What's new

The genius of Pakistani missiles.

No . A-1 and A-2 have different dia. I will post a visual comparison later.
No I am not contradicting myself. A-3 and A-2 use same diameter stages but entirely different steering mechanisms. Look at the pic I posted.
Shaheen-2 and 3 both use jet vanes.
Sorry to hurt your feelings, put your pixel comparisons are quite questionable in the face of official figures.
A3 and A2 use same diameter stages? Please, calm down and drink a glass of water. You don't want the internet to give you high blood pressure, do you?
 
.
Sorry to hurt your feelings, put your pixel comparisons are quite questionable in the face of official figures.
A3 and A2 use same diameter stages? Please, calm down and drink a glass of water. You don't want the internet to give you high blood pressure, do you?
Its just that none of the sources you gave are "Official" figures.
No you won't hurt my feelings.

That's Agni 3"exhaust. Non movable nozzle surrounded by rigid metal plate. The small nozzle circled in yellow is the injection nozzle used for steering.

picsart_02-12-01-01-25-jpg.376445



This is Agni-5 exaust, surrounded by flexible thermal web, allowing the nozzle to move in true thrust vectoring.
booster-png.376556


This is Agni-4 exaust surrounded by a metal mesh supported thermal web, again a moving nozzle in true thrust vectoring capability.
https://defence.pk/pdf/attachments/asd-png.376568/

So the point remains the same as argued in the original post. There are very different systems on same series of missiles.


URL][\IMG]
 
Last edited:
.
Now that I have done my rant I will write a detailed reply on inconsistencies between Indian missiles.
Sure by all means my friend! But instead of using media reports use very credible research papers, published literature, journals etc to name a few.let's discuss scientifically instead of engaging in mud slinging competition
 
.
Sure by all means my friend! But instead of using media reports use very credible research papers, published literature, journals etc to name a few.let's discuss scientifically instead of engaging in mud slinging competition
Yes. Can you prove@The Deterrent claims?
That Agni-1 and Agni-2 use same warheads and same first stages?
And Agni-4 and Agni-5 use same warheads.

Specially when wiki pages of Agni-1 says it's 1 meter wide
And Agni-2 Page says it's 1.3 meters wide.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agni-I

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agni-II
 
Last edited:
.
No . A-1 and A-2 have different dia. I will post a visual comparison la
Hi shaheen,
Agni 1 and 2 share the same dia motor and it came from AGNI TD that was first test fired in 1989. Both of them has a 1.3m dia.
https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/agni-1/
https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/agni-2/

Yes. Can you prove@The Deterrent claims?
That Agni-1 and Agni-2 use same warheads and same first stages?
And Agni-4 and Agni-5 use same warheads.

Specially when wiki pages of Agni-1 says it's 1 meter wide
And Agni-2 Page says it's 1.3 meters wide.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agni-I

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agni-II
Wiki , sorry to say is pure *****. That's why I never rely on wiki.instead a more credible report would be one from either government of India, missile threat,FAS, or other credible observers.
I've seen the system.so there is no question of A1 and 2 having different dia.
While I agree with your remarks that there are indeed a lot of variations in different versions of agni, which in turn required a lot of time and effort in standardization. However India has developed a robust industry(both govt and private) that contributes to this. For instance composites are sourced from pvt companies.
As for the dia though,DRDO has three different size rockets-
0.7m
1.3m and
2m
However, just like shaheen 2and shaheen 3,agni2and agni 4 are entirely different.in fact agni 4 was first indian strategic missile to be made entirely out of composite, hence such a light weight, yet with a range of 4000kms.
As for the warhead, I'm really illiterate ,perhaps people with relevant qualifications would answer your questions.I can comment on perhaps structures,guidance and control and propulsion.
 
.
Hi shaheen,
Agni 1 and 2 share the same dia motor and it came from AGNI TD that was first test fired in 1989. Both of them has a 1.3m dia.
https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/agni-1/
https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/agni-2/


Wiki , sorry to say is pure *****. That's why I never rely on wiki.instead a more credible report would be one from either government of India, missile threat,FAS, or other credible observers.
I've seen the system.so there is no question of A1 and 2 having different dia.
While I agree with your remarks that there are indeed a lot of variations in different versions of agni, which in turn required a lot of time and effort in standardization. However India has developed a robust industry(both govt and private) that contributes to this. For instance composites are sourced from pvt companies.
As for the dia though,DRDO has three different size rockets-
0.7m
1.3m and
2m
However, just like shaheen 2and shaheen 3,agni2and agni 4 are entirely different.in fact agni 4 was first indian strategic missile to be made entirely out of composite, hence such a light weight, yet with a range of 4000kms.
As for the warhead, I'm really illiterate ,perhaps people with relevant qualifications would answer your questions.I can comment on perhaps structures,guidance and control and propulsion.
agni-td__1.jpg

That's the TD version.
Interesting. I come to PDF for this type of discussion, not for people coming and making claims without supporting arguments.
So going by that assumption.
Agni- 1 and Agni-2 use the same first stage and same warhead.
Agni-4 and Agni-5 use the same warhead.
Agni-3 has its own warhead and stages.
Agni-4 has its own stages.

So that's four types of stages and three types of warheads' being used on five types of missiles.

Another prediction is that K-4 will also use same unitary warhead as Agni-4 and Agni-5.
K-15 might be sharing the same warhead as A-1 and A-2. But no concrete evidence yet.
 
Last edited:
.
View attachment 381986
That's the TD version.
Interesting. I come to PDF for this type of discussion, not for people coming and making claims without supporting arguments.
So going by that assumption.
Agni- 1 and Agni-2 use the same first stage and same warhead.
Agni-4 and Agni-5 use the same warhead.
Agni-3 has its own warhead and stages.
Agni-4 has its own stages.

So that's four types of stages and three types of warheads' being used on five types of missiles.

Another prediction is that K-4 will also use same unitary warhead as Agni-4 and Agni-5.
K-15 might be sharing the same warhead as A-1 and A-2. But no concrete evidence yet.
Hi shaheen!
To be honest,I havent seen K-4 just like majority of indians.What I mean by seeing is clear high resolution image of K-4.But all the records and launch video points to the fact that it cant be a 2m dia missile.It is more likely a 1.3m dia system.What is astonishing is the fact that they have been able to compress everything within 10-12m of length(total length of the missile) and reducing weight of the entire system to hardly 17tonnes.This is all with range of 3500km and warhead of 1tonnes! Now thats some decent systems engineering. This couldnt have been possible without EXTENSIVE usage of composites in every stage from casing to shroud to everything!
If we start analyzing strictly on the basis of published literature and demonstrated capabilities than we quickly realize that Pakistan is still stuck in early 2000s in terms of rocket design and development. Of course pakistan has been able to make a lot of incremental improvements in warhead design and perhaps RCS(reaction control system) but the solid rocket still seems stuck in early 2000s era-which in turn was based on chinese designs.Kindly note I am not at all alluding to the fact that entire shaheen-2 was imported from china,however the main rocket is indeed chinese and there are overwhelming evidences for the same.
Chinese connections notwithstanding,In terms of compactness,light weight and overall system sophistication,pakistani missiles still are at least 10-15 years behind latest Indian strategic systems(A-4,A-5 and K-4). Kindly note I am strictly talking about strategic systems. There are a lot of things that pakistan would have to overcome(technologically) to catch up to india,and they are-
1)Replacing maraging steel with Composites in almost everything.But that requires some decent filament winding systems.
2)Using compact FOGs or LRGs and MEMS based sensors/actuators wherever possible.
3)Getting done with any kind of external surface for either stablization or control.Instead moving to highly sensitive flex nozzle systems.
4)Canisterization
5)#4 has itz own challenges especially when you keep your missile in silo tubes of subs.

Now my observation with respect to Ababeel
1)It uses first two stages from shaheen-3--legacy 1.4m dia solid rocket designs.I call it legacy because they are from late 90s and early 2000s era designs.There is nothing bad about this approach,itz done just to cut the R&D costs in solid rockets and allied systems.
2)The 3rd stage seems to be liquid fueled because I couldnt find outany cable runners.
3)This 3rd stage also helps place the bus into different orbits to release the RVs. I am assuming the RVs of the size of shaheen 1A,which is small and hence doesnt carry enough fuel for changing the orbit.Changing orbits require spending decent amount of energy(fuel).This is done by imparting specific velocities to the projectile at specific angles.Hence in the light of these,it is the bus that positions each RVs in their own specific orbits before releasing them.

Now,#3 point still remains untested as I am sure it will take pakistan a while to perfect #3 as pakistan has never injected satellites or any other spacecraft into "different independent orbits" before.The much touted 1st test of ababeel was more towards validating the concept(proof of concept),and gauging various parameter.Aerodynamic stability being one of them.Especially after adding that enhanced payload fairing.
 
.
Hi shaheen!
To be honest,I havent seen K-4 just like majority of indians.What I mean by seeing is clear high resolution image of K-4.But all the records and launch video points to the fact that it cant be a 2m dia missile.It is more likely a 1.3m dia system.What is astonishing is the fact that they have been able to compress everything within 10-12m of length(total length of the missile) and reducing weight of the entire system to hardly 17tonnes.This is all with range of 3500km and warhead of 1tonnes! Now thats some decent systems engineering. This couldnt have been possible without EXTENSIVE usage of composites in every stage from casing to shroud to everything!
If we start analyzing strictly on the basis of published literature and demonstrated capabilities than we quickly realize that Pakistan is still stuck in early 2000s in terms of rocket design and development. Of course pakistan has been able to make a lot of incremental improvements in warhead design and perhaps RCS(reaction control system) but the solid rocket still seems stuck in early 2000s era-which in turn was based on chinese designs.Kindly note I am not at all alluding to the fact that entire shaheen-2 was imported from china,however the main rocket is indeed chinese and there are overwhelming evidences for the same.
Chinese connections notwithstanding,In terms of compactness,light weight and overall system sophistication,pakistani missiles still are at least 10-15 years behind latest Indian strategic systems(A-4,A-5 and K-4). Kindly note I am strictly talking about strategic systems. There are a lot of things that pakistan would have to overcome(technologically) to catch up to india,and they are-
1)Replacing maraging steel with Composites in almost everything.But that requires some decent filament winding systems.
2)Using compact FOGs or LRGs and MEMS based sensors/actuators wherever possible.
3)Getting done with any kind of external surface for either stablization or control.Instead moving to highly sensitive flex nozzle systems.
4)Canisterization
5)#4 has itz own challenges especially when you keep your missile in silo tubes of subs.

Now my observation with respect to Ababeel
1)It uses first two stages from shaheen-3--legacy 1.4m dia solid rocket designs.I call it legacy because they are from late 90s and early 2000s era designs.There is nothing bad about this approach,itz done just to cut the R&D costs in solid rockets and allied systems.
2)The 3rd stage seems to be liquid fueled because I couldnt find outany cable runners.
3)This 3rd stage also helps place the bus into different orbits to release the RVs. I am assuming the RVs of the size of shaheen 1A,which is small and hence doesnt carry enough fuel for changing the orbit.Changing orbits require spending decent amount of energy(fuel).This is done by imparting specific velocities to the projectile at specific angles.Hence in the light of these,it is the bus that positions each RVs in their own specific orbits before releasing them.

Now,#3 point still remains untested as I am sure it will take pakistan a while to perfect #3 as pakistan has never injected satellites or any other spacecraft into "different independent orbits" before.The much touted 1st test of ababeel was more towards validating the concept(proof of concept),and gauging various parameter.Aerodynamic stability being one of them.Especially after adding that enhanced payload fairing.
Hi,
About Shaheen 2 and Shaheen-3 the legacy rocket stages are being used because of reliability. These have been tested over and over again and every parameter is well known to our missile designers.
Such arrangement is cost saving reliable and quick.
Canisterization is more needed for missiles with composites as composites may not be tolerant to sun rain and elements for extended periods of time and any little damage is too expensive and time consuming to repair.
Since Pakistan uses steel and metal alloys for building it's missiles, canisterization may not be as necessary.

The sensors you mentioned I an unfamiliar with them so can't have an opinion on that.

About K-4 , K-15 and Arihant submarine, it's a bit baffling.
Taking reference from the website you posted links from in your previous comment , the lightest and smallest diameter Indian nuclear warhead may be the one on Agni-1 which has a blast yield of 40-50 kt. That's the one most probably used on K-15.
On the higher side ,the Agni-4 and Agni-5 warheads are 1-1.3 meters wide and 3 metes long. That's the warhead most probably used on K-4 and has a blast yield of 150 KT.

So an Arihant submarine armed with four K-4 will have a total destructive power of about 600 KT or four warheads of 150 KT each.
The same fot an Arihant armed with twelve K-15
With twelve warheads of 50 KT each.
That's a very under gunned second strike capability of just 600 KT.

About Ababeel MIRV. Yes it was called Ababeel-1 for a reason. There will be more tests and newer improved versions. It's a new series of missile Pakistan is developing. But since it is using an existing warhead design from Shaheen-1A and Shaheen-3, which is being tested at least since 2012 , so there is 5 years worth of data on warhead behaviour as aerodynamic and Ballistic object, so simulation of it being released into various trajectories may not be too difficult. MIRV is not about injecting an object into stable orbits as you would do with satellites, instead it's about releasing the warheads in different trajectories, so both are similar but not the same. But when fielded the three warheads on Ababeel may have the same destructive force as one Arihant class submarine
 
Last edited:
.
Canisterization is more needed for missiles with composites as composites may not be tolerant to sun rain and elements for extended periods of time and any little damage is too expensive and time consuming to repair.
Since Pakistan uses steel and metal alloys for building it's missiles, canisterization may not be as necessary.
Hi shaheen missile!
I do not agree with those remarks for if it were really true,modern designers would have stopped using composites in their aircrafts.All modern ICBMs if you see use composites without fail.period! It allows the missile to be compact and light weight at the same time capable of delivering decent payloads to inter continental distances.Why do you think agni-4 with just 17t can pull off 4000kms? And quite frankly Agni-5 can pull off much more than advertised.I wouldnt go into the details as it hasnt been de-classified.

Taking reference from the website you posted links from in your previous comment , the lightest and smallest diameter Indian nuclear warhead may be the one on Agni-1 which has a blast yield of 40-50 kt. That's the one most probably used on K-15.
On the higher side ,the Agni-4 and Agni-5 warheads are 1-1.3 meters wide and 3 metes long. That's the warhead most probably used on K-4 and has a blast yield of 150 KT.
Again,I am least literate on matters pertaining to warhead.I guess folks with majors in metallurgy can better answer that.
So an Arihant submarine armed with four K-4 will have a total destructive power of about 600 KT or four warheads of 150 KT each.
The same fot an Arihant armed with twelve K-15
With twelve warheads of 50 KT each.
That's a very under gunned second strike capability of just 600 KT.
of course it is not as massive as established nuclear powers like west or russia(china too is still developing). You see,when you start a project you start with something conservative and achievable. K-15 was India's first SLBM and hence they went very conservative with almost every missile parameter. Then came K-4 with composites and flex nozzles and capability to strike 3500kms with 1t payload. This will soon be superseded by K-5 project with much more advanced features and 4MIRVs. In fact over here,K-5 project has assumed higher priority than any other strategic missile project. It will be india's missile in the same league as French M-51.
K-15 and K-4 were meant to arm India's first SSBN platform aka Arihant class of subs.But once the production run of 3-4 Arihant class gets over.They will start working on bigger SSBN with 12 silo tubes--thats when K-5 comes into picture.Sadly the primary armament i.e K-5 will be ready before itz firing platform i.e follow-on class of Arihant.
Interestingly china's first attempt at SSBN and SLBM was much more conservative than India's. Rest assured,Indian nuclear sea fleet would have evolved a lot in next 10 years.K-5's first trial is expected in next 4-5 years though or perhaps sooner than what we are expecting as the development phase of Agni-5 is over.
There will be more tests and newer improved versions. It's a new series of missile Pakistan is developing. But since it is using an existing warhead design from Shaheen-1A and Shaheen-3, which is being tested at least since 2012 , so there is 5 years worth of data on warhead behaviour as aerodynamic and Ballistic object, so simulation of it being released into various trajectories may not be too difficult. MIRV is not about injecting an object into stable orbits as you would do with satellites, instead it's about releasing the warheads in different trajectories, so both are similar but not the same.
I am afraid,you didnt get it! I was talking about the Aerodynamic performance of the entire missile in atmospheric flight regime wherein it has to encounter dynamic pressure.I wasnt talking about the kinetics of the RV.I am sure Pakistan has enough data for the RV. You first need to validate the performance of your missile in dynamic pressure region. Of course simulation of trajectory analysis of your RV(in space or during re-entry) is far more easier than understanding the performance of your vehicle(with a modified payload fairing) in atmospheric flight. You would first require to pass your design through a lot of wind tunnel tests followed by actual system integration.I am not quite sure if pakistan has ever done any wind tunnel tests of their missiles.But thats another debate I am unwilling to get into at the moment.

My friend the highlighted part of your comment above is very laughable(please dont take me wrong).But it just shows you need to re-visit your lessons on Orbital Mechanics. Believe me,if you want to inject anything in INDEPENDENT ORBITs you need to impart precise velocities at precise locations at a precise angle! For instance,in case of hohman transfer--raising the trajectory--you would need to impart specific velocity at perigee(in the same plane as that of orbit) for maximum increase in a(or semi-major axis of resultant orbit). Similarly in case you wish to change the inclination you would have to do the same at a precise angle(this time however you'd be firing out of the plane of orbit).In MIRVs we do something similar.
Now the RV just doesnt have the amount of fuel needed for these manuvers in space,hence normally your bus does it i.e it releases the RVs once a particular orbit has been reached.So it releases all the RVs in different orbit depending on the mission profile selected by the designers.And thats precisely the reason why you've got such a large liquid fueled 3rd stage in ababeel!

But when fielded the three warheads on Ababeel may have the same destructive power of one entire Arihant submarine arsenal.
I highly doubt such a proposition. Back in late 2000s,the then chairman BARC commented that they have achieved 200-300kT warhead within 400kg. Even if we consider a yield of 250kT on each K-4,it amounts to roughly 1MT.
 
Last edited:
. .
Hi shaheen missile!
I do not agree with those remarks for if it were really true,modern designers would have stopped using composites in their aircrafts.All modern ICBMs if you see use composites without fail.period! It allows the missile to be compact and light weight at the same time capable of delivering decent payloads to inter continental distances.Why do you think agni-4 with just 17t can pull off 4000kms? And quite frankly Agni-5 can pull off much more than advertised.I wouldnt go into the details as it hasnt been de-classified.


Again,I am least literate on matters pertaining to warhead.I guess folks with majors in metallurgy can better answer that.

of course it is not as massive as established nuclear powers like west or russia(china too is still developing). You see,when you start a project you start with something conservative and achievable. K-15 was India's first SLBM and hence they went very conservative with almost every missile parameter. Then came K-4 with composites and flex nozzles and capability to strike 3500kms with 1t payload. This will soon be superseded by K-5 project with much more advanced features and 4MIRVs. In fact over here,K-5 project has assumed higher priority than any other strategic missile project. It will be india's missile in the same league as French M-51.
K-15 and K-4 were meant to arm India's first SSBN platform aka Arihant class of subs.But once the production run of 3-4 Arihant class gets over.They will start working on bigger SSBN with 12 silo tubes--thats when K-5 comes into picture.Sadly the primary armament i.e K-5 will be ready before itz firing platform i.e follow-on class of Arihant.
Interestingly china's first attempt at SSBN and SLBM was much more conservative than India's. Rest assured,Indian nuclear sea fleet would have evolved a lot in next 10 years.K-5's first trial is expected in next 4-5 years though or perhaps sooner than what we are expecting as the development phase of Agni-5 is over.

I am afraid,you didnt get it! I was talking about the Aerodynamic performance of the entire missile in atmospheric flight regime wherein it has to encounter dynamic pressure.I wasnt talking about the kinetics of the RV.I am sure Pakistan has enough data for the RV. You first need to validate the performance of your missile in dynamic pressure region. Of course simulation of trajectory analysis of your RV(in space or during re-entry) is far more easier than understanding the performance of your vehicle(with a modified payload fairing) in atmospheric flight. You would first require to pass your design through a lot of wind tunnel tests followed by actual system integration.I am not quite sure if pakistan has ever done any wind tunnel tests of their missiles.But thats another debate I am unwilling to get into at the moment.

My friend the highlighted part of your comment above is very laughable(please dont take me wrong).But it just shows you need to re-visit your lessons on Orbital Mechanics. Believe me,if you want to inject anything in INDEPENDENT ORBITs you need to impart precise velocities at precise locations at a precise angle! For instance,in case of hohman transfer--raising the trajectory--you would need to impart specific velocity at perigee(in the same plane as that of orbit) for maximum increase in a(or semi-major axis of resultant orbit). Similarly in case you wish to change the inclination you would have to do the same at a precise angle(this time however you'd be firing out of the plane of orbit).In MIRVs we do something similar.
Now the RV just doesnt have the amount of fuel needed for these manuvers in space,hence normally your bus does it i.e it releases the RVs once a particular orbit has been reached.So it releases all the RVs in different orbit depending on the mission profile selected by the designers.And thats precisely the reason why you've got such a large liquid fueled 3rd stage in ababeel!


I highly doubt such a proposition. Back in late 2000s,the then chairman BARC commented that they have achieved 200-300kT warhead within 400kg. Even if we consider a yield of 250kT on each K-4,it amounts to roughly 1MT.
Yes, you too got me wrong. You were saying that since Pakistan hasn't launched satellites, it will be difficult for Pakistan to work with MIRV. I suggested it's not important for Pakistan to apply any satellite launching experience on MIRV as all data for the warhead being used is known. The angle of release and initial velocity required for the warhead to follow a certain trajectory is already known because this particular warhead has been launched in many different parameters in the past.
As far as aerodynamics of Payload fairing is concerned , that is something new as the third stage and MIRV bus on Ababeel are new.
So let's see when the next test happens.
 
.
I highly doubt such a proposition. Back in late 2000s,the then chairman BARC commented that they have achieved 200-300kT warhead within 400kg. Even if we consider a yield of 250kT on each K-4,it amounts to roughly 1MT.
Dear Amardeep.
By Ajai Shukla, an article from the late 2000s
His denunciation of India’s thermonuclear test on May 11, 1998 (Shakti-I), has generated a furious debate over whether India’s nuclear deterrent is actually credible. But now, his salvoes fired, K Santhanam sits alone in his South Delhi home, sipping Tajik vodka and watching Cartoon Network playing on the TV. He calls this refuge, “the calm in the eye of the storm”.

Santhanam is a slight, grey-haired figure with a puckish sense of humour. His conversation is peppered with repartee and jokes that range from off-colour ‘Santa Singh, Banta Singh’ cracks to sophisticated plays on the English language.

But for now, Santhanam has taken a three-week vow of public silence, to allow the government to appoint a panel of experts to examine the data from Shakti-I. Not a kangaroo court consisting of bureaucrats, he insists, but a blue-ribbon panel of genuine scientists, studying factual data from the tests.

“Liars will figure”, Santhanam twinkles, “but figures will not lie.”

This rumpus is uncharacteristic rebellion from a man who describes himself as “the ultimate insider”.

“I didn’t intend to trigger such a controversy,” Santhanam explains. “But once it began, I decided not to back down. I stuck to the ethics of my profession.”

His career story is the stuff of Kollywood. Born in Madras, and schooled in Tamil, Santhanam got a scholarship to Loyola College, Madras, moving on to a physics honours degree from that city’s prestigious Presidency College. In 1958, he joined the Atomic Energy Establishment, which meant another year at their in-house training school in Trombay.

Scientists traditionally dismiss revolts from renegades of their own community by blackening their credentials. It is difficult to do that to Santhanam after his 15 years at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, where he specialised in radiation hazard control and evaluating nuclear accidents.

Between 1961 and 1963, Santhanam went to the US, under the Atoms for Peace programme, studying nuclear physics at the Arbonne National Laboratory in Lamont, Illinois. A conventional nuclear scientist would have stuck to fission and fusion formulae. Santhanam claims he also mastered cocktails, working part-time as a bartender “to understand the American people”.

He certainly imbibed a healthy respect for the US, which he describes as the 900-pound gorilla in the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Last year, an unambiguously pro-establishment Santhanam supported the Indo-US nuclear deal.

In 1973, Santhanam’s unconventional streak took him in a dramatically new direction: He became a nuclear spook!

He describes being called in by R N Kao, the legendary founder of the Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW), to examine an Indian strategic nightmare: The suspected nuclear nexus between China and Pakistan. Over the next 11 years, says Santhanam, “I unmasked the cooperation between China and Pakistan, providing a comprehensive analysis of A Q Khan’s enrichment programme and his clandestine procurement.”

In 1986, Santhanam joined the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), where his assignments were apparently related to simulation, war-gaming, and software engineering. But, because of his old relationship with the BARC’s bomb-makers, Santhanam was covertly back-ending India’s nuclear programme. From his DRDO perch, he interacted with the PMO and liaised with the armed forces to prepare the Pokhran test sites for the 1998 tests. His BARC background and his experience with RAW made him perfect for the job.

But that same background, combined with his individualism, led him to question the thermonuclear test when measurements appeared to show it as less earthshaking than predicted. The weight of the establishment has come down on him, but Santhanam is at the battlements.

“(National Security Advisor) Mike Narayanan, who is trying to judge me, has been a cop and a spook all his life. He is totally ignorant about science and technology,” says Santhanam dismissively.

Santhanam’s deepest apprehension is that the global non-proliferation lobby will succeed in “freezing India on the nuclear curve”, preventing fission bomb know-how from being developed into fusion weapon capability.

“An arsenal based on fission weapons is not enough to deter China”, says Santhanam, all humour gone from his face. “A couple of 20-kiloton bombs over Beijing are never, never, never going to bring China to its knees.
 
.
Yes, you too got me wrong. You were saying that since Pakistan hasn't launched satellites, it will be difficult for Pakistan to work with MIRV. I suggested it's not important for Pakistan to apply any satellite launching experience on MIRV as all data for the warhead being used is known. The angle of release and initial velocity required for the warhead to follow a certain trajectory is already known because this particular warhead has been launched in many different parameters in the past.
I merely said lack of experience in placing spacecrafts into different orbits would result in time to make ababeel a deployable weapon.It will surely take time before pakistan operationalize ababeel with itz bus and RV. Thats all I said.
As for your highlighted remarks though-
Kindly read more about Orbital Mechanics,various orbital transfers and how a single bus launches space craft into different orbits. When you have got one single warhead,the need never arises for the bus to change orbits to insert various RVs,however in case of MIRV,the bus goes on to different orbit to insert RVs. I guess now you understand.Of course,the point where to fire motors to change orbits and at what angles are computed and fed to the bus before launch itself.
 
.
Dear Amardeep.
By Ajai Shukla, an article from the late 2000s
His denunciation of India’s thermonuclear test on May 11, 1998 (Shakti-I), has generated a furious debate over whether India’s nuclear deterrent is actually credible. But now, his salvoes fired, K Santhanam sits alone in his South Delhi home, sipping Tajik vodka and watching Cartoon Network playing on the TV. He calls this refuge, “the calm in the eye of the storm”.

Santhanam is a slight, grey-haired figure with a puckish sense of humour. His conversation is peppered with repartee and jokes that range from off-colour ‘Santa Singh, Banta Singh’ cracks to sophisticated plays on the English language.

But for now, Santhanam has taken a three-week vow of public silence, to allow the government to appoint a panel of experts to examine the data from Shakti-I. Not a kangaroo court consisting of bureaucrats, he insists, but a blue-ribbon panel of genuine scientists, studying factual data from the tests.

“Liars will figure”, Santhanam twinkles, “but figures will not lie.”

This rumpus is uncharacteristic rebellion from a man who describes himself as “the ultimate insider”.

“I didn’t intend to trigger such a controversy,” Santhanam explains. “But once it began, I decided not to back down. I stuck to the ethics of my profession.”

His career story is the stuff of Kollywood. Born in Madras, and schooled in Tamil, Santhanam got a scholarship to Loyola College, Madras, moving on to a physics honours degree from that city’s prestigious Presidency College. In 1958, he joined the Atomic Energy Establishment, which meant another year at their in-house training school in Trombay.

Scientists traditionally dismiss revolts from renegades of their own community by blackening their credentials. It is difficult to do that to Santhanam after his 15 years at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, where he specialised in radiation hazard control and evaluating nuclear accidents.

Between 1961 and 1963, Santhanam went to the US, under the Atoms for Peace programme, studying nuclear physics at the Arbonne National Laboratory in Lamont, Illinois. A conventional nuclear scientist would have stuck to fission and fusion formulae. Santhanam claims he also mastered cocktails, working part-time as a bartender “to understand the American people”.

He certainly imbibed a healthy respect for the US, which he describes as the 900-pound gorilla in the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Last year, an unambiguously pro-establishment Santhanam supported the Indo-US nuclear deal.

In 1973, Santhanam’s unconventional streak took him in a dramatically new direction: He became a nuclear spook!

He describes being called in by R N Kao, the legendary founder of the Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW), to examine an Indian strategic nightmare: The suspected nuclear nexus between China and Pakistan. Over the next 11 years, says Santhanam, “I unmasked the cooperation between China and Pakistan, providing a comprehensive analysis of A Q Khan’s enrichment programme and his clandestine procurement.”

In 1986, Santhanam joined the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), where his assignments were apparently related to simulation, war-gaming, and software engineering. But, because of his old relationship with the BARC’s bomb-makers, Santhanam was covertly back-ending India’s nuclear programme. From his DRDO perch, he interacted with the PMO and liaised with the armed forces to prepare the Pokhran test sites for the 1998 tests. His BARC background and his experience with RAW made him perfect for the job.

But that same background, combined with his individualism, led him to question the thermonuclear test when measurements appeared to show it as less earthshaking than predicted. The weight of the establishment has come down on him, but Santhanam is at the battlements.

“(National Security Advisor) Mike Narayanan, who is trying to judge me, has been a cop and a spook all his life. He is totally ignorant about science and technology,” says Santhanam dismissively.

Santhanam’s deepest apprehension is that the global non-proliferation lobby will succeed in “freezing India on the nuclear curve”, preventing fission bomb know-how from being developed into fusion weapon capability.

“An arsenal based on fission weapons is not enough to deter China”, says Santhanam, all humour gone from his face. “A couple of 20-kiloton bombs over Beijing are never, never, never going to bring China to its knees.
Dr K. Santhanam he is not even Academically qualified in traditional Nuclear physics and quantum mechanics

He is done his majorin
biochemistry and was in charge of Defence food research laboratory ,Mysore shows experience he has on the subject

When he was challenged by BARC scientists fraternity to put his arguments with technical DATA

He can't able to quantify his arguments with scientific literature or facts rather raise conspiracy theory to gain TRP in media to settle his beaurucratic rifts in DRDO

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/col...hermonuclear-test-refuted/article11856261.ece
 
Last edited:
.
I do not agree with those remarks for if it were really true,modern designers would have stopped using composites in their aircrafts.All modern ICBMs if you see use composites without fail.period! It allows the missile to be compact and light weight at the same time capable of delivering decent payloads to inter continental distances.Why do you think agni-4 with just 17t can pull off 4000kms? And quite frankly Agni-5 can pull off much more than advertised.I wouldnt go into the details as it hasnt been de-classified.

A pleasure reading your comments, thanks! Not being a scientist I can comment only in a limited manner partly based on my perception of visible academic activity - to corroborate that use of composites in rocketry has been ongoing for several years now, especially in SLBMs where the benefits of composites are particularly pronounced.

The OP relies too much on pixelised images from publicity photos [of both sides] to make very large technical inferences.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom