Agni-VI: India’s Next Missile all set to Surprise the World ?

[The Deterrent]

Then what about A4 which is 3 m longer but has just a weight of 17 tons? Do you want to say that a country which has a 17 tons of missile with a range of 4000+ km has a 48 tons of missile with 3000 km range and to increase the range by 25%. I.e to 5000 km weight increased by 3 times?
Apply you logic. You are a responsible and knowledgeably member in this area.

Unfortunately (rather fortunately) basic proportion formulas don't apply to rocket science. If you can maybe try to factor in the amount of composites A4 uses, its payload and number of stages, and the overall resultant effect this has on the T/W ratio, you'd have a small portion of your answer.

Or are you suggesting that the DRDO officials were hiding their secret vedic tech by lying here:

 

[kadamba-warrior]

Unfortunately (rather fortunately) basic proportion formulas don't apply to rocket science. If you can maybe try to factor in the amount of composites A4 uses, its payload and number of stages, and the overall resultant effect this has on the T/W ratio, you'd have a small portion of your answer.

Or are you suggesting that the DRDO officials were hiding their secret vedic tech by lying here:

First off, I generally appreciate your posts that are very informative for a noob like myself. But, with all due respect, lay the f*ck off with the mention of religious scriptures just to make your point.

Not only does it not suit a rather well-informed person like you, but also you and your people will not take it kindly if somebody trivializes your religious scriptures in the same breath to return the favor, will you?

Secondly, I have a serious question. Is it possible that a newer version of A4 missile has a different (denser & more powerful) propellant which then could explain the significant reduction in overall weight of the vehicle?

My own understanding is that newer propellant perhaps needs a newer engine altogether and hence it is more of an eager reporter messing things up.

 

[desimorty]

So Agni III 22 tons with 2.0 m DIa motor. Agni IV with 20 m height and 1.3 m dia motor weighs 17 tons. Similarly Agni V weighs 23 tons. Prototype design weight of A 3 was 48 tons and that of A V was 50 tons. A3's weight reduced to 22 tons and that of AV was reduced to 23 tons. Now all composite AV is coming. with better design and lower weight.

So basically saying India brought the range of the missile down and the weight was reduced. But you are saying that the weight was reduced. I think something fishy is happening here. Anyone else want to enlighten us? Would seem India can reach mars but not design a true ICBM. Political or scientific failure?

 

[gslv mk3]

My own understanding is that newer propellant perhaps needs a newer engine altogether and hence it is more of an eager reporter messing things up.

CMDB propellent (NEPE/HMX) ?

 

[KRAIT]

So many so called Defence Analyst on this forum thinks that Agni 6 cant be made even knowing Indian space prowess.

 

[gslv mk3]

So many so called Defence Analyst on this forum thinks that Agni 6 cant be made even knowing Indian space prowess.

They'll get heart attacks when we test K-5.

 

[fitpOsitive]

I personally like the name of this missile. Just name.

 

[The Deterrent]

First off, I generally appreciate your posts that are very informative for a noob like myself. But, with all due respect, lay the f*ck off with the mention of religious scriptures just to make your point.

Not only does it not suit a rather well-informed person like you, but also you and your people will not take it kindly if somebody trivializes your religious scriptures in the same breath to return the favor, will you?

I meant it as a metaphorical insult to that fanboy and some of the other alleged 'discoveries' of DRDO. I have no disregard for any particular religion or its scriptures, however my apologies if you or anybody else felt offended.

Secondly, I have a serious question. Is it possible that a newer version of A4 missile has a different (denser & more powerful) propellant which then could explain the significant reduction in overall weight of the vehicle?

My own understanding is that newer propellant perhaps needs a newer engine altogether and hence it is more of an eager reporter messing things up.

Newer version? Look, it does NOT works like that. A significantly complex system like a ballistic missile is not like a car which can have a new version every year or two. Of course improvements in fuel composition, geometry are made every couple of years, but they are incorporated in entirely new systems (or they give rise to entirely new systems). You can't swap in different qualities of fuel resulting in different thrust levels, without extensively flight testing it before handing it over to the end user.

So to sum it up, of course A4/5 have better fuel than A3, but making these kind of claims are hogwash. There isn't much that can be saved (in terms of increased range or higher thrust) by using marginally efficient fuel. However, usage of composites, compact payloads, lightweight electronics etc result in much better overall weight reduction.

 

[kadamba-warrior]

Newer version? Look, it does NOT works like that. A significantly complex system like a ballistic missile is not like a car which can have a new version every year or two. Of course improvements in fuel composition, geometry are made every couple of years, but they are incorporated in entirely new systems (or they give rise to entirely new systems). You can't swap in different qualities of fuel resulting in different thrust levels, without extensively flight testing it before handing it over to the end user.

So to sum it up, of course A4/5 have better fuel than A3, but making these kind of claims are hogwash. There isn't much that can be saved (in terms of increased range or higher thrust) by using marginally efficient fuel. However, usage of composites, compact payloads, lightweight electronics etc result in much better overall weight reduction.

I figured as much. Thanks.

 

[amardeep mishra]

Secondly, I have a serious question. Is it possible that a newer version of A4 missile has a different (denser & more powerful) propellant which then could explain the significant reduction in overall weight of the vehicle?

My own understanding is that newer propellant perhaps needs a newer engine altogether and hence it is more of an eager reporter messing things up.

Hi @kadamba-warrior
HEMRL is indeed working on ester based solid propellants that will have ISP figures close to the glycol based propellant used in trident D5 SLBMs. This new class of propellants would be used in K-5 or K-6 SLBM that will equip the follow on class of Arihant SSBN. Also note, you cant save much by replacing fuel, OTOH one can increase range by-
1) Using kevlar based composites instead of maraging steel
2) Light weight electronics and MEMS package.
3) Lighter warhead and Bus
4) Telescopic aerospike that reduces drag during the dyanmic pressure region of operation.
5) Increased dia rocket.

One can also use bell-nozzles or Rao-nozzles to improve the efficiency and reduce losses. But fabrication of Rao-nozzles require very tight tolerances.

 

[kadamba-warrior]

Hi @kadamba-warrior
HEMRL is indeed working on ester based solid propellants that will have ISP figures close to the glycol based propellant used in trident D5 SLBMs. This new class of propellants would be used in K-5 or K-6 SLBM that will equip the follow on class of Arihant SSBN. Also note, you cant save much by replacing fuel, OTOH one can increase range by-
1) Using kevlar based composites instead of maraging steel
2) Light weight electronics and MEMS package.
3) Lighter warhead and Bus
4) Telescopic aerospike that reduces drag during the dyanmic pressure region of operation.
5) Increased dia rocket.

One can also use bell-nozzles or Rao-nozzles to improve the efficiency and reduce losses. But fabrication of Rao-nozzles require very tight tolerances.

Thanks. That was very informative.