Agni V Missile

[Known_Unknown]

Not GLONASS, he's talking about the Agni V's navigation system:

With Russia ready to provide the cutting-edge "seeker" technology for India's Agni-V intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the country is ready to flaunt its nuclear might in a big way by year end when the ICBM will undergo its maiden launch.

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has indigenously developed the 'seeker' technology for Agni-I, Agni-II and Agni-III intermediate range missiles. But the DRDO was not in a position to develop the next stage technology and efforts to import it had been futile so far.

The breakthrough with Russia for the most critical system of the ICBM came after extensive talks between delegations of the two countries during Defence Minister AK Antony's three-day visit to Moscow earlier this week. The Indian delegation comprised senior missile scientists of the DRDO besides others, and Moscow agreed to help New Delhi for the ICBM project, sources said.

 

[Known_Unknown]

What is the fetish of megaton nukes? Why not hurl 10 of 100kt then a single 1 MT?

If I hit you with 10 grapes instead of one watermelon, will it do the same damage? Are 10 pinpricks the same as 1 swing of a sword?

If so, arm yourself with 10 grapes and 10 pins, and I will attack with a 1 sword and 1 watermelon.

 

[nitesh]

Not GLONASS, he's talking about the Agni V's navigation system:

From where he get this info? You have any other hint pointing towards such info? I think he has put a garbage, and we are lapping in to it

 

[nitesh]

If I hit you with 10 grapes instead of one watermelon, will it do the same damage? Are 10 pinpricks the same as 1 swing of a sword?

Wrong analogy

 

[plugwater]

Yes, exactly because of scientists like these that "advise" our political masters. If they started making MT nukes, none of them would fit on any missiles India currently has. Hence instead of re-designing the missiles, they want to limit the nuke yield.

Its better to use four or five 150-200 KT warhead in MIRV than a single megaton warhead. So IMO scientists are correct in choosing 200KT warheads.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Wrong analogy

Explain why.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Its better to use four or five 150-200 KT warhead in MIRV than a single megaton warhead. So IMO scientists are correct in choosing 200KT warheads.

It is even better to use 10 warheads of 10 MT each on MIRV.

 

[nitesh]

Explain why.

You are talking about nukes here, can you explain why 100kt warhead is not painful at all as compared to 1MT warhead? Please give a thought, a much smaller nuke has stopped WW Ii, and 100kt is much bigger warhead then it. A bigger nuke will require much more fissile material, then building 10 of smaller sized ones, which gives more assets, rather then concentrating firepower to one device.

 

[nitesh]

It is even better to use 10 warheads of 10 MT each on MIRV.

Can, you please provide an example of such missiles existing?

 

[plugwater]

It is even better to use 10 warheads of 10 MT each on MIRV.

Better but not needed. Even warhead W62 used in Minuteman-III has 170 KT yield.

 

[Known_Unknown]

You are talking about nukes here, can you explain why 100kt warhead is not painful at all as compared to 1MT warhead? Please give a thought, a much smaller nuke has stopped WW Ii, and 100kt is much bigger warhead then it. A bigger nuke will require much more fissile material, then building 10 of smaller sized ones, which gives more assets, rather then concentrating firepower to one device.

Isn't it obvious? Aiming 10 100kT nukes at the same target may provide redundancy for the purposes of striking the target, but it will only not even cause enough damage to destroy the whole city. Unlike the towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, today's cities are vastly bigger, and built with multi-storeyed concrete and steel structures that lessen the impact of nukes. A 100 kT nuke exploded over Mumbai would barely wipe out a few areas.

A 10 MT nuke in comparison, will do far more damage as it's blast radius and energy output will be far greater.

As for fissile material, what do you think the Indo-US nuke deal was for?

 

[nitesh]

Isn't it obvious? Aiming 10 100kT nukes at the same target may provide redundancy for the purposes of striking the target, but it will only not even cause enough damage to destroy the whole city. Unlike the towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, today's cities are vastly bigger, and built with multi-storeyed concrete and steel structures that lessen the impact of nukes. A 100 kT nuke exploded over Mumbai would barely wipe out a few areas.

A 10 MT nuke in comparison, will do far more damage as it's blast radius and energy output will be far greater.

