India's military nuclear capability

[no smoking]

There is no need for 'strong simulation program' to ensure deterrence. Agni-3 and upwards are designed for 3x200kt or 10x25kt. While a true megatoner is not there but the area destruction will be the same.

Well, according to public information, the payload of Agni-3 is 1.5t. Generally, the MIRV bus weighs as much as the combined weight of all the warheads it carries. So, the bus of so called “MIRV” of Agni-3 should be around 750kg, leaves another 750kg for warheads. Then the 3x200kt or 10x25kt you talking about here weighs: 250kg for 200kt warhead (RV) and 75kg for 25kt warhead (RV).


Now, let's comparing to other existing warhead
French lastest TN-75 (equipped on M51): 230kg for 100kt-150kt RV.

Basically, what you claim is: with only 6 tests, India is, somehow, able to build up a warhead far advanced than France which went through 210 actual test.


In this case, my friend, even the best American simulation program can’t help you. You need alien technologies.

 

[Khagesh]

Well, according to public information, the payload of Agni-3 is 1.5t. Generally, the MIRV bus weighs as much as the combined weight of all the warheads it carries. So, the bus of so called “MIRV” of Agni-3 should be around 750kg, leaves another 750kg for warheads. Then the 3x200kt or 10x25kt you talking about here weighs: 250kg for 200kt warhead (RV) and 75kg for 25kt warhead (RV).


Now, let's comparing to other existing warhead
French lastest TN-75 (equipped on M51): 230kg for 100kt-150kt RV.

Basically, what you claim is: with only 6 tests, India is, somehow, able to build up a warhead far advanced than France which went through 210 actual test.


In this case, my friend, even the best American simulation program can’t help you. You need alien technologies.

Following is a widely known comment by an Indian Minister of State for Defence:

http://www.indiaresearch.org/WayToACredibleDeterrent.pdf

7 DRDO scientists appreciated for successful launch of Agni-3, Indian Express, Friday April 13 2007 "Union Minister of State for Defence MM Pallam Raju has said “the strategic payload of the missile is between 100 kg to 250 kg, and it is a two-stage solid fuel combustion system type missile."http://www.newindpress.com/news.asp?ID=IEA20070413023541

The newspaper link, given by the author is wrong/dead, but you can rest assured this actually was said.

And my expectation is 100 kg for the 20-25 kt warheads and 250 kg for the 150-200 kt warheads. Please note that the lower bound for the debugged-TN as accepted by the author is 270 kg.

Further given that the French had been able to squeeze in 500 kt into a 700 kg warhead purely through a 1960s boosted fission device so I am quite sure that 150-200 kt worth of blast force can be squeezed into a 250 kg package purely through a boosted fission system at least so long as the missile is a land based one.

 

[no smoking]

Following is a widely known comment by an Indian Minister of State for Defence:


The newspaper link, given by the author is wrong/dead, but you can rest assured this actually was said.


And my expectation is 100 kg for the 20-25 kt warheads and 250 kg for the 150-200 kt warheads. Please note that the lower bound for the debugged-TN as accepted by the author is 270 kg.

So, you agree with my estimation of your India warhead.

But according to the paperwork provided by you, these warheads, at the best, are still in the developing stage, waiting for the future tests.

Further given that the French had been able to squeeze in 500 kt into a 700 kg warhead purely through a 1960s boosted fission device so I am quite sure that 150-200 kt worth of blast force can be squeezed into a 250 kg package purely through a boosted fission system at least so long as the missile is a land based one.

Certainly, France can, as proved by TN 75 warhead (230kg for 100-150kt). However, the whole development didn’t go as quick as you think and it was not a one-step jump. France started her development of the warhead suitable for MIRV in 1972, after 11 years and multiple tests, they squeezed 150kt into 200kg warhead (the RV would be lot bigger and heavier). In 1995, they finally squeezed 150kt bomb into a 230kg RV.


If you read any of P5 nuclear weapon program, none of them can develop the miniaturized warhead in one step, neither can they mature their simulation program with merely couple of tests.


And another thing: India hasn’t done any MIRV test yet.

 

[Khagesh]

So, you agree with my estimation of your India warhead.

But according to the paperwork provided by you, these warheads, at the best, are still in the developing stage, waiting for the future tests.

No, I think I am helping you reach a conclusion.

We don't need thermonukes to deter China. Boosted fission which you already concede works flawlessly is more than enough for all the 'China needs' that we may have ever.

Also that piece of research was by somebody who besides being knowledgeable himself was most probably also being fed insider information and is about 10 years old. Some parts are older than that. And surely in these 10+ years more R&D has been done.

Certainly, France can, as proved by TN 75 warhead (230kg for 100-150kt). However, the whole development didn’t go as quick as you think and it was not a one-step jump. France started her development of the warhead suitable for MIRV in 1972, after 11 years and multiple tests, they squeezed 150kt into 200kg warhead (the RV would be lot bigger and heavier). In 1995, they finally squeezed 150kt bomb into a 230kg RV.

Sorry but you did not read properly. When I mentioned French device of 60s vintage I specifically said 500 Kt with 700 KG of Boosted Fission only. No thermonuke reactions involved. I mentioned that to give you an upper bound for what boosted fission can do. The lower bounds in yields per kg are known well with Swan primaries. Between that lies the answer to the 'China needs'. So do you think we can put up a 150 kt 250 kg warhead atop any given Agni, or not? 3 such warheads on ever Agni after Agni-2. And does that give you confidence in the deterrence value of Indian stockpile.

The TN75 you adduce is irrelevant to my statements.

If you read any of P5 nuclear weapon program, none of them can develop the miniaturized warhead in one step, neither can they mature their simulation program with merely couple of tests.

And another thing: India hasn’t done any MIRV test yet.

Let me admit it you, P5 are some of the most helpful people whenever it serves your worthless sly purpose.

What the P5 did or did not do is useful for the institution that follows their route. I have already given you the composite core route of dirty U-233 and Pu-239 each helping out the other. Hardly anybody else even tried that. And you cannot deny that physical route since it is sewn into the fabric of this universe. Care to challenge that.

And don't discount the Indian MIRV. It will be ready and deployed just as soon as the Chinese ones are seen in public. The P5 with their worthless ceaseless mechanization will have ensured that.

 

[no smoking]

No, I think I am helping you reach a conclusion.


We don't need thermonukes to deter China. Boosted fission which you already concede works flawlessly is more than enough for all the 'China needs' that we may have ever.

What kind of warhead will satisfy India’s demand to deter China is not what we discuss here. The question here is: does India have these warhead in service already? The paper you provide says: NO.

Also that piece of research was by somebody who besides being knowledgeable himself was most probably also being fed insider information and is about 10 years old. Some parts are older than that. And surely in these 10+ years more R&D has been done.

I don’t know how this is relevant to our discussion.

Sorry but you did not read properly. When I mentioned French device of 60s vintage I specifically said 500 Kt with 700 KG of Boosted Fission only. No thermonuke reactions involved. I mentioned that to give you an upper bound for what boosted fission can do. The lower bounds in yields per kg are known well with Swan primaries. Between that lies the answer to the 'China needs'. So do you think we can put up a 150 kt 250 kg warhead atop any given Agni, or not? 3 such warheads on ever Agni after Agni-2. And does that give you confidence in the deterrence value of Indian stockpile.


The TN75 you adduce is irrelevant to my statements.

No, I am telling you, boost fission bomb is not the answer. This design has a problem: it waste too much nuclear material, in order to reach same level of yield, the boost fission is always bigger and heavier than the real H-bomb. That was why France didn’t continue to work on boost fission bomb after she successfully test the MR-41. Instead, they turned to Thermonuclear bomb and finally create the bomb with 150kt yield at 230kg weight.


The possible Indian bomb design in the document provided by you also suggest the same thing:


There are 2 boosted fission bombs listed by the author:

1. 200kt yield/800kg; 2. 150kt yield/500kg


Maybe Indian scientists can do something other nuclear scientists failed, miniaturizing the boosted bomb to the same level as h-bomb, I don’t know. But I do know that they can’t do without field test.

Let me admit it you, P5 are some of the most helpful people whenever it serves your worthless sly purpose.

And so far, there is no public information on India nuclear weapon supports your ego.

What the P5 did or did not do is useful for the institution that follows their route. I have already given you the composite core route of dirty U-233 and Pu-239 each helping out the other. Hardly anybody else even tried that. And you cannot deny that physical route since it is sewn into the fabric of this universe. Care to challenge that.

And I already told you why no one went that way. It is not about physical theory but engineer and economic problems.

And don't discount the Indian MIRV. It will be ready and deployed just as soon as the Chinese ones are seen in public. The P5 with their worthless ceaseless mechanization will have ensured that.

Yes, it will be ready only AFTER FIELD TESTS.

 

[Khagesh]

No, I am telling you, boost fission bomb is not the answer. This design has a problem: it waste too much nuclear material, in order to reach same level of yield, the boost fission is always bigger and heavier than the real H-bomb. That was why France didn’t continue to work on boost fission bomb after she successfully test the MR-41. Instead, they turned to Thermonuclear bomb and finally create the bomb with 150kt yield at 230kg weight.

The possible Indian bomb design in the document provided by you also suggest the same thing:

There are 2 boosted fission bombs listed by the author:

1. 200kt yield/800kg; 2. 150kt yield/500kg

So you finally admit to existence of MR-41 which was a 60s technology.

Now the Yield to Weight Ratio for MR-41 works out to 0.71. There is no practical way to exceed the limit of about 8kt per kg of U-235. So the MR-41 even at the most efficient would have consumed at least 62.5 kg of WgPu. I am sure it would have used more.

Yield to Weight Ratio for Swan was about 0.41.

Obviously the MR-41 was more efficient in terms of warhead yield to weight ratio even if it would ultimately have wasted a lot more of the fissile material compared to Swan and would have been less efficient in terms of fissile material yield to weight ratio.

Now the upper and lower bound for the yield to weight ratios of 0.41 to 0.71 is not all that bad if we compare that to the yield to weight for the latest series of fusion weapons like deployed or designed by the P-5:

W-88 = 360 kg for 475 kt = 1.32 Yield to Weight Ratio
W-89 = 147 kg for 200 kt = 1.36 Yield to Weight Ratio
W-91 = 140 kg for 100 kt = 0.71 Yield to Weight Ratio

Now do you believe that a 150 kt 250 kg boosted weapon is a distinct possibility. Forget the author of that piece I posted earlier. He was working under different presumptions. I am committing to my presumptions. You tell me if you have find the presumptions workable or not.

Does it scale for you or does it not? Would China be deterred by a 150 kt 250 kg boosted weapon or will China insist on courage and bravery simply because we are not fielding 200 kt 140 kg thermonukes. Do you think there is an appreciable difference in deterrence value of the Yield to Weight Ratio of a Boosted Fission from that of a Thermonuke.

 

[no smoking]

So you finally admit to existence of MR-41 which was a 60s technology.

Please point out where I denied the existence of MR-41 in my words.

Now the Yield to Weight Ratio for MR-41 works out to 0.71. There is no practical way to exceed the limit of about 8kt per kg of U-235. So the MR-41 even at the most efficient would have consumed at least 62.5 kg of WgPu. I am sure it would have used more.


Yield to Weight Ratio for Swan was about 0.41.


Obviously the MR-41 was more efficient in terms of warhead yield to weight ratio even if it would ultimately have wasted a lot more of the fissile material compared to Swan and would have been less efficient in terms of fissile material yield to weight ratio.

I assume “Swan” is TN 75 warhead.

I think only picking out the yield to weight ratio is misleading. Have a look of TN61 (second French H-bomb warhead entered in service 1977)- 1 MT/700kg, the yield to weight ratio is 1.42. Let’s have a look of another 2 example: Chinese first H-bomb, 3 MT/2000kg, the ratio was 1.5; Soviet’s Tsar bomb, 100 MT/27000kg, the ratio was 3.7. Can we say that French’s miniature tech on her last tested warhead TN75 was below Soviet, China and herself’s 1960s level? Of course not!

Yield to weight ratio is only part of answer. When you reduce the scale of yield, doesn’t necessarily mean the weight will reduce accordingly. In your own document, the author put the possible smallest boosted fission bomb at: 50kt/250kg, which suggests that it may be lot harder to make atomic bomb smaller.

Now the upper and lower bound for the yield to weight ratios of 0.41 to 0.71 is not all that bad if we compare that to the yield to weight for the latest series of fusion weapons like deployed or designed by the P-5:


W-88 = 360 kg for 475 kt = 1.32 Yield to Weight Ratio

W-89 = 147 kg for 200 kt = 1.36 Yield to Weight Ratio

W-91 = 140 kg for 100 kt = 0.71 Yield to Weight Ratio

I don’t know how can you use the minimized Thermonuclear bomb to prove the possibility of your 150kt/250kg boosted fission bomb.

Now do you believe that a 150 kt 250 kg boosted weapon is a distinct possibility. Forget the author of that piece I posted earlier. He was working under different presumptions. I am committing to my presumptions. You tell me if you have find the presumptions workable or not.

No, I don’t believe because you didn’t give me anything in detail. Your evidence of yield/weight ratio already proved to be irrelevant. Your own document proves my point. And so far you didn’t give anything new.


And no, I don’t need presumption, I give you the real fact: until today, no one makes such a bomb, people builds the thermonuclear bomb at the same scale with greater complexity, but no one builds a single bomb as you suggest. There must be something stopping them from doing so. So, it is your duty to prove that everyone is wrong.

Does it scale for you or does it not? Would China be deterred by a 150 kt 250 kg boosted weapon or will China insist on courage and bravery simply because we are not fielding 200 kt 140 kg thermonukes. Do you think there is an appreciable difference in deterrence value of the Yield to Weight Ratio of a Boosted Fission from that of a Thermonuke.

How is our discussion related to China? Only those who are scared would keep telling everyone: I have a gun. There is a news for you: without a single bomb, India successfully deterred China for 30 years. Now you can have a good sleep.

 

[Kyubi]

i 56have just eu

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Khagesh]

Please point out where I denied the existence of MR-41 in my words.

Isn't if obvious that people hide things by not acknowledging the facts & instead hiding from them.

People do not expressly deny the uncomfortable facts - that's basic instinct.

I assume “Swan” is TN 75 warhead.

