India tests Prithvi based ABM-2

Rishi
Forum Moderator
Posts: 746
Joined: 29 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: Maximum City

Postby Rishi » 30 Nov 2006 11:26

India plans an early indigenous anti-ballistic missile system
Press Trust of India
August 17, 2003

In an effort to speed up development of indigenous anti-missile system, India has asked the United States for "technical information" on its operational Patriot anti-missile system and also sought Washington's nod for involvement in the Israeli-US upgraded Arrow missile system.

Confirming that a request has been sent to the Defence Cooperation Agency of the US Government, Defence Ministry officials said they were "hopeful of an early response from Washington".

These efforts, officials said, were part of an action plan formulated by India to have an anti-missile system along the country's western border with Pakistan, at the earliest.

The plan was aimed at giving Indian armed forces a capability of rapid response in case of a nuclear or conventional missile attack and involved strategic meshing up of various deterrence systems like the already inducted Low Level Transportable Radars from Israel and plans to induct the Airborne Warning and Air Control system and hooking them to an indigenous Spy Satellite system, they said.

Conceding that "it is an extremely complex task", officials said a beginning was being made with project already underway to hook up all the radars - civil and military - in the country.

As part of recent Indo-US warming up in military to military relations, Indian experts specially from Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) have been observers at two big anti-missile workshop cum demonstrations held in the US, in which the Patriot as well as the Israeli Arrow missile system were in action.

At the just concluded second meeting of the Indo-US Defence Policy group, Defence officials from the two countries reaffirmed the shared view that " missile defence" enhanced cooperative security and stability.

The two countries have now decided to hold a missile defence workshop in India in the coming months as a follow-on to Multinational Ballistic Defence conference held in Kyoto, Japan recently. At the invitation of the US pacific command, India had sent observers to Kyoto conference too.

Defence Ministry officials said the request made to the US was on sharing technical data on the Patriot missile, but assumes significance with India reopening the trial of the Trishul missile, which earlier had been put
on backburner.

Trishul, which was earlier visualised for Surface-to-Air multi-target roll had later been earmarked by the DRDO scientists for anti-missile role, after some initial technical breakthroughs. The missile suffered a setback
after the US imposed sanctions post-Pokhran tests.

The missile has now been revived with DRDO undertaking five tests in a series. The defence scientists are also trying anti-missile system trials on the Akash missile.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 30 Nov 2006 11:30

Sudhanshu wrote:With due respect, I might not be knowing them as a person and I might not be having that technical knowledge about BM program.


Then if you dont know that, how can you come to the conclusion in the underlined text? First things first- please read up on the following:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/Agni.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/Prithvi.html

Understand the complexity, the scale of achievement- then think about loosely using the term fraud.

But please, please give me a reason after such intense pressure of prolong and successive faliures by DRDO as an organization, why possiblity of a fraud would be unfounded.


Kindly go through the following link to get a better view of the prolong etc etc of the DRDO., then consider and think for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRDO

In a country where army guys do fake shootouts to gain medals. It is believed that no one is as patriotic as they are.


What is the proportion of army guys who commit fraud, get caught taking bribes to those who dont?

The term which you need to look at is *perspective*. For every ketchup colonel, you'll find a dozen more either wounded in ops, or who have paid the price.

The same holds true for India. You have multiple programs from multiple firms and orgs. Not all are the same.

If they can commit such act to bring themselves in limelight. Why DRDO as an organization would hesitate to do such fraud, which would elevate the moral of its country men, its employee and offcourse its budget allocation.


Because kind sir, they would be gladly put on the spot by the services and the import lobby who spare no expense in running down DRDO or anything local. I know the funda of explaining who or what VK Saraswat and co are and have already achieved is beyond the discussion, so examine the above point and do consider. In India, this kind of hera-pheri is not possible. The DRDO is audited at several levels, its each and every action is under the media glare, most of which would gladly savage it for a few Rs/- or out of misplaced Rang de basanti effect.
BTW, the ketchup colonel etc got prosecuted.

Moreover, (already discussed many times) at one time they were incapable of developing a simple SAM (akash) , which could destroy an aircraft. Now if they claim that they have developed a capablity to destroy a missile.


