What to read next

21 Comments

  1. 1

    Mihir

    The Prithvi-II is also land-based!!! No country in the world has an aircraft capable of launching a ballistic missile like the Prithvi!!!

    Reply
  2. 2

    Mihir

    Shiv>>> If we don’t have at least a nuclear-tipped IRBM platform by the time the ATV hits water, there’s going to be no real point.

    That holds true only if the ATV is an SSBN/SSGN. Do we know that for sure?

    Reply
  3. 3

    Rajat T

    Shiv,

    1. Do you know the difference between a SSN and SSBN? The ATV can be an effective attack sub pending integration of a nuclear SLBM or SLCM. A nuke sub in and of itself is a powerful weapon against surface ships and diesel subs because it is quieter and can stay under water for a longer time.

    2. The Sagarika was tested successfully last year and I believe it is a SLCM not SLBM.

    3. Why are you quoting reports from 1995 when newer information is available?

    Thanks
    Rajat

    Reply
  4. 4

    Sniperz11

    1. A nuclear sub is not a missile carrier alone… All nuclear submarines have started off as SSNs before being upgraded/modified into SSBNs or SSCNs.

    You should realize that a sub is far more diverse and versatile than just a submerged missile carrier. Plz read up on submarines before writing this stuff up (or even quoting).

    2. Sagarika has not been officially confirmed by the govt. Pranab Mukharjee himself had stated twice in Parliament that there was no Sagarika program. All is just speculation.

    3. Prithvi is a tactical missile, which means that they must have operational flexibility. This is best achieved with Liquid fuelled engines. It certainly would not make an ideal SLBM, and will most certainly not be fielded anyway. DRDO has that much of brains. If fielded, it would most likely be all solid.

    The liquid fuelled 2nd stage was a progression of DRDOs previous expertise with Devil liquid engines.

    4. CEP problems of Prithvi have been solved, and it now has a CEP of 10-50m.

    5. Dhanush had a range of 500 km in the latest tests (with a load of 500 kg). It is a success, and if you quote from 2000 (7 yrs ago), you’re an absolute fool to do so, especially when you use the most up-to-date sources for DRDO-bashing.

    6. As for yakhont, the SLCM version of brahmos will be ready by then, as will any other missiles. Agni III is also a capable platform for a SL-IRBM.

    Shiv, you need to pick up the work… you’ve quoted fourth party sources and foreign newspapers, and hearsay bullshit like Russians heading the project or extensive Israeli help, with ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF.

    Plus, why have you quoted reports from 1992, 1994??? Simple: THEY ARE IDEAL FOR DRDO BASHING.

    You described the complexities of SLMs very clearly. But your stand that ATV is useless without a missile ready by then is horsecrap… we have the Klubs and other russian missiles, they will suffice till we develop ours, which shouldn’ take long.

    Bottom Line: With so little available info about the Sagarika (we dont even know if it a CM or a BM), speculation ad articles like this are rendered moot.

    Reply
  5. 5

    Anonymous

    I can’t believe it! The article doesn’t even talk about Agni-III and DRDO’s plans of converting it into a SLBM! Short and stubby anyone?!
    This is obviously a very old and outdated article – Mr. Aroor, your credibility dwindles with each post.

    Reply
  6. 6

    zippo

    if shiv aroor’s credibility is so low (which it isn’t, in case you saw his show yesterday on headlines today, which was extremely balanced!!!!) then fuck off and do something else. why keep coming back. let interested people read and comment here. boors! sit at the computer, criticise and scratch your balls. that’s all you idiot jingos can do.

    Reply
  7. 7

    Anonymous

    I dont see any reason why guidance for an SLBM needs to be any more sophisticated than a regular ICBM.

    I work in consumer positioning devices division of a global US company, so I do have some background in positioning and navigation technologies, but I just cant see why an SLBM will need to have a more sophisticated guidance system as compared to a regular ICBM.

    anon1

    Reply
  8. 8

    Sniperz11

    since quite a few of us don’t have the phursat to watch this, or are abroad, we have only Shiv’s writing to go by, and we make our judgments based on them.

    Reply
  9. 9

    Sniperz11

    Continuing the above comment, if you have any link to the video or report of the Headlines today report, please post it. It’d be very interesting to see what you’re talking about

    Reply
  10. 10

    Anonymous

    zippo,

    what does Shiv’s TV program being balanced have to do with the what he has written in this blog?

    The fact remains that this is a very old, outdated and inaccurate article, which he shouldn’t have put up at all. The omission of Agni-III, which is clearly the precursor to ATV’s SLBM is inexcusable. Maybe he feels there are different standards to be followed on-screen and on-line?

    If you do have anything sensible to say about the article, please do so else STFU.

    Reply
  11. 11

    Band

    Huh.. Zippo you humor me.. the headlines today programme was balanced, you say?? What does the godzilla shooting clips have to do with AAD test – please between you and shiv can you enlighten me.. isnt that simply pathetic attempt at sensalization? Isnt that throwing the subject of national importance to page3 levels? Cmon Shiv – how “pathetic-est” can you get?

    And BTW — what balanced view are you talking about? Shiv – as only he is capable of, has succeeded in mixing it up with Barak/trishul issue.. does he (and you) even understand that AAD test is aimed at BMD where as Barak/Trishul are point-defense role.. Shiv was uttering the phrase “point defense” so many times with reference to AAD test in this programme — that shows his ignorance regarding his own reporting. Bcoz he should have been saying “area defense” and BMD.. AAD test and earlier PAD test are for BMD – not point-defense as in Barak/Trishul/Akash. Please note the difference between you make programmes for national audience. Do you even know the enormous differences in the two?

    please..
    1. Have you once heard him say the words “area defense” or “ballistic missile defense” during the programme?
    2. Have you seen a single shot of PAD test rather than repetetive visuals of low flying cruise missile interceptions?
    3. Have you once heard the words “hypersonic” or “re-entry vehicle” during the programme – bcoz that is what the next month’s test is about.
    4. Why for that matter has the very simple basic matter of fact “ballistic missile interception” dwelled upon in this programme?
    5. Did you once hear THAAD during the 30minutes?
    6. The guy speaks about AAD test being a part of air defense and there are other parts to it like air-defense guns –duh.. you humor me, air-defense guns for defense against IRBM/ICBM ? Since when?

    The dude who doesnt know what he is doing goes about bashing other’s efforts..

    Neither is PAD/AAD aimed at Babur kind of missiles and nor is it supported by air-defense guns in their role.. what Shiv was talking about through-out the programme was defense of ships and airfields.. The programme was supposed to be about an impending test which was about defense of populated cities from attack of nuke tipped IRBM/ICBM’s… by sheer ignorance of the differences or simple obsession to somehow deride and ridicule DRDO — the presenter of the programme lost his way and wasted everybody’s time on irrelevant subjects.

    Call a spade a spade.. If there is significant success – higlight it.. dont try to find ways to “unfairly” dis-credit.. Anyway, how can a guy who did such an inaccurate job of reporting have any moral standing to other’s efforts? Correct yourself before you try to correct others.. People in glass houses shouldnt throw stones at others..

    Reply
  12. 12

    zippo

    band, you obviously have a rash in your privates dude! i actually recorded the show.. let’s be fair here for a second. and i’m no aroor devotee, but i’m going to for once take criticism against him on for a change. and here are my answers to your hypercharged, half-baked accusations:

    first, he used the world anti-ballistic missile and the words ABM in his first story. an endo-atmospheric intercept of a tactical/battlefield ballistic missile.

    second, you’re obviously just trying to find errors– shiv used the words point defence to describe the trishul and barak, and when he spoke of air defence guns, he was talking about the evolution of a total air defence multitiered blanked of protection — not against IRBMs/ICBMs! being fair is the least you can do. that was a general part of the discussion.. what’s wrong with that?? and akash isn’t a point defence missile.

    third: there was a lot of a footage of the patriot, agreed, and not any of the AAD (there was a snapshot of the AAD launcher with a dummy missile which sufficed i thought), but so what? he mentions quite clearly through out and in the chat that the AAD should be superior to the patriot-3. even during the animation he says it. get a life man!

    and i actually liked the godzilla bits! why not? it’s fun, this is television man! THAAD etc, fine, but i think AK Singh talking about patriots being outdated and airborne lasers being the real thing was cool. and also, when the anchor asked aroor if armed forces could trust DRDO considering it’s past track record, did you see how aroor said the past should be the past, and if there’s a success it should be looked at independently and positively, and that this is a promising new system. and you talk about shiv deriding DRDO? for once he was actually being balanced!!! which world do you live in? aroor actually defended DRDO and intelligently at that!

    you demean debate (like aroor’s original series in express) by swinging on the extreme. if you want to convince aroor that he’s wrong, be intelligent, not a frothing-in-the-mouth idiot.

    Reply
  13. 13

    Band

    Zippo

    you have side stepped a lot of things regarding my questions? BTW I also recorded that program – I am willing to call your bluff.

    But anyway before I respond to you — please show me one instance of indecency against you in my post and contrast that with your post. I dare you — pickpout ONE SINGLE WORD of indecency in my earlier post and I will respond to you.. Otherwise consider yourself an indecent humanbeing unworthy of minimum courtesy..

    Reply
  14. 14

    Zippo

    sorry, i apologize for the unworthy comment.

    Reply
  15. 15

    Anonymous

    by youw own writeup:

    Minuteman
    60 feet – 18.3meter
    65inches – 1.65meter
    36T, 3stage, 6000miles

    Trident I C4
    44 feet – 13.41meter
    74inches – 1.88m
    33.2T,3stage, 4600miles

    Trident II D5 (please correct the data in your blog. You quoted Trident-I values and claim them to be for Trident-II.. and worse you got the weights mixed-up)
    44 feet – 13.41meter
    83inches – 2.1m
    58.5T,3stage, 7000miles

    Agni3 falls closely within the dimensions..

    Agni3
    16.3 meter
    2 meter
    48T, 2stage 4000Km

    Dr.Avinash Chander quoted they are already designing a 3-stage version og Agni3.. keeping length, dia same, but re-arranging the 2stages over 3-stages they can surely get ~6000km for that version of Agni.. if that is configured for SLBM – we are thinking far better than 300km.. surely from 1995 to now strategic views would have changed.. so dont unnecessarily worry too much about puported 300km range SLBM.

    Reply
  16. 16

    Anonymous

    Shiv,.. third one is nice..barring some typos..If it included the agni-3 then it would be complete. Probably, the officiers were not contemplating the use of agni-3 as SLBM or probably dated prior to agni-3.
    There’s a shortpoint: If we don’t have at least a nuclear-tipped IRBM platform by the time the ATV hits water, there’s going to be no real point.
    probably, shiv was thinking that, given our nuclear NFU policy and compulsory need of sea leg in this..he thought ensuing ATV is going to be either SSBN or SSGN.ofcourse, its valid becoz of testing of strategic missile as per the statement of drdo cheif Natarajan and reported as sub lauched missile by the US intelligence.

    Reply
  17. 17

    zippo

    at 1.52, someone’s used my name (zippo) to comment apologise to band. this wasn’t me. so this was obviously band himself. dude band, you really need to get out more often!

    Reply
  18. 18

    Band

    Why do I have to?

    Anyway to clarify to your senses – I did not do it. I dont see why I have to do that.

    If you have not dont that – good for you. It shows how incorrigible you are. Suit yourself and be comfortable.

    Reply
  19. 19

    Maverick

    Submerged launches are notoriously difficult and unreliable.

    There is also the surface and launch option. That is somewhat less challenging.

    CEP is always an issue but relevance depends on what you want your missile to do. If its a 150kT warhead that is trying to wipe out a city, 40 metres is not relevant.

    CEP becomes crucial when you are trying to wipe out a specific target that may be upto a 100 metres underground with a single airburst or even a ground detonation.

    Reply
  20. 20

    Jayadev,Kochi

    SLCN/SLBN are really top-secret projects and i dun think we can really track their progress from archive-based research. So its childish for u go over-board with DRDO /ASL bashing when u hav nothing in ur hands and when u can’t even b sure that wat ever u hav can be reliable info. I know negative posting is an easy way to drag attention by most media people coz ppl instinctive go for reading bad news than positive ones. All ur posts r negative..i mean its not like its bad to point out things..but almost all postings thoughout are explicitly negative and ostentatiously tries to give a balanced look to ur blog. Pathetic..but fun reading it..just for entertainment..like fiction

    Reply
  21. 21

    Anonymous

    Very negative and pessimistic article

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © . All rights reserved.