Is it Agni-1 Prime?

[amardeep mishra]

Then there's also the acquisition of some key balance-upsetting equipment:

• F-16 MLU of old fleet via Turkey and purchase of BVRAAMs & PGMs
• 8x AEW&Cs (with more on order, a relatively large number)
• Self-propelled Artillery (in large numbers)
• UAVs & UCAVs (both foreign and local)
  
• Upcoming 8x S-26/30 class AIP submarines (4x will be assembled locally, with some 'perks')

Hi @The Deterrent
These are the acquisitions that I deem as 'equalising' in Indo Pak scenario. For instance the advent of AIM120 for the first time in many years leveled the playing field for PAF - which was heavily dominated by IAF with R27s and R77s. As of now qualitatively at least in terms of BVR both the forces are equal (of course the advantage of quantity lies with India thanks to superior funding). However with the inductions of ducted ramjet based BVR around the corner, this balance will again shift in IAF's favour. Ducted ramjet are throttleable, which means they can limit their burn rate during coasting phase and burst it out during end game. The closest thing to a ducted ramjet in terms of terminal kinematics is a dual pulse rocket motor-- something like the Barak 8, NGARM etc. They have superior kinematics vis a vis convention BVR but unlike ducted ramjet they can't conserve energy. In Indias case the SFDR project has been merged with Astra Mk2. Astra Mk1 is as capable as SD10 if not any more. However smokeless propellant and composites make it appreciably lighter vis a vis SD10.
As for the AWACS, I feel for the size of PAF, they have got a lot. But then i wonder, why? Is it due to the fact that they are not quite satisfied with their Chinese AWACS? ONLY the ERIEYE is actually an AESA, the latter is still a Pesa. Or perhaps ZDKs are the only one compatible with JF17 fleet.
Subs are definitely something that Pakistan is banking on for a future confrontation with India. But the way Indian ASW fleet is expanding along with induction of nuclear and convention subs, it'll be very tough time for the Pakistani naval high command to hide their subs.
Finally at the end, what really bothers is complete lack of transparency in their programs. We in India have a system that regularly AUDITS and informs a standing committee in Parliament about various delays etc. There is simply no such analogue in Pakistan. Finally the research culture of Pakistan is still couple of decades behind that of India. The ecosystem that India painstakingly developed over 80s,90s and 2000s is simply not there That might be due to lack of strong private sector in Pakistan

How else do you explain Shaheen-III's nearly 2x increase in range as compared to Shaheen-II?
Wrong, Shaheen-I & II have no composites.

Sorry but an increase of range by 700kms isn't x2 times. Shaheen-2 could already do 2000kms. The reason why I strongly believe that it doesn't yet have a composite First stage is simply because both the systems use 1.4m SpaB rockets as their FIRST stage. And SpaB is made out of maraging steel.

 

[The Deterrent]

Once our Agni V also hit single digit accuracy. We consider our CEP based on results of series of tests conducted.

As I said before, once-in-a-blue-moon lucky hit does NOT guarantee that it will ALWAYS be the case. The "P" in CEP is there for a reason, kindly read up on contemporary ballistic missile systems and their CEPs.

We have multiple videos of Brahmins hitting 1 metre accuracy. Moreover, , our BMD and ASW hitting targets in hit to kill mode is testimony to our guidence system and accuracy.

"Brahmins"

On a serious note, this shows that you're oblivious to the specific technical functionalities of the respective systems.
1. BrahMos flies at Mach 3 in terminal stage, has an ACTIVE seeker and CONTROL SURFACES.
2. BMD/ASAT warheads have PASSIVE/ACTIVE seekers and maneuver in space using THRUSTERS.
Please try to understand that Ballistic RVs (without fins) are spinning on their axes for stabilization while re-entering. There are no control surfaces/thrusters that can be used to correct the accumulating error DURING re-entry. The situation is analogous to a rifled artillery round, which is why you see fin-stabilized solutions (with control surfaces) for laser-guided artillery.

Only the Chinese (and in the past the Americans with Pershing-II) have achieved this capability. E.g. the Chinese are implementing their ASBM solutions via DF-21D etc, which have small fins for both stabilization and control.

 

[God Parshuram]

As I said before, once-in-a-blue-moon lucky hit does NOT guarantee that it will ALWAYS be the case. The "P" in CEP is there for a reason, kindly read up on contemporary ballistic missile systems and their CEPs.


"Brahmins"

On a serious note, this shows that you're oblivious to the specific technical functionalities of the respective systems.
1. BrahMos flies at Mach 3 in terminal stage, has an ACTIVE seeker and CONTROL SURFACES.
2. BMD/ASAT warheads have PASSIVE/ACTIVE seekers and maneuver in space using THRUSTERS.
Please try to understand that Ballistic RVs (without fins) are spinning on their axes for stabilization while re-entering. There are no control surfaces/thrusters that can be used to correct the accumulating error DURING re-entry. The situation is analogous to a rifled artillery round, which is why you see fin-stabilized solutions (with control surfaces) for laser-guided artillery.

Only the Chinese (and in the past the Americans with Pershing-II) have achieved this capability. E.g. the Chinese are implementing their ASBM solutions via DF-21D etc, which have small fins for both stabilization and control.

Bloody auto correct. Please read Brahmos.
Do not repeat the same question which I have already answered.

 

[The Deterrent]

Sorry but an increase of range by 700kms isn't x2 times. Shaheen-2 could already do 2000kms. The reason why I strongly believe that it doesn't yet have a composite First stage is simply because both the systems use 1.4m SpaB rockets as their FIRST stage. And SpaB is made out of maraging steel.

Haha no, Shaheen-II's (deployed) range has always been 1500km. Pakistan had to 'advertise' the 2000km figure for the local audience (hint: Agni-II). The theoretical range is a bit higher, but definitely less than 2000km.

Shaheen-III's DECLARED ranged is 2750km. I'm not usually the one to go for conspiracy theories, but don't you think that this figure has been carefully 'calibrated' quite precisely in order to not intentionally/unintentionally offend a particular country? Alas, I'm afraid that this may no longer be the case, and our little friend might soon find itself inside a circle with an origin that can be put anywhere inside Pakistan.

Your answers lie in the length of the first stage and the composition of the second stage.

Bloody auto correct. Please read Brahmos.
Do not repeat the same question which I have already answered.

Accept your lack of knowledge and either learn or agree to disagree. Your 'royal' attitude will NOT float your boat here.

 

[God Parshuram]

Haha no, Shaheen-II's (deployed) range has always been 1500km. Pakistan had to 'advertise' the 2000km figure for the local audience (hint: Agni-II). The theoretical range is a bit higher, but definitely less than 2000km.

Shaheen-III's DECLARED ranged is 2750km. I'm not usually the one to go for conspiracy theories, but don't you think that this figure has been carefully 'calibrated' quite precisely in order to not intentionally/unintentionally offend a particular country? Alas, I'm afraid that this may no longer be the case.

Your answers lie in the length of the first stage and the composition of the second stage.


Accept your lack of knowledge and either learn or agree to disagree. Your 'royal' attitude will NOT float your boat here.

I have explained each of question you raised. You are repeating it again and again inspite of your query being answered. You are a respectable member and I don't want to indulge with you in war of words. Good bye from my end.

 

[The Deterrent]

I have explained each of question you raised. You are repeating it again and again inspite of your query being answered. You are a respectable member and I don't want to indulge with you in war of words. Good bye from my end.

-No you haven't explained anything technically besides repeatedly claiming that some tests were lucky.
-In response I have repeated myself with added information in hopes of drilling some sense in you, to no avail.
-Your ego is getting the better of you, but I will not shy away from showing anyone the mirror.

Sweet dreams.

 

[Nilgiri]

@The Deterrent @amardeep mishra do send me an email (one in my signature) when you get the chance...you guys are top quality and I think you might like keeping in touch better.

 

[God Parshuram]

-No you haven't explained anything technically besides repeatedly claiming that some tests were lucky.
-In response I have repeated myself with added information in hopes of drilling some sense in you, to no avail.
-Your ego is getting the better of you, but I will not shy away from showing anyone the mirror.

Sweet dreams.

Ok.
What you say is right. I loose. Thanks for reply.

 

[amardeep mishra]

-No you haven't explained anything technically besides repeatedly claiming that some tests were lucky.
-In response I have repeated myself with added information in hopes of drilling some sense in you, to no avail.
-Your ego is getting the better of you, but I will not shy away from showing anyone the mirror.

Sweet dreams.

Don't engage folks who don't happen to have any experience either industry or academic.

 

[God Parshuram]

Don't engage folks who don't happen to have any experience either industry or academic.

How do you come to this conclusions? Defence tube has made videos from my articles. You and deterant are knowledgeable members but you guys have big egos. Deterant is repeating his rant without giving any technical reasons to refute my claim. You guys just judge me by numbers of my post. I am new to PDF but not defence related discussions. Wait for a while. You guys will know where your knowledge stands when we will discuss further.

 

[amardeep mishra]

Shaheen-III's DECLARED ranged is 2750km. I'm not usually the one to go for conspiracy theories, but don't you think that this figure has been carefully 'calibrated' quite precisely in order to not intentionally/unintentionally offend a particular country? Alas, I'm afraid that this may no longer be the case, and our little friend might soon find itself inside a circle with an origin that can be put anywhere inside Pakistan.

Your answers lie in the length of the first stage and the composition of the second stage.

Hi @The Deterrent
Yes the length of first stage of Shaheen-3 is definitely longer than S-2. Similarly even the 2nd stage length seems a bit longer. What a longer motor means is that it can fire for a bit longer thereby accelerating for a bit longer thereby imparting a higher Vbo at burn out. It still doesnt necessarily mean a fully composite rocket motor.

I am sure you'd have gone through these images a lot of times and as you rightly explained the length of both 1st and 2nd stage seems longer, the extension is more pronounced in the first stage though. Also have you noticed the divergence losses of almost all the major Pakistani strategic missiles? It is really huge, I mean lets take the case of Ababeel and see the shape of thrust exhaust right after nozzle, compare it with lets say, K-4 (ASAT), or Agni-4/5 and you would quickly realize that the Indian systems that I have mentioned above have much lower divergence losses. In case of lets say K-4, the thrust exhaust leaves the nozzle almost vertically down and only after a few meters is the divergence apparent. In Ababeel though, you can see the exhaust diverging right after leaving the nozzle.

How do you come to this conclusions? Defence tube has made videos from my articles. You and deterant are knowledgeable members but you guys have big egos. Deterant is repeating his rant without giving any technical reasons to refute my claim. You guys just judge me by numbers of my post. I am new to PDF but not defence related discussions. Wait for a while. You guys will know where your knowledge stands when we will discuss further.

@God Parshuram
First learn to spell "Deterrent" and then we'll discuss some of these things. You must understand that CEP is a probabilistic figure, you need to have repeatability in order to claim that a system does have that kind of CEP. Indian missiles right after the Agni-2 have very high CEP, much better than their Pakistani counterparts thanks to miniaturized FOGs and RLGs with very very small drift figures. However claiming them to be "worlds best" etc is not factually correct. You must understand that major players like US, France, Russia have experimented with a lot of things and have implemented many such technologies that we are just beginning to work (hint: Aerospikes, higher Isp propellants for SLBM, full composites, miniaturized motors (for MIRving the SLBMs) etc). Lets not get carried away!

 

[God Parshuram]

First learn to spell "Deterrent" and then we'll discuss some of these things.

There are many guys here who are only good at spell checks so I do not worry.

Indian missiles right after the Agni-2 have very high CEP, much better than their Pakistani counterparts thanks to miniaturized FOGs and RLGs with very very small drift figures. However claiming them to be "worlds best" etc is not factually correct.

That is what I said. However, a small correction. Not after agni II but after Agni III. Path breaking technologies came from Agni IV and not from Agni III. It is a different matter that all those technologies went into Agni 1 Prime and Agni III subsequently making them much lighter and and much accurate. This includes multiple guidance systems working in redundant mode complementing each other to improve accuracy. Composite motor in upper stage etc. I have not said that it is most accurate but it is one of the most accurate which it is.

You must understand that major players like US, France, Russia have experimented with a lot of things and have implemented many such technologies that we are just beginning to work (hint: Aerospikes, higher Isp propellants for SLBM, full composites, miniaturized motors (for MIRving the SLBMs) etc). Lets not get carried away!

As advised by deterrent, please do not advice but do technical discussion if you want otherwise good bye.

What a longer motor means is that it can fire for a bit longer thereby accelerating for a bit longer thereby imparting a higher Vbo at burn out. It still doesnt necessarily mean a fully composite rocket motor.

Partly correct.

 

[amardeep mishra]

That is what I said. However, a small correction. Not after agni II but after Agni III. Path breaking technologies came from Agni IV and not from Agni III. It is a different matter that all those technologies went into Agni 1 Prime and Agni III subsequently making them much lighter and and much accurate. This includes multiple guidance systems working in redundant mode complementing each other to to improve accuracy, Composite motor in upper stage etc. I have not said that it is most accurate but it is one of the most accurate which it is.

@God Parshuram
Actually, RLG were introduced in as far back as Agni-3 itself. Since we were talking about accuracy alone, I thought we should confine our discussions to sensors and actuators that help in improving accuracy. I was specifically talking about RLG/FOGs. Also you have a very wrong notion of "accuracy improvement". You dont improve your accuracy by having multiple redundancies- it helps in making it "fail-safe"- which is a very different field altogether. You improve your missile's accuracy by the following :
(1) By having very sophisticated RLG/FOG with very small drift figures. Now I am not going to explain you drift figures for rate/rate integrating gyro. Go figure yourself!
(2) By having good actuators that can actuate the RV- like spin it just before the re-entry- most RVs are spin stabilized.
(3) Fin stabilization is also used in some RVs like Pershing, our own A-1 and A-2 etc.
Composite motor in upper stages result in higher "burnout velocities" at the burnout point, it has nothing to do with accuracy- it has everything to do with making the missile light and 'range enhancements'. Kindly refer to my post #6 and #23. You dont realize, I have worked on some of these things and have published papers at AIAA (I am pretty sure you dont know what AIAA is!).

As advised by deterrent, please do not advice but do technical discussion if you want otherwise good bye.

First learn to write properly and then we will discuss it here! Thanks!

 

[God Parshuram]

Actually, RLG were introduced in as far back as Agni-3 itself. Since we were talking about accuracy alone, I thought we should confine our discussions to sensors and actuators that help in improving accuracy. I was specifically talking about RLG/FOGs. Also you have a very wrong notion of "accuracy improvement". You dont improve your accuracy by having multiple redundancies- it helps in making it "fail-safe"- which is a very different field altogether. You improve your missile's accuracy by the following :

Again Partly true. Upto initial version of Agni III old terrain mapping and old systems were used for terminal accuracy. Gyros used were of old technologies. From Agin IV onward, loads of new technologies came in.

(1) By having very sophisticated RLG/FOG with very small drift figures. Now I am not going to explain you drift figures for rate/rate integrating gyro. Go figure yourself!

Again, partly true. RLG measures drift and tries to keep vehicle on predetermined path so that when it reaches target and terminal guidance mechanism takes over, vehicle is not too far away from target that it can not hit target by correcting the path. Moreover, RLG has its limitation. It can not measure drift with 100% accuracy and hence the error gets multiplied with distance. same drift in initial phase will bring down accuracy more than the drift in later stage. Because of limitations of RLG, the complementary system is required which complements the accuracy which can not be taken care by RLG. If you listen to the exact words of V K Sarswat after the test of either Agni IV or Agni V, he said Something like this. I will find out and post his exact words " Lings and Mings worked in redundant mode to complement each other to improve the accuracy" . The words highlighted are not exactly the same but something similar what I can recall. So what you say is only a part of truth and your claim that only. Your claim that one do not improve accuracy by multiple redundancy is totally fase.

So only RLG is not enough to make missile reach to its target . Other system is required and hence the other systems are put in missile to correct the accuracy of RLG.

Composite motor in upper stages result in higher "burnout velocities" at the burnout point, it has nothing to do with accuracy- it has everything to do with 'range enhancements'. Kindly refer to my post #6.

I have only said that many new technologies like advance guidance and composite motor went into Agni series from Agni IV. I have never said that composite motor will improve accuracy. You are unable to read my post properly and puts your assumption in. It is not good for a research students particularly who writes articles on TVC.

 

[The Deterrent]

It still doesnt necessarily mean a fully composite rocket motor.
View attachment 550512 View attachment 550513
I am sure you'd have gone through these images a lot of times and as you rightly explained the length of both 1st and 2nd stage seems longer, the extension is more pronounced in the first stage though. Also have you noticed the divergence losses of almost all the major Pakistani strategic missiles? It is really huge, I mean lets take the case of Ababeel and see the shape of thrust exhaust right after nozzle, compare it with lets say, K-4 (ASAT), or Agni-4/5 and you would quickly realize that the Indian systems that I have mentioned above have much lower divergence losses. In case of lets say K-4, the thrust exhaust leaves the nozzle almost vertically down and only after a few meters is the divergence apparent. In Ababeel though, you can see the exhaust diverging right after leaving the nozzle.

I'm sure you'll read about Pakistani composite motors in some reputed research papers. *wink*

Yeah, divergent losses are not good, but as I said...as long as the missiles are able to strike the desired distance with the desired payload, it doesn't matters.