From that angle in that colour pain the Tejas is looking good. Anybody have more pictures of the flight test with the stores?

Newer Blended Wing-Body Delta fighters always looks very good from one angle and weird from another , perhaps due to their airfoils, typhoon , J10 all exhibits similar behavior to me IMO, Rafale is perhaps the exception.

BTW That picture has been made short, picture is from frontierindia.net , I doubt they will be releasing the big pic, but kudos to them for bringing out the story, a excellent website and normally most of the time has insider information on the current defence articles they write.

China Developing Scramjet Propulsion
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/aw090307p2.xml

Sep 2, 2007
By Craig Covault

China is starting to ramp up its scramjet propulsion work—an initiative that will benefit high-speed missile programs while also helping the country to develop advanced aerospace materials, greater computational capabilities and a cadre of young engineers who have matured as a result of cutting-edge engine and aerodynamic challenges.

Building on its ramjet experience, China is embracing the much more difficult task of developing Mach 5 air vehicle concepts in which propulsion and aerodynamics are highly coupled.

As part of this effort, an integrated scramjet model is about to begin testing at up to Mach 5.6 in a new wind tunnel in Beijing.

In addition to the technology and engineering experience to be gained, the mid-term military payoff is likely to be more advanced high-speed tactical and medium-range Chinese missiles, especially for antiship warfare that could threaten U.S. aircraft carriers in the Pacific or operating in support of Taiwan.

“China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the U.S. and field disruptive military technologies that could, over time, offset traditional U.S. military advantages,” the 2006 Pentagon Quadrennial Review said about overall Chinese military technology initiatives.

And over the next several decades, the scramjet work could eventually provide China with a tactical hypersonic global-strike capability beyond the country’s strategic ballistic missile force. The U.S. has similar goals for its own growing scramjet program.

The Chinese allowed a peek into multiple aspects of their scramjet efforts at the recent American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Joint Propulsion Conference in Cincinnati. Chinese engineers from several research facilities presented about a dozen papers on their scramjet developments, as well as details on the new wind tunnel.

At the same forum, their papers revealed new rocket propulsion research, including work on hybrid systems that use a combination of propellants easier to handle and store than most propellants in wider use today. New insight also was offered on Chinese solid rocket motor technology work, important for both missile and space launch applications.

The Cincinnati meeting differed from a traditional U.S. industry gathering, because nearly a dozen engineers from Iran also submitted papers on Iranian solid and liquid rocket technologies. The Iranian engineers are based at the Sharif University of Technology and the KNT Technical University, both in Tehran. They apparently did not deliver the papers in person. However, as participants, the Iranians have access to all of the highly detailed U.S. aircraft and rocket propulsion presentations made at the conference.

A scramjet (supersonic combustion ramjet) flies at Mach 5 or faster using hydrogen fuel and oxygen out of the air for oxidizer. The engine must combine an advanced ramjet that changes configuration to swallow supersonic flow above about Mach 4.

Advanced ramjet technologies are also important for scramjet development, and the Chinese have been active in this area for decades.

Ironically, one the more interesting historical papers presented at the forum was a detailed description of how the U.S. Air Force and Lockheed combined top-secret ramjet propulsion technologies with segmented solid rocket boosters for the Mach 3 D-21B reconnaissance drones that were launched by modified SR-71s and B-52Hs in the late 1960s (see center photo). The D-21B was specifically developed to gather intelligence over China.

This was the first time details on the segmented rocket booster portion of the D-21B program have been presented publicly, says Robert Geisler of Geisler Industries, who led the analysis with retired Pratt & Whitney and ATK Tactical Propulsion engineers. Segmented boosters use individual circular sections like space shuttle solid rocket motors.

China already has such segmented solid rocket motor and ramjet capabilities today, but scramjets are a much greater challenge.

Although nowhere nearly as advanced as U.S. scramjet work, Chinese activities in this discipline will give the Defense Dept. additional impetus to argue for strong, ongoing U.S. hypersonic propulsion funding. Diverse U.S. technology programs are already underway to support development of the X-51 scramjet test vehicle (AW&ST July 23, p. 23).

As part of the Chinese effort, the engineers say new analytical centers are also being developed. For example, a Hypersonic Propulsion Test Facility has been built to support the scramjet program, according to Xinyu Chang, a senior researcher at the Laboratory of High-Temperature Gas Dynamics in Beijing, where the HPTF is located. Gas Dynamics lab research is specifically oriented to “the development of hypersonic flight vehicles, both aeronautics-and space-related,” according to data from the facility.

Broad studies there are “devoted to the fundamentals of hypersonic and high-temperature gas dynamics including detonation phenomena, supersonic combustion, chemical reactions, shock-wave/vortex interactions and thermal-chemical flow characteristics.” The lab helps lead several Chinese technology programs for scramjet propulsion. This includes basic hypersonic vehicle designs that could mate with a scramjet engine, as well as computational fluid dynamics work to assess the challenge of coupled ramjet/scramjet inlet flow fields at the front of the vehicle.

Scramjet ignition technology and work on cooling the internal walls of a scramjet are also being assessed, the Chinese say. Computer modeling of scramjet combustion instability is also being modeled.

“At the present time, the emphasis on rocket-based combined cycle [RBCC] scramjet research has gradually transferred from research and performance studies to some ground experiments and structures design,” says Wang Houqing, a researcher at Northwestern Polytechnical University in Xian. NPU is one of China’s top aerospace research centers.

“A copper model scramjet is ready for testing” in the new Gas Dynamics Laboratory facility, says Xinyu.

“The facility is to provide high enthalpy [thermal dynamic] model scramjet testing,” he says.