What makes you think they are incapable of making a SAM that can destroy an aircraft? What stage do you think the Akash program is currently at?

Again, in certain respects, the Akash program is as ambitious as an ABM one, and I daresay without the Akash, much of the work on this program would be protracted. Please look at www.akashsam.com and get an idea.


If I would think it rationally I would say "Do I look like a fool?"


I dont know how you look nor would I put it in those terms, but unfortunately what you consider as rational thinking- I merely see as gaping holes in your knowledge base, about both the DRDO and the Indian MIC. Which is leading you to this conclusion.

and If I think with extreme nationalist feeling I would say "No matter what physics says If they are saying, they certainly have done that. Jai Hind! Hamara bharat mahan"


You can leave nationalism at the door since it is mostly irrelevant to the discussion. (Bar the obvious: that we agree upon India having a strong defence, etc etc).

It is up to you to suggest me what should I think.


I can only point you. The situation is not as black or white as you seem to believe in.

Rishi
Forum Moderator
Posts: 746
Joined: 29 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: Maximum City

Postby Rishi » 30 Nov 2006 11:31

Plans been there for some time?

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

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 30 Nov 2006 11:34

Yups Rishi, I've posted thisearlier though.
a simple googling reveals this.

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 30 Nov 2006 11:36

Indeed, but Arun_S as you advised me, patience. Let the system be deployed first tech demonstrator is GREAT and wonderful but the strategic geo-pol scenario in the thread are not going to come true UNLESS we have a system deployed.

And there is many a slip between the cup and the lip. (Not all because of DRDO I must add here)

Of course I may be wrong IFF this was really a "user trial" masquerading a first test flight, with the earlier test flight having been done in a sneaky manner else where.

So while I have this dilemna, to "KNOW" I need certain details in open source domain (not having khufia access to MoD anymore :)) however if I know that it means our friends know that too. Which is the option I want?

Hmmm..... It seems I will continue staying guessing for a while.

Rishi
Forum Moderator
Posts: 746
Joined: 29 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: Maximum City

Postby Rishi » 30 Nov 2006 11:39

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/org/cwp/projec ... mscontrol/

This has many articles on Indian ABM system, and possible Indo-US coop in the same.

September 24, 2003: I am interested in India's decade long interest in aquiring a theater missile defense system. My angle on the question is on US policy towards cooperation with other countries on theater missile defense. I have been monitoring the Arrow negotiations between Israel and India as well as the debate within the Bush administration to allow this sale go through. I have reached the conclusion that the administration wants to approve this transfer but is constrained by current geo-political realities.I am looking into how the administration is balencing TMD cooperation with other countries in light of MTCR restrictions. The National Policy on Ballistic Missile Defense that came out in late May is especially telling. The review stated that the MTCR will not hinder cooperation on BMD, a statement that can only be directed to India and Taiwan.

akutcher
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 31 Oct 2006 21:54

Postby akutcher » 30 Nov 2006 11:42

Please note that Indian ABM shield capable of intercepting 3.5 to 4.5km/secs peed missile (read SRBM and IRBM) forces China to drastically increase its inventory of ICBM (higher speed missile that can penetrate 4.5km/sec ABM shield). Those Chinese IRBM were no ones botheration but India. But more Chinese ICBM are now pain in musharraf of many peace loving civilized countries.

Now Chinese proliferation calculus with Pakistani condom also become untenable. Pakistan's SRBM and IRBM having become of mud, Pakistan cant get Chinese ICBM because now proliferation of ICBM tipped with WMD in hand of unstable but peace loving jihadi Army of Pakistan is suddenly unacceptable to civilized world. Oh BTW, it is another matter that Pakistan does not even have strategic depth to fire those high speed ICBM against next door Indian cities of Delhi, Mumbai. Only far flunged Arunanchal & Andaman-Nicobar will be in range.


Aint the beg/steal program run by TSP's generals over? From an Indian PoV they have already acquired the capability to reliably deliver the islamic bomb to every corner of hindu territory

From an international PoV a longer-range IRBM let alone an ICBM which can threaten the 'american motherland' is a political suicide for TSP...... I observe there is this tacit understanding between the pure muslims and yehudis that they wont target each other, a 3000+km range missile achieves no objective other than bringing Israel under the nuke umbrella which is as unaccpetable to unkil as to Ehud Olmert.... the only option for TSP in the light of an Indian ABM is doing what they do best, i.e. beg some more in front of chicoms so that they can deliver sophisticated IRBMs with MIRV and decoys... the possibility of chicoms doing more proliferation has reduced considerably because unkil and the american media go ballistic with the launch of a single missile anywhere on this planet

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 30 Nov 2006 11:50


merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Postby merlin » 30 Nov 2006 12:18

I hope that DDM doesn't start on a fully functional and reliable ABM being too ambitious and costly and that DRDO must collaborate with foreign organizations on this. Thats the last thing we need.

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 30 Nov 2006 12:28

merlin wrote:I hope that DDM doesn't start on a fully functional and reliable ABM being too ambitious and costly and that DRDO must collaborate with foreign organizations on this. Thats the last thing we need.


I hope that DDM does not start on that too, however as other more respected members of the forum have already said, DRDO does and should collaborate with firangs for sub system and that is okay and even welcome.

What is really important is system design. The subcomponents can be replaced as and when needed in future.

If it gets ABM capablities deployed sooner than later, why not? I dont think there is any shame/trouble with co operation as long as we are careful.

However yes DRDO can certainly do without half baked knowledge preaching by DDM.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20969
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Postby Philip » 30 Nov 2006 12:38

This just the first step.Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we have a "magic bullet" in our hands.Even the US after decades of rsearch and billions spent,still have not perfected an ABM system and the airborne laser weapon system is just being tested.

Terrorism is a far more dangerous threat than a nuclear tipped missile,because it penetrates right into the country's heartland,disrupting the economy,the social fabric between communities and the resultant tensions linger for ages.having said that,the fact that we will have an ABM system,homedeveloped in the main,shows the traditional enemy that we mean business ,are not afraid of their "ding-dongs"and that we will always see to it that we are far more powerful than it.

What is now needed apart from the ABM Prithvi,is a layered air-defence system,that can counter both cruise and ballistic missiles.The threat from pak's Chinese cruise missiles is real This requires far more AWACS/ASWACS aircraft,aerostats,satellite s dedicated to missile defence and a host of radar sites distributed al over the country to plug any gap. This holistic anti-missile and anti-aircraft defensive network can only be established with the involvement of other outside suppliers.The task is too great for the DRDO alone and in order to save tim and money a collaborative effort should be made.Israel is helping us with sevreal projects and so is Russia.France and our other traditional European suppliers are always there .The US is a big Q mark.patriot is hugely expensive and has not been a total success.IF the advanced longer ranged Barak 2 and a perfected Akash come through,we will be in a happier state of mind.The task now is to quickly perfect the Prithvi ABM and commission it in sufficient numbers to counter the corressponding threat from pak.

Nalla Baalu
BRFite
Posts: 134
Joined: 24 Aug 2006 07:16
Location: Yerramandi, Dhoolpeta

Postby Nalla Baalu » 30 Nov 2006 12:38

ayyoo merlin/saty saarlu!

You guys missed that indian express editorial linked in one of the last few pages. Author of the editorial claims to know the origins of the ground sensor and professed international collaboration is the only way to success.

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 30 Nov 2006 12:48

Nalla Baalu wrote:ayyoo merlin/saty saarlu!

You guys missed that indian express editorial linked in one of the last few pages. Author of the editorial claims to know the origins of the ground sensor and professed international collaboration is the only way to success.


Saar, Me no fan of DDM no saar... Also I am no fan of black vs white debate also... so IF IE talks sense no harm in listening.

But we know that it will be a while beeefore DDM can make a useful suggestion!! However a good press is a very useful society tool and "we" must try and get them to a point where they also become useful. At least we can try and not give up hope.

rakall
BRFite
Posts: 798
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

Postby rakall » 30 Nov 2006 15:35

Arun_S wrote:

]It does not matter if you are unconfortable with SAM/ABM intercepting in unpowered phase. That is way it always is. Pls read some more to be more informed.

.


Yes sir.. point taken.. it was there cleary to see and I didnt.. i should have studied the Arrow-2 iterception schematic picture closely..
that schematic shows a pretty premature burn-out of motor stage (compared to total flight) followed by largely ballisitc inertial flight..

Arun_S wrote:
rakall wrote: 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..
Wrong assumption. What makes you think solid fuelled missile of of same range. Please read more to be more informed.

.



No.. I dint say same range.. SF prithvi (of longer range) may have same or longer flight time -- thats what i said..

But then i assumed that one-half or atleast one-third of the total fligtht time to be powered.. but going back to my previous comment -- corrective measures taken.. As I can NOW see frm BR Agni page -- the burn times form a small fraction of the total flight time..

Abhishek_P
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 16 Sep 2006 07:05

Postby Abhishek_P » 30 Nov 2006 15:39

R Sharma wrote:The one thing though is that China can purchase ABM technology from Russia. Thinking about it, if there is this Sino-Russia alliance that is brewing, wouldn't it be in Russia's interest to give China the S-300 technology? This in turn can then be given to Pakistan at their request in a "joint development".


I don't think theres such a possiblity. Sino-Russia alliance may be brewing at this point of time. But no one knows what befalls in future. IMO no country will be willing to sell such strategic weapons to another country. Nevertheless, we don't know whether China yet has its ABM program. Who knows they too are already ready to spring a surprise?

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Postby krishnan » 30 Nov 2006 15:49

Russia doesnt have to sell the tech , just sell them the product , and they will reverse engineer it :P

It has already bought a good amount of S-300's

Google

Abhishek_P
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 16 Sep 2006 07:05

Postby Abhishek_P » 30 Nov 2006 16:04

abhischekcc wrote:
So, by holding out the hope of cooperation with China, we are giving them an incentive to stop cooperation with pakistan. Putting all pieces together, I feel that India has introduced many new fronts in the old game between India, pak and China:
1. Try and separate pakistan and China alliance.
2. Try and make China see the benefits of a cooperative relationship with India.
3. Subdue pakistan's yahoo attitude towards war by further degrading its nuclear threat over India.
4. Wrest initiative away from China in the larger, asian/global game. (See my next post).



To discuss the above points further...

1. It is just not possible to separate TSP/China alliance in the for-seeable future. While forging relationship with India, China just cannot afford ignore its relationship with Pak. China needs to keep India (even as an ally) on toes by retaining its alliance with Pak else they risk losing their influence in the region. Nevertheless, the game is on.

2. China already sees the benefits of cooperating with India. I feel that in this great game of an increasingly multipolar world, India will be the biggest beneficiary as neither the US nor the Russia/China combine can afford to lose India as an ally.

3. In this great game, Pukes are already subdued but for China's support. In the long run Pukes have no option but to start behaving as a responsible power. But that is subject to Pukes remaining in one piece. Balochistan movement and other dissents might break TSP apart.

4. In this game, wresting initiative might not matter in the long run. China isn't "light years" :wink: from developing its ABM system.

Continued...

Abhiman
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 05 Sep 2006 12:47

Postby Abhiman » 30 Nov 2006 16:17

hi. As per research articles, technical details of Patriot system were covertly acquired by China from Israel. This, along with existing S-300 systems enabled China to develop HQ-9 long-range SAM (with limited ABM capability.)

China is seeking licence-rights for S-300 systems from Russia to be manufactured under HQ-15 designation.

In my view, no nation may provide ToT for any kind of ABM defence (whether missile or satellite), as it is sensitive technology, and due to proliferation concerns.
Thus India may develop ABM indigenously, without foreign assistance.
Thanks.

reference :
http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/hq ... tml#note10
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/surface ... e/s300.asp

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 30 Nov 2006 17:08

Abhiman wrote:As per research articles, technical details of Patriot system were covertly acquired by China from Israel. This, along with existing S-300 systems enabled China to develop HQ-9 long-range SAM (with limited ABM capability.)

In my view, no nation may provide ToT for any kind of ABM defence (whether missile or satellite), as it is sensitive technology, and due to proliferation concerns. Thus India may develop ABM indigenously, without foreign assistance.


Hi.

Interesting! You have contradicted yourself!!

So China can covertly aquire technology and use it to leap frog but we must be stupid and not use any help we can get (in terms of subsystem and or hints on system design for lesser but related system) when people are willing to give it to us through overt means?

And of course we can through overt means aquire pieces and reverse engineer/understand them to an extent through covert means?

Or do you want that we start re-researching Fourier transforms in our quest for true "self-reliance"?

If we get some tech. which we dont have, lets get it and use it understand and get ahead.

Of course no nation will give us the detailed blue print of their state of the art ABM directly on a platter.

At the same time a system is made up of a large number of components and many nations WILL and DO give us tech for subsystems.

Why do you think the Post Pokhran denial of dual use tech was such a big deal which riles everybody here? If we didnt need it wouldnt LCA be flying now.

The whole crux of cooperation is two fold
1) We understand the things we get in detail (which happens)
2) We use it in inventive ways to cut down on time on other development.

Your posts in this and the past seem to suggest that you are searching for a holy grail of "Swadeshi" as epoused by a Lohaite in 60's. I hope you have enough of good sense to look around yourself and see what glory that approach brings.

It is never either/or argument it is always a and argument, the though part is balancing the Left Hand Expr. and RHE of the and expression, and I hope that understanding will bring a greater maturity in your analysis rather than littering the forum like RM with one minded posts of simplicity exceeding a single cell organism.

Thanks

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 30 Nov 2006 17:18

Abhishek's CC and _P; And Arun_S saar.

If I may be so bold: While you guys have interesting geo-political analysis of the impact of a ABM system, isnt the analysis you are painting premature? You are painting a picture which assumes India has ABM deployed. However as Arun_S himself cautioned me, lets walk and then run. Lets not get carried away.

The matter of interest at the moment is getting the ABM system up. Till then the geo political game will be painted by
1) When/if/how did India get ABM, when will it be fully deployed.
2) How to stop India in getting the ABM system operational (for Pak, Chin)
3) Should I help India get a ABM or should I block it? Which way is my benifit more? (Ru/US/Israel etc.)

Lets game the above scenario for now, because the resolution of the the current game will determine what the setting of the pieces for the next one is, and the current assumptions you are basing your analysis on may not even be valid.

JMT.

R Sharma
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 05:30
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby R Sharma » 30 Nov 2006 19:37

To Abhishek's point,

last year I was discussing the unique geopolitical situation that India is in with a Brigadier (now Maj General) of the Indian Army. He pretty much reiterated the same points that Abhishek made about India's position. India is currently being wooed by all sides, Russians want India to be on their side in order to contain US interests in the region, US wants India to be on their side to contain Chinese interests in the region. Until India chooses a side, India will be at an advantage.

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 30 Nov 2006 19:48

hello everyone, I am going to follow Kalam Sahab's line of thinking a few steps further. I am saying what I think Kalam Sahab is saying and feel free to attack me if you think I am wrong.

I am all for globalisation of economies and I will be very happy when all trade blocks, tariffs and direct or indirect subsidies are lifted, but I want to make something clear. There are things we should import and things we should absolutely NOT.

When it comes to conventional weapons systems we can buy some things from outside the country, but when it comes to matters of nuclear security we cannot buy from outside. That in my opinion is a rule that cannot be broken.

To buy a weapon meant for strategic use from outside the country would negate what gains could be had from it. A foreign power would have the ability to dictate the nature of its use and that kind of power in someone elses hands would eradicate our decisional autonomy.

Surface to Air Missiles to protect against conventional airstrikes are not a strategic weapon and they can be imported.

But ABM systems which provide protection against airborne nuclear threats are too vital to be left to imports.

I see two natural consequences of this.

Firstly, the ability to protect our airspace against intrusions is a very vital part of securing fortress India. After Gulf War I in 1990, western strategists have becoming increasingly reliant on gaining air superiority as a prerequisite to military control over a nation. A strong and robust indigenous ABM program lays the groundwork for a stronger Air Defence System which cannot be easily penetrated by a foreign power. In essence it ensures that what was done to Iraq by the French cannot be repeated in India. I repeat Fortress India will not be betrayed with such ease.

Secondly, from a technology perspective, we maintain our decisional autonomy by reducing our dependence on imports when it comes to security against nuclear strikes. This means that our ABM test has just done what Shakti tests did for nuclear weapons. It showed that we are not dependent on anyone. This is unlike other third world countries with nuclear weapons which are completely reliant on being sock puppets of China. By pursuing the most advanced technologies known to man, we are aiming for the big league.

In sum, a stronger regime of self-reliance in air defence technology has strategic implications that outweigh any immediate costs. A strong indigenous representation in the arena of air defence systems is a non negotiable item in the India's national security calculations.

rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Postby rocky » 30 Nov 2006 19:56

saty wrote:
merlin wrote:I hope that DDM doesn't start on a fully functional and reliable ABM being too ambitious and costly and that DRDO must collaborate with foreign organizations on this. Thats the last thing we need.


I hope that DDM does not start on that too
Too late. Shekhar Gupta and his IE have already jumped on this bandwagon.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 30 Nov 2006 20:11

I) India every so often wakes up the world to show its latent talent and potential.
Example. Arjun, LCA, Missile development, Kaveri, Cryo engines etc.

Evreyone in the world knows we can do it, except our own home grown critics and GMs with chalta hai attitude.


2) India is wooed by one and all because of its unique position as a very viable multi ethnic functional democracy with immense land mass, natural resources and above all smart human capital. Economies and technologies are consumption driven, Hence India and China by virtue of large population will have to be next leaders of the pack of nations. India even when compared to PRC has institutions that have stood for centuries with far more transparency than PRC can ever imagine in the short run, and thanks to a society which values democracy inspite of PRC inspired , CIA aided PWG, Naxals and leftwing nuts.


The correct posture in the current Geo Political environment is to be equally aligned ( rather than outdated Non aligned, just like our defination of secular means 'all religions on equal footing', not religion free as the dictionary defines it)based on selective issues evaluated on the basis of first and foremost national interests, not ideology. If the world greatest democracy can be in bed with Mushy like tinpot dictators, PRC like democratic dictatorships and equally cozy to western democracies, we too can do that be it with Burma or Iran or USA..


Now coming to Vijay J 's doctrine of self relaince in strategic weapons and reliance on outside powers for non strategic wepons suits us fine as long as we have the money to pay. ( Tejori house full)

reasons being

Non strategic weapons will be used and have to be effective, we will have wars with Pakistan that is for sure and even Bangladesh.
So we better have things that fire, work and give results. We cant go to war with Proof of concept equipment.

Strategic weapons by nature are not sold even to closest allies or Munnas, at best a shield is offered (like for chief Vitalstatistic of Asterix)

Strategic weapons are for brandishing only, if they are used both brandisher and brandishee will reap the consequences ( New english word are not monopoly of yankees or ebonics, desi wallahs also contribute to queens Hinglish)

So DRDO is ideally suited for strategic weapons development, because for those purposess even a Proof of Concept (like the recent clash of Prithvis in Aakash) is good enough to make some idiots accross the border wipe their eyes and see reality.

DRDO meanwhile can extend the fine tuning for quite sometime without much damage to war fhiting quality of our forces.

Even if some MOD wallah wants to import Strategic weapons system for his own tactical reasons ( of financing his kids education in US or UK, or buy a condo in Tampa FL or Jackson heights NY), they will never be used, or not sure they will perform. So why not local made DRDO stuff we can atleast have some spinoffs no?

SO I endorse Vijay J 'sargument and his doctrine.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 30 Nov 2006 20:25

Philip, While I do understand the technical complexity that US faces for tis NMD program which leads to apparent delays, one should not lose sight of the fact that the DRDO program is for much shorter range TBMs and is emmienetly doable. It is based on available assets within India.

So incorrect comaprisons to US efforts should not be thrown up as attempts to deny credibility to the Indian EAIS. This EAIS is part of CMD for only a credible EAIS allows lower numbers that are needed for global arms control and strategic balance. So lifafa DDM are undermining their own paymasters.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20969
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Postby Philip » 30 Nov 2006 20:37

Ramanna,I am not playing down the achievement of the Indian scientists.I am only highlighting the long way to go because even the US with Patriot has had shortcomings.Secondly,with the range of missiles in the Paki and Chinese arsenal,we will have to devote huge amounts to a defnsive sensor network and for the cost of several hundred missiles which will be required for both ballistic and cruise missile defence.There will have to be a priority list of Indian cities and sites,as we cannot defend evey square inch of land.

A nother option perhaps would be to produce more "offensive" Prithvis or Brahmos missiles to overwhelm enemy defences.Let the technological and financial burden of defending its territory also be experienced by the enemy!

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 30 Nov 2006 21:07

Just prior to launching a BM what if a small Nuke is air bust to create intense electromagnetic radiation to subvert all sensors of the ABM system?

A very hypothetical question, Are missile arrival to be poisson arrival?

a series of missiles arriving with randomly disibursed decoys and asli maal?

The problem is allmost like a clinical trial for a NDA (New Drug application)
with some subjects receiving drug followed a placebo or any combination there of? What people call in drug business treatment arm.

George bahi come in I am taking a sharp single to the non strikers end.

Abhiman
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 05 Sep 2006 12:47

Postby Abhiman » 30 Nov 2006 21:13

saty, technical details of Patriot missile was acquired covertly by China as no nation may transfer ToT for ABM technology overtly. Russia has also not provided ToT for S-300 system to China presently.
Thus, only ABM units may be available for sale to India, and not ToT for ABM systems.

Also, as per statement of then defence minister Pranab Mukherjee in 2005, India shall develop indigenous ABM system, despite foreign ABM units being available for sale.
This might be because knowledge of working of India's ABM may not be desired in the hands of a foreign private contractor.

Thus, India must develop indigenous ABM system instead of entering the trap of purchasing foreign systems and continous rejection of indigenous systems subsequently.
Thanks.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3048
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 30 Nov 2006 21:28

Kanson wrote:For stage 2. Intial velocity is 3.5 km/sec(due to first stage terminal velocity)

Oh..Oh..seems like i have made a mistake. Yes,I have. I mistaken 2 stages as 2nd stage and took the terminal velocity of the first stage as intial velocity for the entire duration of 58 sec. Mistake do happen in life; not a problem.

Arun_S wrote:It is not high school math problem. Your assumptions do not measure up to real rocket behavior. Hint: Rockets do not have uniform acceleration.

Sir..we too know that.Thats why i clearly mentioned "assuming uniform acceleration" to make the equation simple to get a rough idea of what it could be. If you belive that someone doesnt know what they are talking then i leave that to your discretion.

Arun_S wrote:I use (way too accurate) discrete time simulation
Good to know that.

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)


Is this the final version of your "baan". Why i am asking is

First you referred the solid motor of dia 740 mm and 6 m height appeared in tech focus 2001 as the "baan" and said low burn rate specified in the motor is sufficient.

Then you changed that to 650mm dia and said that it is going to be single staged. And said that later DRDO will employ the second stage.

Again you changed back to the same 740 mm dia and 6 m height motor appeared in tech focus 2001 and indicated motor can also go for high burn rate. You also talked about 100 kg payload.

Now, you say the payload is 200kg and indicated two different configuration with single stage and double stage(burn rate same or different ?). (Is it the same 740 mm dia and 6 m height motor?)

So, i heard contradicting 3 or 4 different versions from you on the same product within a weeks time.

Thats the reason ( i dont know whether i took pity on you as you done) preferred to pass a word of caution. If you think that you are way above then please !

Subramaniam
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 27 Mar 2005 19:01

Postby Subramaniam » 30 Nov 2006 21:35

This could be a spin off from Talbott-Jaswant talks? ABM against TSP and China may limit the Indian arsenal to K. Subramaniam advocated numbers than the Bharat karnad numbers-thereby still consistent with DND and CMD? Pure speculation on my part-but could be true.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 30 Nov 2006 21:35

John Snow wrote:Just prior to launching a BM what if a small Nuke is air bust to create intense electromagnetic radiation to subvert all sensors of the ABM system?

A very hypothetical question, Are missile arrival to be poisson arrival?

a series of missiles arriving with randomly disibursed decoys and asli maal?

The problem is allmost like a clinical trial for a NDA (New Drug application)
with some subjects receiving drug followed a placebo or any combination there of? What people call in drug business treatment arm.

George bahi come in I am taking a sharp single to the non strikers end.
Jaani, that is the reason all new mil electronics and communication systems are designed to withstand EMP arising from nuke EM Pulse. In olden days aircrafts in nuke delivery role only, had the hardened electronics to continue to work. This design involves more heavily protecting the front end electrical interface apart from more secure (shielding of cables, connectors and electronics package. Weakest link in this chain defines actual EMP hardness.

IMHO almost all imported weapons DO NOT have this hardening (call it the trojon horse), that is why it is called EXPORT configuration. Applicable for all systems starting from shoulder launched ATM missile, radio, etc etc

hence the need to keep KOSHER and secure all components od strategic systems, including the piddly radio, generator, all the way up to radars, C3 and kinetic systems.

akutcher
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 31 Oct 2006 21:54

Postby akutcher » 30 Nov 2006 21:42

To all the points already made in the imported vs indigenous debate here are my 2 paisa

the NMD or TMD requirements unlike most weapon systems are very coutry specific, for example US might design the penultimate marvel of technology in the form of its EKV but whats the use of such a system to India? The THAAD might be very good but it needs a satellite constellation and 1000km ranged X-band radars to provide the requisite early warning which makes it less attractive to Israelis even though it has longer-range, higher altitude of interception and mobility when compared to the Arrow

My point is the nuclear threat challenging India is very different from the one faced by yankees or the Israelis, and for that matter we would be way better off developing our own ABM because other than providing strategic independence it will give our country a missile shield designed to protect Indians and not some foreign master

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 30 Nov 2006 21:45

Can someone tell me which company manufactures the seekers of Arrow 2? just wondering.

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 30 Nov 2006 21:48

John Snow,

Based on your suggestions I propose the following algo for weapons deals in India.

Code: Select all

 
If Weapon is not strategic -- then
 
     If Tijori is not full -- then

        If DRDO can make cheaper competitor -- then
       
          leverage DRDO output to bring price down
   
        Else if DRDO can't make it  --then
 
          play off two competitors to get local manuf. rights

      Else If Tijori is full --- then
       
       Buy from Foreign Supplier only after taking huge bribes

Else if Weapon is Strategic -- then
 
  Ask DRDO to make ASAP regardless of costs. 

Endif

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 30 Nov 2006 21:49

Subramaniam wrote:This could be a spin off from Talbott-Jaswant talks? ABM against TSP and China may limit the Indian arsenal to K. Subramaniam advocated numbers than the Bharat karnad numbers-thereby still consistent with DND and CMD? Pure speculation on my part-but could be true.


Yes, That is why Uncle encourages ABM. The ability of China and Pakistan to increase missiles and warheads has limitation which Uncle controls.
This is a balance of power strategy

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3963
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Postby hnair » 30 Nov 2006 21:52

About local development of Strategic systems, what about the COTS content? Wont that compromise its reliability? Doesnt a lot of the processing done using COTS processors?

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 30 Nov 2006 21:54

Acharya wrote:
Subramaniam wrote:This could be a spin off from Talbott-Jaswant talks? ABM against TSP and China may limit the Indian arsenal to K. Subramaniam advocated numbers than the Bharat karnad numbers-thereby still consistent with DND and CMD? Pure speculation on my part-but could be true.


Yes, That is why Uncle encourages ABM. The ability of China and Pakistan to increase missiles and warheads has limitation which Uncle controls.
This is a balance of power strategy

How come US control chinas no of warhead? pakistan yes believable but china? dude china is in P5.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3048
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 30 Nov 2006 21:54

US control China missiles ?

Always ABM is not fool-proof. It is used as first defender in case of un-expected escalation. Always you cannot discount the nuclear warhead value.

Inspite of building BMD, US is not planning to bring down the numbers.

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 30 Nov 2006 21:56

Can someone tell me which company actually designed the seeker of Arrow 2?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 30 Nov 2006 21:57

joey wrote:How come US control chinas no of warhead? pakistan yes believable but china? dude china is in P5.


Once you understand the history of china and US involvement in China in the last 200 years you will understand.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests