China: For all the “inferiority” which western media applies in extremely liberal doses to everything “made in china”, for starters, my layman advice would be to just start watching a few informative documentary programs on History Channel. To just highlight two facts that the:

1. The Chinese had a naval armada 500 years before the Europeans learned how to construct decent ocean going ships and that this armada sailed up to Africa not once but twice
2. That the Chinese created oil drilling equipment and technology many centuries before the Americans.

Probably 50 years of power grabbing, mass human mind washing by communist party officials may have slowed the Chinese ascent to power, does not mean China will always remain under the US/UK/France/Russia bloc in terms of technological superiority.
Western media must learn to accept that Asians can and will supersede their achievements. Supremacy of civilizations is also very cyclical like the financial markets. Rome may have been the pinnacle at a point in time, but so was Beijing or Tokyo.

India: As Indians, we suffer from two key issues: we love to not-believe the govt. when it has any sort of capability and secondly, we believe that the western sources are always right.

When analyzing India now, we must however put one thing in perspective: Since economic liberalization in 1991, we have broken through a lot of mental shackles. Yes politically, we still may behave like the cave men, but we have a big belief in our capabilities as individuals now (beyond the western stereotype of IT help desk, which partially replaced the snake charmer stereotype) based on our achievements.

Extrapolating this onto the defense establishment, I would like to believe that we are sitting at a good point in the cycle from where we will be able to produce effective systems to meet our needs. We and the western media, often state the case of LCA or Arjun to ridicule the research and defense guys. Perhaps a large portion maybe true, but what we miss in this process is that India does not always try to copy designs from outside (as the Chinese have been criticized) but begins from scratch. This re-inventing the wheel philosophy may not be feasible in today’s fast shrinking world, but does not imply a lack of achievement. If you can make a 150-km nuke missile fly and put 11 satellites into orbit in one go, and possess the largest remote sensing capability in the world, clearly you have reached a certain critical level of competence.

With an eye on the future, it would be prudent for a defense analyst to not always look at the western powers as being the only benchmark of capability and achievement. Scaling up in confidence by the Asian powers will be a game changer in the blink of an eye. Exercise healthy skepticism with rigor. Do not fall prey to mere national pride posturing. And finally, open your mind to new people coming to the party.

Reply: Our assessment is certainly not just based on Indian and western news media (although they sometime carry important information) but also on government statements and intelligence assessments. You’re right that pride can certainly distort, but I would add in India as well as in the “west.” Yet since “the party” you mention is a nuclear one, I believe that fact adds an important additional dimension not to mention a responsibility to critically assess claims about capability regardless of whether one lives in the “west” or in India. And in doing so, I for one find it is helpful to compare with what other nuclear powers went through in their quest to develop and deploy nuclear forces. Not least because nuclear weapons promise or threaten so much that they have a nasty tendency to corrupt minds and bend rules. HK

There is a bizarre dichotomy in their technological achievements. On one hand they have a pretty successful space program while on the other hand they seem to be struggling with simple rocketry which countries like Iran and N.Korea seem to posses. The Agni-2 and 3 with ranges of 3000 and 4000km are almost primitive compared to the capabilities of their space program with its Polar Launch Vehicle, Geostationary launch vehicle with a domestic cryogenic engines and their recent launch of 11 payloads simultaneously. While on the other hand they claim to be having trouble with SLBM’s and operationalizing the Agni missiles.

I would contend that there is a campaign of misinformation as to their true capabilities and that their true capabilities are much further along than even their seemingly exaggerated claim. It is hard to believe that a nation that has a GDP close to 3 trillion dollars, more than 50 defense research institutions and can put an impactor on the moon can’t build a reliable missile to drop a bomb 5000 kms away. While an impoverished nation like North Korea/Iran have the ability to launch a 2 staged missile over 3000 kms ? The facts dont add up and make little sense.

Savom: you got it absolutely right, but the need is urgent only now.
Earlier the 600 odd MiG aircraft were enough for Pakistan with Prithvi completing nuclear angle.
Previously China had not built airbases and road near the border. Also the border issue has flared up again. The IAF will anyhow add 126 crafts in addition to 2+ squadrons of the LCA.
That’s why with China adding nuke subs you will see the ATV program “reviving”.
In fact, I think it is China helping India’s defense sector develop. The go-slow attitude had a US influence if I am not mistaken.

I agree that the Indians tend to name their missiles years before they construct them

India has another 20-30 years before it can modernize its military. For starters it can start by getting rid of the WWII helmets off its army and wooden frame rifles.

As for ICBM, I have been hearing about Surya for decades now. If a 12,000-km range missile is already in the arsenal, then why it took them almost 20 years to move from Agni 1 to Agni 3.

With regard to the ATV, that must be a dud of a project. Getting close to the silver jubilee of the project.

Take LCA. That must be a world class joke. Even the IAF is fed up with the project and now tendering for 126 fighters from foreign countries.

Just by having a few nuclear war heads doesn’t make a nation a Superpower. It requires the economic and technical prowess.

Reply: When referring to new reports, please include a link to the story in your comment. HK

Reply: FAS periodically produces, in collaboration with Natural Resources Defense Council, the Nuclear Notebook, which is published bi-monthly in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. The Notebooks present our updated analysis of nuclear forces of all nuclear weapon states, including their ballistic missile programs.

As for the GSLV (Geosynchronous Launch Vehicle), yes it is potentially possible for it to carry nuclear warheads if India decided to do so and developed the technology. But a rocket doesn’t become nuclear-capable just because it looks similar to other ballistic missiles that have such a mission. The GSLV is a space launch vehicle, not a military ballistic missile, and it would take a government decision and a dedicated engineering effort to convert it into a delivery vehicle for nuclear warheads. I am not aware of official information declaring such a capability for the GSLV. If you know of any, please let me know. HK

Let us compare the above with the original blog post.
1. You have mentioned that there are technical problems in the blog.
2. In this reply, you seem to mention that after a few tests, it is declared operational but then induction is not easy.

Question on 1.: Where/what are the technical problems?

Question on 2. How many tests are required to effectively state that it is operational according to you, especially when a lot if subsystems have been used before. What parameters would you test repeatedly for a new missile. Do you think simulation would have helped the DRDO?

Question on 2.
Logistics, warhead mating, decoys, readiness, target identification, etc etc are some of the issues with induction. But since Prithvi , a lot of water has passed under the bridge…..do you think the defence forces are still grappling with the issue?

Reply: China has had the ability to strike targets in Continental United States since the early 1980s when the DF-5 was first deployed. According to the U.S. intelligence community, deployment of the Trident sea-launched ballistic missile in the Pacific convinced Chinese planners that their long-range deterrent was vulnerable to a first strike and set out to develop a long-range mobile ICBM. That system (DF-31A) is now entering service to complement and perhaps replace the DF-5.

As for U.S. nuclear cooperation with India, that is civilian cooperation and I would be very surprised if the U.S. would directly assist India in improving its nuclear capabilities. That there should be any correlation between India’s ability (or not) to target Washington with nuclear weapons and the emergence of the U.S.-Indian nuclear agreement is, as far as I am aware, completely without foundation. The U.S.-Indian nuclear agreement appears to be a grand strategic gamble to deepen relations with India and counter China while at the same time trying to avoid undermining the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime. Whether this gamble pays off or makes things worse remains to be seen, but the U.S. is very concerned about the medium- and long-term implications of the Indian-Pakistani-Chinese nuclear dynamic. HK

Reply: Agni II has been test-flown to 1,500-2,000 km, which at its maximum range theoretically brings parts of western and south-eastern China within range from mainland India. This includes the Chinese missile sites at Delingha and nuclear weapons production facilities near Chengdu (not that I think India has a counterforce posture). If India deployed Agni II to northeast of Bangladesh, then it could theoretically reach a large part of China’s main populated areas short of Beijing. But as mentioned in our article and elsewhere in responses to comments on this blog, we don’t see clear signs that Agni II is operational.

It appears focus has now shifted to Agni III, which has been test-flown to a range of some 3,000 km. Once it becomes fully operational, this range will enable India to threaten roughly the same targets that Agni II theoretically could at maximum range – but without having to deploy the missiles northeast of Bangladesh. In order to reach Beijing, however, a 3,000-km range Agni III would still have to be moved into the area northeast of Bangladesh, a poor choice if the mission is retaliation.

Apparently convinced that threatening most of China’s population south of Beijing with nuclear annihilation is not enough for deterrence to work, enthusiastic missile designers at DRDO have now promised an Agni IV (or Agni III+) with a range of approximately 5,000 km. Such a weapon would theoretically be able to threaten Beijing from launch sites anywhere in India.

Why a submarine-launched nuclear ballistic missile would be needed in addition to such capabilities for a minimum deterrent posture to be credible is beyond me. It is hard not to see the race for more and more capabilities as India and its potential adversaries stumbling into a regional nuclear arms race. HK

If they come from the western reporters, they face the following issues:
1. Inaccuracies due to second hand or third hand resources being used as references
2. Some incompetence from the reporters.
3. Subtle subconscious bias and blind faith

If they come from reporters in India, we face the following problem:
1. Total incompetence of many reporters
2. National pride issue

Now add to these India’s intentionally inconsistent reporting from DRDO/ISRO to keep foreign reporters like these guessing.

For example, there is not ONE SOUL on earth in public domain who can confidently state the variations within AGNI missile series and its performance parameters. Indian govt keeps giving conflicting reports that just doesn’t gel.

A lot of guess work is needed to patch the reports from Indian govt press wires and that make all these reports worthless to varying extent.

Here are some things to ponder:

1. If it is possible for India to lob a 1000 kg payload on a lunar transfer trajectory at beyond 100000 miles, why would we think India cannot lob a 250 kg TN device in a simple ballistic trajectory for 10000 miles? Are we stupid or or we stupid to believe that India cannot do this?

2. Does anybody outside of DRDO, REALLY know the actual ranges for any of these missiles? If the missiles are really inefficient that they limit themselves to stated ranges, how come missiles are becoming smaller and smaller?

3. If missile defence/interception has be proven at endo and exo atmospheric ranges, how come India still claims problems with missile controls?

In essence, this stupidity serves everybody. Everybody thinks what they want to think and present it as a report. A lot of people agree, a lot more disagree and the people who really know, just smile.