The facility uses a hydrogen/air and oxygen replenishment combustion heater with a flow rate of 3.5 kg./sec., with temperature capabilities up to 2,000K. It can generate test velocities up to Mach 5.6, according to Xinyu.

Many different scramjet combustor configurations have been tested so far, he says. But the new facility will allow complete scramjet engine model configurations to be evaluated instead of just the combustor alone.

Other Chinese scramjet research presented at Cincinnati included:

•Aerodynamic performance of Chinese waverider designs integrated with an inlet. “Simulation studies were conducted to investigate forebody-inlet-isolator performance in an airframe-scramjet integrated hypersonic vehicle,” according to Liu Zhenxia, also at NPU.

•Multicode computational fluid dynamics runs for coupled ramjet/scramjet inlet flowfields. This work models the transition from “ram” to “scram” propulsion. The research is underway at the Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

•Research of gas discharge coefficients. This work is being conducted at the College of Aerospace and Materials Engineering at the National University of Defense Technology in Changsha.

•Cross-section design of a controllable hypersonic inlet. The research is being done at the Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

•Scramjet combustion mode translation studies. This work is also part of the scramjet effort at the National University of Defense Technology.

•Hydrogen injection and scramjet ignition testing. The research is being done in the Defense Technology university.

•Thermal and structures studies. NPU is performing heat transfer analysis and overall scramjet thermal structure design, including analysis of different materials used in the scramjet concepts.

•Numerical simulation of combustion instability. This work is also being pursued in Xian.

..

This is the first time i came across the following news. Is this for real? And more importantly what’s going on? Why are Russian-Idian defence ties all of a sudden going through such problems?

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3010121&C=asiapac
In August, Rosoboronoexport stopped supplying spare parts for missile used by all Indian Air Force combat aircraft, which could ground all such missiles within three months: the short-range air-to-air R-60MK and R-73 RD MZ, the medium-range air-to-air R-27 R-1/ TE1, the long-range air-to-air R-77 and RWAE, and the ground-attack KH-25 L/T, KH-31 L/P and KH-59 M missiles.

Dude thats a report by Vivek Raghuvanshi, spare parts for missiles? Take it with a pinch of salt.

You will be surprised to know how much he manipulates parliamentary report and other reports from other sources to suit the way he wants to report to present, PM me if you want to know some of them. I wished warofnews blog was alive for you to see today.

Look how he puts his own twist of ‘in the shadow of 123’ arguably ‘in the shadow of America’, ofcourse forgets the 123 is more in Russian prerogative so that they cal sell us 4 more VVER’s than US prerogative from selling us reactors POV. this is not from me but articles quoting from Russia.

Half knowledge of these writers is dangerous than no knowledge and twisting sources is dangerous than having no sources at all.

May be u should take charge of indian efforts to convince all those ignorants including ppl like Jimmy Carter who are not so convinced. But im sure many of us will remain ignorant. BTW, no offence was taken.:)

huh! the great carter ‘talk’ again without NOTHING yet concrete you have spoken, whers the DAMN data dude? :rolleyes: I ask you to PROVE ME AGAIN How this deal will aid to Indian nuclear weapons programme supported BY SET OF DATAS, and not what politicians shouts about, all the above article if you read snippets are supported by data, now tell me one thing have you read the Tellis article yet? :rolleyes:

To be honest i visit a very few forums and get to read very few posts. One thing which i stopped doing after finishing my studies was to get involved in essay/book type discussions:)

And you think I hop forums all day around? :rolleyes: I must be iliterate then that I dont even what great Carter talk but I only know what are LWR’s 😮 Wait indias former PM VP singh is also against the deal 😮

Here is what great carter writes in one of his article,

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2006/03/29_carter_dangerous-deal.htm

And says,

So far India has only rudimentary technology for uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing, and Congress should preclude the sale of such technology to India.

Doesnt even knows the national facility of reprocessing will be Indian :rolleyes: the reason we will have INDIA SPECIFIC IAEA safeguards on them, if that was US made it would have US specific safeguards.

Even if for the sake of argument US builds a national reprocessing facility (lets say for its GNEP programme) in India , that means it is going to reprocess Indian fuel which will go in our weapons programme or we will do it on our own reprocessing facilities? :rolleyes:

And where does deal talks of Pu reprocessing? 😮

Knowing for more than three decades of Indian leaders’ nuclear ambitions, I and all other presidents included them in a consistent policy: no sales of civilian nuclear technology or uncontrolled fuel to any country that refused to sign the NPT.

We are already building civilian nooklear technology 1000 Mw Russian LWR’s, He should be more specific , PHWR’s are also civilian , uncontrolled fuel? 😮

The five original nuclear powers have all stopped producing fissile material for weapons, and India should make the same pledge to cap its stockpile of nuclear bomb ingredients. Instead, the proposal for India would allow enough fissile material for as many as 50 weapons a year, far exceeding what is believed to be its current capacity.

This gentlemen is truly not aware of what hes talking about, We have FAR FAR more Pu than Pu to make 50 weapons a year, We are making 2 FBR’s (500 Mwe each) which will be take inside Pu and will be operationalize around 2008, it will consume more than enough Pu than what will make 50 bombs a year, remember it will be non-safeguarded as well means Pu has to come from Indian non-safeguarded reactors and not reprocessed-LWR-safeguarded-fuels. So today if we dont have any Pu stockpile how will we feed the FBR’s we are making? 😮 If we have the Pu whats stopping us from making 50 weapons a year as of now? 😉 again refer to data for the amount of Uranium We have mined and corresponding Pu we have.

He has a point a politicians point of view why India wont sign NPT/CTBT/FMCT, answer simply we wont and we have our reasons for the same, we were nuclearised the time when NPT came into force but did not had anything to deliver them with.

I guess the first one in line will be China-Pakistan deal. Following are couple of articles from Indian sources. While many like myself will continue to express their reservations about any such deal, i dont know what sort of counter-arguments proponents of US/Ind nuke deal will have then. I can only guess, we’d get to hear a lot about imeccable indian track record, and eventually US of A will get what it wants.
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=91044
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=82897b20-2f88-406f-a837-754b6f40f9c2&ParentID=b82b6e77-5649-4a8c-8da4-4c77b18c0613&&Headline=Pak%2c+China+try+to+seal+mirror+deal

You need to understand what Indian media barks on is not necessarily what should be believed on, India will lobby against such initiative? surely it will India and Pakistan have a ongoing dispute, dont see any issue there. It is in Indias prerogative and diplomacy of interests calls for it.

however as I have said China with IAEA’s permission can very well sell their 300 Mw LWR’s to you guys, 6 of which If i’m not wrong is what Pakistan wants at this moment, surely the deal will just be like Myanmar deal, they will build the reactors through a state firm in Pakistan, supply fuel and take the spent fuel back all under IAEA.

PS. Im really through with this discussion. So lets get back to…what was it…oh yeah delay in aircraft carrier. 🙂

honestly was enjoying talking to you on geopolitics, however I dont like people being in purest form of denial, when the arguments I presented with supported set of dedicated research work being very simple to understand.

I expect debaters talking of how this deal will give India ‘technology’ to meet her weapons needs to talks of how this will ‘aid’ Indias nuclear programme to have basic knowledge on the deal and nuclear technology in general.

Your intellectualism that you showed in the beginning short falled expectations down the line, please double check from sources you read and always verify them with independent data before you come to conclusion would be my only request. I’ll try later to summarize things for you.

1) GTRE is confident that K9+ can be as it is integrated into PV-1.

2) The expected thrust of kaveri engine is going to exceed the advertised thrust. But, the problem lies with the afterburner (as mentioned in the FIDSNS) article. Another issue is the blades metallurgy.The blades need to be changed faster than the normal.

3) The JV is going to look after only few modules for collaboration and to establish smooth manufacturing lines in the K10 standars, This was also mentioned in the MOD report.

Continuing from my previous kaveri post from here (expert posted above) some more details and latest news in oldest to latest order for you guys,

From The Hindu

Commenting on the long delayed Kaveri engine, which if ready could have solved the propulsion problem, Dr. Banerjee said that while it was operating on full design capacity on dry thrust (50 kilo Newton), it was only achieving 90 per cent aft burner thrust (80 kN). It was also 15 per cent overweight, an issue that “was killing it”. The Gas Turbine Research Establishment that is developing the Kaveri is still looking to find a partner who will bring in technology to build the hot end section (turbine and high pressure compression) of the Kaveri.

From Zeenews

Speaking on the occasion, T Mohan Rao, Director, Gas Turbine Research Establishment at Bangalore, outlined the ongoing work on the Kaveri engine that would power the LCA.

From Newindpress on ADA plans supersonic fighter trainer

Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) Director, T Mohana Rao, in his presentation said his scientists were struggling to reduce the weight of the Kaveri engine to 1,050 Kgs as required by ADA for the LCA Tejas.

Rao said of the nine engine prototypes, the first three weighed 1,432 Kgs, the fourth to eighth weighed 1,235 Kgs while the ninth weighed 1.101.1 Kgs.

On above article, note how they have almost reached the desired weight of kaveri in K9, it is the K9 standard which will fly in LCA first while it will be the K10 standard where help will be sought to further reduce the weight, and create other changes if need be.

I’m think better turbine casting technology will greately reduce the weight and will improve TET as well.

Contract signing in December on Kaveri again from newindpress

Good information on kaveri,

Air breathing engines and Aerospace Propulsion – Proceedings of NCABE 2004 – 05-07 November 2004: Organised by IIT Kanpur

This is an online book at books.google.com. Amazing content on Kaveri – a collection of various papers inlcuding info on Combusters, controls, compressors, design process, flow and heat transfer, manufacturing, advanced materials being developed for the Kaveri program, fatigue structure evaluations of Kaveri et al. A very comprehensive presentation of 601 pages.

Also has info on Scramjets.

Indian sovereign right?
Come on Joey mate, what are u talking about? Where was the respect for those sovereign rights for past years? Why do u think the necons in Washington (many of whom have gone now) who have no respect for a multipolar world as well as a number of multinational institution/treaties (facts speak for themselves) give a toss about Indian sovereign rights now???

I’m not speaking of Indias sovereign right as per US, but Indias sovereign rights as per the 123 and how India wants the thing. USD pushed for many thing which were against the spirit of 123 which was skillfully negotiated.

Regarding the deal being ‘independent’ of any such contain politics, do u really expect India and US to write that in their contract?:) Of course, India would take whatever steps she takes based on her interest, i have no doubt…but so does every other country including US of A and China. However, India know fully well that US is bending backward to accommodate Indian wishes and that India in one way or another will have to reciprocate that…US is much bigger of a power than India is right now, and as the saying goes (to the effect) ‘if u want tall friends u better have higher doors’:)

First of all, No I dont expect US to write that in the contract, however do you really expect if by any case not following what US interest calls for US has any legal means to dissolve the 123 based on that? 😮 I again told you what is in Indian interest India will do, there is very little need to ‘contain’ China because India has NO expaniosm policy, It will onnly protect its own interest and perhaps get more workload to protect worlds busiest trade routes.

One more mistake US IS NOT ‘BENDING BACK’ to accomodate Indias demands but is DOING WHAT WAS AGREED UPON IN THE JULY 18 STATEMENT. Heck still we have given them a lot of leverage, whole civilian programme any reactor making electricity will go under safeguards.

Here are some,

You name it? Arunachal Pradesh Claims? Using Pakistan to counter India? Funding the red revolution to take up the role of USSR? By this I mean Communists in India working in the influence of China which is a proven fact even before USSR became Russia though at that time Russias commands had more priority than Maos (Russia recently released all documents regarding its role in when it was USSR, “Russian State Archives of Socio-Political History,” in short, RGASPI documents visit them and dig into to find stuffs), What about lobbying against India in various international foras et al? Okay how about the very suicidal proposal of changing course of river Brahmaputra? What about ‘promoting’ Nepals red revolution so that maoist government asks to include China in SAARC and China floodes whole Asia with its market? and alienate Nepal from India? how about moves inside Bangladesh? How about Climatic change concern in Tibet? , which is such a unstable region (gondowana plate and Eurasian plate) that climate change can bring serious effects down the peopls living in low areas from rivers that are flowing from high ! , what about string of pearl strategy?

Remember I have excluded the economic issue, so can you point me what has India done so far (its capability to do so not-withstanding) that has challenged Chinas interests vis-a-vis say Taiwan, Mongolia et al?

I dont think India and US are that stupid…do u?:)
Years ago, India the famous Arafat/Saddam supporter (while it was the champion of non-aligned movement) did not have much to say about recent Israeli actions in Lebanon or Palestine and is rather mute when it comes to giving mere vocal support to its old brotherly nation of Iran (while it still considers itself the champion of non-aligned movement). I wonder why that is so? Has something changed over the years? Has Indian foreign policy/ies perhaps been getting re-adjusted to accommodate new indian interest? What do u think?

Well well, Yes your correct on one point that of US’s Iraq invasion and if I’m not mistaken a BJP minister severely criticised it and got himself into a oil for food scam.

1. We dont support US invasion of Iraq, We clearly stated we are against military action, honestly we can do that much, do you think we have capability to undue any such action?

2. Israel’s action in Lebanon did not recieved vocal critique from India again due to its own interests while we left NO STONES UNTURNED in sending peace teams to Lebanon including AIDS and under the guise of UN AEGIS.

3. Iran is severely important for India, Indias again same obligation to Iran has been synonymous with that of UN, so India does not supports its nuclear weapons programme.

4. Regarding NAM and non-allignment, you have mistooken what I said all over, I was talking of being non-alligned and NAM, to me NAM has REALLY lost its relevance.

Please read this report might find this interesting,

http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnist1.asp?main_variable=Columnist&file_name=parthasarathy%2Fparthasarathy148.txt&writer=parthasarathy

Strategic competitor then it is as i mentioned in previous post.
As i have said to the effect b4, the two fastest growing economies best reslove their differences amongst themselves (in whatever way possible). When the giants who will have to be neighbours start dreaming about superiority and/or blame each other for their differences, they are usually not the primary benefactors. Its always someone else.

First of all China is ahead economically than that of India, so it is them who holds the cards now, we have been always open to talks and i have repeteadly told you Chinese action has been hostile to Indias interest, so who is at fault here? Can you device me a policy that will give China a headstart to recognise its issues w.r.t India and come into table? I believe i have tabulated the issues previously, all moves started by China. Or are you telling me to ‘bow down’ infront of Chinas strategic expansionism?

How long would these 8-10 LWRs take? Would that make India fully independent in terms of its nuclear tech needs?:)

I dont know where you are getting all these sort of misconceptions from of being independent of nuclear ‘tech’ needs. This deal is NOT ABOUT having nuclear technology AT ALL BUT ABOUT HAVING POWER.

WE ARE ALREADY BUILDING A FORM OF LWR IN FORM OF RUSSIAN VVER’S 1000mw WE ARE BUILDING 2 OF THEM. URANIUM WILL COME FROM RUSSIA.

Please see this,

Indias 3 stage programme to Utilize Thorium, we are into advanced third stage of developement while reactors of first tweo stages are in the making in various parts of country, recently just yesterday only 2 PHWR’s got comissioned by PM in Maharashtra 540 Mw each.

So to sustain the whole chain and to utilise thorium fully, the whole system needs some time, its like you need Uranium to boost but throium will sustain you type of thing, So IN THE INTERIM we need MORE POWER than we can produce, one of the reasons of the deal.

Say for example in AHWR,

Thorium which is the basic fuel for the AHWR is not a fissile material i.e it cannot sustain a critical chain reaction. It needs a driver and the driver that was planned was Pu because Pu would be produced from the FBRs.

In the critical chain reaction induced in the AHWR, Th-232 is converted into U-233. However, fresh Pu as driver material is needed until enough of the Thorium has been converted into U-233. Thereafter the U-233 produced is adequate to sustain the chain reaction (albeit after reprocessing) and no further inputs of Pu are necesary.

To give an example of the complexity of the programme the third stage itself calls for various technologies and reactors, look into this,

http://www.dae.gov.in/publ/3rdstage.pdf

Stage 1 : Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR)
Stage 2 : High temperature reactor based power packs.
Stage 3 : Accelerator driven fertile converters.
Stage 4 : Accelerator driven system with a fast reactor sub-critical
core together with a mainly thorium fuelled thermal core somewhat
similar to that present in AHWR.

Stage 1 : Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) (Fig. 5).
This is the classic AHWR concept. Will require lot of fissile material to charge the start-up. Thereafter at equilibrium will smaller flow of fissile driver fuel. As AHWR reactor design matures this hold promise of not requiring any driver fuel in-flow.

Stage 2 : High temperature reactor based power packs.
The objective here is to prove smaller form factor reactor and to prove higher efficiency thermal energy conversion to electricity and in parallel direct conversion to Hydrogen gas.

Stage 3 : Accelerator driven fertile converters.
This reactor core is almost identical to Stage-1 classic. Just that Pu fuel pins are not used. The neutrons gap earlier filled by fissile Pu is replaced with ADS driven neutron flow.

Stage 4 : Accelerator driven system with a fast reactor sub-critical
core together with a mainly thorium fuelled thermal core somewhat
similar to that present in AHWR.
Again very similar to classic AHWR. Instead its core will be be a fast core (no moderator) and ADS will directly fission Thorium there generating many more neutron than via ADS driven spallation source. The excess neutron from fast core will fill in the neutron gap earlier filled by fissile driver fuel.

So see to fully make the whole system autonomous a certain time of pre-autonomous process needs to be done, by autonomous I mean there wont be any need of Uranium only Thorium and we have worlds 1/3rd of Thorium.

So as interim measure we will import LWR’s. Remember this deal is not only about importing LWR’s it is about various other co-operations as well, recall we have joined the ITER project, with this deal joining international projects would be easy and free of too much bureaucratic hastles.

And i was merely questioning the wisdom of this.:)

There is no doubt about the wisdom of interests.

Come on Joey. So that India already has enough material to make as many weapons its wants, is it justifiable for another country to provides it with even greater means to do so even though India is a non-signatory of NPT?

YOUR AGAIN DOING same mistake, I REQUEST YOU READ This PLEASE, or ask some NUCLEAR EXPERT TO EXPLAIN YOU OR SIMPLY GO TO A UNIVERSITY NUCLEAR PHYSICS PROFESSOR.

WHERE IS USA PROVIDING US WITH GREATER ‘MEANS’ (I ASSUME ‘MEANS’ MEANS FUEL) TO PRODUCE WEAPONS?

Atoms for War?
U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and India’s Nuclear Arsenal
By Ashley J. Tellis

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/atomsforwarfinal4.pdf

India’s capacity to produce a huge nuclear arsenal is not affected by prospective U.S.-Indian civilian nuclear cooperation. A few facts underscore this conclusion clearly. India is widely acknowledged to possess reserves of 78,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU). The forthcoming Carnegie study concludes that the total inventory of natural uranium required to sustain all the reactors associated with the current power program (both those operational and those under construction) and the weapons program over the entire notional lifetime of these plants runs into some 14,640-14,790 MTU—or, in other words, requirements that are well within even the most conservative valuations of India’s reasonably assured uranium reserves. If the eight reactors that India has retained outside of safeguards were to allocate 1/4 of their cores for the production of weapons-grade materials—the most realistic possibility for the technical reasons discussed at length in the forthcoming report—the total amount of natural uranium required to run these facilities for the remaining duration of their notional lives would be somewhere between 19,965-29,124 MTU. If this total is added to the entire natural uranium fuel load required to run India’s two research reactors dedicated to the production of weapons-grade plutonium over their entire life cycle—some 938-1088 MTU—the total amount of natural uranium required by India’s dedicated weapons reactors and all its unsafeguarded PHWRs does not exceed 20,903-30,212 MTU over the remaining lifetime of these facilities. Operating India’s eight unsafeguarded PHWRs in this way would bequeath New Delhi with some 12,135-13,370 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium, which is sufficient to produce between 2,023-2,228 nuclear weapons over and above those already existing in the Indian arsenal.

Let me summarise AGAIN FOR YOU,

1. Indian strategic nuclear weapons use approximately 3 Kg Plutonium.

2. India has large un-safeguarded Plutonium stockpile (conservatively estimated to between 3,000 Kg and 6,000Kg), a fraction of that will suffice to make hundreds of nuclear weapons if India choose to exercise the option.

3. Indian PHWR reactors that are outside IAEA safeguard when operated for efficient power generation would have cumulatively required just 5,842 tonnes. India is estimated to have mined about 9,200 tonnesI of natural-uranium, indicating that about 55%II of the fuel and 8% of its reactor capacity was used in low fuel burn mode, generally associated with operating
the reactors in mode optimized to generate weapon grade Plutonium. This corresponds to about 2,400Kg weapon grade Plutonium enough for 800 strategic nuclear weapon.

4. Current Indian reserves of uranium estimated between 77,500 – 94,000 metric tonnes, enough to support 12,000 MWe power generation for 50 years.

5. Current Indian PHWR reactors that are outside IAEA safeguard annually require 116 tonnes of natural-uranium when operated in a mode optimized for power generation. When operated in a mode optimized to generate weapon-grade Plutonium they require just 747 tonnes of natural-uranium annually, in the process they generate 745 Kg weapon grade Plutonium, which is enough for 248 nuclear weapons per year.

From above one can clearly see that there is no merit in the argument that US-India civilian nuclear agreement will be of any consequence to Indian nuclear weapons programs.

Conclusion

In conclusion the Indo-US agreement on civil nuclear reactors does not help Indian military
program:

1. India already has fissile material enough to make more than 800 warheads.
2. Its Fast Breeder Reactors can generate limitless fissile material for weapons or civilian applications.

Indias arsenal has more WgPu than it has actually made bombs out of them because simply put we dont need that many bombs.

A fraction of Indias Uranium reserve is required to FUEL THE WHOLE LOT OF REACTORS INDIA OPERATES throughout its lifetime.

THE FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE YOUR MAKING IS ASSUMING WITHOUT THIS DEAL WE WOULD HAVE USED OUR OWN URANIUM TO FUEL THE REACTORS THE LWR’S, damnit understand we are taking of LWR’S HERE WHICH IS REQUIRED TO FUELED BY URANIUM, WE WOULDNT BE IMPORTING LWR’S IF WE DIDNT HAD THIS DEAL, BECAUSE WE KNOW WE DONT HAVE ENOUGH URANIUM, IF WE HAD ENOUGH URANIUM WE WOULD NOT HAVE MADE 5~6 DIFFERENT TYPES OF REACTORS FOR 20 YEARS AND A WHOLE bloody highly complex fuel cycle WE COULD SIMPLY HAVE MADE LWR’S. LOOK AT THE RUSSIAN VVER-1000 DEAL IT COMES WITH GUARANTEED RUSSIAN FUEL SUPPLY, so this means Russia is freeing up our own fuel for weapons programme? :rolleyes:

Why dont you say where are you having difficulty understanding or you want me to explain in easier terms?

I have 100 kg flour, I have used up 10 kg flour, the reactors I have used 10 Kg flour has produced x amount of Plutonium using only 5 kg flour out of 10, which is enough for say y number of weapons, but we have made y/10 times less nuclear warheads, for the next whole life of the reactors it willo only need 20 kg more of flour, by then the FBR’s will chip in which once sustained the thorium cycle will produce unlimited amount of flours.

The deal calls for having reactors powered by only flour which (LET ALONE WILL NOT BUT NEED NOT) be diverted to run all of the plants We have giving us enough Plutonium. the spent flour will then be reprocessed and used in SAFEGUARDED z reactor, thus the whole fuel cycle using imported fuel will be safeguarded.

While this argument might be sufficient for an Indian, it is definitely not for a non-Indian. Does that matter to India? Perhaps no.

wthell are you talking about? I’m TAKING PURE SCIENCE. Argument being sufficient for an Indian, have you ACTUALLY BOUGHT ANY COUNTER ARGUMENTS IN THE TABLE YET? proving my datas as false? Please prove me this and make life easier for both you and me…..

1. With this deal It gives India SOMETHING MORE to produce more bombs than it can.
2. Without this deal it stops India from doing the same.

But there is a huge potential of this argument being used in future by a number of countries. Last time i checked ppl like former president Carter were opposed to this deal on similar grounds and they probably are aware of India’s capability better than me or u.

WHEN DID CARTER BECAME A NUCLEAR SCIENTIST? I HAVE GIVEN YOU A HUGELY HUGELY RESEARCH ARTICLE WILL YOU CARE TO READ IT? WHAT HAS INDIAS CAPABILITY TO DO WITH THIS DEAL?

Regarding having huge potential of the argument being used in future by number of countries, PUHLEASE SHOW ME a number of country having the SAME SETS OF DATA AS INDIA does (other than the P5 heck even china dont have so many fuel cycles because they dont need them they imports LWR’s and uses Uranium) regarding fuel cycle estimates and respective programmes.

Anyway since many are opposed to the deal on such ground, is India willing to address their concerns by inserting solid guarantees (and how) that any know how obtained through this civilian nuke cooperation will not be used to advance their weaponisation programmes?

WOW WHAT A JOKE! seriously no offence you REALLY NEED to visit better forums to have a indepth analysis of nuclear matters than where your getting these informations from, so lets see how thing goes.

OK WAIT! Russian VVER’s (1000MW) that NPCIL is building must be aiding its nuclear weapons programme? :rolleyes: THE WESTINGHOUSE 1000mW LWR’S CHINA IS building must be aiding their weapons programme? give me a break! :rolleyes:

1. India will import LWR – LIGHT WATER REACTORS.
2. LWR’s requires URANIUM – (READ : URANIUM).
3. The Uranium for LWR’s are SPIKED UP means they are NOT WEAPONS GRADE STUFF.

U-233 contaminated with U-232 is not a weapons threat It is known as spiked up fuel. Also U-232 and Th-228 are highly radioactive, but neither are neutron emitters. (it would be useful if they were!) Rather, they both decay quickly along the same decay chain as thorium but far faster. One of the decay products is thallium-208 which emits a strong and penetrating gamma ray during its decay. The strong gamma emitted by Th-208 makes U-232-contaminated uranium pretty worthless for nuclear weapons, which is basically the main reason U-233 has never been used in operational nuclear weapons. The U-232 contamination disadvantages U-233 as a fuel in solid-core reactors, but has little effect on fluid-fueled reactors that don’t require fuel fabrication. LWR is fluid-fuelled Reactor as the name suggests which are what we building aka VVER’s and which is what China is buying from GE/Westinghouse 1000MW ones.

4. There will be life time fuel storage for each reactors in India to face any issue of come in future.

5. We wanted Reprocessing rights (READ : WHILE LWR FUEL MAY BE SPIKED UP REPROCESSING THE SPENT FUEL GIVES YOU ENRICHED PLUTONIUM, AGAIN THERE ARE THREE TYPES OF ENRICHED PLUTONIUM), US was hesitant because this is actual weapons grade stuff.

6. Above issue got resolved when we PROMISED TO MAKE A DEDICATED SAFEGUARDED NATIONAL REPROCESSING PLANT TO REPROCESS SPENT FUEL FROM THE LWR’S OR TO REPROCESS ANY IMPORTED FUEL.

7. THE REPROCESSING FACILITY WILL BE INDIAN AND SO THERE WILL BE A DEDICATED HEAVY WATER FACILITY AGAIN INDIAN FACILITY.

Question comes why reprocess?

7. WE WILL PUT SOME OF OUR AWHR UNDER SAFEGUARDS (INFACT ALL THE AWHR WHICH WILL PRODUCE ELECTRICITY WILL GO UNDER SAFEGUARD, This is a huge benefit US got through this deal) BY THIS WAY WE CAN HAVE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF PLUTONIUM IN VERY SHORT TIME TO BUILD MORE AWHR’S) (READ THE AWHR’S WILL BE SAFEGUARDED)

So,

LWR- SAFEGUARDED-IMPORTED-FUEL-SAFEGUARDED-REPROCESSED SPENT FUEL FROM NATIONAL FACILITY CATERING TO IMPORTED FUEL-SAFEGUARDED-AWHR USING THE SAME REPROCESSED SPENT FUEL-SAFEGUARDED.

Anything more you want to know? Now please kindly lay down how any of this will aid to knowhow of Indias nuclear weapons programme okay? 🙂

By your logic we are building VVER’s means it is advancing our nooclear weapons programme? :rolleyes:

Its more of geopolitical situation than credit to indian diplomacy:) As i said b4 tell me how could u guarantee that know how obtained through this could not be used in advancing Indian weaponisation programme?

I gave credit to Indias diplomacy on the negotiation table, YES USA TRIED TO KILL THE 3 STAGE PROGRAMME WITH THIS DEAL ,failed, 2 years promptious negotiations.

Regarding second part, DUDE LOOK YOU HAVE HONESTLY NO CLUE WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT. WHY DONT YOU SIMPLY PROOF HOW WILL THIS HELP INDIAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMME? :rolleyes:

Prove me,

1. How this deal will increase indias weapons with data.
2. How will this deal aid to advancement of Indias nuclear weapons programme.

By becoming a strategic competitor to China, India will have to shelve those UNSC seat for a while:)

Healthy competition is good.

One simple point Joey.

US of A is bending backwards to accommodate Indian demands. I know US is in a rather precarious situation as of now but she still remains the lone superpower. Therefore, once again the question is Why??? I dont consider myself by any means an expert on such issues, but i think it’d be safe bet to say that most regional experts would mention US plans to contain China in this regard. Now China is not a small country but a major power broker that is to rise further in near future and there isnt much doubt about it. More important to India, the two are neighbours and will remain so unlike US and India. What i fail to understand is how India will be able to balance its foregin policy vis-a-vis China and US.

First of all, Its not Indias demands but Indias soveireign right which Us is agreeing to (still even there are problems in the deal), because that was what was agreed upon in the main 123 agreement.

Now, I have told you containing China can be one of the reasons Us moving closer to India (THE DEAL IS INDEPENDENT OF ANY SUCH CONTAIN POLITICS) however we will remain non-alligned and act based on our interests, so if china happens to hostile to our interests and if neutralising that happens to seek better global integration of India with the others be it, I dont see any problem because it is not based on perpetuality but based on Indias interests. The point I have stressed upon.

There should absolutely be no doubt that US wants another power in this region not only to act as a balancer to China but also to safeguard USA’s interest here (as US is so stretched out), and hence all this talk of a strategic partnership with India along great offers/deals. Traditionally India has been a leader of non-aligned countries and hence a number of its policies have been at odds with those of US. What i fail to understand is how India will be able to safeguard USA’s intersts in this region without making considerable changes to its own foreign policy, i.e. coming more into alignment with USA’s policy. Alternatively Indian refusal to look after USA’s interest would be deadly blow to any nuclear/similar deals with US. Since India is also a rising power and US needs her, i assume it’d be a give and take policy from both sides.

India will remain non-alligned, you can count on that even in most pro-Russian and anti-US days we have remained non-alligned what makes you think we will break that today?

I have repeteadly stressed policies based on Indian interests and if it is hostile to Chinas interest will only be carried out by India which might/might not give US leverage, any sort of policies not based on Indias interest but solely US interest wont be carried out by India, never has been if US thinks we will do it they are delluding themselves severely.

What i fail to understand if India does make certain changes to her foreign policy to accommodate USA’s interest (as US is doing for India, i.e. nuclear deal), i dont know how India would be able to assure China, and if China feels threatened they would undoubtedly take steps to counter indian policies. All in all, India and China, the two giants of Asia that have a great chance at becoming global powers in near future have nothing to gain by antagonising each other (only US would gain as it wants neither India nor China to become a ‘real’ competitor) and a lot to gain from cooperating each other.

What US interest? Can you show me a single letter from the 123 agreement that talks of ‘changing foreign policy stance’ ?

Do you realise, India has already felt threatened from China (check the examples i have given of chinese moves against India) , so all this talks of china is not harming Indias interest is hogwash. You want us not to counter those by whatever means, based on the perception there will be a counter-counter and both can work together? , if ‘can work together’ why China is right ATM acting hostile against Indias interests? or that is okay with you? :rolleyes:

The question so should not be US will gain from this, but should be is China ready yet to act as a equal partner with us? NO and her action speaks larger than words, thus this equal co-operation is still some far away.

REMEMBER, in my very first post i have made it clear,

First of all This deal is not a long term deal with termination clause from both side at any time with 1 year approval, secondly yes it is in Indias long term interest which (the interests) will determined by how India will shape up in next decade, Its useless to speculate rest, We are not going to import LWR’s forever but rather plan to get 8~10 LWR’s. Anyways I’d like to know the points on which Indias long term interest can be questioned by this deal and its relevance from you.

Finally let me quote British prime minister Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston…”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” I can quote so many examples but im sure u could think of many.

we all know such things, permanent interest is everything the reason I stressed yet again and if indias permanent interest calls for to neutralise chinas hostile actions to India and if that benefits someone else, let it be.

No doubt India has strong non-proliferator record, but one canot forget how India managed to get the technology in first place.

Getting technology in the first place ( I assume your referring to CANDU’s) has nothing to do with ploriferation (in Indias case We started work even before the NPT came into force) because all other countries bought one two such reactors and went in developement in ab-initial phase (when there was no NPT) likewise and even latter many continued, in the same manner Indias initial developements has been one of programme which is relatively one of the least influenced by others with respect to programmes of other countries. And after that India was totally shunned away from the nuke world of developement yet it builds 700 Mw PHWR’s has its own reprocessing technology, respective fuel cycles and exports heavywaters which it failed to import initially, and produces 98% enriched tritium by a method which costs fraction of the ADS method used by US, to name a few.

As i said before, this deal (in no way on earth) can provide any guarantee that more Indian land resources would not be diverted to Indian weaponisation programme once India can import nuclear fuel, unless all indian reactors (present and future) are placed under IAEA observation, something to which India would never agree.

Did you care to read the useful reply I posted taking the time? :rolleyes: Will you please go back and read how i absolutely nullified your point the same point your repeating? If you have something to counter the points I raised to nullify it then please do so instead of repeating the same. what do you mean by DIVERTING LAND RESOURCES WHEN THE SAME LAND RESOURCES BEFORE AND AFTER DEAL REMAINS SAME COMING IN AND OUT OF SAY X UNSAFEGUARDED FACILITY?

I repeat,

1. Indian strategic nuclear weapons use approximately 3 Kg Plutonium.

2. India has large un-safeguarded Plutonium stockpile (conservatively estimated to between 3,000 Kg and 6,000Kg), a fraction of that will suffice to make hundreds of nuclear weapons if India choose to exercise the option.

3. Indian PHWR reactors that are outside IAEA safeguard when operated for efficient power generation would have cumulatively required just 5,842 tonnes. India is estimated to have mined about 9,200 tonnesI of natural-uranium, indicating that about 55%II of the fuel and 8% of its reactor capacity was used in low fuel burn mode, generally associated with operating
the reactors in mode optimized to generate weapon grade Plutonium. This corresponds to about 2,400Kg weapon grade Plutonium enough for 800 strategic nuclear weapon.

4. Current Indian reserves of uranium estimated between 77,500 – 94,000 metric tonnes, enough to support 12,000 MWe power generation for 50 years.

5. Current Indian PHWR reactors that are outside IAEA safeguard annually require 116 tonnes of natural-uranium when operated in a mode optimized for power generation. When operated in a mode optimized to generate weapon-grade Plutonium they require just 747 tonnes of natural-uranium annually, in the process they generate 745 Kg weapon grade Plutonium, which is enough for 248 nuclear weapons per year.

From above one can clearly see that there is no merit in the argument that US-India civilian nuclear agreement will be of any consequence to Indian nuclear weapons programs.

Conclusion

In conclusion the Indo-US agreement on civil nuclear reactors does not help Indian military
program:

1. India already has fissile material enough to make more than 800 warheads.
2. Its Fast Breeder Reactors can generate limitless fissile material for weapons or civilian applications.

India has more WgPu right now than it has made bombs (remember having WgPu gives you the bomb making capability but does not translates to your ACTUAL WARHEAD PRODUCTION LINE)

REMEMBER, all this talk of using URANIUM FOR POWER GENERATION WILL NOT BE EXERCISED WITHOUT THIS DEAL BECAUSE WE WILL NOT IMPORT LWR’S WITHOUT IMPORTING URANIUM, (CHECK THE RUSSIAN VVER-1000 DEAL), IF WE WERE TO USE URANIUM FOR POWER GENERATION WITHOUT THE DEAL WE WOULD NOT HAVE WASTED 40 YEARS BEHIND MAKING PHWRS. AHWRS ETC BUT WOULD HAVE MADE OUR OWN LWR’S. We still have had and do a entirely different fuel cycle programme based on worlds 1/3rd Thorium reserve that we have, and even those will make WgPu which makes the arsenal virtually limitless. Ironalically this deal brings the power generation Thorium cycle under safeguards as well making the amount of limitless plutonium that we could have made without the deal, less than we can make with this deal, again its non issue as well, just if with few PwHr’s we can make this much WgPu the whole reusable Thorium fuel cycle even after placing things under civilian grid (Part of thorium cycle), we will retain enough ‘stuff’ for making weapons than we we will ever need, just like we do now.

So please re-visit my above points to you in previous reply read the two articles, and prove me HOW COME,

1. With this deal It gives India SOMETHING MORE to produce more bombs than it can.
2. Without this deal it stops India from doing the same.

Whether or not India has an impeccable non-prolif record, matter of the fact is that India is a non-signatory of NPT and hence all this fuss. Since US cannot provide any guarantees about a non-signatory of NPT’s weaponisation programme and is yet willing to go ahead with this deal, this could be seen as indirect proliferation, and WILL be seen by many in future. A number of countries would sign similar deals in not too far a future, and neither India nor US would have any moral/ethical ground to object to any such deal…all this would add to proliferation.

Yes there you have a point, India is non-NPT yet US is going ahead with this deal (BUT REMEMBER US IS NOT VIOLATING NPT), Thats the credit of India diplomacy, plain and simple. HOWEVER MAKE NO MISTAKE the point that THIS DEAL WILL AID IN INDIAS NUKE PROGRAMME IS DOWNRIGHT INCORRECT. If not prove it. so in other way it DOES not violates NPT instead integrated India inside the non-ploriferation regime, while in other way (like from Pakistans POV) you may say it is US double standards.

From my point of view I’ll argue we tested a nuke in 1974, anyone who tested nuke before 1967 are defacto NWS, we call it discriminatory because we have had a strong base of nuclear and particle physics even before independence and we acquired nuke bomb technology in and around and before the same time NPT came into force. We started our nuke weapons work before NPT came into force thus being the only nation to do so and left out of being NWS. You need to remember for Indian PM’s naivety we did not got a seat in UNSC as well. We lost chance of being NWS and in UNSC. There are many such points, based on the reason we call NPT discriminatory, and based on our track record and credibility call for revision of NPT.

Im sure one can think of other possibilities, but some of them are more likely than others.:)

It will be seen in the coming days.