India tests Prithvi based ABM-2

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 29 Nov 2006 10:32

ramanaji,

Coming events casteth their long shadow for those who open their eyes and see isn't it?

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 29 Nov 2006 10:35

sunilUpa wrote:
R Sharma wrote:
Also, how exactly does the Arrow-2 ABM work. Is it a two stage missile like the one tested or is it a single stage ABM?
See here

Arrow is a vertical launch as per the link.. the AAD launcher as shown in the PS work photo, as well as the mock-up that JC posted imply inclined launch for the AAD

so i find it hard to buy the re-painted Arrow story..

Nalla Baalu · Post by **Nalla Baalu** » 29 Nov 2006 10:49

Arun saar!

Based on your analysis, are you inclined to call the ABM an 'Exoatmospheric Intercept System'? I see you gave minimum interception altitude, but not the maximum-possible.

Only The Telegraph's report has identified it as an 'exoatmospheric intercept system', while everyone else refers to it as 'AXO Atmoshpheric Intercept System' (incorrectly IMO).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Nov 2006 11:07

NB its called AXO due to bad phonetics from too much accent. Our Amitabh deciphered it in the old thread.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 29 Nov 2006 11:09

Nalla Baalu wrote:Arun saar!

Based on your analysis, are you inclined to call the ABM an 'Exoatmospheric Intercept System'? I see you gave minimum interception altitude, but not the maximum-possible.

Only The Telegraph's report has identified it as an 'exoatmospheric intercept system', while everyone else refers to it as 'AXO Atmoshpheric Intercept System' (incorrectly IMO).

I think it is not an "Exoatmospheric system".

The required alt means interceptions beyond 100km (based on how u define the edge of the atmosphere).. and that may be strecthing the capabilities of the system a bit too far..

I think AXO stands for Atmospheric interception system(50-100km interception alt).. by whatever vague reasoning DRDO arrived at that abbreviation..

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 29 Nov 2006 11:15

now that the credibility of the 'ghodi' type of delivery method is gone, TSP has to cause some dhamaka to restore the credibility of JDAM method for their equal-equalities sake. So some big terrorist activity soon ... blood of more innocent indians... all because of the bloated ego of some ddm journalist and his pet jihad of bringing DRDO to accountability

Shiv Arror, may your soul burn in hell for eternity.

Nalla Baalu · Post by **Nalla Baalu** » 29 Nov 2006 11:23

Not only was the abbreviation (AXO) vague, the 10-12 m length of the system coming from an official source kind-of points towards existence/provision-for a second stage. A second stage might enable the projectile to lob the kill-vehicle farther and higher to deliver 'jhapad' to the incoming missile/RV over its own territory and have us nothing to do with the debris and associated sh!t.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 29 Nov 2006 11:24

The fact that it is AXO means that most of the interceptions will be within earth's atmosphere. The variation is height is not important. What is important is the time taken to detect and track the BM. Now thats what the Radar does. The AXO system is not just the interceptor but the radar components that guarantee instantaneous detection, tracking and launch of the intercept/kill vehicle. So RARR we have a full component of the ABM shield.

That's cool. I am sure the Green Pine technology played a significant role. Can someone post the maximum capabilities of the latest GreenPine system.

Nalla Baalu · Post by **Nalla Baalu** » 29 Nov 2006 11:28

Picklu saab, aren't you giving way too much credit to the role of DDM in this event, where-in it deserves none?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 29 Nov 2006 11:33

rakall wrote:All their BM's are the same missile.. no-dung.

Holy (PUBH) shit! or Unholy (PUBH) shit!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Nov 2006 11:47

One thing weird is that instead of calling it a straightforward ABM test, the DRDO spokepersons caused confusion by claiming that they were planning a mid air collision of the Prithvi missiles. So its not all DDMitis.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 29 Nov 2006 11:52

DDMitis

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 29 Nov 2006 11:57

Islamic Pakistan's reaction as predicted by BRFites:

Pakistan launches nuclear-capable missile: Nov 29, 2006

ISLAMABAD, Nov 29 (AFP) Nov 29, 2006
Pakistan on Wednesday conducted a test of its nuclear-capable medium range ballistic missile, the military said.

"Pakistani troops today conducted a successful launch of the medium range Hatf 4 or Shaheen-1 missile," it said in a statement.

Shaheen-1 missile, which has a range of 700 kilometers (437 miles), has been previously test-fired by Pakistan, a military spokesman told AFP.

The missile system was handed over to the army strategic force command (ASFC) a few years ago, the statement said.

"The event marked the culmination phase of the training exercise and validated the operational readiness of the strategic missile group equipped with Shaheen-1 Missiles," the statement said.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Ehsan Ul Haq witnessed the launch exercise.

He hailed "the high standards achieved during training which was reflected in the successful launch and the accuracy of the missile in reaching the target," the statement said.

"Pakistan can be justifiably proud of its defence capability and the reliability of its nuclear deterrence," he added.

saty · Post by **saty** » 29 Nov 2006 11:59

ramana wrote:One thing weird is that instead of calling it a straightforward ABM test, the DRDO spokepersons caused confusion by claiming that they were planning a mid air collision of the Prithvi missiles. So its not all DDMitis.

Yes, I wonder why that particular smoke screen?

However, the initial report (that two Ps will collide), if taken literally means that all they were trying to do was have exact course estimate for the missile. Some sort of exercise to maybe improve CEP.

Which at least in my mind should have at least raised the hackles of the DDM as to why this really strange exercise to determine CEP? We should dig more!!

So it can mean one of these
1) DDM is really DDM and has no clue what is happening even when handed a juicy lead. If this is true, possibly all their defence stories are written by the people who fill their lifafas and they merely put their name on it.

2) The major news agencies were told by GoI to float this canard and not ask too many questions and they obliged in their own way?

akutcher · Post by **akutcher** » 29 Nov 2006 12:01

Why does everyone appear to be confused regarding the secrecy surrounding this particular project. Here are some reason i can think of

1) By declaring this as an ABM test rather than a "prtihvi vs prithvi" we will be clearly challenging the chicoms and TSP forcing them to buy/steal such a weapon

2) If DRDO does declassify the missile specifications today it gives pakis and chicoms the time to incorporate changes in their own delivery platforms and field something that can get around our defenses by the time we field it, if on the other hand DRDO releases the documents after it has been deployed pakis and chicom will take time to update their system and we will always be one step ahead by pre-empting developments on that side

saty · Post by **saty** » 29 Nov 2006 12:03

Another point we are missing out in our celebrations in that we have also inadvertantly proved that a P I can be intercepted

We have also "leaked" some details of the system which can do so!!

I am sure not all across our various borders and beyond are dim wits and they will also note this, i.e. what kind of ABMs work against Indian missiles!!

I think this was another reason why DRDO was paranoid about keeping as many card close to its chest as possible.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 29 Nov 2006 12:06

Pakistan test-fires medium range missile: Hindu

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Nov 2006 12:18

Thats a knee-jerk reaction to Indian ABM test , Didnt knew how to react to it , so fired one of those imported stuff

akutcher · Post by **akutcher** » 29 Nov 2006 12:21

One test and the brave pakistanis are pissing their pants already

Wasnt it just yesterday that their generals proudly said yindu missile technology is crap and no match to their own..... it has only been one day since prithvi-xx collided with prithvi and they are saying "Pakistan can be justifiably proud of its defence capability and the reliability of its nuclear deterrence"

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 29 Nov 2006 12:32

JC Garu, here is a better pic of that vehicle. Which missile could this be? It looks tall and fair, but the nozzle could have been made tighter

http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/univ.jpg

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 29 Nov 2006 12:38

Thats a knee-jerk reaction to Indian ABM test , Didnt knew how to react to it , so fired one of those imported stuff

for every test we undertake, we should lable it with Hi-Fi names, and term as huge achievements

there will be No dung left literally with TFTN (n stands for nozzled) aft few knee jerk reactions.

Ananth · Post by **Ananth** » 29 Nov 2006 12:38

saty wrote:Another point we are missing out in our celebrations in that we have also inadvertantly proved that a P I can be intercepted We have also "leaked" some details of the system which can do so!!

Correction, the target missile was specifically designed to mimic a missile in its non-powered phase for interception. liquid fueled prithvi has on board intelligence for course correction, it is not purely ballistic. It is programmable flight patterns and its flight path is not predictable.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/ ... ithvi9.jpg

negi · Post by **negi** » 29 Nov 2006 12:45

I was just curious about why the thread is named India tests Prithvi based ABM-2 ?

Anyways my impressions about the test:

1.To me what was noteworthy is that target missile was intercepted (as clearly evident from the footage).The origin of kill vehicle shouldnt be much of a concern(facts will unfold during future tests).

I am curious about the following

1.During what phase of the target missile launch was it intercepted ?
IOW what sort of difficulties or tech issues need to be addressed while intercepting a BM in its boost phase as compared to its termial(Rentry) phase ?While the boost phase interception option might sound more logical(higher probability of kill in first chance for BM is most vulnerable at this juncture, and also enough time to opt for plan B.) ,but what about feasibility of achieving the same against missiles launched from launchers deep within enemy territory ?

Ananth · Post by **Ananth** » 29 Nov 2006 12:46

Austin wrote:Thats a knee-jerk reaction to Indian ABM test , Didnt knew how to react to it , so fired one of those imported stuff

One less missile to worry about. TSP wasted 2 missiles within a month, at a faster rate than they can import. Arun saar since you are hunting in Khyber agency keep an eye on Karakoram, you will see one more caravan.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 29 Nov 2006 12:53

Mihir wrote:JC Garu, here is a better pic of that vehicle. Which missile could this be? It looks tall and fair, but the nozzle could have been made tighter

http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/univ.jpg

the missile mock-up as shown in this pic matches the 6m length & 0.8m dia dimensions..

if this is indeed the interceptor - looks more like a 1stage missile (booster + interceptor).. from the pic i dont see much evidence of 2stages being present.

saty · Post by **saty** » 29 Nov 2006 12:54

Ananth wrote: Correction, the target missile was specifically designed to mimic a missile in its non-powered phase for interception. liquid fueled prithvi has on board intelligence for course correction, it is not purely ballistic. It is programmable flight patterns and its flight path is not predictable.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/ ... ithvi9.jpg

Correct, however does not take away from what I said a PI (or PII its so confusing with the different reports) has been intercepted. At some level.

While we can argue that the P was mimicing a poorer variant of no dung with less mid course flight changes, and therefore our system will not work against our own Ps but this is also raises questions then.

1) Do our friend try and get P equivalent then?
2) Possibly our P-XX will try and get a P or A in future test with the targets trying their best. This will be neededed to make the system keep up with improvements our current and future friends may make. Will they know then?
3) There have been posts on this thread saying that ABM should actually try and get the attacker in its boost phase close to launch? If we do that to a P (then the point of reentry tactic is lost) in its purely ballistic phase does that mean others wont try and do that to us? And therefore we should be careful in how we use Ps with this point in mind?

Overall I am just trying to second guess what DRDO/MoD must be thinking of when trying to pull this stunt and what factors would weigh in what the actually say? Mere speculations in trying to cut through the haze and understand.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 29 Nov 2006 13:10

rakall wrote:
Mihir wrote:JC Garu, here is a better pic of that vehicle. Which missile could this be? It looks tall and fair, but the nozzle could have been made tighter

http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/univ.jpg
the missile mock-up as shown in this pic matches the 6m length & 0.8m dia dimensions..

if this is indeed the interceptor - looks more like a 1stage missile (booster + interceptor).. from the pic i dont see much evidence of 2stages being present.

I did a quick photographic dimensional analysis. if one assumes the missile diameter is 0.74 meter the missile length is more than 8.2meter (not 6 meters), OTOH if one assumes the diameter is 0.8m the missile length is 8.9 meter. In no way it is 6 meter.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 29 Nov 2006 13:21

Arun_S wrote:
rakall wrote: the missile mock-up as shown in this pic matches the 6m length & 0.8m dia dimensions..

if this is indeed the interceptor - looks more like a 1stage missile (booster + interceptor).. from the pic i dont see much evidence of 2stages being present.
I did a quick photographic dimensional analysis. if one assumes the missile diameter is 0.74 meter the missile length is more than 8.2meter (not 6 meters), OTOH if one assumes the diameter is 0.8m the missile length is 8.9 meter. In no way it is 6 meter.

I dint include the painted part when i measured (roughly)..

the complete white part of the missile comes to 14cm in my printout.. however i left a small portion for stage-transition.. took 13.5cm for the motor and benchmarked it to be 6m and then derived the motor dia -- which came to 0.8m..

yes.. the full length is more than 6m.. the lentgh i measured is for booster only..

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 29 Nov 2006 13:21

saty wrote:
Ananth wrote: Correction, the target missile was specifically designed to mimic a missile in its non-powered phase for interception. liquid fueled prithvi has on board intelligence for course correction, it is not purely ballistic. It is programmable flight patterns and its flight path is not predictable.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/ ... ithvi9.jpg
Correct, however does not take away from what I said a PI (or PII its so confusing with the different reports) has been intercepted. At some level.

While we can argue that the P was mimicing a poorer variant of no dung with less mid course flight changes, and therefore our system will not work against our own Ps but this is also raises questions then.

Take it easy. Learn to walk before trying to run and certainly before mastering kick boxing. Have patience my friend, have patience. It is only first test flight; give time for the baby to become a man.

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 29 Nov 2006 13:28

Arun,

Please see this as well. Had always found it somewhat odd for a regular prithvi SSM display in someways, worth a relook perhaps?

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/events/ae ... =IB&cur=25

Namely:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/events/ae ... hviDDL.jpg

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/events/ae ... viRTSS.jpg

But most interesting

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/events/ae ... hviWSP.jpg

and

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/events/ae ... tviMCC.jpg

Greenpine in the latter! Could it be the harbinger of things to come, displayed casually at AI-05?

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 29 Nov 2006 13:34

Arun_S wrote:
This DRDO's Large Size Solid Booster
when used as a single stage ABM will be approximately:

Fuel: 2,250Kg
Mass: 2,700 Kg (2.5tonne booster mass + 200Kg interceptor including terminal cross thrusters)
Length: 9-10 meter
Powered Flight time:38 sec
Final velocity: Mach 11.5 (3.5Km/sec)
Minimum intercept altitude: 45Km (that is how long the booster burns before it can release the kill vehicle)

A 2-stage ABM that has 500Kg second stage will be approximately:

Fuel: 2,250Kg+400Kg
Mass: 2,700 Kg (2.5tonne booster + 500Kg second stage + 200Kg interceptor including terminal cross thrusters)
Length: 10.5-11.5 meter
Powered Flight time:58 sec
Final velocity: Mach 15(4.5Km/sec)
Minimum intercept altitude: 70Km (that is how long the booster burns before it can release the kill vehicle)

These numbers correspond to firing at an angle such that terminal velocity is at 45 degree elevation (this also allow reader to roughly estimate the ground imprint when payload becomes active ).

Bheri bheri different from any other missile in world.

Arun -- are you not beeing very cute/cheeky in your first sentence.. "this booster when used as".. so the numbers are (only) for the case if this booster is used as ABM. But you are not revealig if it "is used" or "if you think it is used"..

1. The flight time as 1stage ABM is 38sec from the motor specs per DRDO release.. However per some reports the interception time is 110/117 seconds.. i think it is not too comfortable for the interceptor to be un-powered for so long (~70secs).. and with 200Kg total mass it may have very less powered flight of its own..

given that prithvi liq-fuelled Prithvi has a flight time of 300sec to reach a 150km target.. we can assume about the same or more for a solid-fuelled Prithvi (going longer range)6m long 1m dia motor..

total powered flight of it can be as low as 38sec? is that enough? (assuming 0.8m dia motor burn time will also be same as 1m dia counterpart)

2. please look at the 2-stage ABM mass calculations.. they dont add up..
You missed adding the 2nd stage mass to the total

3. While I am sure you have used some time-tested & perfected methods for mass estimation - matches very well with your solid-fuel Prtihvi mass estimations (0.64 times the SFPrithvi Mass minus payload)... however the ABM seems a little too heavy at 2700Kg (comparing against Arrow2 which is 1300Kg).

Ajay K · Post by **Ajay K** » 29 Nov 2006 13:49

Wonder why does DRDO waste Prithivi launches to test the AXO/AAD/??
instead of building a system like the Black Sparrow.

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 29 Nov 2006 13:54

It might end up costing a lot, and take more time.

Lkawamoto · Post by **Lkawamoto** » 29 Nov 2006 13:55

Ananth wrote:
Austin wrote:Thats a knee-jerk reaction to Indian ABM test , Didnt knew how to react to it , so fired one of those imported stuff
One less missile to worry about. TSP wasted 2 missiles within a month, at a faster rate than they can import. Arun saar since you are hunting in Khyber agency keep an eye on Karakoram, you will see one more caravan.

no they do a lot of work after importing a) they unpack it in a covered area (i.e. kitchen of a madrassa) b) they point it to mecca and start re-painting c) they take it out at night and transport it using the most elite mule unit in the world and then mount it vertically using bamboo scafolding facing india

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 29 Nov 2006 13:59

Reason I said that the AAD is not the Akash launcher (in case some are wondering)-

http://www.akashsam.com/launchers.htm

..for the IAF and IAs dedicated launchers, neither of which is the AAD.

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 29 Nov 2006 15:21

Per unit cost of the Prithvi is $ 460000 or lower, since the acquisition cost probably includes the substantial logistics costs as well.

http://www.india-defence.com/reports/1493

mandrake · Post by **mandrake** » 29 Nov 2006 16:46

Title: India to design ABM on US lines: Kalam
Author:
Publication: The Times of India
Date: 1/5/2000
URL: http://www.timesofindia.com/050100/05home5.htm
Contact: editor@timesofindia.com

PUNE: India is to design a state-of-the-art anti-ballistic missile
(ABM) system on the lines of the US Star-Wars system, according to A P
J Abdul Kalam, the architect of Indian missiles programme. And while
the country's first Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) would be tested before
this month-end, efforts are on to operationalise within two or three
years all missile systems, besides Agni and Prithvi, which had already
been operationalised, he added.

``The country can also pursue a inter-continental ballistic missile
(ICBM) programme, if adequate funds are made available for the
project,'' he told the plenary session of the 87th Indian Science
Congress here on Monday evening.

Kalam, who recently assumed charge as the chief scientific adviser to
the government, was sharing the platform with ISRO chairman K
Kasturirangan and Atomic Energy Commission chairman R Chidambaram
unfolding ``the Indian strategies of science and technology in the
21st century''.

Kalam said the unmanned supersonic aircraft being developed by ISRO
would go a long way in defence application and help save the lives of
pilots.

He added that the future war scenario in the world will be
characterised by economic and cyber warfare involving global dynamics
such as WTO patent regime and technology regime.

He said the Prime Minister's vision of India becoming a developed
nation within two decades would be possible only if the country became
technologically advanced. And the supersonic plane carrying 15 times
of the current orbital load now being developed by ISRO was a step in
that direction.

At the same time, the country had to double its nuclear power
generation to 40,000 MW even as it was preparing itself for a lunar
flight shortly.

Economically strong self-reliant in all aspects, including weapons and
with the standing of its own could make India a developed country
where natural and human resources were blended suitably to ensure
security of food and in defence and industrial sectors.

India, Kalam said, was forced to explode nuclear devices for the
second time to tell the neighbours, including China and Pakistan, that
it did not lag behind in technology.

AEC chairman R. Chidambaram said nuclear option was the only way to
meet indigenous power needs. All the 10 nuclear power plants now
operational in the country were working with 78 per cent average
capacity and had not been affected by the Y2K bug.

Indian industry, he said, was now fully equipped to meet the spare
parts demand of the nuclear programme of the country. The fact that
several reactors had undergone change in their designs over the years
vindicated this aspect.

One of the major achievements of research in atomic energy department,
Chidambaram said, was the development of desalination plants while
efforts were underway to develop ``fission-fusion hydridisation to tap
more energy''.

ISRO chairman Kasturirangan talked of the futuristic space programme
which, he said, included development of mass transport systems
carrying several tonnes of payloads, space tourism, space exploration,
and national information infrastructure combining the gamut of
satellite systems.

Other areas of research underway included mobile satellite services
for fleet monitoring, messaging, datafaxing and voice casting which
could be operational within 10 to 15 years.

India, he said, was working with international agencies for developing
positioning and navigation systems and global position systems and the
action plan would be ready within a year.

Discussions will be held with the rural developent and other
ministries for developing village communication kiosks using digital
sound and data broadcast systems to ensure village development. At the
same time, broadcast capacity to rural areas had to be developed in
phases, he said.

Apart from developing natural disaster monitoring and managing
systems, efforts were underway to make up natural resources inventory
and systems and atlases for socio-economic modelling, resources
inventory systems and direct-to-home

This article speaks a lot from when we are developing stuffss...
dont get too overdrived though, i've a feeling we will also have a working scramjet[prototype] within 2015.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 29 Nov 2006 17:15

Scramjet is on

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Nov 2006 17:59

Title: India to design ABM on US lines: Kalam
Author:
Publication: The Times of India
Date: 1/5/2000

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 29 Nov 2006 19:36

Some of the oldies here may remember this commentator had said after the Draft Nuclear Doctrine, that the focus will be on delivery systems survivability for Second Strike policy. This is very much in line. So it pays to keep a track of these occasional rambles

Raja Ram garu>> Its not fair that you arrive only on delivery basis!

It is logical that we progress the on the contours of what you said, but the problem always has been GOI, starting ans sputtering when it comes to Agni Pariksha

But then spinster also said

'We are now on nuclear high way, the only way is to keep the pedal to metal and occasionally look in the rear mirror'

Hats off to you and other Bhishma pita mahas of BR!!

'If I could see any further into strategic realms, it is by standing on shoulders of Bhishmas here'

with due apologies to Newton