India had ICBM since 1992

[warrior monk]

According to prominent Russian and Chinese experts India could have made liquid fueled silo based ICBMs since early 1992 as Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) was the first De facto Indian ICBM .

Comparison of Russian , Chinese and Indian first generation systems



Russia ICBM -- Mass 276 tonnes -- payload 3.7 tonnes --- Range 12000 kms


China ICBM -- Mass 183 tonnes -- payload 3 tonnes --- Range 12000 kms


India SLV/ICBM -- Mass 294 tonnes --- payload 3 to 5 tonnes --- Range Leo ( 12000 to 15000 kms)


India had the capability for MIRVing the launch vehicle post boost control system with 5 to 8 nuclear warheads of 1974 vintage of 13 kt therefore achieving its 2nd leg of triad . India had already developed strap-ons, a clustered combination of single-stage missiles, parallel staging (not required) , serial staging , thrust-to-weight ratio of greater than one , maranging steel motor casing , thrust vector control system , sufficient thermal protection because the velocity of the RV due to very high ballistic coefficient entry paths etc. The Indian LV flies on a steeper trajectory early on to get the satellite to a high altitude and then onto a horizontal path that will put it into orbit but with a little modification to the trajectory it could have been an ICBM which could have had range excess of 12000 kms and a 3000 kgs + payload with MIRV and defense penetration aids to avoid BMD with twice the burnout time than other ICBMs

Though 2 problems prevents India for going this road

1 ) Lack of sophistication of Nuclear weapons in 1991 as India hadn't tested its thermonuclear weapon only theoretical simulation completed.

2) Strategic amateurism and fear by Indian policymakers as it would have sent jitters from Moscow to Washington.

So that would make Agni-V India's Third generation ICBM not first generation as commonly thought with canister launch capability and solid fueled.

It is time India woke up from its self created slumber and fear of antagonizing western countries and test its third generation solid fueled canisterized ICBM with MIRV capability and 12000 + Kms range .

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

It is time India woke up from its self created slumber and fear of antagonizing western countries and test its third generation solid fueled canisterized ICBM with MIRV capability and 12000 + Kms range .

I am of the same opinion. India is in the big guy's club and should start acting like one.

 

[warrior monk]

I am of the same opinion. India is in the big guy's club and should start acting like one.

India has the the technical capabilities but has cultural consternation , trepidation on stepping on Big shoes

 

[pmaitra]

For the record, India has no demonstrated capability of ICBM. The longest test that India performed still falls short of the ICBM mark. Everything is theoretical.

India should go for ICBM tests now. However, 1974 was probably not the time to test ICBMs. India had just gotten off the 1972 War victory, and was in financial stress. It might not have been much of a help for India to test a liquid-fueled silo-based ICBM then. India's nuke tests aggravated things enough. ICBM tests then would have made it worse.

 

[spikey360]

This PSLV=ICBM drivel has to stop. By those standards, even Japan has ICBM.
Re-rentry is the most difficult technology to master. Bharat has not yet demonstrated that capability, publicly.

Any news about Surya?

 

[pmaitra]

This PSLV=ICBM drivel has to stop. By those standards, even Japan has ICBM.

Another thing is, liquid fueled rockets are not suitable for military use. It takes a long time to get the rocket ready. PRC did build one (DF-5), but that was due to the fact their relationship with the US was severely strained, and they had to build one. Later on, they moved on to solid fuel.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

This PSLV=ICBM drivel has to stop. By those standards, even Japan has ICBM.
Re-rentry is the most difficult technology to master. Bharat has not yet demonstrated that capability, publicly.

Any news about Surya?

It's better than nothing. Anyway, it creates lots of spinoffs necessary for ICBM development.

 

[warrior monk]

For the record, India has no demonstrated capability of ICBM. The longest test that India performed still falls short of the ICBM mark. Everything is theoretical.

India should go for ICBM tests now. However, 1974 was probably not the time to test ICBMs. India had just gotten off the 1972 War victory, and was in financial stress. It might not have been much of a help for India to test a liquid-fueled silo-based ICBM then. India's nuke tests aggravated things enough. ICBM tests then would have made it worse.

Saar , what do you mean to say " India has no demonstrated capability of ICBM " Most nation graduate from liquid fueled ICBM to first stage solid fueled and subsequent liquid then to two stages solid to third stage liquid then three stages solid and India had all the technologies then to convert it into an ICBM . India is unfortunate the only country that wants to start with solid fueled ICBM which is why we are in the rut it is LCA TEJAS all over again from 2nd gen to 4th gen aircraft no wonder we took 32 years . PSLV could have been turned into an liquid fueled silo based (for protection) ICBM which is what the Surya ICBM which started in1994 based on serial staging PSLV was all about . It was supposed to be 80t 12000 km range ICBM but our politicians probably thinking on the same lines might have cancelled the whole program , who knows .

I never said we should have tested the ICBMs in 1974 but in 1992 -93 . I only said it WOULD HAVE ONLY BEEN ABLE TO CARRY SIMPLE IMPLOSION BOMB OF 1974 VINTAGE AS ITS WARHEAD.

Here Chinese liquid fueled ICBM which has higher specific impulse than solid fueled ones in 2015 parade DF-5B .


Even Russians are who converted SS-18 ICBMs which it used for 45 years into SLV through Deneper program and is creating newer Liquid fueled ICBMs for the future.

 

[AnantS]

where is the link to farticle? What would be interesting is not Chinese spewing usual bull$hit lines which earlier NPA's of western world used to spew. They have reason, justify blocking India's entry into MTCR club.
But Russians also joining Chinese in their propaganda means they are aligned with Chinese... No wonder Russians are acting paki these days. Not rude shock to me, but it would be too Indians who have crush on putin and russia.

 

[warrior monk]

This PSLV=ICBM drivel has to stop. By those standards, even Japan has ICBM.
Re-rentry is the most difficult technology to master. Bharat has not yet demonstrated that capability, publicly.

Any news about Surya?

Surya ICBM which was supposed to be built on PSLV program which you called " PSLV=ICBM drivel " it has not been unveiled or probably has been cancelled because we are afraid to antagonize US so no one knows the fate of the program.
Yes , Japan has ICBM capabilities but WITHOUT NUCLEAR WARHEAD IT IS USELESS and please be more specific on " Re-rentry is the most difficult technology to master. Bharat has not yet demonstrated that capability, publicly " If you are talking of nose cone fairings , nose cone designs , ablative heat shielding made carbon-carbon composite have all been demonstrated.

 

[Kshatriya87]

No, we didn't. If you compare our space tech with missile tech, we have missiles that can hit the moon and mars too.

 

[warrior monk]

where is the link to farticle? What would be interesting is not Chinese spewing usual bull$hit lines which earlier NPA's of western world used to spew. They have reason, justify blocking India's entry into MTCR club.
But Russians also joining Chinese in their propaganda means they are aligned with Chinese... No wonder Russians are acting paki these days. Not rude shock to me, but it would be too Indians who have crush on putin and russia.

I wrote this article based on Chinese , Russian and even American reports .

 

[AnantS]

I wrote this article based on Chinese , Russian and even American reports .

Good effort. But would be great if you included references to those reports. This will give more weight to you analysis.

Liquid fueled missiles stored in silos in old concept and not at all viable if country is following No First Strike and minimum deterrent philosophy. You will loose them soon, as there location is more realtively easy to predict than road mobile solid fueled missile.

Because remember fuel is filled in liquid fueled missiles only hours before launch. So it requires lot of prep time.
(iirc from old article, same problem was a drawback with liquid fueled Prithvi missile. The fuel itself is toxic as well as exhaust fumes, and harmful to personnel handling missile.)

 

[spikey360]

Surya ICBM which was supposed to be built on PSLV program which you called " PSLV=ICBM drivel " it has not been unveiled or probably has been cancelled because we are afraid to antagonize US so no one knows the fate of the program.
Yes , Japan has ICBM capabilities but WITHOUT NUCLEAR WARHEAD IT IS USELESS and please be more specific on " Re-rentry is the most difficult technology to master. Bharat has not yet demonstrated that capability, publicly " If you are talking of nose cone fairings , nose cone designs , ablative heat shielding made carbon-carbon composite have all been demonstrated.

You seem to know what you are talking about.
Please mention in detail along with references, credible ones, about our progress in all of the below technologies - nose cone designs & ablative heat shield.

 

[spikey360]

Another thing is, liquid fueled rockets are not suitable for military use. It takes a long time to get the rocket ready. PRC did build one (DF-5), but that was due to the fact their relationship with the US was severely strained, and they had to build one. Later on, they moved on to solid fuel.

On a lighter note, sometimes I feel that the whole Chinese missile program (along with Submarines and nukes, and FGFA) is as useless and unreliable as Chinese toys we used to play with as kids.
Don't know how a civilisation can create such junk for their kids and still manage to produce high grade stuff for their military. I mean, the disparity in quality is mind-numbing if indeed Chinese hi-tech weapons are real.

 

[warrior monk]

You seem to know what you are talking about.
Please mention in detail along with references, credible ones, about our progress in all of the below technologies - nose cone designs & ablative heat shield.

I am no expert and my knowledge is very basic and there are scant material available on internet that are free most are available behind paywall and/or are have hard copy but as far as heat shielding is concerned i think we use Di- amine modified phenolic resins and/or bifunctional resin based on diglycidyl ether of bisphenol-A (DGEBA) with high modulus and high strength at high temperatures , our missiles routinely have apogee of more than 450 kms which mean we have sufficent capability as far as re entry heat management is concerned .

Some thing to read about research done by DRDO related to this epoxy material.

http://www.ijammc-griet.com/attach/1362721207_014.pdf

 

[warrior monk]

Good effort. But would be great if you included references to those reports. This will give more weight to you analysis.

Liquid fueled missiles stored in silos in old concept and not at all viable if country is following No First Strike and minimum deterrent philosophy. You will loose them soon, as there location is more realtively easy to predict than road mobile solid fueled missile.

Because remember fuel is filled in liquid fueled missiles only hours before launch. So it requires lot of prep time.
(iirc from old article, same problem was a drawback with liquid fueled Prithvi missile. The fuel itself is toxic as well as exhaust fumes, and harmful to personnel handling missile.)

Sorry , those reports are hard copy and old the rest of the information like the payload comparison between the first gen systems of Russia, China and India is available on internet . Soviet Dnepr program got me thinking about the interchangeability between SLV and ICBMs.

I was talking of putting limited number of missiles in Nuclear hardened silos like

which can take a first strike and we can put them deep inside peninsular India amongst hardened metamorphic rocks as they have high range.

 

[AnantS]

Sorry , those reports are hard copy and old the rest of the information like the payload comparison between the first gen systems of Russia, China and India is available on internet . Soviet Dnepr program got me thinking about the interchangeability between SLV and ICBMs.

I was talking of putting limited number of missiles in Nuclear hardened silos like

which can take a first strike and we can put them deep inside peninsular India amongst hardened metamorphic rocks as they have high range.

Well you can just mention the paper/author names then if no direct link(in future). As I said your effort will be more visible and have weight-age, and will coax others to have their own research. This way you can contribute an article at the Front Page of defenceforumindia website(jmvho only) .

Now think this way, whats the use of liquid fueled missiles? Off the that I can wild guess only, liquid motors have ability/advantage to start, stop and have thrust variations(throttling), more payload capacity, and relatively more safe than solid motors in event of emergency shutdown.

So what would be the big advantage India would accrue from pursuing static liquid fueled missiles which will make it fire ready, easily hide-able , road mobile solid fueled? Remember India's first missile Agni TD was liquid fueled. They toiled hard for mastering solid fueled motors! There must be a reason why they shunned liquid and went for solid.

If anything, India should pour money into researching this:

Electrically-controlled solid propellant (ESP) operates differently than the energetic materials currently used in rocket motors. ESP is designed to be inert until it is electrically ignited, similar in concept to C4 plastic explosives. Whereas current solid propellant burns to completion after it is ignited, electrical impulses to electrodes implanted in the ESP can throttle the burn rate of the energetic materials and, if removed, can shut down – and, if reapplied, subsequently restart – combustion nearly instantly.

from http://csis.org/blog/ballistic-missile-technology-101-rocket-fuel

Anyway Interesting comparison between solid and liquid motors here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23243.msg657092#msg657092

 

[no smoking]

Saar , what do you mean to say " India has no demonstrated capability of ICBM " Most nation graduate from liquid fueled ICBM to first stage solid fueled and subsequent liquid then to two stages solid to third stage liquid then three stages solid and India had all the technologies then to convert it into an ICBM.

No, every other country has the ICBM first and then convert it into a ordinary rocket. The ICBM requires lot higher tech standard and generally working in extreme environment. So it is quite easy to convert ICBM into commercial rocket rather than vice verse.
There is another possible reason: in 1990s, there were still some key components in PSLV supplied by foreign company. But you don't want your strategic weapon to be built on foreign components.

India is unfortunate the only country that wants to start with solid fueled ICBM which is why we are in the rut it is LCA TEJAS all over again from 2nd gen to 4th gen aircraft no wonder we took 32 years . PSLV could have been turned into an liquid fueled silo based (for protection) ICBM which is what the Surya ICBM which started in1994 based on serial staging PSLV was all about . It was supposed to be 80t 12000 km range ICBM but our politicians probably thinking on the same lines might have cancelled the whole program , who knows .

Why you need an ICBM over 12000km? Your NO.1 and No.2 enemies just sit next to your door, which only requires 5000km missile. Please keep in mind, your poor politicians have to make decision based on LIMITED BUDGET!

 

[pmaitra]

@warrior monk, I was implying that we have not tested a missile that will hit a target more than 3500 miles from the point of launch. Therefore, we have not demonstrated ICBM capability. That is why I used the term "theoretical."