What's new

India test fires nuclear capable AGNI 2 missile successfully today!!!

Impressed with knowledge of @AhaseebA . He knows more about Agnii than me .
Junior Think Tank title does not do you justice and many blokes in this category have almost indigo knowledge about Weapons and are mostly dealing in Geo-political Threads ( Which indeed is important but it's a defense forum) .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
what side thrusters?
@AhaseebA

These ones:

missile.jpg


agni3.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Its normal to randomly pick one missile out of the production line and test them, just to be sure.

Here the test was a training "live-fire" exercise. Same as training with live weapons on a firing range. As we can see, its being done periodically.
Of course, it also shows that there are missiles to spare and the Defence Budget has not run out yet..... :P
 
. .
Of course, if there is no efficient correction system, the corrections generated by the laser ring gyro based INS wouldn't be of much use.

In exo atmosohere or very high altitude there isnt much drag and not much force is needed to correct coarse....little side thrusters should do the job..
But then there is no lift to be generated either and thats where i get confused about agni-2
Why the little wings attached to RV?
 
.
And The Pics and Video Arrived ::cheers:


526980_397215770375754_1563396657_n.jpg

[video] <iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/video/embed?video_id=10151519295073774" width="720" height="576" frameborder="0"></iframe>[/video]

Wow is that digital camo. They have put digital camo even on agni. Too much :toast_sign:
 
.
In exo atmosohere or very high altitude there isnt much drag and not much force is needed to correct coarse....little side thrusters should do the job..
But then there is no lift to be generated either and thats where i get confused about agni-2
Why the little wings attached to RV?

Yeah, and they do.
As I said, those fins represent a primitive design (Agni-2 was India's first solid-fueled BM).
They assist in course correction while the missile is still in the atmosphere and the boost phase has just terminated. After that, the fins and the whole correction assembly is jettisoned (as far as I think, by noticing that quite visible separation line on the warhead assembly just before the fins start). Then the ReV is turned towards the target (acquires the angle of attack) in space and is spun up for re-entry.
 
.
Yeah, and they do.
As I said, those fins represent a primitive design (Agni-2 was India's first solid-fueled BM).
They assist in course correction while the missile is still in the atmosphere and the boost phase has just terminated. After that, the fins and the whole correction assembly is jettisoned (as far as I think, by noticing that quite visible separation line on the warhead assembly just before the fins start). Then the ReV is turned towards the target (acquires the angle of attack) in space and is spun up for re-entry.

Yes....plausible...
Another possibility is that The forward fins may have nothing to do with course correction and added for stability in flight.
The missile us very thin and long and can get wobbly due to that...
The forward fins may be part of second stage and may get seperated with that...
The RV is claimed to have 200 kg of fuel and rocket motor onboard....that was added after warhead size was reduced as in miniaturized nuke was developed and room was spared in warhead assembly.
Then Indian missile designers used this redundant space to fit a small rocket motor with flex nozzle on RV
The RV exits atmosphere and this motor fires up for course cirrection or changing trajectory for ABM avoidence..
Unlike later missiles Agni-2 dows not have side thrusters...or i couldnt find any...
Agni-2 relies in a small liquid fuelled flex nozzle rocket motor for exo atmospheric manievering.....
Thats why i say this one is complicated...
Normally you find such rocket motors attached behind RV on a missile with multiple warheads..
But this one is a single warhead missile with an MIRV like RV....
May be they started off with MIRV then coulnt pull it off and ended up with single warhead still attached to Manieverable re entry vehicle... MREV
 
.
Guys, what could be the destruction caused by 1 ton of a nuke and conventional warheads respectively in sq.km?
 
.
Yes....plausible...
Another possibility is that The forward fins may have nothing to do with course correction and added for stability in flight.
The missile us very thin and long and can get wobbly due to that...
The forward fins may be part of second stage and may get seperated with that...
The RV is claimed to have 200 kg of fuel and rocket motor onboard....that was added after warhead size was reduced as in miniaturized nuke was developed and room was spared in warhead assembly.
Then Indian missile designers used this redundant space to fit a small rocket motor with flex nozzle on RV
The RV exits atmosphere and this motor fires up for course cirrection or changing trajectory for ABM avoidence..
Unlike later missiles Agni-2 dows not have side thrusters...or i couldnt find any...
Agni-2 relies in a small liquid fuelled flex nozzle rocket motor for exo atmospheric manievering.....

Yeah, if the fins are not movable, they might be for just stabilizing the warhead assembly while the flex/gimbaled nozzle or side thrusters correct the trajectory.
I don't think their claims of very advanced technologies used in Agni-2 (referring to the wiki page) are true.
 
.
Yeah, if the fins are not movable, they might be for just stabilizing the warhead assembly while the flex/gimbaled nozzle or side thrusters correct the trajectory.
I don't think their claims of very advanced technologies used in Agni-2 (referring to the wiki page) are true.

The claims exist elsewhere too...not just wiki...
And do sound too good to be true.
The only possibility i can think of is that they started with MIRV then changed to single warhead while keeping RV design the same...
 
. .
Guys, what could be the destruction caused by 1 ton of a nuke and conventional warheads respectively in sq.km?

For nukes, it depends on many things.
The one ton payload of a nuclear missile does not means that the nuclear warhead (the device) weighs 1000kg. Around one-third of the weight (give or take) is of the auxiliary electronics, safety, arming, detonation and self-destruct systems.
If you're talking about a one ton nuclear device, then it depends on the yield of the weapon. Usually modern fission devices are not that heavy.
The altitude of detonation also affects the damage radius. For example the ideal altitude for a 20kT device is ~500m.

However, for the nuclear weapon with the highest yield by India (claimed 60kT), following would be the destruction effects:

Effects radii for 60 kt blast (smallest to largest):

Fireball radius: 0.16 km / 0.1 mi (0.08 km² / 0.03 mi²)
Maximum size of the nuclear fireball; relevance to lived effects depends on height of detonation.

Air blast radius: 1.08 km / 0.67 mi (3.67 km² / 1.42 mi²)
20 psi overpressure; heavily built concrete buildings are severely damaged or demolished; fatalities approach 100%.

Radiation radius: 1.83 km / 1.14 mi (10.51 km² / 4.06 mi²)
500 rem radiation dose; between 50% and 90% mortality from acute effects alone; dying takes between several hours and several weeks.

Air blast radius: 2.85 km / 1.77 mi (25.59 km² / 9.88 mi²)
4.6 psi overpressure; most buildings collapse; injuries universal, fatalities widespread.

Thermal radiation radius: 3.68 km / 2.29 mi (42.55 km² / 16.43 mi²)
Third-degree burns to all exposed skin; starts fires in flammable materials, contributes to firestorm if large enough.


Here is a nuclear destruction effects calculator:
NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein
 
.
Guys, what could be the destruction caused by 1 ton of a nuke and conventional warheads respectively in sq.km?

Don't want to comment about destruction caused by nukes..

But yes as far as conventional warheads are concerned, it depends on the warhead chosen, the CEP of missile and the type of target it is meant to destroy.

1. If RDX is used and the CEP of missile is 20m, then you can easily assume, complete destruction of target.

2.RDX --> CEP 50m --> soft targets will get completely destroyed but if the target is warehouse where military ammunitions are stored, then the target may not get destroyed completely.

3. RDX --> 100m --> if target is warehouse where military ammunitions are stored, better don't fire the missile.

4. HMX (upto 5 times powerful than RDX widely used as conventional warhead). --> CEP 30m --> target destroyed

5. HMX --> CEP 50m --> if target is warehouse where military ammunitions are stored, can still cause massive destruction if not full.

6. HMX --> CEP 100m --> if target is warehouse where military ammunitions are stored, still cause some destruction.Actual mission will not get accomplished.

7. CL-20 (almost 15 times more powerful than HMX and 60-80 times than RDX. Very expensive). --> CEP 50m --> target completely destroyed.

8. CL-20 -->CEP 100m --> good enough to puff out any type of target.

9. CL-20 --> CEP 200m --> May not completely destroy warehouse where military ammunitions are stored but it will cause massive destruction to the area. Chances of human life within 500m radius area is questionable.

These strata will change if the area is a desert of high terrain,etc.

Note:- CL-20 is very costly. 1kg Cl-20 costs more than 20000/- INR even today.
 
. .

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom