Just like every single new jet needs to complete weapon integration trials (else won't be inducted into service) and old jets need to have new weapons integrated and fired as proof test , same goes for the nuke subs. This was most likely a repeat trial from one in service platform or a test firing from the new sub. Some weeks ago the k15 firing also happened albeit it is hard to tell about which sub does what. It usually takes some time for full fitment of the weapon system complex before doing this capital trial.
random payload is not attached without being proven via pontoon firing first, neither do there are clearance for such deployment. Actual weapons are much paperwork intensive for QAP reason. What is being part of development trial today, will be proven in 7-8 years, then another 5 years to hit production, then final induction another 6-7 years later. So we can assume what is in development will only go thru to service in 15 years+ time. Yes it takes that long.
Likely done to throw the Chinese spy ships off the trail. The last several notams were reportedly cancelled because they cheekily parked themselves at the exact splash point.
I have no idea how effective this will be against space based ISR. Their tracking ships will anyway get a pretty decent view of the whole thing along with the launch platform(s)
Hmm.. Do we even know if today’s test was from an actual sub or a pontoon? In case of scenario-2, it could very well have been a test from a pontoon!
The large radars onboard these ships collect vital telemetry data to complement satellite tracking. Sat sensors have limitations in terms of revisit times, fov, etc. Athough the latest gen Chinese sat constellations like Jilin-1 are changing that.
No we don't, but since k4 has already been tested from fully established submarine installed weapon complex it is likely to be from one of the sub. Pontoon tests are for development stage trials.
Yeah, that’s the point. Those ships need not be parked at the splash point to get read on that telemetry, right? The notam was not wide enough to create uncertainty for the tracking ships. I can bet they got a pretty good read of this test as well.
Relax, the software & custom control laws are made after the development trials. What flies during trial run & what flies during active combat are day 7 nigh difference in between. Mil grade systems are made with certain redundancy esp those made in house.
Not necessarily. But the Notam zone was changed several times (downrange length) precisely to make it harder for PLAN ships to pre-position themselves at a vantage point. In any case, the IN deploys its own platforms near the splash point (as stated in many post-launch MoD press releases till date) for assessing test parameters. So the Chinese probably loiter at a distance but still close enough to glean trajectory/accuracy data.
Given the lengths MoD has gone to prevent positioning by Chinese ships, I'm guessing this K4 test must have involved some new tech.
@marich01 K4 can carry MIRV? If warheads are only 15-20 kilotons maybe.
We do not know yet, it is a smaller dia missile comparatively so the mirv pbcv needs to be miniaturised/smaller than the A5 2m or greater dia class that was on display.
It reportedly has a 2t payload. So it should be MIRV capable, imo. If the pbv can carry decoys, it can carry MIRV too.
Another reason why MIRV is likely for K4 is because Arihant and Arighat are both baby boomers with just 4 tubes each. The IN would look to use the ltd space on the boats to the max.
All the delivery systems need to have space for a dacs rcs , chaffs/flares , penetration aid and some countermeasures besides the payload.
I'd say SLBMs are MIRV capable by default. K4 would be no exception, esp in our strategic scenario. This missile will form the core of our 2nd strike N capability for the next 7-10 years. S5 is still a long way off.
Can you elaborate on this? What do you mean by “by default” ? Won’t it depend on the size of the warhead complex and the overall diameter? Given the diameter of K4 and the restrictive size of the warhead(s) , what do you estimate the yield/warhead I.e. the size of each warhead will have to be smaller, right?
SLBMs are prime mirv candidates for any country that has the tech. After all, the goal is to maximize the deterrent effect.
Barring the earliest versions of the Polaris, I can't think of any SLBM with a single whd. Mirv also provides redundancy in case one whd fails to deploy from the pbv in the terminal phase.
To answer your second point, it really depends on the throw weight or total payload capacity of K4 (reported to be 2t > A5's ~1.5t.)
India has achieved a high degree of miniaturization in payload/bus configuration. For comparison, the much smaller Agni Prime has a comparable throw weight and is reportedly MIRV capable too. And there is significant cross-pollination between the Agni and K-series missiles.
Probably not the right place for this question (mods - please move it to appropriate section as appropriate) —
What do you guys believe to be our single warhead yields to be?
Do we (hypothetically) have a “dial a yield” design ?
Given the long conversation around the performance of our “Thermonuclear device” during Pokhran test - do we have a missile deliverable 1 MT+ warhead — True Fission-Fusion-Fission (Teller-Ulam design) or do we have boosted fission (layered-cake) kind of stuff?
Having 1MT+ (heck even 200 to 400 KT, when Hiroshima was ~15KT, Nagasaki was ~22 KT for reference) warheads on a MIRV (with proper and guaranteed second strike capability) is a nightmare for any adversary.
Considering the missile diameter and the fact we've tested only 6 times, if it is MIRV the MIRVed warheads will only be 15 maybe 20 kilotons, maybe with boosting 25-30 kilotons. Not more than that. And even then perhaps it can carry only 2 warheads.
First Soviet SLBMs were single warhead and believe it or not iirc under SALT Treaty for some years Trident had only 1 warhead too
. Edit: that was actually Minuteman which is land based. But the earlier Chinese SLBMS JL1 and even JL2 is described as MIRV capable but deployed in single warhead config in open sources.
We dont need 1 MT warhead because our missiles are very accurate. Even USA moved away from multi megaton warhead, the bulk of their deployed warheads are 475 kt exactly including the warheads on their Trident SLBM. Multi megaton warheads were useful when missils CEP was horrendous. But now thanks to advanced electronics, our missiles have CEP of no more than 50 m, so 200 kt will be enough.
India has all types of nukes, pure fission, boosted fission of layer cake as well as 2 stage. The primary stage of Shakti 1 was a boosted fission weapon of 15 kilotons (revealed by P Sikka leader of H bomb design team). Pure fission was tested in Pokhran 1 and Pokhran 2. Our nukes can be scaled to 200 kt.
Considering the huge weight of the K4 warhead, it will obviously be a 2 stage thermonuke if its single warhead config or a boosted fission weapon reaching at least 150 kt. Why would we need a 2 tonne warhead for pure fission when our pure fission weapon was 125 kg or so. Literally our Mirages were made to drop the pure fission weapons in 1994.