MIRV means storing, securing and maintaining more warheads - wasted money for something that will potentially never be used untill armageddon and apocalypse. Better to use the money for potential conflicts.
b. At this point of India' s global stature, it gives more negative publicity than positive. This will surely change later.
c. We have minimal credible deterrence (MIRV will not be minimal , nor credible due to lack of testing)
d. If security situation deteoriates, we can simply add more missiles with tested weapons. For MAD, we only need to bust a handful of cities. Everything else is overkill. The nuclear winter that our current weapons can deliver should ensure Mad Max movies become reality.
This is all excuses. Have we stopped working on designs of nuclear war head ? Newer and newer design are being brought out.

No mirv testing indicates lack of will power.Sourva jha had indicated that mirv missile is screw driver away from testing.
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
We have proven MIRV technology for civilian use. The problem is untested and unproven miniaturized warheads. We have limited number of missiles - better to use tested and reliable (atleast 25-40 KT Shakti 2warheads ) than taking unnecessary risk with untested warheads.
I believe the thinking in our defense establishment is that it is simply not worth the price:-
a. MIRV means storing, securing and maintaining more warheads - wasted money for something that will potentially never be used untill armageddon and apocalypse. Better to use the money for potential conflicts.
b. At this point of India' s global stature, it gives more negative publicity than positive. This will surely change later.
c. We have minimal credible deterrence (MIRV will not be minimal , nor credible due to lack of testing)
d. If security situation deteoriates, we can simply add more missiles with tested weapons. For MAD, we only need to bust a handful of cities. Everything else is overkill. The nuclear winter that our current weapons can deliver should ensure Mad Max movies become reality.
We need all types of missiles. Big boyz carry bigger sticks. We should not think what others will think, just be in the tech curve, if you could not be ahead of curve. In between keep putting things that are like shock and awe. Like Mars mission or 104 satellites. That keep you notice by others.
 

porky_kicker

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Messages
6,024
Likes
44,577
Country flag
Hmm if I am not mistaken, those are post seperation attitude control using RCS. They couldn't possibly hold enough fuel or have enough thrust to maneuver the warhead once inside the atmosphere...

Edit: I also think they might be there to impart a spin on the warhead during its re-entry. Gyroscopic stability for better CEP
Pitch and spin thrusters for accurate reentry orientation and very high CEP via altitude control and averaging deflection.
 
Last edited:

porky_kicker

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Messages
6,024
Likes
44,577
Country flag
For a certain varient of Agni 3 expect a configuration like this with max 3 MIRVs

images.jpeg


INDIA-MISSILE_4Cnew--621x414.jpg


If one looks at the 1st mirv configuration attempt of other countries you will realise, generally they started with 3 ( and there is a reason for that ). India followed the same trend.
 
Last edited:

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
8,675
Likes
22,526
Country flag
For a certain varient of Agni 3 expect a configuration like this with max 3 MIRVs

View attachment 30615

View attachment 30616

If one looks at the 1st mirv configuration attempt of other countries you will realise, generally they started with 3 ( and there is a reason for that ). India followed the same trend.
MIRV is not a technical challenge for India. But as I always say, the yield of per warhead would be a factor here. But that's another topic for another thread.
 

Advaidhya Tiwari

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2018
Messages
1,580
Likes
1,448
MIRV is not a technical challenge for India. But as I always say, the yield of per warhead would be a factor here. But that's another topic for another thread.
The destruction is proportional to the cube root of the yield (The blast is spherical and spreads in all direction). So, 1MT bomb will only be 10 times more destructive than 1KT bomb. It is better to use smaller warheads in dispersed manner than use single big warhead. That is why countries like USA is going for 100-300KT bombs instead of 1+MT bombs. So, I would prefer to use MIRV warheads of lower yields than a big warhead. Only concern is that the warheads have not been tested yet and hence India may not be aware of how big the warheads must be to have required yield
 

The Ultranationalist

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jan 30, 2017
Messages
996
Likes
2,453
Country flag
Expensive toys like the Agni 5, Arihant nuclear submarine etc will never see action. Better buy some excellent sniper rifles and equip the army with those, they will be far more effective than wasting a huge amount of ammunition on the LOC.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
Seriously ?

As for snooping , everybody snoops on everybodies tests be it land or over water.

But do you even know what they snoop for ?
Provided If you know then you will also know what it means ie the beginning of a long headache for the snoopers with no guaranteed success.
Seriously, what are they snooping?
Your warhead re-entry stage data which is quit critical for BMD system! Of course, they will come to watch wherever you test. But when your re-entry stage is in international ocea, their boat can watch it from a lot closer distance, certainly much more details.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top