Agni V Missile

[utubekhiladi]

SLBM version of Agni-4 is solid-fuelled, so probably Agni-4 is solid-fuelled. Thus, it is less controllable and not best for anti-sat role. I'd go for a liquid fuelled final stage for anti-sat.

do we even have SLBM version of Agni-4?? :shocked:

 

[pmaitra]

do we even have SLBM version of Agni-4?? :shocked:

We had plans to have that, but I believe they shelved it. This Agni-4 has been shrouded in mystery; or perhaps, they renamed it. God knows.

Agni-4 and K-4 have same range, at approx. 3.5~3.7K km. So I am guessing they are probably derivatives of each other. Don't quote me on it.

 

[nitesh]

^^
There were speculations that AII prime a new version of A II will come, I think they renamed A II prime to A IV

 

[utubekhiladi]

SLBM version of Agni-4 is solid-fuelled, so probably Agni-4 is solid-fuelled. Thus, it is less controllable and not best for anti-sat role. I'd go for a liquid fuelled final stage for anti-sat.

remember, it's the maneuverable kill vehicle that destroys the satellite. the missile is merely used to launch the kill vehicle in close proximity to satellites predicted orbit path. in anti-sat missiles payload is called as self maneuverable kill vehicle. the kill vehicle either knocks out the satellites by using pure kinetic energy or throws the satellites off the orbit by ramming into head-on.

so solid or liquid fuel missile, it really does not matter as long as you can get your kill vehicle up there.

 

[utubekhiladi]

We had plans to have that, but I believe they shelved it. This Agni-4 has been shrouded in mystery; or perhaps, they renamed it. God knows.

Agni-4 and K-4 have same range, at approx. 3.5~3.7K km. So I am guessing they are probably derivatives of each other. Don't quote me on it.

^^
There were speculations that AII prime a new version of A II will come, I think they renamed A II prime to A IV

agni 2 and agni 2 prime are two different class of missiles.

agni 2 prime is also known as agni 4.

agni 2 is in use by armed forces. this missile uses 90's technology and outdated.

while agni 2 prime is improved version of agni 2 and uses latest cutting edge and indigenous technology

agni 2 prime or agni 4 was a stepping stone for agni 5 missile.

* this might come as a surprise to you all but if agni 2 prime (agni 4) fired at 45 degree, then it can easily reach close to 5000KM.

* plus, agni 4 reached the height of 900Km around 70-65 degree

 

[pmaitra]

remember, it's the maneuverable kill vehicle that destroys the satellite. the missile is merely used to launch the kill vehicle in close proximity to satellites predicted orbit path. in anti-sat missiles payload is called as self maneuverable kill vehicle. the kill vehicle either knocks out the satellites by using pure kinetic energy or throws the satellites off the orbit by ramming into head-on.

so solid or liquid fuel missile, it really does not matter as long as you can get your kill vehicle up there.

The warhead (using the term loosely), could have its own thrusters and it could guide itself to get closer to the satellite and then explode. So yes, you have a point there.

 

[utubekhiladi]

The warhead (using the term loosely), could have its own thrusters and it could guide itself to get closer to the satellite and then explode. So yes, you have a point there.

not necessary explode, because you have no oxygen up there to cause explosion. so kill vehicle uses pure kinetic energy to either destroy satellite or knock it out of orbit.

 

[utubekhiladi]

can anybody answer why are we developing 2 similar missiles?

agni 3
agni 4 (agni 2 prime)

agni 4 is highly advanced then agni 3. both have similar range but a4 have better performance.

can i say "dump agni 3 and focus on A4 and A5

 

[pmaitra]

not necessary explode, because you have no oxygen up there to cause explosion. so kill vehicle uses pure kinetic energy to either destroy satellite or knock it out of orbit.

You don't necessarily need to have the bomb go off within the atmosphere. The oxidizer is present in the charge anyway. One example would be N[SUB]2[/SUB]O[SUB]4[/SUB]. Substances like that provide the oxygen. So yes, you can actually have a bomb explode in outer space or under water.

 

[utubekhiladi]

You don't necessarily need to have the bomb go off within the atmosphere. The oxidizer is present in the charge anyway. One example would be N[SUB]2[/SUB]O[SUB]4[/SUB]. Substances like that provide the oxygen. So yes, you can actually have a bomb explode in outer space or under water.

yes, you could be right, the kill vehicle's thrusters do have oxidizer or something similar that produces thrust

 

[Pokemon]

Obviously Agni-5 can travel more than 5500 Kms but not upto 8000 Kms or so without significant changes. Main changes or advancement required are:

1- Better propellent to support long range.
2- Advance re entry mechanism and heat isolation if at all launch angle is going to be reduced.

And if you do these major changes.....the missile qualifies to be named different i.e. Agni-6.

 

[pmaitra]

yes, you could be right, the kill vehicle's thrusters do have oxidizer or something similar that produces thrust

Even take a bullet for example. Where does it get it's oxygen from? Not from the atmosphere.

 

[utubekhiladi]

Even take a bullet for example. Where does it get it's oxygen from? Not from the atmosphere.

try to fire a gun inside a vacuum chamber

* the gun won't fire because the primer in bullet will not produce any spark because there is no oxygen.. if no spark is produced then the charge will not ignite.

hey, can any physics student prove me wrong :accepted:

 

[Pokemon]

so solid or liquid fuel missile, it really does not matter as long as you can get your kill vehicle up there.

Fuel type matters only when it comes to readiness of missile.

Launch time is lot better for solid fuel missile than liquid fuel missile.

There are missiles like Bulava which uses liquid fuel in their 3rd stage for better maneuverability.

 

[utubekhiladi]

Obviously Agni-5 can travel more than 5500 Kms but not upto 8000 Kms or so without significant changes. Main changes or advancement required are:

1- Better propellent to support long range.
2- Advance re entry mechanism and heat isolation if at all launch angle is going to be reduced.

And if you do these major changes.....the missile qualifies to be named different i.e. Agni-6.

agni 5 can easily reach close to 8000KM with the same current configuration. i am afraid you will have go back and read lots of previous posts in this thread to understand why.

but to reach 10000km +, we will need to tweak and improve the missile further. may be that's why drdo is planning for agni 6.

 

[utubekhiladi]

Fuel type matters only when it comes to readiness of missile.

Launch time is lot better for solid fuel missile than liquid fuel missile.

There are missiles like Bulava which uses liquid fuel in their 3rd stage for better maneuverability.

true, but i wrote that post as a reply in contrast to pmaitra's question about controllability.

* unlike other objects, your enemy satellite is not going anywhere. so you will have plenty of time to fuel your missile. (if using liquid fuel or hybrid fuel). if your missile is using solid fuel, even better..

* what matters is, how cheaply and efficiently can you get your kill vehicle up there??

 

[Pokemon]

agni 5 can easily reach close to 8000KM with the same current configuration. i am afraid you will have go back and read lots of previous posts in this thread to understand why.

but to reach 10000km +, we will need to tweak and improve the missile further. may be that's why drdo is planning for agni 6.

It may be but can't be said with conviction.

Just altering the launch angle can't place other factors in places like higher drag which will lead to more heated surface finally resulting in complex re entry mechanism.

We are not sure if propellent used can even support the missile to go 8000Kms. If propellent quality is not good enough missile will have to carry more fuel hence will have to be bigger and bulkier.

Deciding the probability of range just based upon projectile angles is lame and disrespect to comples missile science.

 

[utubekhiladi]

It may be but can't be said with conviction.

Just altering the launch angle can't place other factors in places like higher drag which will lead to more heated surface finally resulting in complex re entry mechanism.

We are not sure if propellent used can even support the missile to go 8000Kms. If propellent quality is not good enough missile will have to carry more fuel hence will have to be bigger and bulkier.

Deciding the probability of range just based upon projectile angles is lame and disrespect to comples missile science.

all your "valid concerns and questions" has been discussed to death on this thread. i am afraid you will have to go back and read previous posts.

 

[Pokemon]

all your "valid concerns and questions" has been discussed to death on this thread. i am afraid you will have to go back and read previous posts.

So should I presume that all "my concerns" has been debunked already in the thread and the only super duper launch angle theory comes out winning??

DRDO and world scientists seems to be idiots who keep on working upon bullshits while they just have to change the launch angle calculated by some 12 th standard projectile formula.

Ok I rest my case......keep on discussing about possibilities by changing values for different parameters in projectile range formula.

 

[utubekhiladi]

DRDO and world scientists seems to be idiots

Of-course sir, of-course, they all are idiots and you are smartest and intelligent compared to all them.. let me bow down to you sir