Indian Missiles & Nuclear Development News and Discussions

[SABRE]

Mod Warning: Indian Bull, Funtz & also Nero; do not go beyond the rules. You are being warned. If the above rubbish continues I'll give your names for a ban - at least for 2 weeks.

Funtz you already have warnings under your belt. I'll put your name for a month if you break any rules.

Indian Bull stop digging old posts.

Keep the discussion limited to Indian nukes & Missiles, without bringing in another country in the discssion.

 

[funtz]

Our missiles can carry multiple nukes including thermonuclear weapons.Note an average indian H-bomb weighs 300 kg and our missiles have the capacity to carry atleast 1000kg.

You care providing links for that information, About the exact nature of Indian warheads, the thermonuclear warheads? Just curious, never heard anything about that.
All the google searches return nothing credible, so how are you so sure about the exact weight of the warhead?

 

[kato]

You care providing links for that information, About the exact nature of Indian warheads, the thermonuclear warheads? Just curious, never heard anything about that.
All the google searches return nothing credible, so how are you so sure?

Jane's Strategic Weapon Systems (2003) lists:

Agni 2 payload is 1,000 kg total, includes 750 kg separating warhead, suspected 150-200 kt (fission warhead). Same entry lists potential fitting for 450 kg separating 200-300 kt fusion warhead. Agni 3 would likely be fitted for that 450 kg warhead. Jane's lists a series of small nuclear warheads "likely developed" but not fitted for the Prithvi, with yields between 1 and 20 kt, weight around 250-300 kg.

 

[funtz]

Danke, is janes a credible source (not really much of a magazine follower), is there a online link you could point me to.

 

[indian bull]

You care providing links for that information, About the exact nature of Indian warheads, the thermonuclear warheads? Just curious, never heard anything about that.
All the google searches return nothing credible, so how are you so sure about the exact weight of the warhead?

u can find a lot oe it on bharat-rakshak and plenty of many other sites.

 

[funtz]

DRDO To Develop Long Range, Subsonic Cruise Missile

Indian defence scientists have taken up a new cruise missile development programme. The missile named Nirbhay.

Nirbhay will be a terrain-hugging missile capable of avoiding detection by ground-based radar. It would have a range of 1,000km.

In the schedule drawn up for Nirbhay, a technology demonstrator is slotted for early 2009. Chander said the design for the system is complete and "hardware preparations are on". He said Nirbhay would weigh around 1,000kg and travel at 0.7 mach (nearly 840kmph) and would be capable of delivering 24 different types of warheads.

source: http://www.*************.com/reports-3583

Why is the website blocked is it not a credible source of information?

Great so the work has started on another cruise missile.

Will provide the military sources with more depth, the project was in the talk zone for some time, now its under development, lets see how much time this one takes.

what possible advantages can it have in the nuclear zone that we live in? considering that anything over a limited conflict might result in some thing no one wishes for, and in a limited conflict (or with a lesser opponent) how will this =/>1000 km cruise missile help, i am sure the people taking the decision have though the reasons, i was just wondering what they are?

Thank you Web master, well that one was weird putting an article from july in October.

Will keep my cool too.

 

[webmaster]

Funtz,

Here is the proper link for that article:
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070720/asp/nation/story_8080771.asp

That website belongs to one of the banned member on DefenceTalk... basically scams people into paying for news (the intelligence reports lol) which is available from other indian media outlets.

Read more about this here:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/announcement.php?f=20

Scroll down to the last announcement on the page.

As far as nero is concerned and his circus show (was deleted):

Banned for three months, plenty of time to read the rules:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

If you can't keep your cool, stay calm, respect others and show somewhat professional attitude in a public setting you don't belong here.

Thanks and enjoy!

 

[indian bull]

I have heard of India increasing range of its supersonic brahmos, then why the idea of making subsonic nirbhay, also tell funtz about sagarika is it cruise or ballistic? I have read news that India may already have testfired it.

 

[funtz]

man a google search shows the confusion:

http://www.google.co.in/search?sour...7&q=Sagarika+missile&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Like the ATV submarine project not many details about the project will come out until they come out from the horses mouth.

A obvious guess on my part will be a ballistic missile with the greatest range and warhead possible (considering its a submarine launched missile), to give the second strike capability, and the whole concept of second strike according to me is enough fire power to deter your enemy, that is to say as large as possible.

As it is if Nirbhay the confirmed cruise missile is going to be 1000km a possible submarine version will be both useful and cost saving, instead of having another dedicated cruise missile.

Then again there have been links like
http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?rep=2&aid=335172&sid=NAT

New Delhi, Nov 12: Sagarika, India's first submarine-launched nuclear-capable cruise missile, will be ready for flight trials by early next year, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) sources said.
The turbo-jet powered, vertically launched cruise missile with a range of 700 nautical miles and capable of delivering a 500-kg warhead, is being developed by DRDO with Israeli assistance. India is simultaneously seeking to rope in European missile firms for the project that is being kept under wraps.
The sources said the missile's first prototype, incorporating a solid fuel booster, should be ready for a test flight by early 2008.
At the same time, the DRDO is continuing the development of the submarine-launched version of the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile developed jointly with Russia.
The development of these two missiles, which will turn India into only the world's fifth power with such a capability, appears to be the silver lining in the country's missile programme that has been plagued by long delays and huge cost overruns.

Which is interesting to say the least as then there will have to be a sort of enhanced Agni-3 ++ for the second strike, well until a 'tremendous KT power' can be packed into a cruise missile.

Well to put it in short lets wait till DRDO gives an official press briefing, some thing as big as this will be drummed up for publicity.

 

[indian bull]

I think the future belongs to hypersonic cruise missiles, india is going to develop hypersonic brahmos with russian partenership. There is no benefit of subsonic cruise missiles. Also funtz the antiballistic missiles will get obsolete as many nations are trying to make beam weapons based on lasers, microwaves etc. India also is secretly pursuing development of KALI{kilo ampere linear injector} and DURGA{directionally unrestricted ray gun}, these beam weapons can shoot down any object in sky. The future belongs to these space weapons not subsonic or supersonic missiles. Also the power of US is so much over estimated that we cannot come out of this obsession that US is only superpower. Recently china has shown what it can do by destroying satelites in space. It is pretty clear that a single or few nuclear weapons targetted in space can paralyze entire GPS system of US and make it helpless.

 

[funtz]

well US GPS sat will not be that easy a target, in a war situation a ballistic missile might not be allowed to go all the way up there, however yes once the path/position/velocity is known there are many ways to destroy it (for your own satellite you have all the data, France, UK, Japan, Israel, India etc. etc. all can destroy their own old satellites if they wish to), even if a defensive system is on the satellite (like releasing lot of small objects in its path).
Remember its a two way game, if you destroy theirs they will destroy yours.

If a missile is able to go from A to B and hit the target with out getting detected/destroyed, it is effective, i would imagine detecting a low flying land attack cruise missile is not easy.
For ballistic missiles I suspect there is a good reason for latest tests of the more maneuvering Agni missile Re-Entry Vehicle, one of them might be the whole ballistic missile defense problem.

"The system that we tested today has more maneuverability and better re-entry technology than the missile that was launched on October 5," said a DRDO official who asked not to be named.
"It is a major success," the official added.

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/pub...st_fires_nuclear-capable_missile160013936.php

Do you know at what speed the Re-Entry Vehicle enters and makes the final approach towards the target?
I thought these things had tremendous final approach speeds.

One day they might become redundant due to missile defense technology, however that day is not coming soon, if i remember even the USA with lot of money on these technology is looking to set up a global shield, and that work is not even done yet, these guys have been working on the missile defense for a long time so i guess there are good reasons to push for a global shield.

Even a laser has to detect, range and track its target and for a maneuvering target it might not be so easy right now, so a lot of work has to be done on that technology, the laser, microwave etc. technologies have to be perused by our scientists no one will give that for sale, there is a lot of work on these things going on in India.
Again right now they are not that big a threat, however they will be in some time and i guess people more educated on the subject than me are trying to work around it.

However for many situations like time critical targets etc. high supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles are important and they have been developed and they will be developed.

a link
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hytech.htm

look on the right side of the above page lots of links about
# HyStrike - High Speed Strike Missile
# HyFly - Hypersonics Flight Demo
# HyTech - Hypersonic Technology
# Fasthawk - Low Cost Missile System
# JSSCM - Joint SuperSonic Cruise Missile
# RATTLRS - Revolutionary Approach To
Time Critical Long Range Strike
# SHOC - Stand-Off High-Speed Option
for Counterproliferation
# Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle
# FALCON - Force Application
and Launch from CONUS
# X-51

 

[indian bull]

Remember funtz in 1998 when india conducted nuclear tests our scientists knew the position of US spy satellites, thats how they prevented detection of nuclear explosions. it is not necessary to know the exact positon of a sattelite just explode few nukes in a known orbit and u can destroy all the satellites in that orbit. also beam weapons will be a reality in few decades they are not far away, infact india has already developed KALI-5000 but it is too heavy and efforts are being done to reduce its weight so that it can be lifted into space, and these efforts will become reality in near future when the whole concept of present warfare will change with the natons developing piloltless aircrafts,beam weapons even missiles and aircrafts denying gravity.

 

[funtz]

Remember funtz in 1998 when india conducted nuclear tests our scientists knew the position of US spy satellites, thats how they prevented detection of nuclear explosions. it is not necessary to know the exact position of a satellite just explode few nukes in a known orbit and u can destroy all the satellites in that orbit. also beam weapons will be a reality in few decades they are not far away, infact india has already developed KALI-5000 but it is too heavy and efforts are being done to reduce its weight so that it can be lifted into space

Yes i you read what i said you would see that i stated the same things, in my opinion to destroy a satellite will not be a technological leap of any kind translating into a military advantage and it is not a situation that a military power will not have thought of and prepared for.

I, to the best of my knowledge, can only state that the Indian agencies knew what to hide and camouflage, to state that they knew the exact position of the satellites is beyond my current knowledge.

As for the KALI and the likes, we are making efforts that i am aware of, and these efforts must be continued.
Right now care also needs to be given to the systems we have and need in the next 10-20 years, till then i do not see missile defense of aforementioned nature coming around us, however technology works in strange ways.
The work being done on maneuverable re entry vehicles for the ballistic missiles is required and evidently being done.
The work on long ranged, low flying, terrain hugging cruise missiles which incorporate some sort of LO technologies is being done, i assume because the military forces see a requirement for them.
The work on hypersonic missiles will be pursued because people engaged in this thing professionally see a requirement for them.

Only when rough specs are available and we know what can we do with such systems will there be a need to make comments like
and these efforts will become reality in near future when the whole concept of present warfare will change with the nations developing pilot less aircrafts,beam weapons even missiles and aircrafts denying gravity.

It will happen eventually who knows these things have been stated before and have not happened yet.

 

[indian bull]

Yes i you read what i said you would see that i stated the same things, in my opinion to destroy a satellite will not be a technological leap of any kind translating into a military advantage and it is not a situation that a military power will not have thought of and prepared for.

I, to the best of my knowledge, can only state that the Indian agencies knew what to hide and camouflage, to state that they knew the exact position of the satellites is beyond my current knowledge.

As for the KALI and the likes, we are making efforts that i am aware of, and these efforts must be continued.
Right now care also needs to be given to the systems we have and need in the next 10-20 years, till then i do not see missile defense of aforementioned nature coming around us, however technology works in strange ways.
The work being done on maneuverable re entry vehicles for the ballistic missiles is required and evidently being done.
The work on long ranged, low flying, terrain hugging cruise missiles which incorporate some sort of LO technologies is being done, i assume because the military forces see a requirement for them.
The work on hypersonic missiles will be pursued because people engaged in this thing professionally see a requirement for them.

It will happen eventually who knows these things have been stated before and have not happened yet.

If u read newspapers of that time (1998) u will get to know that indian scientists knew exactly the position of US spy sattelites they camoflauged only when these satellites were positoned on indian subcontinent, infact this is counted one of the biggest failures of CIA because earlier whenever india tried to conduct nuclear tests they had put lot of pressure on us and prevented the tests.
HEY FUNTZ do u have any knowlege that India used reactor grade plutonium instead of weapons grade in 1998 tests? if it is true India has the capability to produce nukes multiple times than it is presently estimated?

 

[funtz]

tried to archives of telegrahph and TOI man still nothing i could find, could may be you point me to something.
The level of knowledge online on the nuclear tests in huge, as such the problem as it seems (from the available information) to me is not the capability of producing the required nuclear deterrence, the problem is of producing nuclear energy to power the 15-20 % Gap in demand supply of electricity.
will post the required links soon.

 

[Chrom]

If u read newspapers of that time (1998) u will get to know that indian scientists knew exactly the position of US spy sattelites they camoflauged only when these satellites were positoned on indian subcontinent, infact this is counted one of the biggest failures of CIA because earlier whenever india tried to conduct nuclear tests they had put lot of pressure on us and prevented the tests.
HEY FUNTZ do u have any knowlege that India used reactor grade plutonium instead of weapons grade in 1998 tests? if it is true India has the capability to produce nukes multiple times than it is presently estimated?

1. There is no such thing as "reactor grade plutonium". Plutonium is not used in nuclear reactors.

2. Even IF there would be such thing (or you mistaked it for uranium) - still it is impossible to use reactor grade uranium / plutonium in nuclear warhead. The enrichment required for weapon is order of magnitude higher. (eg. ~ 10% vs 90%).

3. With all these recent developments India certainly can produce more warheads than it have.

4. For thermonuclear warheads you dont need much uranium/plutonium anyway.

 

[funtz]

1. There is no such thing as "reactor grade plutonium". Plutonium is not used in nuclear reactors.[/b]

2. Even IF there would be such thing (or you mistaked it for uranium) - still it is impossible to use reactor grade uranium / plutonium in nuclear warhead. The enrichment required for weapon is order of magnitude higher. (eg. ~ 10% vs 90%).

3. With all these recent developments India certainly can produce more warheads than it have.

4. For thermonuclear warheads you dont need much uranium/plutonium anyway.

Additional information concerning underground nuclear weapon test of reactor-grade plutonium

The Department of Energy is providing additional information related to a 1962 underground nuclear test at the Nevada Test Site that used reactor-grade plutonium in the nuclear explosive.

SPECIFICALLY:

* A successful test was conducted in 1962, which used reactor-grade plutonium in the nuclear explosive in place of weapon-grade plutonium.

* The yield was less than 20 kilotons.

BACKGROUND:

This test was conducted to obtain nuclear design information concerning the feasibility of using reactor-grade plutonium as the nuclear explosive material.

* The test confirmed that reactor-grade plutonium could be used to make a nuclear explosive. This fact was declassified in July 1977.

* The release of additional information was deemed important to enhance public awareness of nuclear proliferation issues associated with reactor-grade plutonium that can be separated during reprocessing of spent commercial reactor fuel.

* The United States maintains an extensive nuclear test data base and predictive capabilities. This information, combined with the results of this low yield test, reveals that weapons can be constructed with reactor-grade plutonium.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS​

Q. Why wasn't the exact yield of the event released?
A. Revelation of the yield was determined to be of value to certain proliferants.

Q. What was the quantity of reactor-grade plutonium used in the test?
A. In this circumstance, specific information would be of benefit to certain proliferants and is not releasable.

Q. What is the grade of plutonium used in U.S. nuclear weapons?
A. The United States uses weapon grade plutonium. Weapon-grade plutonium is defined as plutonium containing no more than 7 percent plutonium-240.

Q. Why is weapon-grade plutonium better than reactor-grade plutonium in weapons?
A. Reactor-grade plutonium is significantly more radioactive which complicates its use in nuclear weapons.

Q. If this was a successful test as you indicate, why didn't the United States use reactor-grade plutonium in nuclear weapons?
A. Reactor-grade plutonium is significantly more radioactive which complicates the design, manufacture and stockpiling of weapons. Use of reactor-grade plutonium would require large expenditures for remote manufacturing facilities to minimize radiation exposure to workers. Reactor-grade plutonium use in weapons would cause concern over radiation exposure to military service personnel. In any event, Public Law 97-415 prohibits United States defense use of plutonium produced in licensed facilities, i.e., commercial reactors.

Q. What was the source of the reactor-grade plutonium?
A. The plutonium was provided by the United Kingdom under the 1958 United States/United Kingdom Mutual Defense Agreement.

Q. What was the actual plutonium isotopic composition used in this test?
A. It is the policy not to reveal the actual isotopic composition of plutonium used in specific weapons or tests to prevent releasing information which may be of assistance to proliferants.

source: http://www.ccnr.org/plute_bomb.html

The Shakti Test Devices
Shakti I: Two stage thermonuclear device with fusion boosted primary, intended for missile warhead; test design yield 45 kt, with a 200 kt deployed yield

Shakti II: Lightweight pure fission tactical bomb/missile warhead, 12 kt design yield
Shakti III: Fission experimental device, reportedly made with reactor-grade plutonium.
Probably a fusion boosted design without the fusion fuel, 0.3 kt design yield
Shakti IV: 0.5 kt experimental device
Shakti V: 0.2 kt experimental device
Shakti VI: Not fired; another low yield experimental device?

According to Chengappa the plutonium for the devices weighed 3 to 8 kg, depending of the device, and were colored gray due to the coating applied to contain the radioactivity (and no doubt to prevent oxidation of the plutonium). The explosives surrounding the cores was colored a dull orange.

Source: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaShakti.html

Well i dont feel like typing much.

 

[Chrom]

source: http://www.ccnr.org/plute_bomb.html


Source: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaShakti.html

Well i dont feel like typing much.

Here, i admit i was a wrong in definitions. I was thinking more in the line of special dumbed down reactor-grade plutonium like reactor-grade uranium. This thing cant be for weapon purposes.

But generally it seems reactor-grade plutonium is refered as plutonium with 90%+ plutonium-239 isotope. Generally, any so-called "reactor-grade" plutonium could be used for weapon as contrary to uranium all plutonium isotopes are suitable for chain reactions. Only disadvantages are higher radioactivity and lower weapon life.
So, it makes sence to test weapon with reactor-grade plutonium as its disadvatages doesnt matter for test weapon.

 

[funtz]

Here, i admit i was a wrong in definitions. I was thinking more in the line of special dumbed down reactor-grade plutonium like reactor-grade uranium. This thing cant be for weapon purposes.

But generally it seems reactor-grade plutonium is refered as plutonium with 90%+ plutonium-239 isotope. Generally, any so-called "reactor-grade" plutonium could be used for weapon as contrary to uranium all plutonium isotopes are suitable for chain reactions. Only disadvantages are higher radioactivity and lower weapon life.
So, it makes sence to test weapon with reactor-grade plutonium as its disadvatages doesnt matter for test weapon.
As such, it makes sense to test nuclear weapon

I was just surprised by the

There is no such thing as "reactor grade plutonium". Plutonium is not used in nuclear reactors.

As you said
"it makes sense to test nuclear weapon"
keep the options open, especially when you are greaing up for a host of sanctions.

Here, i admit i was a wrong in definitions. I was thinking more in the line of special dumbed down reactor-grade plutonium like reactor-grade uranium. This thing cant be for weapon purposes.
But generally it seems reactor-grade plutonium is refered as plutonium with 90%+ plutonium-239 isotope. Generally, any so-called "reactor-grade" plutonium could be used for weapon as contrary to uranium all plutonium isotopes are suitable for chain reactions. Only disadvantages are higher radioactivity and lower weapon life.
So, it makes sence to test weapon with reactor-grade plutonium as its disadvatages doesnt matter for test weapon.

Well from a purely internet view

The nuclear industry and other advocates of using warhead plutonium in "mixed-oxide" (MOX) plutonium-uranium fuel often claim that the MOX option would make plutonium unusable in weapons. Such claims are inaccurate and irresponsible. Using warhead plutonium in MOX fuel neither "burns it up" nor renders it unusable in nuclear weapons. In fact, reactor-grade plutonium is even more desirable than weapon-grade in crude bomb designs that might be used by terrorists because reactor-grade makes initiation of the nuclear chain reaction easier.

The proliferation resistance of the final waste forms largely determines the potential for reversing the disposal process and re-using plutonium for weapons. There are two potential waste forms. One is "spent" MOX fuel that has been irradiated in a nuclear power plant. The other is an immobilized waste form, produced by incorporating weapons plutonium into a glass- or ceramic-based matrix, mixed with intensely radioactive fission products or other contaminants, suitable for geologic disposal.

Reversibility is a function of three factors: the amount of residual plutonium remaining in the final waste forms, how easy it is to retrieve plutonium from the waste, and the quality of the plutonium retrieved from the waste.

In fact, reactor-grade plutonium may be even more desirable than weapon-grade plutonium as a bomb material for terrorist or other sub-national groups. The increased probability of pre-detonation would eliminate the need to include a neutron initiator in the weapon, considerably simplifying the task of designing and producing such a weapon.

Conclusion
For these reasons, neither the United States nor Russia could count on the reactor-grade isotopics of the other nuclear power's dispositioned plutonium stockpile providing a major impediment to remilitarization. In short, the arms-control value of isotopic degradation is negligible. Isotopic degradation does not pose a substantial barrier to re-militarization of warhead plutonium, and therefore does not constitute a compelling argument in favor of the MOX disposition option.

http://www.nci.org/i/ib32897c.htm

Reactor-Grade Plutonium's Explosive Properties by J. Carson Mark, Consultant, Nuclear Control Institute.
Fourth in a series of papers on issues bearing on extending and strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. J. Carson Mark served as head of the Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory and has served on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and on the Science Advisory Board of the U.S. Air Force.
August 1990
a bare critical assembly could be made with plutonium metal no matter what its isotopic composition might be.

Taking "weapon" to signify an object suitable for stockpile by a military organization, then heavily irradiated reactor plutonium would not be attractive for an arsenal of pure fission devices. For that purpose one would wish to have a set of warheads with a reliable known yield. One would also wish to have objects which could be turned out in a production-line.
fashion.

Source:
http://www.nci.org/NEW/NT/rgpu-mark-90.pdf


Anyways this is not important, I am still interested in knowing about the submarine ballistic missile option is Sagarika an extended range Agni – 3, or a cruise missile, and further more for a future Submarine launched ballistic missile what type of modifications will be done to a possible Agni 3+ or Agni 4 (considering that the project will take time to develop).

 

[indian bull]

Here, i admit i was a wrong in definitions. I was thinking more in the line of special dumbed down reactor-grade plutonium like reactor-grade uranium. This thing cant be for weapon purposes.

But generally it seems reactor-grade plutonium is refered as plutonium with 90%+ plutonium-239 isotope. Generally, any so-called "reactor-grade" plutonium could be used for weapon as contrary to uranium all plutonium isotopes are suitable for chain reactions. Only disadvantages are higher radioactivity and lower weapon life.
So, it makes sence to test weapon with reactor-grade plutonium as its disadvatages doesnt matter for test weapon.

Infact india used reactor grade plutonium to detonate boosted fission device, this device's yeild was 0.3 kt, it was used without tritium gas in its core. It only demonstrated the design's success. In a thermonuclear weapon tritium is placed not in the core but outside the core so that it can be heated to fusion tempratures.
India's nuclear capabilities are always underestimated by western countries that it can only make up 50 to 90 nukes. But with the test of boosted fission device using reactor grade plutonium its ability increases many folds.
Another rumour was that indian H bomb failed, but now experts world over believe that india can easily make thermonuclear weapons with a variable range of explosive power. Also india now is making efforts to develop pure fusion weapons i.e. these weapons dont have to use a primary fission device, if this becomes true india can make as many city busters as it wants.
Another rumour is that india has very limited resources of uranium, this is not true, read the research done by Ashley tellis in which he says that it is not the problem of uranium scarcity which india is facing but it is slow mining procedures which is responsible for uranium unavailability. He goes on saying that india has sufficient resrves to make close 1000 fission bombs. Even us state dept is following his research work to shape relations with india.