I think only picking out the yield to weight ratio is misleading. Have a look of TN61 (second French H-bomb warhead entered in service 1977)- 1 MT/700kg, the yield to weight ratio is 1.42. Let’s have a look of another 2 example: Chinese first H-bomb, 3 MT/2000kg, the ratio was 1.5; Soviet’s Tsar bomb, 100 MT/27000kg, the ratio was 3.7. Can we say that French’s miniature tech on her last tested warhead TN75 was below Soviet, China and herself’s 1960s level? Of course not!

Yield to weight ratio is only part of answer. When you reduce the scale of yield, doesn’t necessarily mean the weight will reduce accordingly. In your own document, the author put the possible smallest boosted fission bomb at: 50kt/250kg, which suggests that it may be lot harder to make atomic bomb smaller.

I don’t know how can you use the minimized Thermonuclear bomb to prove the possibility of your 150kt/250kg boosted fission bomb.

No, I don’t believe because you didn’t give me anything in detail. Your evidence of yield/weight ratio already proved to be irrelevant. Your own document proves my point. And so far you didn’t give anything new.

And no, I don’t need presumption, I give you the real fact: until today, no one makes such a bomb, people builds the thermonuclear bomb at the same scale with greater complexity, but no one builds a single bomb as you suggest. There must be something stopping them from doing so. So, it is your duty to prove that everyone is wrong.

Be that as it may, how the hell can Swan by TN-71.

Isn't it obvious that Swan cannot be TN-71 !!?? Don't I speak of these devices as separate. Had they been the same I would have told you.

Swan was a device developed into a series of primary physics packages. by US for their thermonukes. It was the first device with all the bells and whistles - hollow pit, DT boosted, two point ignition etc.

The author of the paper I supplied and you are relying so much on most likely based his 150kt yield/500kg Fusion Boosted Fission estimates on the Inca test of Swan in the Redwing series of tests which yielded 15 kt on an estimate of 15 kt.

I distinctly said he was working under different presumptions. He believed in the broad level scalability of the Swan device (which I don't contest) and as a result he probably just increased the yield and weights by a factor of 10.

There are difficulties with his presumptions. For example if he had ignored the Redwing Inca and instead presumed the Plumbob Whitney as the base then he would have increased the final yield by 25% at least. Then his proposal necessarily needs the yield to ratio for the core to be at 8 kt per kg (for the more complex 150kt yield/500kg proposal based on bleeding edge Swan design). You make up your confused mind if you want to believe in the tech capability of India or if you think we need to prove more.

Chinese actually have an image here in India of being smarter people but you don't leave much of an impression, in fact, to the contrary.

I am showing you a much easier way. My singular presumption is the continuation of the data set out by the French - that MR-41 was a boosted warhead and the Pallam Raju limit of 250 kg strategic package.

Boosted Warhead surely implies it was a finished product not just an experiment. Now nobody can begrudge that level of tech capability with BARC. In fact I am giving you an additional benefit of doubt in that the MR-41 could have been a wasteful device which you claim to be so (without proof). Given all these benefits you still cannot deny that MR-41 is scalable downwards too (which is easier actually compared to upward scalability from the starting point of MR-41). My presumption is not even a presumption actually when I am conceding all your doubtful claims and yet you cannot get out of this trap I am setting up for you - of 150 kt 250 kg warhead. This proposal works right down till the 4 kt per kg of fissle core (too damn conservative). Does it not?

Now if you think you can challenge my proposal at some place, well sir, be my guest.

How is our discussion related to China? Only those who are scared would keep telling everyone: I have a gun. There is a news for you: without a single bomb, India successfully deterred China for 30 years. Now you can have a good sleep.

If China is deterred without the nukes in our hands then surely they will be deterred with nukes in our hands, better.

 

[no smoking]

Isn't if obvious that people hide things by not acknowledging the facts & instead hiding from them.


People do not expressly deny the uncomfortable facts - that's basic instinct.

So, you just put the words in my mouth.

Be that as it may, how the hell can Swan by TN-71.


Isn't it obvious that Swan cannot be TN-71 !!?? Don't I speak of these devices as separate. Had they been the same I would have told you.

Sorry, I was rushing to leave the office, didn’t think it through.

Swan was a device developed into a series of primary physics packages. by US for their thermonukes. It was the first device with all the bells and whistles - hollow pit, DT boosted

….

ons. For example if he had ignored the Redwing Inca and instead presumed the Plumbob Whitney as the base then he would have increased the final yield by 25% at least. Then his proposal necessarily needs the yield to ratio for the core to be at 8 kt per kg (for the more complex 150kt yield/500kg proposal based on bleeding edge Swan design). You make up your confused mind if you want to believe in the tech capability of India or if you think we need to prove more.

Well, I think you are oversimplifying the issues need to be considered in the designing.

1. Boosted fission weapon is kind of upgrade of atomic bomb, of which the main yield still come from fission reaction that remains fairly inefficient, so the amount of fissile material and tritium becomes wasteful;

2. In order to make smaller fission bomb, you have use Plutonium-239 as the fuel which is highly expensive. Americans pay $5000 per gram of weapons grade Pu-239. With such a price, it is really unthinkable to build any bomb above 100k yield;

3. In order to make your bomb lighter, you have to use tritium in your fusion material. In 2003, the price of tritium was $30,000 per gram. The worst of worse, this material has a half-life of 12 years which means you have to refuel it every 12-15 years. Considering the amount of tritium required for a 150kt bomb, the maintenance cost alone will drive your financial minister crazy.


The boosted fission design is using a small amount of fusion fuel to increase efficiency of fission material to undergo fission before the core explosively disassembles. However, the amount of neutrons released by fusion not only depends on the amount of fusion material, but also upon the other factors, such as shape, structure, time, etc. So, the boosting effect of fusion may not increase as the weight of fusion and fission material proportionately.

Chinese actually have an image here in India of being smarter people but you don't leave much of an impression, in fact, to the contrary.

That is why I always like talking to the people like you who is similarly stupid as me.

I am showing you a much easier way. My singular presumption is the continuation of the …..ting up for you - of 150 kt 250 kg warhead. This proposal works right down till the 4 kt per kg of fissle core (too damn conservative). Does it not?

My logic is very simple: fusion always release more energy than fission under the same mass. If it take French 30 years to finalise a fusion bomb with 150kt at 230kg, with the same tech level, the boosted bomb should be heavier than that. Even assuming India reaches the same level as France in every technology: nuclear, material, precise processing, electronic. The boosted bomb that India can build will still be bigger than you suggest.

Now if you think you can challenge my proposal at some place, well sir, be my guest.

No, my friend, you are not a nuclear weapon designer to be challenged and I am not physicist to challenge anybody. We are here, as amateur, to discuss something interest.

If China is deterred without the nukes in our hands then surely they will be deterred with nukes in our hands, better.

As long as you feel better.

 

[Khagesh]

So, you just put the words in my mouth.

You can put words in the mouth of our researchers but have trouble in us doing that to you?

Well, I think you are oversimplifying the issues need to be considered in the designing.

1. Boosted fission weapon is kind of upgrade of atomic bomb, of which the main yield still come from fission reaction that remains fairly inefficient, so the amount of fissile material and tritium becomes wasteful;

Boosting will have to be played off against the savings in lens weight and space and it should work well till 50-200 KT.

Fusion itself is about release of enough fast neutrons and nothing to do with the need for blast force.

Just sit back, relax, mull the thought and you will agree. I am sure.

2. In order to make smaller fission bomb, you have use Plutonium-239 as the fuel which is highly expensive. Americans pay $5000 per gram of weapons grade Pu-239. With such a price, it is really unthinkable to build any bomb above 100k yield;

On the matter of cost of the fissile material you can rest assured that India does not faces any incremental costs. The fissile material (pure grade or dirty grade) is all already a sunk cost.

Besides more importantly the cost was a consideration in the 60s when production was a restriction. There is nearly no constraints on production today. In fact India has received reactor grade uranium from China too.

3. In order to make your bomb lighter, you have to use tritium in your fusion material. In 2003, the price of tritium was $30,000 per gram. The worst of worse, this material has a half-life of 12 years which means you have to refuel it every 12-15 years. Considering the amount of tritium required for a 150kt bomb, the maintenance cost alone will drive your financial minister crazy.

Tritium is used both in boosted fission and fusion so no point fearing the costs of tritium. Tritium itself is a byproduct in the PHWR that India uses. We have extra of it.

Maintenance costs are not about material maintenance costs as such. It has more to do with the ancilliary costs that are needed to protect a deterrence force.

The boosted fission design is using a small amount of fusion fuel to increase efficiency of fission material to undergo fission before the core explosively disassembles. However, the amount of neutrons released by fusion not only depends on the amount of fusion material, but also upon the other factors, such as shape, structure, time, etc. So, the boosting effect of fusion may not increase as the weight of fusion and fission material proportionately.

Yes. But that is not needed either. Just a few grams of tritium is needed to boost to the 50% efficiency levels, given the use of other factors pointed out by you. All of which can be done on the test bench without going to Pokharn or Lop Nur.

That is why I always like talking to the people like you who is similarly stupid as me.

I like your self-deprecating sense of humour. I belong to that school myself. Not that I have a choice given my salaried existence.

My logic is very simple: fusion always release more energy than fission under the same mass. If it take French 30 years to finalise a fusion bomb with 150kt at 230kg, with the same tech level, the boosted bomb should be heavier than that. Even assuming India reaches the same level as France in every technology: nuclear, material, precise processing, electronic. The boosted bomb that India can build will still be bigger than you suggest.

Again these impressions you are carrying is wrong.

French had a thermonuke and a boosted fission design tested and deployed almost simultaneously. They would not have done that if the boosted fission represented such a big penalty as you imagine.

Your view that fusion always release more energy than fission under the same mass is correct but not useful enough militarily in all conditions. Fusion processes as already pointed out earlier produce a volume penalty which is why most thermonukes minimize the fusion KTs and maximise the fission KTs. They need to do that because all delivery platforms have a massive space constraint to take care of.

 

[no smoking]

You can put words in the mouth of our researchers but have trouble in us doing that to you?

Which part are you talking about?

Boosting will have to be played off against the savings in lens weight and space and it should work well till 50-200 KT.

This is only valid comparing to pure fission bomb.

Fusion itself is about release of enough fast neutrons and nothing to do with the need for blast force.

No, the purpose of these fast neutrons is to induce more fissile material to be involved in fission reaction before they are blow away. Again, the paper you provided says that 45% of fissile material will be turned into explosive energy by the fusion. In other words, there are more than 55% of fissile material will be wasted. Pure fission bomb is generally even worse with the efficiency of less than 20%. That is why boosted fission bomb can be made smaller than pure fission bomb.

Just sit back, relax, mull the thought and you will agree. I am sure.

Oh, please, so far you haven’t prove anything yet. All you give is that someone told you this can be done. But how?

On the matter of cost of the fissile material you can rest assured that India does not faces any incremental costs. The fissile material (pure grade or dirty grade) is all already a sunk cost.


Besides more importantly the cost was a consideration in the 60s when production was a restriction. There is nearly no constraints on production today. In fact India has received reactor grade uranium from China too.

Since when we can start producing something without considering its cost?

Tritium is used both in boosted fission and fusion so no point fearing the costs of tritium. Tritium itself is a byproduct in the PHWR that India uses. We have extra of it.

Maintenance costs are not about material maintenance costs as such. It has more to do with the ancilliary costs that are needed to protect a deterrence force.

No, in h-bomb, the tritium is only needed for the boosted primary which only requires grams as these primaries are all quite low yield. But in the boosted fission bombs over 100kt, the amount of tritium will be lot higher.

Yes. But that is not needed either. Just a few grams of tritium is needed to boost to the 50% efficiency levels, given the use of other factors pointed out by you. All of which can be done on the test bench without going to Pokharn or Lop Nur.

I am talking about why you can’t simply apply a number to estimate the size of higher yield. This has nothing to do with simulation. Wake up, my friend.

Again these impressions you are carrying is wrong.


French had a thermonuke and a boosted fission design tested and deployed almost simultaneously. They would not have done that if the boosted fission represented such a big penalty as you imagine.

No, you got the historic fact wrong.

The development of warhead MR-41 was started from 1963. On 28th Jan 1972, it went into operational service. But surprisingly, only 5 years later, French started to replace them with thermonuclear warhead TN60/TN61 which were the first generation thermonuclear warhead and just put into the service at the same year. 5 years, these boosted bombs only served 5 years! That shows how desperately they wanted to get rid off these boosted fission warhead.

Your view that fusion always release more energy than fission under the same mass is correct but not useful enough militarily in all conditions. Fusion processes as already pointed out earlier produce a volume penalty which is why most thermonukes minimize the fusion KTs and maximise the fission KTs. They need to do that because all delivery platforms have a massive space constraint to take care of.

What volume penalty? What minimize the fusion KTs and maximise the fission KTs? Can you give more details?

 

[Khagesh]

No, the purpose of these fast neutrons is to induce more fissile material to be involved in fission reaction before they are blow away. Again, the paper you provided says that 45% of fissile material will be turned into explosive energy by the fusion. In other words, there are more than 55% of fissile material will be wasted. Pure fission bomb is generally even worse with the efficiency of less than 20%. That is why boosted fission bomb can be made smaller than pure fission bomb.
.
.
.
No, in h-bomb, the tritium is only needed for the boosted primary which only requires grams as these primaries are all quite low yield. But in the boosted fission bombs over 100kt, the amount of tritium will be lot higher.
.
.
.
The development of warhead MR-41 was started from 1963. On 28th Jan 1972, it went into operational service. But surprisingly, only 5 years later, French started to replace them with thermonuclear warhead TN60/TN61 which were the first generation thermonuclear warhead and just put into the service at the same year. 5 years, these boosted bombs only served 5 years! That shows how desperately they wanted to get rid off these boosted fission warhead.
.
.
.
What volume penalty? What minimize the fusion KTs and maximise the fission KTs? Can you give more details?

I am ignoring the parts of your reply that do not make sense to me right now. You can ask for doubt/clarifications/inputs etc again should you feel the need to.

I am addressing the parts that are actually related and can be answered with the information in the public domain.

See the MR-41 was boosted that much is clear. But how many generations of fusion neutrons were designed into it is not expressly stated. Let us then in the absence of official French sources try to find who else has revealed what else and try to deduce from there what can be achieved. The tritium boost is not needed in exponential quantities, for all kinds of boosted fission devices, as you seem to believe.

Here is another piece of information that gells in very well with the yield to weight for MR-41 warhead but additionally gives information as to the possible number of neutron generations required from boosting.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-3.html#Nfaq4.3

One approach is to opt for a "once-through" design. In this scheme the escaping fission neutrons breed tritium, the tritium fuses, and the fusion neutrons fission the fusion tamper, thus completing the process. Since each fission in the trigger releases about one excess neutron (it produces two and a fraction, but consumes one), which can breed one tritium atom, which fuses and release one fusion neutron, which causes one fast fission, the overall gain is to approximately double the trigger yield (perhaps a bit more).

The advantage of the once-through approach is that a much lighter bomb can be constructed. The disadvantage is that a much larger amount of expensive fissile material is required for a given yield. Yields exceeding a megaton are possible, if a correspondingly large fission trigger is used. This design was developed by the British. The Orange Herald device employed this concept and was tested in Grapple 2 (31 May 1957). A U-235 fission trigger with a yield in the 300 kt range was used, for a total yield of 720 kt - a boost in the order of 2.5-fold. A variant design was apparently deployed for a while in the fifties under the name Violet Club.

The Orange Herald derivatives were supposed to be carried atop De Havilland Blue Streak MRBMs.

Note - Thor replaced the cancelled Blue Streak in the British inventory and the goal was to mount british nukes on Thor. Thor was limited to 1 ton warheads.

The specs for Blue Streak and Orange Herald end up being 720 KT from once through boosting of about a maximum of 125 kg of weapons grade fissile core for a total warhead weight of 1 tons which is what Blue Streak or Thor could have carried. Agreed this is wasteful but this is workable to the same degree as the MR-41 or my proposal of a 150KT 250 Kg FBF warhead, after accounting for the size differences.

Refer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Club
A variant with a smaller implosion sphere, fewer explosive lenses, and some other changes was intended for the Blue Streak missile that was unable to carry Green Bamboo. However, the reduced size was achieved by reducing the size of the surrounding HE layers, and this resulted in less compression at the fissile core when detonated, and a reduced nuclear efficiency, and yield; meaning that less of the fissile material was consumed before the bomb blew itself apart. To compensate for the reduced compression more fissile material was required to maintain yield at the desired level, and this in turn made excessive demands on scarce and expensive fissile material. Estimates computed from reliable sources of actual core cost[5] and cost per kilogram[6] of HEU put the core sizes of Green Bamboo and Orange Herald as 98 kg and 125 kg respectively, although some other published (and unverified) sources claim lower figures of 87 kg and 117 kg respectively.[7] This design later became known as Orange Herald, and was tested at Christmas Island, yielding 720 kt.[8]

http://www.spaceuk.org/journal/prospero2_article.pdf
Pages 18-19
It had been hoped by 1955 that the UK missile would be a single-stage, single-engined vehicle, about the size of what turned out to be the US Thor. 47 But this would have needed a warhead of only about 2,500lb. The RAE had provided calculations for many combinations of engines and stages to enable a choice of configuration to be made, although the prime interest was in simplicity. A Blue Streak and a Thor can be compared at the National Space Centre at Leicester.

Happy now?

Essentially all your presumptions are counter-factual. Why don't you simply accept defeat?

Also please note that all so called thermonuke warheads employ fissioning of the tamper as the final piece of the jigsaw to get to the required dialed-yield. They do not attempt to use Lithium to achieve the dialed-yield. The volume limitations arise because of the lithium which a thermonuke must have without exception but the FBF may have as an option.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Just to give an idea, even a 1kt nuke set off underground will record roughly the same as a 4.2 magnitude earthquake. And seismographs can pick up far FAR weaker tremors.

May be but can they identify whether they are of Nuke of of geographical changes? In Pokhran, they failed to detect it.

 

[Krusty]

May be but can they identify whether they are of Nuke of of geographical changes? In Pokhran, they failed to detect it.

Pokhran was a Long time ago. Geology and seismological sciences have made great strides since then. Seismographs today can differentiate between shockwave patterns. An earthquake caused by shifting plates has a completely different wave pattern compared to one caused by detonation.

Here is a short blog about differentiating between an earthquake and an underground bomb from UC Berkeley

 

[no smoking]

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/indias-military-nuclear-capability.69442/page-4

I am ignoring the parts of your reply that do not make sense to me right now. You can ask for doubt/clarifications/inputs etc again should you feel the need to.


I am addressing the parts that are actually related and can be answered with the information in the public domain.


….


which is what Blue Streak or Thor could have carried. Agreed this is wasteful but this is workable to the same degree as the MR-41 or my proposal of a 150KT 250 Kg FBF warhead, after accounting for the size differences.

After this glorious bomb was tested, Dr. Bryan Taylor said:” I thought that Orange Herald was a stupid device. It wasn’t elegant, it was a DEAD END DESGIN and COULDN’T BE TAKEN ANY FURTHER.” And they did abort this design and continued their work on thermonuclear bomb.


Looks like the British scientists didn’t agree with you. Any comment?

Happy now?

Essentially all your presumptions are counter-factual. Why don't you simply accept defeat?

Well, I will be happy to accept defeat if you can provide some solid evidences. But you didn’t.


So far, all your theory is since people can build 500kt/700kg, then you can get a 150kt/250kg bomb by simply miniaturize 70%. However, the warhead model estimated in the paper provided by yourselves is 150kt but 450kg, which doesn’t agree with you. Then you simply dismiss this without giving any new evidence but simply saying that you have insider words.


The 2 boosted fission bombs you listed as the basis of your 150kt/250kg bomb were both aborted by the own designers. None of them shows any interest to further development.


Come on, show me something solid. You are the one putting on a presumption which no one else did, then you have the responsibility to prove it.

Also please note that all so called thermonuke warheads employ fissioning of the tamper as the final piece of the jigsaw to get to the required dialed-yield. They do not attempt to use Lithium to achieve the dialed-yield. The volume limitations arise because of the lithium which a thermonuke must have without exception but the FBF may have as an option.

Yes, the option is to use far more fissile material to produce a far less yield.

 

[Khagesh]

Off course Orange Herald was a dead end design. You could not go any further. But you can go smaller in size and numerous in count. That way certainly exits and gives a better coverage on the ground-zero.

And let me say again the insider information I have is the same as you do and the rest of the world and this insider information is official coming from a Minister of State for Defence. The strategic package is 250 kg and it can have both a thermonuke that Arun_S was quoting or it could also be a boosted FBF.

Point is Arun_S also mentioned a de-bugged thermonuke of 200 KT. I don't believe the yield that Arun_S mentioned for the thermonuke but I don't doubt its existence either. I left it out of the debate for your benefit . If you are so hung up on Arun_S, why do you forget his debugged thermonuke 200KT for 270 Kg?

Which ever way you look it is not going to be pleasurable for you.

 

[gekko]

Which ever way you look it is not going to be pleasurable for you.

He's saying what all of us are saying. India needs to test a nuclear bomb sooner than later, which we all want as well.

Deterrence is not about scientific technology, it's about political will. Even if we have a massive bomb but we are too chickened to even test it, how can we offer a credible threat of using it in case of a war?

This debate will not end until we do an open test. We should do it.

Don't forget, Soviet Union had the biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons when the CIA fragmented it. So power is not as good as you have it, but as good as you use it. India shouldn't just sit on theoretical data. We should show our fangs from time to time. Any damn excuse is good enough for us. Just find a good sunny day and find an excuse. Anything works. Pakistani terror attacks, Chinese incursions at LAC, just test it and be done with it. The global economic climate is so delicate right now and the US economy is so intertwined with the Indian economy that sanctioning us right now will be suicidal for them. North Korea crisis, Qatar crisis, SCS crisis, US-Russia jostling in Syria, all of this means that they cannot afford to antagonize India at this moment.

An Indian megaton yield test will put pressure on Pakistan to prove the credibility of their deterrence. The geopolitical changes post an Indian test will alter the whole scenario in a manner that is favorable to us. It will also silence the **** who keep doubting our capabilities.

 

[no smoking]

Off course Orange Herald was a dead end design. You could not go any further. But you can go smaller in size and numerous in count. That way certainly exits and gives a better coverage on the ground-zero.

Certainly you can go smaller, but the problem is you have a much better option: thermonuclear bomb which will give you a far better coverage with far less cost.

And let me say again the insider information I have is the same as you do and the rest of the world and this insider information is official coming from a Minister of State for Defence. The strategic package is 250 kg and it can have both a thermonuke that Arun_S was quoting or it could also be a boosted FBF.

Let me say it again, I don't have inside information, I drew my conclusion based on public information. So far, your inside information can't be verified by any public information. That is the problem.

Point is Arun_S also mentioned a de-bugged thermonuke of 200 KT. I don't believe the yield that Arun_S mentioned for the thermonuke but I don't doubt its existence either. I left it out of the debate for your benefit . If you are so hung up on Arun_S, why do you forget his debugged thermonuke 200KT for 270 Kg?

No I didn't forget. That make your claim more suspicious because it shows Indian scientists know what is the right direction. Then why they waste time and resource to try the wrong one.

Which ever way you look it is not going to be pleasurable for you.

I know, it is always going to be pleasurable for you since you keep self-claiming victory.

 

[Khagesh]

Come on man. You are the uncoordinated fellow who posts the images from your work/whatever, of the travel bills accounting for Joseph and you call me out on reliability of information.

Is it not obvious that you will progressively require lesser and lesser weight in the explosive lense as you move downwards in warhead weight from Orange Herald to MR-41 to the mass limit that Shri. Pallam Raju has given.

Look, we here in India have a saying that it is better to have an intelligent enemy than to have a dumb friend. You are not even making an effort.