ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by member_28108 »

Nalla Baalu wrote:
prasannasimha wrote:How do they have a count down for an interceptor launch? One thing is we could see the angulation of the launch platform changing while the count down was occurring.
Saar, stabilization that is seen in the initial frames is from the ship-borne target onlee. IMHO, there is a minimal interceptor count-down built-in - from acquisition to launch - for system health-checks.
It seems that a modified Dhanush was the target (from a sea launch from a ship) and the count down was for that.The Interceptor (PDV as per the ladies voice) had an automated launch with no countdown.
member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by member_28108 »

I stand corrected :D
member_24903
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 11
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by member_24903 »

Great , Congrats DRDO
Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6470
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by Supratik »

Congrats.
member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by member_23370 »

Yup, there is a minor correction taking place in the interceptor as it clears the tree tops. I think its the INS correcting for any deviation in path, but over all a smooth flight. Wish they would upload the kill videos and also K-4 launch video. Anyway congrats DRDO, now on to K-4, Nirbhay, AD-1 and 2.
vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by vasu raya »

Correcting attitude after clearing the launcher, so the missile itself is ready for canistering and possible ship launch as well

For the target missile the attitude correction is done even before launch with the stabilizer
Nalla Baalu
BRFite
Posts: 153
Joined: 24 Aug 2006 07:16
Location: Yerramandi, Dhoolpeta

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by Nalla Baalu »

This 'TheHindu' report by Y. Mallikarjun from two weeks ago carried more pertinent details:

India to conduct complex interceptor missile test
In another fortnight, India will be conducting one of the most complex interceptor missile tests. For the first time a state-of-the-art interceptor missile at supersonic speed will seek to engage and destroy an incoming target missile at a very high altitude of 120-140 km over the Bay of Bengal.

Entirely new interceptor and target missiles have been developed by scientists of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for the upcoming engagement, to be conducted in exo-atmosphere (altitude above 40-50 km) on April 27 or 28. The test was originally planned to be conducted in November, 2013 but had been delayed since then.

A real battle-like scenario would be simulated for the test, DRDO missile technologists told The Hindu. For the first time, the interceptor missile (PDV) would be seeking to destroy the separating payload of the target missile (a modified PAD) after discriminating between the booster and the payload.

Describing it as a “big challenge,” they said the interceptor’s “kill vehicle,” equipped with a dual seeker, would attack the payload (warhead portion) as it descends towards its intended target. The advantage of intercepting an incoming missile at such a high altitude was that the debris would not fall on the ground and there would be no collateral damage.

Both the new missiles have been configured to have two stages. While the target missile would be launched from a ship near Paradip, the interceptor would take off from Wheeler Island the moment the incoming target missile is detected. The long range radars would track the missile and the information would be passed on to the interceptor’s on-board computer as it homes in on to the target.

From detection to interception, the entire exercise would be fully automated and there would be no human intervention, the scientists said. The kill vehicle of the interceptor, equipped with an attitude control mechanism, would hurtle towards the target’s missile payload at a speed of 1500 metres per second as it seeks to engage and destroy it.

After some more trials, India plans to deploy a two-tiered Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) system to protect important cities from external threats. In the first phase, incoming enemy missiles of 2,000-km range are envisaged to be waylaid and destroyed, while those with about 5,000-km range would be tackled by the interceptors in the second phase.

So far, six of the seven interceptor missile tests, carried out by the DRDO, have been successful. While two interceptions were conducted in exo-atmopshere (altitudes between 47 and 80 km) the rest were in endo-atmosphere (below 40 km altitude).
PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by PratikDas »

Just posting the full-sized crop of the missile.

Image

A significant departure from the previous version, the PAD, which had large fins that couldn't be folded to fit a tube:
Image
Last edited by PratikDas on 28 Apr 2014 00:04, edited 1 time in total.
Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by Sanjay »

Anyone care to comment on this:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/i ... 953934.ece

chackojoseph, any fresh insight ?
Nalla Baalu
BRFite
Posts: 153
Joined: 24 Aug 2006 07:16
Location: Yerramandi, Dhoolpeta

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by Nalla Baalu »

Directional warhead did not fire because miss-distance was greater than what was aimed for?
Sanjay wrote:Anyone care to comment on this:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/i ... 953934.ece

chackojoseph, any fresh insight ?
PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by PratikDas »

Actually it says that they intentionally didn't want the warhead to fire during this test. If one were to speculate, the reasoning would be simple. There is no better way to confirm a hit-to-kill. With the warhead disarmed, a hit-to-kill would have resulted in multiple fragments anyway. This may not have happened, judging by the scientist's preliminary statement which T.S. Subramanian has quoted as there is mention of a miss distance. After more analysis, the exact miss distance may have been found to be sufficiently low for a kill by the directional warhead, had it been armed, which is why the test was declared a success.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by John »

PratikDas wrote:A significant departure from the previous version, the PAD, which had large fins that couldn't be folded to fit a tube:
Sets up for canisterized ship based variant.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by chackojoseph »

Sanjay wrote:Anyone care to comment on this:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/i ... 953934.ece

chackojoseph, any fresh insight ?
It was not the test objective.

One of the points of this event is that Prithvi/ Dhanush has become 2k range missile simulator if needed.
Last edited by chackojoseph on 28 Apr 2014 10:20, edited 1 time in total.
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2509
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by srin »

chackojoseph wrote:
Sanjay wrote:Anyone care to comment on this:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/i ... 953934.ece

chackojoseph, any fresh insight ?
It was not the test objective.

One of the points of this event is that Prithvi/ Dhanush has become 2k range missile if needed.
How so ? All that it says is that they modified Prithvi to emulate the terminal trajectory of a 2K range missile wrt the velocity and altitude, without requiring it to travel 2K km.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by Austin »

PratikDas wrote:Just posting the full-sized crop of the missile.

Image
Nice Close up pics , As I had guessed from older pics the fins near the nozzle are movable and along with Movable Nozzle of Solid fuel provides the necessary control surfaces to shape the trajectory.

The bigger cropped wings slightly above are fixed but foldable ones ( even the lower fins are foldable ) so this is good for cannister launch from VLS platforms

The 2nd stage kill vehical is similar to PAD based on TVC nozzle and side thrust controller , the difference is the new seeker , So PDV is a combination of Proven and New Technologies.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by chackojoseph »

srin wrote: How so ? All that it says is that they modified Prithvi to emulate the terminal trajectory of a 2K range missile wrt the velocity and altitude, without requiring it to travel 2K km.
Actually that is wrong. Its not 2k range I wanted to say. Its 2k range type simulation with Dhanush. I hit the post button and then net went awry. I just logged in to correct it. I will edit it.

I had a discussion in mind few months back when folks wanted Dhanush ripped and replace with Brahmos.
Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by Sanjay »

Thanks chackojoseph. My question would be - did an intercept take place successfully without a warhead detonation ?
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by Kanson »

^ Sirji, in typical sense, it was not an interception. The target missile is not intercepted either physically or through detonation.
This attempt is see how close the PDV missile came to the target missile. From the last two 'exo-atmospheric' tests they reduced the miss distance from (if I'm not wrong) ~5m to ~2m. This time the missile is equipped with better sensor/INS and better motor. So they must made this test to see how good the new missile is (in terms of miss distance). So no interception as such.
Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by Sanjay »

That's a good explanation. Thanks
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by Karan M »

Check the similarity between the fins /placement of the PDV and upper stage of AD-1
Could be PDV can be used for rapid development of AD-1/2 as well.

Image

Image

Could be DRDO being sneaky as usual. :D
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by Karan M »

http://www.omantribune.com/index.php?pa ... ding=India

Nirbhay missile has sub-metre accuracy, says DRDO ex-chief
Jeta Pillai

MUSCAT Nirbhay, India’s long range sub-sonic cruise missile, which is undergoing trials, will have sub-metre accuracy, according to Dr VK Saraswat, former director-general of Defence Research and Development Organisation, the developers of the missile.

This will give it the ability to hit a small target among multiple objects at a range of up to 1,000km. The BrahMos supersonic cruise missile, with a range of 300km, has an accuracy of a few metres.


Saraswat, who is currently holder of Department of Atomic Energy’s Homi Bhabha Chair, was presented this year’s ‘Dr ASG Jaykar Award’ at Indian School Wadi Kabir as part of the Science India Fiesta 2014 that concluded on Saturday.

BrahMos, he said, will not be affected even if satellite navigation is jammed because it has a very good homing radar seeker which takes care of all mid-course errors.

About Astra, the active radar homing beyond-visual-range (BVR) air-to-air missile reportedly undergoing trials using Sukhoi 30MKI fighters, he said: It is state-of-the-art, in terms of homing capability, probability of intercept and success rate of the mission. The best aircraft, whatever manoeuvrs it can make, Astra will outwit it.”

Dhanush, a ship launched version of Prithvi missile with a range of 359km, has an accuracy of less than 10m and is mainly for static targets, including those on land, said Saraswat.
The missile was test-fired successfully in November 2013.

On the suggestion that India’s Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) system would disturb military balance in the region, Saraswat said: “It is like any other weapon. When the number of fighter squadrons or tanks, is increased, it will also result in military imbalance.”

But, since India has a policy of no first use of N-weapons, we should have the capability to defend against a rogue N-attack. It must have the time to counter-attack and that is possible only with BMD, which can destroy an incoming missile, he added.

On the possibility of new radars detecting stealth aircraft, he said: “Already there are radars that can detect very low cross-section systems. Aircraft exhaust has infrared (IR) radiation that can be detected, therefore work is on to suppress IR radiation from aircraft. Similarly, ground radars are also becoming more potent with ‘low probability of intercept’ radars and hi-fidelity radars. Then there are passive radars or no transmission radars which only receive signatures from transmissions that are in the environment and then try to find out where they are coming from. With more signal processing techniques, radars will overcome the stealth.”

Saraswat said the level of autonomy in electronic warfare systems on fighter aircraft continues to increase and are able to decide ‘what the threat is, how to overcome it’ and how to make yourself safer against it. “All future radars and radar warning receivers will have that capability and a lot of it is happening today. In many cases missile firing is also done automatically, but

India, he said, was waiting for its first thorium-based reactor to become operational which would be a breakthrough in the effort to meet its energy needs as Kerala had very large deposits of thorium.

Saraswat said the Kaveri engine, which was originally developed for the Light Combat Aircraft ‘Tejas’, had passed all tests and would now be used for large Unmanned Aerial Vehicles that are under development.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by Austin »

Karan M wrote:Check the similarity between the fins /placement of the PDV and upper stage of AD-1
Could be PDV can be used for rapid development of AD-1/2 as well.

Could be DRDO being sneaky as usual. :D
Good Find Karan , Indeed that is the case.

From what I can see AD-1 and AD-2 will have a High Energy Fat Booster to take the payload faster to higher altitude , similar to US NMD Booster.

The 3rd stage might be similar to PDV or it could be a new development.

US NMD .....Note the Fat High Energy Booster that takes the payload to high altitude

Image
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by abhik »

The girth of the missile will make it a problem fitting multiple Missiles per TEL. From the looks of it one could possible fit at most two or even only one(like in the Prithivi TEL). For comparison the Arrow 3 carried 6 missiles and the THAAD carries 10.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by John »

Abhik to achieve that we need smaller interceptor, PDV is slightly larger than Arrow 2 in terms of size where as Arrow 3 is half the size of 2 and is double the range.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by Austin »

That because Arrow 3 uses KKV and can afford small size while Arrow-2 uses Warhead.

PDV uses Warhead and looking at the size of the missile it certainly uses a large warhead , so even without a direct hit and near miss for PDV would still be a Kill of BM.

Using warhead can make the interceptor a little bulky but it comes with its own pluses.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by Austin »

abhik wrote:The girth of the missile will make it a problem fitting multiple Missiles per TEL. From the looks of it one could possible fit at most two or even only one(like in the Prithivi TEL). For comparison the Arrow 3 carried 6 missiles and the THAAD carries 10.
Doesnt matter really ....we can have 10 Trucks lined up and these system protect City against ABM and are not tactical missile like SAM , so their deployment pattern would varry and need not be mobile as SAM batteries.

There are other factors like Probability of Kill per Interceptor , Interceptor Speed , Warhead Size ( affecting Kill Box ) , Range , Max Altitude that makes it bulky...looking at the fat booster it certainly is very energetic
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by John »

Austin wrote:That because Arrow 3 uses KKV and can afford small size while Arrow-2 uses Warhead.
Yes with KKV you have smaller terminal stage which means better maneuverability and also overall cost of Arrow 3 is less than Arrow 2.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by chackojoseph »

Sanjay wrote:Thanks chackojoseph. My question would be - did an intercept take place successfully without a warhead detonation ?
If they have painted the target electronically, then its as good as interception. They might go for explosion during their 3rd trials onwards.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by Austin »

John wrote:
Austin wrote:That because Arrow 3 uses KKV and can afford small size while Arrow-2 uses Warhead.
Yes with KKV you have smaller terminal stage which means better maneuverability and also overall cost of Arrow 3 is less than Arrow 2.
The Kill Box provided by KKV is smaller and it needs to be dead accurate all the time for an impact kill but the advantage is smaller payload and consequently over all smaller missile.

Warhead detonation need not be dead accurate and even a near miss can be a kill , warhead can also be generically used against larger type of target in future targets ( MaRV travelling in upper atmosphere , hypersonic vehical or say hi flying spy place where you are near space but not there yet where KKV wont be effective ) and incase of PDV BM that missed the first kill say at 120 km and the target now is at 30-80 km altitude a double kill at high altitude ( near space > 100 km ) and medium altitude using same interceptor (PDV) is possible using warhead

IMHO DRDO approach for a warhead approach and looking at PDV it will be a large one in couple of 100 kg is the best option though at the cost of large interceptor which is not an issue for ABM systems and that at PDV is mobile one
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by Austin »

Hindu has good details

Interceptor spot on, though without blast: DRDO
Scientists say Prithvi Defence Vehicle mission achieved important objectives

India’s ambitious mission on Sunday to intercept an “enemy” ballistic missile at a altitude of 120 km seems to have achieved only partial success. While the missile technologists of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) say the interception did take place and the mission met its “important objectives,” they concede that the warhead in the interceptor missile, which took off from the Wheeler Island, did not explode.

Avinash Chander, Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister, said: “The infrared (IR) seeker in the interceptor could track the target, but we have not exploded the target. The target was not to be exploded.”

Asked if the mission was only “partially successful,” Mr. Chander, architect of India’s Agni series of missiles, said, “The mission’s main objective was to track the target missile. We wanted to see the performance of the IR seeker. The warhead in the interceptor missile was not meant to be exploded in this mission. Since we did not fire the warhead, the debris did not fall.”

Another DRDO missile technologist said: “We have recorded the interception.”

Asked whether “a hit-to-kill” took place in the mission as it did in the previous six other interceptor flights from the Wheeler Island, he said: “We have to work out the missed distance between the target missile and the interceptor. Based on that, the hit-to-kill would take place. We are not able to say right now whether the hit-to-kill took place.”

Yet another scientist said, “Whether the target missile was destroyed or not, I cannot say right now.”

The DRDO was looking forward to this mission because it was “challenging” and “complex.” Of the DRDO’s seven interceptor missions, six were successful. The interceptions had taken place either in the endo-atmosphere (below 50 km) or in the exo-atmosphere (between 50 km and 80 km). But this mission was a different ball game because the interception was to be done at 120 km, providing very little time for the interceptor to blast off and waylay the attacker. So the motors in the interceptor called the Prithvi Defence Vehicle (PDV) and the target missile were specially developed. The target missile lifted off a ship in the Bay of Bengal, off Odisha at 9.07 a.m. It was a two-stage missile, “mimicking a hostile ballistic missile approaching from more than 2,000 km away,” a DRDO press release said.

In an automated operation, radar-based systems on the Wheeler Island and in Paradip, Puri and Cuttack detected and tracked the “enemy” missile. The computer network, with the help of data from the radars, predicted its trajectory. The single-stage PDV interceptor took off two-and-a-half minutes later.

The PDV, guided by the highly accurate inertial navigation system and supported by a redundant micro-navigation system, moved towards the point of interception. Once the PDV crossed the atmosphere, its heat shield domes covering the IR and radio frequency (RF) seekers fell off. So the two seeker domes opened to look at the incoming missile’s location. With the help of inertial guidance and the IR seeker, the PDV moved for the interception. “The mission was completed and the interception parameters were achieved,” the press release said.

G. Satheesh Reddy, Director, Research Centre, Imarat , a DRDO missile facility in Hyderabad, said the mission featured several new technologies. Both the missiles had new, powerful motors. The heat shield, covering the IR and RF seekers, ejected for the first time. The seekers worked well. “This is the first time that an imaging seeker has been used for the air defence vehicle. The imaging seeker could see the incoming missile, track it and guide the interceptor towards the target.” The RCI team made the seekers and the inertial navigation and guidance system, Mr. Reddy said.

Adalat Ali was the Programme Director and Y. Sreenivasa Rao, Project Director.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by Austin »

From Hindu report PDV is a single stage interceptor which means the control surface remains the same combination of rear control surface and tvc.
nits
BRFite
Posts: 1156
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by nits »

Chinese Analysis of our latest ABM Test - Link
While some Chinese military experts agreed that India has made progress in missile interception technology, others cast doubt over the significance of the latest launch.It's hard to conclude whether India'ss anti-missile technology has reached a certain level, as they also launched the target missile, so the launch time and ballistic data are all readily available; the daily quoted an unidentified Chinese missile expert.

He said China has developed relatively mature anti-ballistic missile capabilities based on Russia S300 system which are ready for combat, but India is still experimenting with it.

Song Zhongping, a former lecturer on missile technology and now military affairs commentator in Beijing, said India's new interceptor missile could only be similar to the level of Chinese missiles in the 1990s. He said that the target missile was not advanced and lacks effective evasive techniques which had made it easier for the interceptor to strike the target.In real combat, however, it is hard for even the most advanced interceptors produced by the US, such as the Patriot missile, to hit Chinese missile targets, another missile expert said.
member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by member_23370 »

Looks like written by a 10 year old.
China has no credible or even passable BMD. The HQ-9 is a cheap low quality knock off of S-300 which can only engage ballistic missiles at less than 30 Km. Its not even as good as AAD.
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2509
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by srin »

It is a masterpiece of article with amount of targetting it does.

They want to appear magnanimous by acknowledging our ABM test.
At the same time, they want to belittle the development by saying they already have a mature system and ours is only equivalent to what they already had twenty years ago. But they admit Russian contribution.
Finally, because they have now admitted that ABMs can be effective, they now belittle them by indicating that Chinese missiles can't be intercepted by US ABM system.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by Austin »

US missile defense system proves to be useless after $40 bln spent

Despite a decade of testing and tens of billions of dollars’ worth of research, a major missile defense program in the United States has proven to be anything but successful, a new investigation suggests.

Nevertheless, the Missile Defense Agency, or MDA, plans on conducting next week its ninth exercise of that costly system since 2004, and the outcome of the drill is expected to influence whether or not more than a dozen new interceptors are added to the United States’ arsenal.

According to a recent investigation by the Los Angeles Times, however, that system has so far been marred by mistakes that raise questions about its ability to thwart any major attack and the cost incurred during the last decade.

The results of the Times probe, published by the paper on Sunday this week, show that Pentagon officials with inside knowledge of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, or GMD, say the program has suffered from mishaps more often than the US government would have expected.

[A] decade after it was declared operational, and after $40 billion in spending, the missile shield cannot be relied on, even in carefully scripted tests that are much less challenging than an actual attack would be,” David Willman wrote for the Times over the weekend.

“Official pronouncements about the GMD system, The Times found, have overstated its reliability.”

Results have been mixed to say the least since as far as 1999 when GMD testing first began — half of the first 16 tests of the system's ability to intercept a mock enemy warhead failed, the Times acknowledged. The system was finally upgraded to “operational” in 2004, but five of the eight tests held in the last decade have failed as well.

The GMD system is expected to intercept incoming missiles, like hypothetical attacks waged by adversaries such as Iran or North Korea. Even when US officials have scripted test drills to try out this ability, however, the GMD program has hardly acted as expected. The last successful intercept occurred five-and-a-half years ago, and the last three attempts — two in 2010 and one last July — all were unsuccessful.

"The tests are scripted for success," Philip E. Coyle III, a former director of operational testing and evaluation for the Pentagon, told the Times. "What's amazing to me is that they still fail."

Because of this tainted track record, all eyes are expected to be on a drill later this month on June 22. MDA Director Navy Vice Adm. James Syring told Congress recently that the upcoming intercept flight test remains his “highest priority,” and with good reason:14 new intercepts could be added to a MDA system currently composed of 30 if the upcoming test is a success, but Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel hinted that failure would mean a halt in funding.

Speaking before Congress, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) said “not just friends of the United States but even our enemies” will monitor the next round of testing in order to gauge the current abilities of the MDA program.

“I’m also optimistic we have identified the cause of the intercept failure involving our first-generation EKV last July when the CE-1 failed to separate from the booster’s third stage,” Syring said. “We have accounted for this issue in the upcoming flight test and we are working toward a correction for the entire fleet before the end of the year.”

Regardless, Syring is appealing to Congress for $99.5 million to begin what he described Wednesday to the Times as "redesign improvement" that would stop short of a complete overhaul, sources familiar with the matter told the paper.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by Austin »

Original Source for the above report

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-mis ... tml#page=1
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by brar_w »

A very high end AMD system is extremely complex to get right. Some elements with the MDA are doing well, while others need a loooot time, money and brainpower to make it right. At the end of the day opinions on these systems will vary given the open nature of auditing in the US but thats the nature of technology and extensive testing that is audited and has a de-classified developmental testing report published for the entire world to see.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by Karan M »

Austin, interesting. The manner in which the Cold War era US MIC has devolved to a money obsessed, "Game the system" one which manages to land programs and routinely underdeliver, whilst soaking up prodigious amounts of funds, is an eye opener. Any other country would have thought twice after "made in gold", 20 unit B-2 fleet, the fracas that was Comanche or even Crusader - the manner in which the JSF was happy wasting money along like a fat pig at the trough, until finally, the USAF woke up or even the LCS. Its clearly an endemic issue and shows the US checks and balances in the military development space are as compromised as their systems in the financial management space. It would still be ok & only an expense account for US firms to game the US Govt funding for their own purposes (whether claiming R&D benefits or delivering benefit to their market capitalization), but for the fact the manner in which the US is haemmorhaging money in its MIC, its overall budget is getting affected, and the lowered bang for buck gives countries like PRC a good chance to up their capabilities and narrow the gap.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by Austin »

There is a reason why military spending in US is the second largest Federal government expenditure, after Social Security ...mostly due to contractors who want to make the most for their shareholders even if projects fails or shuts off the contractors gets their due in both ways they win .....some projects are spread across all states by contractors to make it too big to fail
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Post by brar_w »

@ Karan M, I agree with a lot of what you say and many reformist in the US have openly written their "thesis" of how the entire setup can be corrected. Having said that, not all is what it appears given that the system is open and with it comes opinions from all spectrum of society.

B-2? It was a cold war weapon designed to conduct a mission in non-permissive environments where the B-1 and B-52 could not go. Procurement plans were in the three digits. It was designed with that economy of scale in mind. The Cold war ended, its numbers got reduced and the price skyrocketed. Had there been a program goal to acquiring 2 dozen bombers the design and capability would have been a lot different. Its an industrial capacity and capability issue and there is no way around it. The most important things designers look at while designing hardware is the threat, capability requirement, industrial base, supplier base, numbers wanted etc. Reduce the numbers from hundreds to 2 dozen and the price per system is bound to skyrocket. There is no way around that. Blow half a billion dollars on composite research that would have been spread over many airframes and then end of procuring just 2 dozen and one can do the math. Similarly, design an aircraft where the bulk of the cost savings come from economies of scale and your price will increase exponentially with lowering numbers. Same thing happened with the F-22. It was designed (first half of the ATF) for a 700 production run, then cut to 400 odd as the program wound and down select happened. Eventually less then 200 procured. Politics and the geopolitical situation vis-a-vis the threat changed greatly. If you asked the US air force to design an F-15 replacement again in the 80's that would only be procured in small amounts (vis a vis the F-15C fleet) the design would be a lot less ambitious form a program point of view. It would most probably be a highly modified F-15 taking cues from the numerous programs they had to test out advanced capability. But the politics did not turn out as it was planned when the programs started.

The JSF is actually quite favorable compared to the F-16 program historically speaking. F-16's had crashes, had a massive concurrency issue where the block 30 configuration wasn't achieved till more than 1000 aircraft had been produced and also had its fair share of critics. Its just that the F-16's critics wrote in news papers, magazines etc so we don't have that thing as well documented as we do now with blogs and the internet. The LCS is a mess, not only in terms of the capability but because the USN wanted a ship that was modular and was a concept for UAV/UCAV operations in areas where it would operate under the umbrella of existing larger more capable "traditional" ships. The political class was not sold onto that, so front hat aspect its a poor program as it wanted to do too many things in one program (including getting newer shipbuilders into the shipbuilding game) that the establishment was not prepared to pay for. There are also not many MIC's around the world that would offer you the transparency, reporting, freedom of information (even for detailed testing reports) from where we could draw a comparison, and not many have the huge volume of defence reporting either both from the mainstream media and the bloggers, economic activists, anti war organizations and what not. Its all a big MELA and one really has to sift through with some time at hand to see what the systems do and what the problems are. Other MIC's don't have such a problem (not a problem really as it is a good thing from transparency pov). Do we have a complete development testing report, audited by the government office on the S400 missile system? Do we get detailed annual development testing reports issued signed by the head of testing for the PAKFA? There are also things with capability vis-a-vis time frame, most of the "at risk" programs are cutting edge much ahead of what the competition is doing. The F-22 with full mission system was flying in 1997. The B-2 was flying in 1989 etc. There is a very easy way to bring costs down, bring programs within their desired time-frames and reduce the risk of cost overruns considerably. Stop making systems that are bleeding edge. Stop asking for an F-22 in the 1990's or a 6th generation fighter in 2030. Stop asking for carrier borne UCAV's by 2019, stop asking for a stealth flying wing in the 90's, and stop asking for hypersonic weapons by 2020. You can keep on milking "safer" designs like expanding on your 4th gen fitters, modifying your bomber fleet with upgrades and newer weaponry and taking baby steps with UAV's (as the rest of the world is doing). Its a decision every country must take on its own i guess and the services concerned that will eventually fight in wars.

From the ABM side of the business, there is nothing that one can do other then TEST, TEST, TEST, FIX, FIX, TEST, TEST, TEST, FIX, FIX :)..Canceling programs because of failures will only result in clean sheet designs that will take more than a decade and then still have issues (some major) that would need to be corrected and the process begins all over again.

@ Austin, the Defence spending is not second to Social security but third behind Social security and healthcare.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258
Last edited by brar_w on 18 Jun 2014 00:06, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply