Breaking News: India Develops Submarine Based Nuclear Missile

India has indigenously developed and successfully tested its latest weapon system in its rapidly growing missile arsenal. Christened ‘Sagarika’, it is a submarine launched ballistic missile capable of hitting targets 1000 kms away. Sagarika developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), is to be fitted onto India’s nuclear sub which will be ready by earlier next year.

This is the fulfillment of the aim of the Indian nuclear doctrine to possess a viable and credible ‘‘second strike’’ capability to inflict ‘‘unacceptable damage’’ to an attacking enemy. It is a recognized strategic principle that a viable and credible second nuclear strike capability is vested with sea-launched nuclear-propelled submarine-launched cruise and ballistic missiles, as they are difficult to track.

The TRIAD is now complete.

Cheers!

Video


[edit on 7-7-2007 by mikesingh]

India's neighbours aren't going to be pleased. The last thing we want is Pakistan developing Nuclear Missile Subs in retaliation. - That country is just way too unstable.

I doubt China is going to like having a neighbour with Second Strike ability either. Good for India, bad for world stability. Could this new technology be considered proliferation? I know we in the West are hardly ones to judge when it comes to nukes (unless of course you consider we invented the nuke) but unless India is moving its current Land based nuclear weapon systems to the Sea isn't that against the proliferation treaty they signed? (Uncertain, please correct if wrong.)

Then again I doubt these Submarines are any match for USA/UK/French technology.

That's just great!

Although India has made great strides in technological development, India is still one of the poorest nations on this Earth. It is such a shame that India or, for that matter, Pakistan and other nations in similar positions, seek "a military advantage" over their "rivals" at the expense of their indigent populations.

While the same can be said, to some degree, about the U.S. and other Western nations, the level of poverty in the West do not compare with the absolute despair that is too often the case in the third world. 'sigh'

Poverty in India

Just great, one more delivery system for the most terrifying invention the world has ever seen.

If I could wave a magic wand just once my wish would be that all nuclear weapons will never function as intended.

BT, this ain't the forum for it and off topic a little, but I'd like a riposte to what you've written.

It's pretty unfortunate that many are absolutely unaware of the fact that India is not what it was 10 years ago (Its come a long way, baby!). It's roaring ahead economically what with a growth rate of almost 9.5% this year from last year's average of 8.5%. India's on a song. In comparison, both America's and Canada's growth rates were barely 2%.

It's got the biggest middle class in the world which is increasing in geometric progression. Yes. There is poverty but the scene is changing fairly rapidly. Don't forget that America has poverty too. In terms of PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) India is now the 4th largest economy in the world! And needless to say, has the 4th largest Armed forces too!

Probably there are well wishers like you who would love to see India being overwhelmed by China militarily. Oh yeah! The Indians shouldn't seek parity. Let them be the underdogs for ever! They should just put their hands up as soon as the first round is fired by the Chinese (Or Pakis) and say, "OK, don't shoot! You can screw us now!"

A powerful India can be good or bad for the US, depending on which way they go politically of course. They have strong political and military ties with both the US and Russia, and will be a strategic balance on the Asian continent, of course again depending which way they go and your perspective.

I don't see this as bad for world stability, they already had nuclear weapons and everyone knew it. What this does is add another level of strategic depth to any situation that my arise in the region. It will definitely give their enemies another moment of pause.

The sub that will evenutally carry these missiles is not ready.. nowhere near it, and even if it is, we will not get to know for obvious reasons. Its a nuclear vessel so

Now the sub shown in the video is not capable of launching the Sagarika as far as I know. The Sagarika is a ballistic missile requiring vertical launch tubes(again as far as I know), and the Kilo does not have those as of now and neither does it have the space to accomodate those in the future.
Unless the Sagarika is a n-SLCM and not an N-SLBM.
That's is where my confusion starts.

Now where was this missile tested from? IMO it was tested from stationary underwater launch pontoons as shown here: (Project 78 P78?)


*courtesy Bharat Rakshak

So what do we know about this missile from recent reports:

1. From various reports it seems to have a range of 800-1000km.
   
2. No confirmation on whether it is ballistic or cruise.Vertical Launch pontoon indicates ballistic nature, but thats a speculation.
   
3. No word yet on payload size and therefore weapon yield.
   
4. Launch Platform: From reports it seems to be the ATV SSN/SSBN(?) which will not be completed before the end of 2008.
   

Actually the scholars are still out on whether it is cruise or ballistic. I would wager ballistic as I do not think India has mastered cruise missile tech with such ranges; that too suited for subsurface launch.

Now here's where it gets interesting:

The Agni III is another missile that was tested successfully a few months back and it has a range of anywhere between 3000-5000km. Along with a whopping increase in range the AgniIII dimensions were typical of an SLBM, however not quite there yet. This missile is also slated to have a SLBM version Agni 3SL, and I wonder how that project is related to this Sagarika project.

India's SLBM project is codenamed K-15, and the launcher project is codenamed P78 I think.
So is the Agni 3SL and the Sagarika the same thing?
Actually logic would dictate that they would be independant with the Sagarika being a N-SLCM and the Agni3SL a N-SLBM.

Here's something to add to the confusion (circa 2001)

...Sources say that Sagarika will come in both versions — cruise and ballistic. It is, however, confirmed to be an advanced clone of the naval version of the Prithvi series. Prithvi-I is land-based, II is air-launched and III, sea launched. The difference is that Sagarika is designed exclusively for being launched from a submarine, hence is an SLBM (SLCM is a cruise missile.)

The state of development of the SLBM/SLCM could not be confirmed but what could be confirmed was the targeted date for the test launch of the missile itself...

Here we have a much shorter range of 300km. Since this article is 6 years old though, it cannot be taken seriously.
However the confusion still remains.
What was tested recently: cruise missile or ballistic missile?

The Agni 3SL and pontoon in comparision:
Note: The surface based Agni-3 was tested a few months back


DRDO Launch Pontoon/TEL projects


News Reports on recent test:
CNN-IBN
Indian Express

I will try to find out what exactly was tested 3 times successfully(payload/range/cruise or ballistic)and from where(launch pontoon/submerged etc).

Once we figure that out we can go onto strategic rammifications.
And as for whether its a good thing or bad?
Here's a point of view for all you 'oh-this-is-just-going-to-worsen-things'
types:

This missile completes India's nuclear triad;actually the submarine capability of India naval nuclear triad since technically India already has a surface naval nuclear capability with the BrahMos LACM/AShCM and the Dhanush SRBM.
This gives India a secure second strike capability:

If some trigger happy foe decides to launch a pre-emptive N-strike against India and succeeds in maiming India's land,air and surface-naval based nuclear response capability, then India still has this submarine ability to respond.
So rather than increasing the nuclear hype in the region; India has just secured the lives of its citizens by discouraging other N-weapons states from trying to take out India's N-teeth and/or launch nuclear weapons at its people.

Moreover India has a No-first-use nuclear policy. This means that India will ONLY use N-weapons if it is attacked with N-weapons FIRST.

Now it is interesting to note that out of all the 'matured' and newbie N-weapons states, only 2 have this this policy(the other one being China).
Everyone else including the Gen-1 N-States(US,UK,France,Russia) reserves the right to launch whenever they feel like it.

People might call no-first-use political hogwash, but then again only two N-weapons states publically stated that stance.
I doubt the others also 'feel' that way and are just ambiguous about it in public because of the 'morality' of towing a false line
If nothing else, a global no-first use policy will greatly reduce nuclear tension. After all once the birds fly nobody's going to point fingers at 'who' violated 'what' policy.
Some states do not tow the no-first-use line because they do not have faith in their conventional abilities.

Summarising I feel that by completing its N-Triad, India has further secured the lives of its citizens and potentially those of its foes.
Actually this new addition to India's N-arsenal greatly lowered the chance of nuclear holocaust on the subcontinent and Here's why this has resulted in a nuclear inhibitor IMO:

1. India is not supposed to used N-weapons unless attacked by them first
   
2. Foes will not attack India with N-weapons unless they are willing to bare the consequences of a sureshot virtually indestructible secure N-response from India.
   

More on test details and strategic consequences later

DD3

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
That's just great!

Although India has made great strides in technological development, India is still one of the poorest nations on this Earth. It is such a shame that India or, for that matter, Pakistan and other nations in similar positions, seek "a military advantage" over their "rivals" at the expense of their indigent populations.

While the same can be said, to some degree, about the U.S. and other Western nations, the level of poverty in the West do not compare with the absolute despair that is too often the case in the third world. 'sigh'

Poverty in India

Please read the latter portion of my post above.

Is it worth having a nation with no poverty, and at the same time, one that is forced succumb to the will and fancy of other nations with superior war waging ability?

True, a nation can get both higher standard of living and the ability to defend itself, but it requires time.

India has been one of the most populous nations in the world and has just had a little over 50 years to deal with it.
Simultaneously it has had to grow in an environment having hostile forces with nuclear weapons(the US being one of them) who have had all the time in the world to feed their miniscule populations and build their will-dictating weapons.

India made a choice. Its not black or white. India is not ignoring poverty/famine etc..
It just feels that national security is paramount. If everybody stands down including retreating from their latest crusadesque misadventures, India will feel secure enough to reduce military spending and increase social funding.
Thankyou

DD3

EDIT: Mikesingh please post this on ATSNN so that this gets more visibility.
You should do because you were the first to break it on ATS.
Plus you'll get some more brownie points!

[edit on 8-7-2007 by Daedalus3]

DD3

That was a fantastic analysis! Well researched! You've covered most of the points.

Of course, there's still confusion whether it is an SLBM or SLCM. But as you pointed out, India probably hasn't perfected the technology for such a long range cruise missile just yet. I'll bet on its being an SLBM.

Mikesingh please post this on ATSNN so that this gets more visibility.
You should do because you were the first to break it on ATS.
Plus you'll get some more brownie points!

Don't you think it's a trifle late to do this? And then you'll need to reproduce your reply there. Yeah. The whole thing! I wonder what BT has to say to this?

As for those brownie points, I don't even look at them anymore!

Cheers!

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Simultaneously it has had to grow in an environment having hostile forces with nuclear weapons(the US being one of them)

please cite when the USA , in your opinion was " hostile " to india

the only truely hostile nuclear ared power hat india ` had to grow up with ` was china

the pakisani`s developed thier nuclear arsenel MUCH later , and in direct response to indian weapons programs

so really you [ india ] provoked them

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Simultaneously it has had to grow in an environment having hostile forces with nuclear weapons(the US being one of them)

please cite when the USA , in your opinion was " hostile " to india

the only truely hostile nuclear ared power hat india ` had to grow up with ` was china

the pakisani`s developed thier nuclear arsenel MUCH later , and in direct response to indian weapons programs

so really you [ india ] provoked them

Nearest instance of direct confrontation?

1971 Indo-Pak war. The US(Allies of Pakistan) sent the 74th task force from yankee station into the Bay of Bengal at the fag end of the war. Pakistan had almost lost in the east and Bangladesh was almost independant.

The US move was countered by Soviet response(Allies of India) sent a bunch of destroyers and SSNs into the bay behind the 74th to 'even the scales'.

Indian Air Force pilots, after having almost finished off the Eastern PAF divisions were now prepping for immenent engagement with the carrier and its air arm. Local sources tell me that owing to the technological disadvantage the IAF pilots had, some were even prepped for kamakazi(no bingo fuel)missions against the 74th.

I think there are some recently unclassified Whitehouse documents which reveal secret meetings between 'Kissinger & Co' and high ranking Chinese officials. The objective was for the Chinese and the US to co-ordinate an 'imminent attack threat' directed towards India, with the Chinese deploying aggressively on their common border with India and the Americans carrying out some good ol' carrier projection.
Remember that during this time, the US and China were buddies. The US needed a strong Pak to counter Soviet Ally India.
China and the Soviets were not on good terms at the time.


They(the US and China) thought that this way India would back out and keep Pakistan intact; i.e. stop Bangladesh from breaking away as an independant nation.


I'll dig up those Kissinger docs if I can.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

the pakisani`s developed thier nuclear arsenel MUCH later , and in direct response to indian weapons programs

so really you [ india ] provoked them

India's arsenal was developed in response to China and the corresponding alliances between the US and Pakistan.

India had overwhelming conventional superiority over Pakistan.

India never built nukes for Pakistan. Understandably they(Pak) weren't going to take India's word for it either. Also Pakistan always pursued a nuclear program independant of 'reactive reponse' to India's program.

Its a classic cascade arms race.
One could play the blame game and trace it all the way back to the US thatway!


Oh and by the way,

Pakistan always wanted a M.A.D.-esque deterrence against the conventionally superior Indian forces. They have that now.
And it works..
The Kargil war is a living example. Pakistan knew that its misdaventure would not invoke the full wrath of the Indian response(Retaking all of Kashmir) because it always had the nuclear trump.
Without it, India would have removed the intruders in Kargil, and pushed back into Pakistani Kashmir to take out all those terror camps. India could have had spec ops in and out of there with air cover in 48 hours.
However with Musharraf openly threating the use of N-weapons, even crossing the LoC to achieve optimum fighter bombing trajectory against the well bunkered intruders was out of the question.

EDIT:
Nowadays countries don't build nukes just to counter 'other' nukes. conventional inferiority plays a very important role too.
See Iran vis-a-vis the US.


[edit on 9-7-2007 by Daedalus3]

Well brought out! I_A thinks he's the authority on everything under the sun! And I've been missing his hilarious posts laced with incredible ignorance! Where had he disappeared?

I hope he stops shooting from the hip as is his want! But Alas! Habits die hard!

Cheers!

reply to post by ignorant_ape



Just a clarification here. Ina did not provoke pakistan.

sequence of events leading to nuclear weapons in India:

1) US and UK want India to go nuclear before china so they can close communist china out of nuclear club
2) Indian scientists want to go nuclear prime minister says no
3) Taiwan vacates UN permanent security council seat. US, UK and France and majority of UN members want India to take the seat but, Prime minister feels that China should get the seat and gifts it to china
4) Global political situation starts changing as tensions between Russia (USSR) and China grew.
5) China goes nuclear in 1964
6) Pressure builds on India after India-China war when china threatens to use nuclear weapons
7) India goes to US for security assurance and protection under US nuclear umbrella. US says no because we are not members of NATO
8) India explodes PNE in 1974
9) NSG created to isolate India
10) India starts weaponising after 1989 when it gets confirmed intelligence that china has transfered atomic bomb designs, testing data, missile technology, missiles and bomb making equipment to Pakistan. And Pakistan has weaponised.
11) After indefinite extension of NPT with out any legal commitment to denuclearize by P5 and pressure building on it to sign CTBT.
12) Pressure builds on India as its pushed to corner. India goes overtly nuclear in 1998. Pakistan follows suite with in a month by testing bomb designs supplied by china.


2) Indian scients want to go nuclear immediately priministers says no

Originally posted by Chupa101
India's neighbours aren't going to be pleased. The last thing we want is Pakistan developing Nuclear Missile Subs in retaliation. - That country is just way too unstable.

I doubt China is going to like having a neighbour with Second Strike ability either. Good for India, bad for world stability. Could this new technology be considered proliferation? I know we in the West are hardly ones to judge when it comes to nukes (unless of course you consider we invented the nuke) but unless India is moving its current Land based nuclear weapon systems to the Sea isn't that against the proliferation treaty they signed? (Uncertain, please correct if wrong.)

Then again I doubt these Submarines are any match for USA/UK/French technology.

If the U.S. really thought Pakistan was unstable the U.S. would have bombed their nuke sites back in 98.

The reality of the New World order is that India is a superpower, the 9th Industrialised country, self sufficient, military power, with significant manufacturing base, IT hub for the worlds organisations and a significant Space programme. India is a major competitor in every sphere.

Naturally those who are threatened are justified about India an emerging.

China and India's adversaries perceive India as a major competitor, a powerful nation and thus a future adversary.

They will not doubt contribute towards anti India commentaries. Unfortunately, no one not even China is in a position to stop India's competitive position.

Sorry to all my Chinese friends. Tough. May you continue with negative comments and anti Indian positions.

Great news...India can now blow up the world too....i cant wait until they all launch their bombs....BOOOOOMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!