Indian Missiles are Superior to Chinese in Quality, Says Expert

[shubhamsaikia]

Solid fuelled can also be stored indefinetly no need to fuel before
use so it also makes them more mobile.

Liquid fueled rockets have higher specific impulse than solid rockets and are capable of being throttled, shut down, and restarted. Only the combustion chamber of a liquid fueled rocket needs to withstand high combustion pressures and temperatures and they can be regeneratively cooled by the liquid propellant. On vehicles employing turbopumps, the propellant tanks are at very much less pressure than the combustion chamber. For these reasons, most orbital launch vehicles use liquid propellants.
The primary performance advantage of liquid propellants is due to the oxidizer. Several practical liquid oxidizers (liquid oxygen, nitrogen tetroxide, and hydrogen peroxide) are available which have better specific impulse than the ammonium perchlorate used in most solid rockets, when paired with comparable fuels. These facts have led to the use of hybrid propellants: a storable oxidizer used with a solid fuel, which retain most virtues of both liquids (high ISP) and solids (simplicity).[citation needed] (The newest nitramine solid propellants based on CL-20 (HNIW) can match the performance of NTO/UDMH storable liquid propellants, but cannot be controlled as can the storable liquids.)
While liquid propellants are cheaper than solid propellants, for orbital launchers, the cost savings do not, and historically have not mattered; the cost of the propellant is a very small portion of the overall cost of the rocket.[citation needed] Some propellants, notably Oxygen and Nitrogen, may be able to be collected from the upper atmosphere, and transferred up to low-Earth orbit for use in propellant depots at substantially reduced cost.

 

[pmaitra]

Crossposting:

Great, I will reproduce the table here:

Solid-fuel advantages	Solid-fuel disadvantages	Liquid-fuel advantages	Liquid-fuel disadvantages
Very stable, durable	Can't be turned off- once the burn starts, it goes until fuel is used up.	Variable thrust- the amount of fuel and rate of burn can be changed in flight	Fragile, many complex parts
More thrust for a similar size rocket	Fuel decomposes, must be replaced.	Liquid-fuel boosters are more easily re-usable	Oxidiser (liquid oxygen) must be kept extremely cold.

Source: Solid Fuel Rockets- Solid vs. Liquid Fuel

 

[ashicjose]

when ISRO can launch 10 satellites in a single go and in a single mission and using only one launch vechicles, you have not only proven ICBM capability but you have also proven the capability of MIRV and anti-sat weapons :accepted:


PSLV-C9 launched successfully with 10 satellites

India sets world record, launches 10 satellites at one go - Times Of India

launching 10 satellite in 1 go doesn't mean that you have MIRV capability, for MIRV you need guidance towards the target and heat shield to protect your warhead from extreme temp.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

My understanding would be that they can be stored for certain period of time, after they can be refueled.

The fuel degrades/evaoprates they are also more expensive and require
more manpower and maintainence. Russians have the view that longer
range missiles should be liquid fuelled to carry heavier payloads further.
Both Bulava and sineva are liquid fuelled.

 

[shubhamsaikia]

MIRV

 

[Yusuf]

The fuel degrades/evaoprates they are also more expensive and require
more manpower and maintainence. Russians have the view that longer
range missiles should be liquid fuelled to carry heavier payloads further.
Both Bulava and sineva are liquid fuelled.

Bulava is solid fueled.

 

[pmaitra]

Bulava is solid fueled.

As per wiki:

The missile has three stages; the first and second stages use solid fuel propellant, while the third stage liquid fuel, to allow high maneuverability during warhead separation.

RSM-56 Bulava - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[A chauhan]

For ICBM's the accuracy can be off by even a few hundred meters and it
may not matter because the coverage is much greater. Russians are known
for having terrible CEP but they view it as irrelevant in the context of coverage.
Even the newly developed Iskander has a poor CEP but it is irrelevant. Russian
SCUDS in ww2 had terrible CEP but they still helped beat the Germans.

In a specific scenario i agree with you, if you talk about single megaton warhead then accuracy doesn't play important role, but commonly MIRVs are used strategically, suppose if you have to blow Shanghai and Bejing's navy base then you won't need a megaton warhead but small MIRVs and yes they must have accuracy or low CEP i.e. less than 150 meters i think. And DRDO missiles reportedly have 40m CEP which is very good.

SRBMs and IRBMs are good with 100m CEP but when you decrease the range of missile and coverage of warhead you must get higher accuracy or low CEP

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Bulava is solid fueled.

It is same as Trident using solid and liqiud fuel. But other
US ICBM's like peacekeepers are solid fuelled totally.

 

[trackwhack]

LF, air breathing engines use liquid fuel because there is no oxidizer in the propellant as you already know. Burning fuel and oxygen, when fuel is condensed solid and ozygen is compressed gas is not ideal and will result in below par combustion. On the other hand, it is easier to mix liquid fuel with compressed oxygen (probably compressed enough to liquefy it)

I am sure as propellents evolve they will find a way to enhance combustibility of solid propellant with compressed oxygen.

p.s. the article is crap. I hate such expurts.

 

[utubekhiladi]

launching 10 satellite in 1 go doesn't mean that you have MIRV capability, for MIRV you need guidance towards the target and heat shield to protect your warhead from extreme temp.

we have demonstrated all those technologies since agni 1. the only questions remaining is miniaturizing which DRDO and ISRO already working on it

 

[utubekhiladi]

What you said, I have said the same thing, again, long time back. Sure, if India can orbit satellites, India can deliver a warhead to any part of the world.

Have we tested and demonstrated capability to deliver a warhead beyond 5000 km? The answer is negative.
As a sequitur, does India have an ICBM? Again, the answer is negative.

I am just keeping it realistic mate.

what are you talking about? didn't we launched AGNI 5?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

One major reason to have both Liquid and Solid booster to reduce overall weight of the Missiles..

 

[utubekhiladi]

In a specific scenario i agree with you, if you talk about single megaton warhead then accuracy doesn't play important role, but commonly MIRVs are used strategically, suppose if you have to blow Shanghai and Bejing's navy base then you won't need a megaton warhead but small MIRVs and yes they must have accuracy or low CEP i.e. less than 150 meters i think. And DRDO missiles reportedly have 40m CEP which is very good.

SRBMs and IRBMs are good with 100m CEP but when you decrease the range of missile and coverage of warhead you must get higher accuracy or low CEP

1 more point

even if your using only 2kt nuke and your CEP is around 4 km, it will still produce devastating effect on your intended target

 

[LETHALFORCE]

In a specific scenario i agree with you, if you talk about single megaton warhead then accuracy doesn't play important role, but commonly MIRVs are used strategically, suppose if you have to blow Shanghai and Bejing's navy base then you won't need a megaton warhead but small MIRVs and yes they must have accuracy or low CEP i.e. less than 150 meters i think. And DRDO missiles reportedly have 40m CEP which is very good.

SRBMs and IRBMs are good with 100m CEP but when you decrease the range of missile and coverage of warhead you must get higher accuracy or low CEP

This is true the Missile itself and each MIRV warhead may have
very different accuracy rates. But MIRV usually means fairly
good accuracy to deliver many smaller individual warheads.

 

[utubekhiladi]

One major reason to have both Liquid and Solid booster to reduce overall weight of the Missiles..

is liquid fuel missiles are lighter?

 

[ice berg]

Only if you want to hit a population center...:shocked:

 

[Mad Indian]

what are you talking about? didn't we launched AGNI 5?

Agni 5 tested as of now cant be taken as a Real ICBM.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

LF, air breathing engines use liquid fuel because there is no oxidizer in the propellant as you already know. Burning fuel and oxygen, when fuel is condensed solid and ozygen is compressed gas is not ideal and will result in below par combustion. On the other hand, it is easier to mix liquid fuel with compressed oxygen (probably compressed enough to liquefy it)

I am sure as propellents evolve they will find a way to enhance combustibility of solid propellant with compressed oxygen.

p.s. the article is crap. I hate such expurts.

This is true but many ramjets like Meteor,Akash,SA-6,R-77,AIM-120
are all solid fuelled ramjets.

 

[shubhamsaikia]

solid are lighter