Estimation of Indian Nuclear Arsenal.- Present and Future

[no smoking]

I didn't talk or China.

I didn't talk about China either. Have a read of link, that will give you a good idea about the quantity of India fissile material stock and potential production rate.

Anyway, true or not, preparing for war thinking that China really has 3000 nuclear warheads will e better insurance.

That is why your government is lot smarter than everyone here, they don't spend their money based on myth.

 

[garg_bharat]

Yes we have but without testing so it requires hot testing

India does not need megaton bombs. I doubt India will ever test such bombs.

We do not need to emulate destructive and irrational mindset of others.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Yes we have but without testing so it requires hot testing

What is hot testing????

Is it normal explosion test.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

Indian Nuclear City: ‘Open Secret’ – OpEd

 

[HariPrasad-1]

MI, we have 200 already is my estimation

Estimation of India's Nuclear weapon if analyzed in context of various estimates of fissile material India may have may often fail to give the correct picture.

India has developed a very cost effective technique to extract deuterium and tritium from a a special crystal separation technique. More over we had ignited our sole H bomb with boosted fission. Boosted fission increases the N bomb power by factor 3. So we can get much more powerful weapon with low amount of fissile material. Indian nuclear arsenal should be seen from the technological advancement perspective to get a correct picture.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

India does not have a dedicated bomber fleet. We had modified Mirage for weapons delivery. I doubt India will base any nukes for delivery from fighters once we have numbers in our missile fleet. We may keep some reserves from what exists today.

Indian Navy will be entrusted with nukes that will be sub surface. India will not base any nukes on the naval Prithvi aka Dhanush. It's very risky.

But I foresee a strong possibility of india equipping some Su 30 with Brahmos to target enemy location very precisely from send off range.

 

[Yumdoot]

700 kg of high grade pluton and 200 bombs of 15 kt each with a total of 20 odd Agnis deployed.

 

[I am otm shank]

any updates?

advancement in MiRV tech and better delivery system seems to be the need of the times not increased yield per warhead

 

[Indx TechStyle]

any updates?

advancement in MiRV tech and better delivery system seems to be the need of the times not increased yield per warhead

Pakis say India has 492 nukes.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/indias-nuclear-doctrine.28284/page-27#post-1222158

 

[republic_roi97]

Pakis say India has 492 nukes.

LOL man, that's too precise to be accurate, that's just a blind guess I think. It should have been like 450-500 nukes for us to believe, but 492 is hell of a precision.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

No, I don't think India will make any tactical nuke. We can use our first gen warheads of 20Kt in tactical role if required mounting them on Prithvi.

Then why did we tested 3 sub kilo ton devices at pokhran? I think we must have tactical nuke so that we may not have to use bigger one.We can wipe out all porki installation where we have any information of possible storing of porki nukes and missiles.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

LOL man, that's too precise to be accurate, that's just a blind guess I think. It should have been like 450-500 nukes for us to believe, but 492 is hell of a precision.

Madarssa mathematics.
...................

 

[republic_roi97]

Then why did we tested 3 sub kilo ton devices at pokhran? I think we must have tactical nuke so that we may not have to use bigger one.We can wipe out all porki installation where we have any information of possible storing of porki nukes and missiles.

A tactical nuke should be as powerful as a thermobaric or vacuum bomb or maybe a little more, so the question is whether we have vacuum bomb technology or not. If not, then why not ? Only a pussy (like Pakistan) would use a nuclear bomb tactically, we are too damn powerful to have puny tactical nuclear bomb.

We should develop these kinds of weapon which are as powerful as a tactical bomb but without nuclear fallout.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

A tactical nuke should be as powerful as a thermobaric or vacuum bomb or maybe a little more, so the question is whether we have vacuum bomb technology or not. If not, then why not ?

of course it should be else what is the use of using N bomb? Why not thermobaric bomb? Suppose we want to ensure the complete inhalation of one pakistani base to ensure that nothing remain intact than thermobaric may bot be enough. 15 to 20 KT bomb may be too powerful. We can do with 1 kt bomb.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

A tactical nuke should be as powerful as a thermobaric or vacuum bomb or maybe a little more, so the question is whether we have vacuum bomb technology or not. If not, then why not ? Only a pussy (like Pakistan) would use a nuclear bomb tactically, we are too damn powerful to have puny tactical nuclear bomb.

We should develop these kinds of weapon which are as powerful as a tactical bomb but without nuclear fallout.

of course it should be else what is the use of using N bomb? Why not thermobaric bomb? Suppose we want to ensure the complete inhalation of one pakistani base to ensure that nothing remain intact than thermobaric may bot be enough. 15 to 20 KT bomb may be too powerful. We can do with 1 kt bomb.

We have developed and tested thermobaric weapons.
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/15...eveloped_Thermo_baric_Ammunition#.Vo8IjlOfcnU

 

[Certified Gipsy]

Then why did we tested 3 sub kilo ton devices at pokhran? I think we must have tactical nuke so that we may not have to use bigger one.We can wipe out all porki installation where we have any information of possible storing of porki nukes and missiles.

We tested sub kilo newton devices because we want to use them in our short range tactical ballistic missiles. We developed Prahaar short range tactical missile system exactly for delivering such sub kilo newton nuclear devices.

Prithvi 1(150km) and prithvi 2 (350km) are liquid fueled missiles. Prithvi 1 carries a payload of 1000 Kgs, while Prithvi 2 carries a payload of 500 kgs. Prithvi 1 is an army version, prithvi 2 is an airforce version and Prithvi 3 (350km), which is a solid fueled missile is a naval version with a payload capacity of 1000Kgs. Liquid fuelled missiles have a higher reaction time to fill the missile with fuel and are less preferred than the solid fuelled ones that can be launched within 2-3 minutes.

The relationship between payload weight and energy yield can be seen in the attached screen shot. (Courtesy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield)

A nuclear war head that weighs upto 700 kgs approx can be used as a low weight, low yield tactical weapon (yield below 1kT). In order to develop a short range, highly accurate and low altitude, supersonic, solid fuelled ballistic missile that is capable of being used as a tactical and a strategic nuclear weapon, we developed Prahaar missile system, which is between the Pinaka system and Prithvi.

Prahaar is a supersonic (Mach 2+) solid fueled SHORT RANGE (150km) with lower flight altitude(35 km), that can be used for both strategic and tactical targets. It can carry a conventional or a nuclear warhead upto 200KGs that can generate a sub kT yield, if we have mastered the art of making such small war nuclear heads. (I am inclined to believe that we have, when we tested the sub kT devices). Both the army and the Airforce will be using Prahaar. In all probability, they will and can use Prahaar as our tactical as well as strategic missile with sub kT nuclear warheads, if they choose to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prahaar_(missile)

 

[Indx TechStyle]

We tested sub kilo newton devices because we want to use them in our short range tactical ballistic missiles. We developed Prahaar short range tactical missile system exactly for delivering such sub kilo newton nuclear devices.

Prithvi 1(150km) and prithvi 2 (350km) are liquid fueled missiles. Prithvi 1 carries a payload of 1000 Kgs, while Prithvi 2 carries a payload of 500 kgs. Prithvi 1 is an army version, prithvi 2 is an airforce version and Prithvi 3 (350km), which is a solid fueled missile is a naval version with a payload capacity of 1000Kgs. Liquid fuelled missiles have a higher reaction time to fill the missile with fuel and are less preferred than the solid fuelled ones that can be launched within 2-3 minutes.

The relationship between payload weight and energy yield can be seen in the attached screen shot. (Courtesy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield)

A nuclear war head that weighs upto 700 kgs approx can be used as a low weight, low yield tactical weapon (yield below 1kT). In order to develop a short range, highly accurate and low altitude, supersonic, solid fuelled ballistic missile that is capable of being used as a tactical and a strategic nuclear weapon, we developed Prahaar missile system, which is between the Pinaka system and Prithvi.

Prahaar is a supersonic (Mach 2+) solid fueled SHORT RANGE (150km) with lower flight altitude(35 km), that can be used for both strategic and tactical targets. It can carry a conventional or a nuclear warhead upto 200KGs that can generate a sub kT yield, if we have mastered the art of making such small war nuclear heads. (I am inclined to believe that we have, when we tested the sub kT devices). Both the army and the Airforce will be using Prahaar. In all probability, they will and can use Prahaar as our tactical as well as strategic missile with sub kT nuclear warheads, if they choose to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prahaar_(missile)

If India operationalizes Vaccum bombs (TBW), I don't think there will be any emphasis on Tactical Nuclear War Capabilities.

We have developed and tested thermobaric weapons.
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/15...eveloped_Thermo_baric_Ammunition#.Vo8IjlOfcnU

 

[Certified Gipsy]

If India operationalizes Vaccum bombs (TBW), I don't think there will be any emphasis on Tactical Nuclear War Capabilities.

I have no idea about this and may be you can share your sources that talk about our capability in this technology.

 

[IndianHawk]

We tested sub kilo newton devices because we want to use them in our short range tactical ballistic missiles. We developed Prahaar short range tactical missile system exactly for delivering such sub kilo newton nuclear devices.

Prithvi 1(150km) and prithvi 2 (350km) are liquid fueled missiles. Prithvi 1 carries a payload of 1000 Kgs, while Prithvi 2 carries a payload of 500 kgs. Prithvi 1 is an army version, prithvi 2 is an airforce version and Prithvi 3 (350km), which is a solid fueled missile is a naval version with a payload capacity of 1000Kgs. Liquid fuelled missiles have a higher reaction time to fill the missile with fuel and are less preferred than the solid fuelled ones that can be launched within 2-3 minutes.

The relationship between payload weight and energy yield can be seen in the attached screen shot. (Courtesy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield)

A nuclear war head that weighs upto 700 kgs approx can be used as a low weight, low yield tactical weapon (yield below 1kT). In order to develop a short range, highly accurate and low altitude, supersonic, solid fuelled ballistic missile that is capable of being used as a tactical and a strategic nuclear weapon, we developed Prahaar missile system, which is between the Pinaka system and Prithvi.

Prahaar is a supersonic (Mach 2+) solid fueled SHORT RANGE (150km) with lower flight altitude(35 km), that can be used for both strategic and tactical targets. It can carry a conventional or a nuclear warhead upto 200KGs that can generate a sub kT yield, if we have mastered the art of making such small war nuclear heads. (I am inclined to believe that we have, when we tested the sub kT devices). Both the army and the Airforce will be using Prahaar. In all probability, they will and can use Prahaar as our tactical as well as strategic missile with sub kT nuclear warheads, if they choose to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prahaar_(missile)

But where does tactical nukes fit in our 'doctrine' .
It simply calls for massive retaliation if challenged by nukes.

We have the capacity to develop tactical nukes I won't doubt it but we do not have any operational requirement for them.

We are not going to play game with nukes and that is our message by our 'doctrine' of massive retaliation.
If we employ tactical nukes then we are sending messages to Pakistan that we are ready for tactical scale nuke game.
It will be a self goal. We need to clearly deny this notion of tactical nukes altogether .

There is only one way to go nuclear and that is massive retaliation :biggrin2:
Pakistan needs to learn that with absolute clarity.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

Well, the lastest source I know is put in post #257. Before it, I only heard about such a project underway a decade ago, somewhere between 2000 & 2005.

I have no idea about this and may be you can share your sources that talk about our capability in this technology.

Thermobaric Weapons most destructive explosives besides nuclear weapons. Standard Ammo has 25% fuel and 75% oxidizers. Thermobaric Weapon is almost fuel.

This means it will suck oxygen from air, blast will expand in the form of small shockwaves, almost similar to small fission based nuclear bombs.

For our capabilities, depends on the type of TBW we use. There is a variety of thermobaric weapons. Now, a days tanks have also gone stronger.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon
I guess vaccum bombs can be most destructive.
I only know about one test of such weapons by India and type was not mentioned (most probably heat and pressure bomb).
But whichever we use, it will be vital to our cold start doctrine. Destroying enemy's assets and bunkers rapidly or even nullifying the tactical nuclear weapons and giving the nuclear command authority more time to respond with bigger nuclear bombs.

Such weapons have been proved great success in Sino Soviet war when white commies spanked yellow commies.
Though China also has such weapons now.

But where does tactical nukes fit in our 'doctrine' .
It simply calls for massive retaliation if challenged by nukes.

But there's no problem in having everything. Having the conventional weapons as strong as tactical nukes, India can become a bigger headache against it's adversaries who threaten to do it first.:biggrin2:
India will launch conventional attacks as strong as nuclear weapons are hence, not violating NFU.:biggrin2: