Rakshaks,
Yesterday I wrote a response to several of the previous posts in this thread. Today, I see it was not successfully posted, so I'm gonna try again.... more briefly this time....
Pranav wrote:
To make optical tracking more difficult, the warheads should be light or dark colored depending upon whether the attack needs to happen during the day or night.
I believe the detection spectrum for the system is beyond merely the visible wavelengths. Current systems rely more heavily on the IR and UV spectrums, rather than just visible light. Moreover, when combined with laser rangefinding, even a seemingly soot black object flying through the air on a moonless night can be illuminated, targetted and destroyed. Please remember ECM has no effect on IR and UV-reliant targetting systems, so stealth means squat in a modern AD scenario.
Pranav wrote:
The warheads should perhaps be accelerated to Mach 4 or 5, and then be allowed to coast to the target from about 7 or 8 km away (say last 10 seconds of flight), to reduce infrared signature. (Speed should not be so high that surface gets too hot.)
Any object travelling through the atmosphere at mach 4 or 5 is going to be hot. Moreover, if such an object has to travel for 7-8 kms unpowered, it's not going to be supersonic by the time it reaches the target area. It will, however, be red hot, and therefore also brilliantly visible in the IR spectrum ("stealth" be damned).
Pranav wrote:
The shape and surface should be designed for low RCS. Also plan for terrain hugging trajectories?
In an integrated AD environment,
radardetection units and firing units (of whichever description) are all widely dispersed and networked. This means that even a radar signal that is successfully deflected by an appropriatly shaped low-RCS PGM, will likely be deflected onto the receiving array of another radar/detection unit. This is "errant signal detection", which is why stealth is less effective against a networked adversary, as is typically the case with modern AD deployments of a fixed (and well thought-out) nature. Needless to say, the potentiality of 'bogies' following "terrain hugging trajectories" is a major part of such deliberate AD planning.
Pranav wrote:
Should carry out random trajectory adjustments every 0.1 seconds say. I wonder if impulsive acceleration too might be possible through shaped explosives.
Random trajectory adjustments? Better bring extra fuel.
Impulsive acceleration of hypersonic vehicles traveling in atmosphere using shaped explosives? Better armour the missile against explosive shockwaves/forces.
Therefore, this will have to be a (1) very fast missile/pgm that is also (2) large enough for the added fuel and armour (so therefore also heavy), yet it is also (3) highly maneuverable? Good luck with all that! (While I have faith in DRDO scientists, I am also sure they're clever enough not to apply an engineering solution to every challenge; i.e. why out-engineer a system that can be defeated by attrition? Better to spend the money on "quantity" in such a scenario; rather than divert engineering expertise into making a Skyshield-killing missile/PGM with a high hit-to-kill ratio.) As per their own claims, the Skyshield refered to in the above youtubed videos can handle 20 engagements with pre-loaded ammunition. More importantly, like all guns, they heat up and cannot be fired indefinitely without a cooling-off period. This cooling off period, combined with the capacity limitation of stored ammo; altogether this points to a better way to defeat the Skyshield (attrition).
ADDED LATER: This brings to mind again the idea of a IGMDP CM that would perform like the BrahMos but would instead deploy a number of submunitions at the last moment, that would each follow a different trajectory in a "swarm", thereby drawing a lot of AHEAD fire and as a result, defeating Skyshield by attrition.
I know that the US has done a FMS deal with the IAF for the "Sensor Fuzed Weapon" which deploys a number of "smart skeet" submunitions that are each very small and individually capable of defeating an MBT. This is currently an air-dropped bomb, but there is probably not much of a reason why "smart skeets" cannot be delivered by a fast CM developed jointly by the DRDO and Textron Systems (makers of the "Sensor Fuzed Weapon").
Any word on how many/if the "Sensor Fuzed Weapon" has been delivered to the IAF already?
Any public talk of a JV between Textron and BrahMos? (That would exponentially increase the tactical capability profile of the BrahMos, with a single shot defeating multiple targets (using submunitions a la "BLU-108").)
John wrote:
Ahead is not very useful against cruise missiles' mainly because you cannot predict their flight path that easily they are not unguided missiles you literally have to fire dozens of rounds to intercept one, for naval CIWS it may work since the intercept window is relatively small but when missile is headed to land based installation you are talking a sq mile that you need to saturate with Ahead ammo and not to mention damage to civilian infrastructure from these rounds going off close to the ground.
AHEAD is deployed in a counter-CM role by a number of NATO and non-NATO countries around the world. I think the video youtubed above mentions that each engagement typically involves 24 shells, each exploding and releasing 152 tungsten penetrators that are spin-stabalized, each weighing 3.3g (and travelling around mach 4-5 in a blast-cone shape aimed AHEAD of the bogey, consisting of *3648* separate projectiles). So, to address your post, yes, dozens of rounds are used per engagement, and this is normal, as is protecting square miles of area from incoming, fast-moving targets like CMs.
As for "damage to civilian infrastructure from these rounds going off close to the ground"; I would suggest this is vastly preferable to not having AD and basically inviting an air raid against something like a nuclear power reactor or hydroelectic dam, for obvious reasons. Ideally, AD wouldn't be needed. Even if it is needed, ideally it is not used (because it's a deterrant). If it must be used, then it is better to use it to down incoming bogeys (PGMs of various description); than to allow a successful attack to take place, for the sake of civilians. Wouldn't you agree?
Singha wrote:is the AHEAD ammo the next Kongsberg NSM...apparently all milk and honey per internet accounts but later proved to have huge gaps in real world? (the kongsberg is a export failure and is said to be effective only in littoral cluttered water near the baltic states)
I am unfamiliar with Kongsberg NSM, but the Skyshield has been an export success, and has succeeded in a number of qualification and user trials by NATO and non-NATO coutries around the world. A number of countries continue upgrade programs.
OT , but precisely the reason why the US is turning towards all aspect stealth for its missile programs as well .You can not hit what you cant see.
. Just think about what else (better, more useful) could have been discovered, engineered and constructed/provided; using the same material, financial and intellectual resources. No matter if you're a 'hawk' or a 'dove'; you've gotta admit, sowing the seeds of destruction leads to a bitter harvest, and this is 
