Agni & Prithvi Ballistic Missiles : News & Discussions

Bon Plan

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
2,068
899
France
it's BS.
under a bigger enough cone, you can put more than one warhead. All depend the size of the cone and the size and shape of the warheads (which are also conical...)
 

safriz

Well-Known member
Jan 1, 2018
1,781
628
UK, Pakistan
When did India release the size of the warheads in public? Do you know what you are speaking? 1metre warhead means that India is extraordinarily backward and retarded in terms of warhead capability. Pakistan also claims to have tactical warheads within 50-60kg weight. Why would you even consider that India which has much more advanced nuclear capability like nuclear submarines, breeder reactors and ability to make large capacity PHWR reactors to generate power and plutonium at the same time is not able to miniature the warheads?

1 metre warhead width is even larger than the fist bomb used - little boy. It had a diameter of 70cm!

O one hand you complain about being insulted while on the other you speak like this with an intention of fulfilling your agenda of showing Indian ability poorly! Have a sense of realism.
The question was...show me an Indian Ballistic missile which uses the lowest diameter Warhead,so that we can see how many of them can fit on a 2 meter dia missile, such as A-5, or a 1.3 meter dia missile such as K-4.
I can show you a few Pakistani missiles using 70Cm diameter warhead?
You came up with a very long comment about Indian nuclear power plants?
Building a new warhead is expensive and countries don't build warheads to hide them away.
About Tall boy Nuclear bomb of ww2. Yes the stated dia is 70 Cm but what the weight and yield of the thing? A 4.4 ton bomb created just 15 Kiloton of explosion.
Now a w88 Warhead creates a blast of 475 Kt and its just 360 Kg in weight.
So the improvement in design of a nuclear warhead is not just about diameter or length or weight. Its about all that and while decreasing dimensions also increasing yield.
So i am not sure from where you came up with comparing a ww2 gravity bomb with a Missile mountable warhead,when both are entirely different beasts.
Plus no need to get hot under the collar. I m not obliged to write anything here. If i am spending my time to write comments,i am looking for a technical discussion backed with good argument,not a rant.
This is just a discussion in which you come up with arguments and so do i.
Like i said, if you don't want to be argued with then thats fine by me, you are free to believe whatever you want to believe.
 
Last edited:

Kshithij Sharma

Well-Known member
Dec 4, 2017
756
552
India
I doubt any deterrent missile (except futur Terrorist one ?) to be guided by GPS.
GPS can be jammed. In a nuclear war the IEM would have burnt part of the GPS equipments. You need a fire and forget system, totally independant of the exterior. So no GPS or Glonass or Galileo for this purpose.
IEM is over rated. The real problem is that GPS jammer will be placed everywhere and hence the GPS won't be able to be used properly. However, military grade GPS using indigenous satellites may still be available for use. So, GPS (IRNSS in case of India) can be used. Frying electronics is not really correct as we have close footages of nuclear explosion from cameras which haven't gotten fried. There is really very little reasons to say that electronics will be specially more affected than other items.

The question was...show me an Indian Ballistic missile which uses the lowest diameter Warhead,so that we can see how many of them can fit on a 2 meter dia missile, such as A-5, or a 1.3 meter dia missile such as K-4.
I can show you a few Pakistani missiles using 70Cm diameter warhead?
You came up with a very long comment about Indian nuclear power plants?
Building a new warhead is expensive and countries don't build warheads to hide them away.
Plus no need to get hot under the collar. I m not obliged to write anything here. If i am spending my time to write comments,i am looking for a technical discussion backed with good argument,not a rant.
This is just a discussion in which you come up with arguments and so do i.
Like i said, if you don't want to be argued with then thats fine by me, you are free to believe whatever you want to believe.
Here are missile diameters:
Prahaar - 0.42
Shaurya- 0.74
Brahmos- 0.6
Nirbhay - 0.52
Agni 1 - 1.0

All these are nuclear capable missiles. Prahaar is tactical nuke tipped missile with range of just 150km and is a battlefield missile
 

safriz

Well-Known member
Jan 1, 2018
1,781
628
UK, Pakistan
Here are missile diameters:
Prahaar - 0.42
Shaurya- 0.74
Brahmos- 0.6
Nirbhay - 0.52

Agni 1 - 1.0

All these are nuclear capable missiles. Prahaar is tactical nuke tipped missile with range of just 150km and is a battlefield missile
Do you see any problem here? I will let you decide before commenting again.
 

Kshithij Sharma

Well-Known member
Dec 4, 2017
756
552
India
Do you see any problem here? I will let you decide before commenting again.
Last time you spoke big things about knowing more about Indian missiles but when asked for that you ran away. So, if you have nothing meaningful to speak, don't quote me and waste my time.

Your mind may be severely twisted that you may see everything as a problem. It is not upto me to do research on that.

About Tall boy Nuclear bomb of ww2. Yes the stated dia is 70 Cm but what the weight and yield of the thing? A 4.4 ton bomb created just 15 Kiloton of explosion.
Now a w88 Warhead creates a blast of 475 Kt and its just 360 Kg in weight.
So the improvement in design of a nuclear warhead is not just about diameter or length or weight. Its about all that and while decreasing dimensions also increasing yield.
So i am not sure from where you came up with comparing a ww2 gravity bomb with a Missile mountable warhead,when both are entirely different beasts.

You have contradicted yourself by saying that the yield increased and size have decreased while you just said that India has no warhead smaller than 1 m in diameter. Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds? Gravity bomb vs warhead is a ridiculous excuse. Why is it that the warhead should always be in megaton range? Who can't you consider a 100kT warhead or a 20-40kT tactical warheads too?
 

safriz

Well-Known member
Jan 1, 2018
1,781
628
UK, Pakistan
Last time you spoke big things about knowing more about Indian missiles but when asked for that you ran away. So, if you have nothing meaningful to speak, don't quote me and waste my time.

Your mind may be severely twisted that you may see everything as a problem. It is not upto me to do research on that.



You have contradicted yourself by saying that the yield increased and size have decreased while you just said that India has no warhead smaller than 1 m in diameter. Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds? Gravity bomb vs warhead is a ridiculous excuse. Why is it that the warhead should always be in megaton range? Who can't you consider a 100kT warhead or a 20-40kT tactical warheads too?

Btw the problem i was pointing out was that the three missiles i painted red have warheads not suitable for a strategic ballistic missile. Cruise missiles use a different type of warhead which does not have shielding required for Ballistic Missile. Thats why Americans designed w80 specially for Tomahawk,and w80 is not used anywhere else,only on Tomahawk Likewise Prahar is tactical Ballistic missile. You don't load sub kiloton tactical nukes on a strategic ballistic missile.
So we are left with Shuriya and Agni-1 as reference?Both being strategic ballistic missiles with allegedly appropriate warheads.
Shuriya/K-15 being the smallest diameter of 0.74 meter?
Theoretically 5 of these can be loaded on a 2 meter wide missile? Only one on a 1.3 meter dia missile such as K-4
But the unknown here is the weight of Warhead. We are going by diameter only.,and assuming that Agni-5 don't have the third stage. Because third stage tapers to 1.3 meters wide at the top,which again can only carry just one 0.74 meter wide warhead.
i will give it a rest here or start quoting someone else. Nothing else to be gained here. People believe whatever they want to believe. Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,028
9,176
India
The question was...show me an Indian Ballistic missile which uses the lowest diameter Warhead,so that we can see how many of them can fit on a 2 meter dia missile, such as A-5, or a 1.3 meter dia missile such as K-4.
I can show you a few Pakistani missiles using 70Cm diameter warhead?
You came up with a very long comment about Indian nuclear power plants?
Building a new warhead is expensive and countries don't build warheads to hide them away.
About Tall boy Nuclear bomb of ww2. Yes the stated dia is 70 Cm but what the weight and yield of the thing? A 4.4 ton bomb created just 15 Kiloton of explosion.
Now a w88 Warhead creates a blast of 475 Kt and its just 360 Kg in weight.
So the improvement in design of a nuclear warhead is not just about diameter or length or weight. Its about all that and while decreasing dimensions also increasing yield.
So i am not sure from where you came up with comparing a ww2 gravity bomb with a Missile mountable warhead,when both are entirely different beasts.
Plus no need to get hot under the collar. I m not obliged to write anything here. If i am spending my time to write comments,i am looking for a technical discussion backed with good argument,not a rant.
This is just a discussion in which you come up with arguments and so do i.
Like i said, if you don't want to be argued with then thats fine by me, you are free to believe whatever you want to believe.



 

safriz

Well-Known member
Jan 1, 2018
1,781
628
UK, Pakistan
Agni-5 flex nozzle surrounded by thermal fabric for allowing the nozzle to move about while keeping the gas pressure

agnihires.JPG
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,028
9,176
India
These infographics were originally posted here.
India’s Multifunction Missile for Credible Deterrent
by an author called Air Marshal B D jayal.
I am not sure if these are speculative diagrams or based on actual existing Indian warheads.
However the dome shaped Nose cone required for MIRV and also shown n the Infographics,have so far not been observed on any Indian missile

Generally this stuff is leaked before the actual demonstration so there is no ambiguity.
 

Paro

Bloom17
Dec 2, 2017
1,139
942
United States
Hi,
Yes 2 meter wide at the top of second stage, then sits the third stage which tapers and at the top of third stage the missile is onlt 1.3 meters wide. There sits just one Warhead.
Either the third stage will have to be redesigned to maintain diameter or second stage elongated. In either case it will become a new missile and wont remain A-5 anymore.
View attachment 1456
You could be right but apparently all the pics ur seeing are from the first launch it seems. The launchs performed after that dont seem to have any photo or video evidence. I could be wrong. Please provide any photos if you have. @Aashish posted some material on the size of the warhead a while back. Try finding it or I'll direct you there tomorrow. It mentioned about the size.
 
Last edited:

Paro

Bloom17
Dec 2, 2017
1,139
942
United States
Sir, he was saying that he knows more about Indian missiles than any Indian. Otherwise I am in no mood to ask any question to him.
He definitely knows more than me at least. He isn't trolling or anything. There is no reason to be rude to him. Best we can do is counter his argument or avoid him. Don't call me sir, I'm pretty sure in younger than you :p
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Superkaif

Shekhar Singh

Well-Known member
Dec 8, 2017
417
398
Varanasi
He definitely knows more than me at least. He isn't trolling or anything. There is no reason to be rude to him. Best we can do is counter his argument or avoid him. Don't call me sir, I'm pretty sure in younger than you :p
Not only you and me are Indians. We are more than 125 billions. We have many people who have spent their entire life for country and suddenly any tom dick harry comes and says I know more than all these Indians and I think it's objectionable to me. BTW I was also trying to put the facts which are also true and he can easily mute me by telling the two wheeler engine name.
 

safriz

Well-Known member
Jan 1, 2018
1,781
628
UK, Pakistan
Not only you and me are Indians. We are more than 125 billions. We have many people who have spent their entire life for country and suddenly any tom dick harry comes and says I know more than all these Indians and I think it's objectionable to me. BTW I was also trying to put the facts which are also true and he can easily mute me by telling the two wheeler engine name.
Lol..no.. i don't need to mute you. You are the typical Indian Internet user who gets High blood pressure just by reading the name "Pakistan or Pakistani". So keep ranting, i will just put you in my ignore list.
 

Kshithij Sharma

Well-Known member
Dec 4, 2017
756
552
India
Btw the problem i was pointing out was that the three missiles i painted red have warheads not suitable for a strategic ballistic missile. Cruise missiles use a different type of warhead which does not have shielding required for Ballistic Missile. Thats why Americans designed w80 specially for Tomahawk,and w80 is not used anywhere else,only on Tomahawk Likewise Prahar is tactical Ballistic missile. You don't load sub kiloton tactical nukes on a strategic ballistic missile.
So we are left with Shuriya and Agni-1 as reference?Both being strategic ballistic missiles with allegedly appropriate warheads.
Shuriya/K-15 being the smallest diameter of 0.74 meter?
Theoretically 5 of these can be loaded on a 2 meter wide missile? Only one on a 1.3 meter dia missile such as K-4
But the unknown here is the weight of Warhead. We are going by diameter only.,and assuming that Agni-5 don't have the third stage. Because third stage tapers to 1.3 meters wide at the top,which again can only carry just one 0.74 meter wide warhead.
i will give it a rest here or start quoting someone else. Nothing else to be gained here. People believe whatever they want to believe. Have a nice day.
You asked me what was the smallest possible warhead, not reentry vehicle. The W87 which you gave as an example is also a warhead which is then fitted into a reentry vehicle. W87 is not a reentry vehicle by itself. You changed the topic from one statement to another by simply saying that these don't have shielding. Do you really think that shielding takes up so much space and is having thickness in feet? Again, Shaurya is 0.74m in diameter but the warhead weight can be varied by adding fillers into the reentry cone. The warheads of these tiny missiles can also be fitted inside appropriate reentry vehicle

Your theoretical assumptions fall flat as missiles are designed to have optimal size of warhead which can then be reduced in size by adding thermo-coal/foam fillers. Designing a warhead to have small warhead can be disastrous as they will never be able to mount bigger warheads when necessary. Missiles are made to be flexible and able to mount an many warheads as possible

These missiles are for conventional use.
There is practically no difference between conventional and nuclear missile. There is no reason to call them conventional