Why India Needs to Demonstrate Anti Satellite (ASAT) Capability - Publicly

India Needs to Demonstrate ASAT Capability

  • Yes

    Votes: 42 76.4%
  • No

    Votes: 12 21.8%
  • Too Late

    Votes: 1 1.8%

  • Total voters
    55
Do not want to engage in the technical discussion at the moment, due to lack of time, but I would prefer the neutralization of few part of the whole chain, specifically Satellite network, and when I says neutralization it doesn't means the destruction via ASAT capable missile, which would have far more deep implification on our Space program and a danger to be labelled as unresponsible space power, and thousands of Debris left in the space. I agree with the @Aashish , PARIKRAMA that India, need to show its capability in order to avoid the enemy to deter, but I think, we should wait for the right moment -- a moment such as unavoidable and precious moments for the real test such as uncontrollable satellite which threatened to fall and pose danger to the civilian life and is uncontrollable, which will definately comes, and we should be ready for that MOMENT.

While we should also focus on the other aspects of neutralizing the Chinese Spy satellite, via other means such as Laser weapons, High power ground emitter weapons, and should test on our own unusable satellite first. This will helps us to study the effect of such weapons, and help us to develop the counter measures.

Last but not the least, we should make a backup plans, for urgent replacement of the mini/micro/medium satellite capable of taking the job during the emergency, when our present satellites are attacked, by enemy ASAT weapon and that includes multi payloads of small satellites ready as backup plans to be deployed, and a backup launcher -- Be it Agni or SLV.

Rest will needs time to Grasp, everything what my friend have just blasted over my head in this thread, and some research and reading, before I could react here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aashish
@Golden_Rule
Today I am travelling.. will write once I am free and have a good net connection.. it's something related to satellite separation bus demonstration and other systems. Will write about it for sure..

Please bear with me for sometime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Golden_Rule
@zebra7
I certainly believe a "rogue" satellite will not be very distant in future situations for us.. and I am sure it won't be our own satellite but possibly the one which will be threatening our space based assets for sure..

The yellow cake will lose relevance soon.. and the new fight will be in space.. the race began long back.. we are yet to wake up to the challenges completely..
 
In a war scenario, do you think a space launch will not be intercepted as suspicious missile launch?
A satellite lunch vehicle can be intercepted by ABM or ? and is any of our neighbours have this range, capabilities?A satellite lunch can be done remotely like Russian carry there Proton M on the railway track.If we plan we can do it.But I still prefer space shuttle and use it like a fighter plane in space :cool:
 
@Golden_Rule
As promised, the demonstration of building blocks being available for MIRV was seen in public for the first time in 2007.

Quoting from ISRO announcement
In its 10th flight conducted from Satish Dhawan Space Centre (SDSC) SHAR, Sriharikota, today (Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 9.23 AM IST),
ISRO's PSLV-C7 successfully launched 4 satellites:


1.Indian remote sensing satellite CARTOSAT-2
2.Indian Space capsule Recovery Experiment (SRE-1)
3.Indonesian LAPAN-TUBSAT
4.Argentina's PEHUENSAT-1


All the events have gone on smoothly

Source: Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV-C7) successfully launches 4 satellites - ISRO


This was the first public demonstration of the Dual Launch Adapter.

Over the last decade till the grand launch of 104 satellites, the system was further upgraded. Quoting from a news report

To house the satellites, conventional adapters such as Multiple Satellite Adapter (MSA) and Payload Adapter (PLA) were used along with six custom made adapters to house the nanosatellites. The primary payload was mounted on the PLA. Some of the custom made adapters allowed multiple tier attachments of satellites. A few nanosatellites were even housed in the Vehicle Equipment Bay, which normally only contains the systems for ground communications, and functions as the "brain" of the launch vehicle. The configuration used optimally used the volume available, as well as the lift capacity of the launch vehicle.


A dual launch adapter on the PSLV-C20 mission. Image: Isro.


There was a requirement for managing the separation events of the satellites. Most of the satellites would have to be released after the launch vehicle lost contact with the Isro Telemetry, Tracking and Command Network (ISTRAC) tracking station at Mauritius, and before establishing contact with the Troll station in Antartica. The stage to which the satellites were attached had a complex maneuvering program, along with a sequence and timing for the satellite separation events. Isro engineers conducted detailed studies to ensure that the 105 objects, including a PSLV stage, would not collide after separation.


The primary payload sits on top of the Payload Adapter (PLA), in the middle of the image. Towards the bottom, eight satellites can be seen housed on the Multiple Satellite Adapter. This is the PSLV-C35 mission that launched multiple satellites in different orbits. Image: Isro.


Source: Isro reveals details of the innovative approaches used for the record-breaking PSLV-C37 launch

The dual launch adapter sequence is as described below
1513170271647.png


Now what all these stuff meant in very simple language is that we have the building blocks for assembling MIRV tech available and have crossed more than 2/3 rd of the whole journey. The nature of many of these technological capabilities is dual-use and satellites can be replaced with warheads that can be delivered to target locations.


A solid paper on this topic was authored by Karthil B. Karthik Bommakanti writes that in order to have a potent MIRV capability, one needs to be able to develop re-startable Vernier rocket engine systems, integrate multiple nuclear warheads to the missile, be able to guide the warheads along independent trajectories with high accuracy, master atmospheric re-entry, and be able to miniaturize the warhead.

PSLV C37- 4th Stage is restartable, multi-payload ejections were demonstrated and highly accurate insertion and guidance technology were also demonstrated. Of course, Warhead RV re-entry is far more complex and demanding in nature. And in re-entry technology, we have been validating their designs and better mark versions over multiple tests as well.


Now a word of caution
The whole technology is the Civilian aspect of our Space-based application aka ISRO. In spite of its use in dual technology fields, the programs are clearly segregated and hence expecting a full copy of the same will be a bit tough and will invite sanctions from international bodies for sure. But a similar design and an inspiration to perfect and better the system should be what I believe in the 1/3rd portion left will primarily contain.

That is the sole reason I have a strong opinion that ultimately only A5 or A6 and K5 or beyond will see this technology of MIRV post-DRDO demonstrating the same independently and meet mission parameters successfully.
 
That is the sole reason I have a strong opinion that ultimately only A5 or A6 and K5 or beyond will see this technology of MIRV post-DRDO demonstrating the same independently and meet mission parameters successfully.

Informative article. Thanks for researching and putting it together.

Somehow I think DRDO had too many missiles development trials and integration at hand - Astra, Naag, Helina, Akash Mk 2, LGB, Glide bombs/rockets, Nirbhay, Brahmos air-launched and under-sea launched, the K-series missiles ..... which we saw them successful in recent years. There is a trade off for putting all the resources towards one development, rather than focus on several tactical weapon requirements as above. I am sure DRDO would test MIRV on ballastic missiles soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aashish
Why not A3? It has over 3k range.
A1-A3 are mostly fully developed missiles of the pre-2006 era with A3 trials itself starting in 2006. A3 may house at best India 2nd generation warheads which are still on the heavier side.

In public domain, the earliest clear quote is here by Dr Saraswat dated May 04, 2013 20:07 IST
NDTV: So will the next test be with a multiple warheads system or...

VK Saraswat: No. The present task, as I was mentioning, will be only with the normal configuration of Agni V. But there will be an experimental test in which we will be testing the MIRV capability.

NDTV: So that would be what? Agni VI or...

VK Saraswat: No we are not naming it Agni VI... it will be Agni V missile with MIRVs.

NDTV: So Agni V plus?

VK Saraswat: You can name is Agni V plus or Agni VI, but certainly it is not Agni VI.

NDTV: It is not Agni VI but Agni V will have multiple warheads so we can have a single missile going and hitting several targets at the same time?

VK Saraswat: Yes it will be in that category.
India's nuclear deterrence capacity is in place, the country can sleep well: Defence research chief

Even in technological front, if we look closely the newer Agni A4 and A5 have many modern technologies, lower weight and better payload capacity.

Based on open sources and on US N weapon tests and yields, statistical program different generation of warheads and yields is plotted like this
1513953993760.png


Source -
List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons
Kilotons per kilogram

This coupled with certain interesting observation are needed to be looked together



1513955023566.png


Page 242
Source - India's Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on Global Proliferation by By George Perkovich

Supposing we go by the following
Pokhran 1 - yield of 12-13 KT and correlate to above and put hypothetically say 1000 kg mass, the same device by 1982 should weigh around say 200 kg

A rough analogy would be 0.013 Kt/kg now became 0.065 KT/Kg

Pokhran 2 test and 2 stage boosted weapon yield of 45Kt and this was based on this new design implying 45KT will be approximately based on the 1982 analogy weigh 692 kg

Considering further based on statement of Dr Avinash Chander

The DRDOclaims the Agni-5’s advanced navigation system would permit the use of smaller nuclear weapons. Speaking earlier to Business Standard, Avinash Chander said, “Megaton warheads were used when accuracies were low. Now we talk of (accuracy of) a few hundred metres. That allows a smaller warhead, perhaps 150-250 kilotons, to cause substantial damage. We don’t want to cause wanton damage (with unnecessarily large warheads).”
Source - India launches 5,000-km range Agni-5 missile successfully

This shows that Agni 1 & 2 carry a low yield 40-60 KT warhead for their payloads considering the yield to be much closer to say 0.1KT/Kg (better than before 0.065 Kt/kg).

Assuming we have advanced to say 0.5 KT/Kg in a new generation fo warhead design in the early 2000s, the nearest match is W-52 from the above links


1513963200439.png



This will imply a 250 KT device will weigh minimum 500 kg and with Indian design being inferior owing to limited data points (yield per kg of 0.065KT/KG earlier), the real weight for this device should be closer to say 600kgs at extra 15% consideration.

Agni 3 full payload is 1500 kg for a max distance of 3500 km and may reach longer for reduced payload. Most open sources from Western nuclear watchdog side pegs the warhead to be of 1000 kg approx implying only one warhead can be housed for the weight of 600 kg.

Assuming India has moved ahead beyond and is now say at 1 KT/Kg , the 250 KT yield warhead may weight 250kg. Sufficient to say this is the warhead miniaturisation and design validation which will go into our MIRV missile as indicated by Dr Chander

So a design of missile tested in 2006 start to say Agni 5 start in 2012, the whole RV and weapon miniaturisation would advance a bit for sure.

But candidly speaking, the warhead design will need a far better simulation for 1 KT/kg yield followed by design validation. Unfortunately, data points of our tests are limited versus comparative data points for USA, Russia, France and even China.

With that in mind and 200Kt @ 600kg assumption, a more comfortable MIRV situation would emerge for a minimum 3 warhead accommodation implying 1800 kg minimum payload or anything above 2000 kg would more so fit into that description.

Secondly, again judging by dimensions part from W-52 whose width is ~0.61 m and assuming our designs were a bit inferior with 15% extra margin the width can be assumed to closer to 0.7 m. Similarly, the length can be extrapolated as well to 1.66m With A3 diameter of 2m its difficult to accommodate the MIRV form of the warhead, space, thick shielding and other things like below.

1513961800343.png




Lastly, the internet also has this picture

1513962059633.png


The above figure is a better estimation than my extrapolation methodology but as I don't have any governmental literature to cross-validate this up, I cannot vouch for the authenticity.

If the 0.065KT/Kg can be made into newer design yield equalling 1Kt/Kg then the diameter of 0.7 can see sufficient reduction as well to fit closer to say 0.30-0.35m. Having such a diameter is a correct estimate wrt to say newer capability missiles like Nirbhay having a diameter of 0.52m and warhead of 300 kg..

As such all this just a conjecture of mine and may require many corrections as well


Edited - multiple times to correct and remove some points
 
Last edited:
@Aashish
I know It could be a very childish idea so don go judging me over it.

why always go for conventional way of launching a rocket to hunt down a satellite. Why don’t we weponise mini satellites (which we launch in hundreds) to stay dormant after being placed into orbit and activate once the need arises to take out a fellow satellite with kinetic impact (without using HE as it wouldn’t break any international treaties to weponise space)

It would be fraction of cost than maintaining ASAT capability on ground. And if I’m not wrong Americans feared Russians had that capability during cold war and planned their own Star Wars project.

Why don’t we set a benchmark for a system that always running behind benchmarks set but other nations.
 
Last edited:
@Aashish
I know It could be a very childish idea so don go judging me over it.

why always go for conventional way of launching a rocket to hunt down a satellite. Why don’t we weponise mini satellites (which we launch in hundreds) to stay dormant after being placed into orbit and activate once the need arises to take out a fellow satellite with kinetic impact (without using HE as it wouldn’t break any international treaties to weponise space)

It would be fraction of cost than maintaining ASAT capability on ground. And if I’m not wrong Americans feared Russians had that capability during cold war and planned their own Star Wars project.

Why don’t we set a benchmark for a system that always running behind benchmarks set but other nations.
Because space is just too big and 3 dimensional. Satellites are just a few square kilometers in surface area amd are like pins on haystack. If the earth's radius is 6400km, we are adding another ~1000km to make a space orbit. Now, the satellites can be in 880km orbit, 885km orbit and so on too. How exactly do you aim to get a kinetic kill by an orbitting satellite in a different trajectory to the enemy satellite in different trajectory? The accuracy should be mindblowing to do this.
 
A1-A3 are mostly fully developed missiles of the pre-2006 era with A3 trials itself starting in 2006. A3 may house at best India 2nd generation warheads which are still on the heavier side.

In public domain, the earliest clear quote is here by Dr Saraswat dated May 04, 2013 20:07 IST

India's nuclear deterrence capacity is in place, the country can sleep well: Defence research chief

Even in technological front, if we look closely the newer Agni A4 and A5 have many modern technologies, lower weight and better payload capacity.

Based on open sources and on US N weapon tests and yields, statistical program different generation of warheads and yields is plotted like this
View attachment 972

Source -
List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons
Kilotons per kilogram

This coupled with certain interesting observation are needed to be looked together



View attachment 973

Page 242
Source - India's Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on Global Proliferation by By George Perkovich

Supposing we go by the following
Pokhran 1 - yield of 12-13 KT and correlate to above and put hypothetically say 1000 kg mass, the same device by 1982 should weigh around say 200 kg

A rough analogy would be 0.013 Kt/kg now became 0.065 KT/Kg

Pokhran 2 test and 2 stage boosted weapon yield of 45Kt and this was based on this new design implying 45KT will be approximately based on the 1982 analogy weigh 692 kg

Considering further based on statement of Dr Avinash Chander


Source - India launches 5,000-km range Agni-5 missile successfully

This shows that Agni 1 & 2 carry a low yield 40-60 KT warhead for their payloads considering the yield to be much closer to say 0.1KT/Kg (better than before 0.065 Kt/kg).

Assuming we have advanced to say 0.5 KT/Kg in a new generation fo warhead design in the early 2000s, the nearest match is W-52 from the above links


View attachment 983


This will imply a 250 KT device will weigh minimum 500 kg and with Indian design being inferior owing to limited data points (yield per kg of 0.065KT/KG earlier), the real weight for this device should be closer to say 600kgs at extra 15% consideration.

Agni 3 full payload is 1500 kg for a max distance of 3500 km and may reach longer for reduced payload. Most open sources from Western nuclear watchdog side pegs the warhead to be of 1000 kg approx implying only one warhead can be housed for the weight of 600 kg.

Assuming India has moved ahead beyond and is now say at 1 KT/Kg , the 250 KT yield warhead may weight 250kg. Sufficient to say this is the warhead miniaturisation and design validation which will go into our MIRV missile as indicated by Dr Chander

So a design of missile tested in 2006 start to say Agni 5 start in 2012, the whole RV and weapon miniaturisation would advance a bit for sure.

But candidly speaking, the warhead design will need a far better simulation for 1 KT/kg yield followed by design validation. Unfortunately, data points of our tests are limited versus comparative data points for USA, Russia, France and even China.

With that in mind and 200Kt @ 600kg assumption, a more comfortable MIRV situation would emerge for a minimum 3 warhead accommodation implying 1800 kg minimum payload or anything above 2000 kg would more so fit into that description.

Secondly, again judging by dimensions part from W-52 whose width is ~0.61 m and assuming our designs were a bit inferior with 15% extra margin the width can be assumed to closer to 0.7 m. Similarly, the length can be extrapolated as well to 1.66m With A3 diameter of 2m its difficult to accommodate the MIRV form of the warhead, space, thick shielding and other things like below.

View attachment 981



Lastly, the internet also has this picture

View attachment 982

The above figure is a better estimation than my extrapolation methodology but as I don't have any governmental literature to cross-validate this up, I cannot vouch for the authenticity.

If the 0.065KT/Kg can be made into newer design yield equalling 1Kt/Kg then the diameter of 0.7 can see sufficient reduction as well to fit closer to say 0.30-0.35m. Having such a diameter is a correct estimate wrt to say newer capability missiles like Nirbhay having a diameter of 0.52m and warhead of 300 kg..

As such all this just a conjecture of mine and may require many corrections as well


Edited - multiple times to correct and remove some points
Have you considered weight of reentry vehicle? Generally that weighs a 100+kg
 
Because space is just too big and 3 dimensional. Satellites are just a few square kilometers in surface area amd are like pins on haystack. If the earth's radius is 6400km, we are adding another ~1000km to make a space orbit. Now, the satellites can be in 880km orbit, 885km orbit and so on too. How exactly do you aim to get a kinetic kill by an orbitting satellite in a different trajectory to the enemy satellite in different trajectory? The accuracy should be mindblowing to do this.

Just wondering if you meant meters or kilometers here.
Either we hit a satellite using a missile or so called satellites as projectile accuracy has to be mindblowing for all similar scenarios. why picking this one out on basis of accuracy needed?
 
Just wondering if you meant meters or kilometers here.
Either we hit a satellite using a missile or so called satellites as projectile accuracy has to be mindblowing for all similar scenarios. why picking this one out on basis of accuracy needed?
Sorry, it is few square meters surface area.

The accuracy from ground need not be mindblowing as the missile is fired from a static position. In orbit however, the satellite is already moving at 7km/s speed. It is important to adjust the orbital in such a way that the original speed is directed towards the enemy satellite with an accuracy of 0.01 seconds. Modifying orbit is much more difficult than merely firing from static position.
 
Because space is just too big and 3 dimensional. Satellites are just a few square kilometers in surface area amd are like pins on haystack. If the earth's radius is 6400km, we are adding another ~1000km to make a space orbit. Now, the satellites can be in 880km orbit, 885km orbit and so on too. How exactly do you aim to get a kinetic kill by an orbitting satellite in a different trajectory to the enemy satellite in different trajectory? The accuracy should be mindblowing to do this.

IS anti-satellite system
 
Sorry, it is few square meters surface area.

The accuracy from ground need not be mindblowing as the missile is fired from a static position. In orbit however, the satellite is already moving at 7km/s speed. It is important to adjust the orbital in such a way that the original speed is directed towards the enemy satellite with an accuracy of 0.01 seconds. Modifying orbit is much more difficult than merely firing from static position.
Any missile defence or anti satelite system works by prempting where a particular missile or satelite would be when incoming missile would it. I am sure satelite orbit is something very much predictible and all we need to do is to put something in it's path. It's momentum would do the rest. It's very much doable and not as tough as you think it is.
 
Any missile defence or anti satelite system works by prempting where a particular missile or satelite would be when incoming missile would it. I am sure satelite orbit is something very much predictible and all we need to do is to put something in it's path. It's momentum would do the rest. It's very much doable and not as tough as you think it is.
Yes it is doable but you are suggesting that there be a warhead satellite which is orbiting the earth but is also capable of being a warhead to takeout other satellite as and when needed. I am saying that it is very difficult to change orbits of an existing satellite to make it collide with another satellite even if the orbit is predictable. The accuracy of few metres is difficult to keep due to elliptical nature of orbit, small variation in the thrust of the satellite to change orbits and lack of air to use wings for maneuvering to adjust for the variations.

Launching from a static platform is important to ensure that there are less variables in equation and hence less errors
 
Yes it is doable but you are suggesting that there be a warhead satellite which is orbiting the earth but is also capable of being a warhead to takeout other satellite as and when needed. I am saying that it is very difficult to change orbits of an existing satellite to make it collide with another satellite even if the orbit is predictable. The accuracy of few metres is difficult to keep due to elliptical nature of orbit, small variation in the thrust of the satellite to change orbits and lack of air to use wings for maneuvering to adjust for the variations.

Launching from a static platform is important to ensure that there are less variables in equation and hence less errors

Sharmaji apke imagination ne meri le li. Kuch bhi imagine kar lete ho.
I know you don't have word "give up" in your dictionary but luckily I have it in mine.

I give up.
 
Why don’t we weponise mini satellites (which we launch in hundreds) to stay dormant after being placed into orbit

I was answering this question @Shashank . I may not be a good lecturer in terms of explaining ability but I was saying that mini satellites can't be maneuvered from their orbit with pin point accuracy.

It is not a question of give up or not. I too had such ideas a few years back. But when I researched I found that it was impractical and no one has tried it yet. Even the satellite launch doesn't yield 100% accuracy in placing satellites in orbit and the satellite has internal fuel to do its own maneuvering to adjust the orbit. If you can find any example of this, please tell.

Sharmaji apke imagination ne meri le li. Kuch bhi imagine kar lete ho.
I know you don't have word "give up" in your dictionary but luckily I have it in mine.

I give up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paro