Agni V Missile

[porky_kicker]

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]

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]

Fellas have a look at this image. Trident D5 third stage MIRV bus with Mk5 MIRV.

Compare it with the initial fourth stage PSLV pic that porky_kicker had posted.

Atleast one guy thank you
............................

 

[porky_kicker]

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.

 

[Arihant Roy]

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.

 

[sayareakd]

Now official testing of MIRV is necessity.

 

[power_monger]

Now official testing of MIRV is necessity.

You could have pasted the content directly isn't it ? I don't understand this logic of pasting your own tweets in forum ?

 

[Aaj ka hero]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[sayareakd]

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

Here Gen Saxena, who was involved with drdo for BMD programme on MIRV.


He is much better authority on the subject.

 

[Chinmoy]

The relevant DRDO IIT slides for comparison with the above posts

View attachment 30298

View attachment 30299

It holds by theory true that India would never go for a longer range SSM after A5 officially. Longer range version we would see after this would only be SLBM.

 

[porky_kicker]

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.

 

[porky_kicker]

For a certain varient of Agni 3 expect a configuration like this with max 3 MIRVs

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.

 

[Chinmoy]

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]

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]

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]

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.