As for fissile material, what do you think the Indo-US nuke deal was for?

KU, interesting, so you are saying until you completely wipe out Mumbai, till each and every structure is destroyed, there is no effect at all? Come on now. I think you must have seen some study, which must be pointing towards what you are saying, I hadn't came across such things. Can you please post them for better understanding.
Till then, your argument seems like you just want a bigger toy for the sake of it

 

[Known_Unknown]

Can, you please provide an example of such missiles existing?

Not quite 10 MT, but here's a Russian missile capable of 8 MIRV'd 1.5 MT each nukes.

R-36 (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

R-36M (SS-18 Mod 2): The SS-18 Mod 2 included a post-boost vehicle and up to eight reentry vehicles, each with a warhead yield estimated at between 0.5 to 1.5 MT, with a range capability of about 5500 nm

Looks kinda like the "Shaurya" missile.

 

[plugwater]

KU, All KT warheads do not impact on same place so it is more effective than single MT warhead.

 

[plugwater]

Not quite 10 MT, but here's a Russian missile capable of 8 MIRV'd 1.5 MT each nukes.

R-36 (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks kinda like the "Shaurya" missile.

See its replacement RS-24.

4 * 550 KT warheads.

RS-24 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[nitesh]

Not quite 10 MT, but here's a Russian missile capable of 8 MIRV'd 1.5 MT each nukes.

R-36 (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Looks kinda like the "Shaurya" missile.

It is more towards destroying a dispersed command centers mate, a cold war relic, interesting read, scary to say at least.

 

[Known_Unknown]

KU, interesting, so you are saying until you completely wipe out Mumbai, till each and every structure is destroyed, there is no effect at all? Come on now. I think you must have seen some study, which must be pointing towards what you are saying, I hadn't came across such things. Can you please post them for better understanding.
Till then, your argument seems like you just want a bigger toy for the sake of it

No one's saying there's no effect at all. But throughout the history of mankind, humans have been developing weapons to cause more and more damage. From the catapult to TNT to nukes, the whole point is to cause more destruction.

If you want to be satisfied with catapults, no one is forcing you to build nukes. I don't know what study I can show you. The Russians have tested a nuke with a yield of 50 MT called the Tsar Bomba. In practice, their arsenal still includes hundreds if not thousands of MT yield weapons.

Zone of total destruction of the Tsar Bomba on a map of Paris: red circle = total destruction (radius 35 kilometers), yellow circle = fireball (radius 3.5 kilometers).

 

[Yusuf]

What the hell haven't we gone through this before about nuclear yield? The scientist is right about the yield required. Megaton nukes were to cover for inaccuracies. The US avg yield today is 250-300KT. You don't need an overkill.

 

[nitesh]

^^
KU, don't bring catapult here. A single missile of 50MT warhead, compare it to 50 missile of 1 MT warhead, or further it to 50 missiles each containing 100KT warhead, you can kill more targets with more missiles. It is all about using the resources, SU built lot of things, but not every thing has to be emulated, for the sake of it.

 

[Yusuf]

The one megaton size weapon is no longer widely used. Most of the literature that focuses on one megaton weapons is dated and of limited use for assessing blast damage. It was principally in the late 1950 and 1960s when megaton weapons were in vogue in the U.S. and comprised the bulk of its strategic nuclear weapons. The trend has been to move away from weapons in the megaton range. This trend is not a consequence of nations becoming choir boys. It is because they can produce more effective destruction with weapons in the 100 Kt to 550 Kt range [greater destruction per unit of weight].<br />
<br />
The overwhelming majority of nuclear weapons in all nuclear weapon nations are less than one megaton [China comes the closest to being an exception to this rule with roughly 73% of its weapons reportedly being 300 Kt or less, and the remaining 37 of its weapons perhaps being 3.3 megatons or greater].<br />
<br />
For comparison, note that the Hiroshima bomb was 12.5 to 15 Kt in size. The Nagasaki bomb was approximately 21 Kt. The U.S. weapons now fall principally within the 100 Kt to 375 Kt range, the average being approximately 250 Kt. And the majority of Russia weapons are 550 Kt; the average size is roughly 400 Kt.