India tests Prithvi based ABM-2

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

Post by Arun_S »

rakall wrote:Arun -- are you not beeing very cute/cheeky in your first sentence.. "this booster when used as".. so the numbers are (only) for the case if this booster is used as ABM. But you are not revealig if it "is used" or "if you think it is used".. :wink:
It was ~10 lives before, I had "Vardaan" (boon) from God that what I said will become true (Thatha-astu), unfortunately, now my saying it will not cut it (else many bad things in this living experience will be different for me and the world), or else the devil will force me to ask for the ladder to screw you know what ... .. . . ;). La Satanic Verses .. . . .. become next Prophet of the next Hislam. :twisted:
ravikun
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 5
Joined: 12 Oct 2006 11:56

Post by ravikun »

why sanctions? why recrimination?

the US has been trying to recruit India into an ABM deal for a few years. no one gets sanctions for doing this, the west has no reason to disapprove of this move

there are no treaty violations, this is not a weapon of offense, all it does is it partially negates pakistan's offensive capability. the chinese can still overwhelm us if they want to (nuclear), but read the tea-leaves, they have been signalling for some time that they are ready to accomodate us
i said i don expect sanctions. It is not about recrimination also. I was talking about the media posture and psy-ops that India has to do in the near future. I have read the tea leaves, but unfornately McDonalds (us) vision creates too many turbulances in it.
Edit: Remember even when we did the pokhran2, we violated no treaty. I was talking about decreased military and economic cooperation, thats all
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Post by Lalmohan »

i just scanned a bunch of western newspaper sites - little mention of the missile tests apart from 'it happened'

not sure that anyone really has put much importance to it... could also be a reflection on the acceptance of india as a major player on the world stage
R Sharma
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 05:30
Location: USA

Post by R Sharma »

Lalmohan wrote:i just scanned a bunch of western newspaper sites - little mention of the missile tests apart from 'it happened'

not sure that anyone really has put much importance to it... could also be a reflection on the acceptance of india as a major player on the world stage
Well I wouldn't expect the West to give too much importance to the test anyway. Its not like we tested nukes or something like that. Other than that, I think that the West has other issues to worry about. In the US with stuff like Iraq, Afghanistan, Middle East and then domestic issues. Would Indian newspapers carry the test of a ABM by US on their front page? Probably not.
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

Lalmohan wrote:i just scanned a bunch of western newspaper sites - little mention of the missile tests apart from 'it happened'

not sure that anyone really has put much importance to it... could also be a reflection on the acceptance of india as a major player on the world stage
Its best that it doesnt come on papers or the like.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Post by Lalmohan »

R Sharma wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:i just scanned a bunch of western newspaper sites - little mention of the missile tests apart from 'it happened'

not sure that anyone really has put much importance to it... could also be a reflection on the acceptance of india as a major player on the world stage
Well I wouldn't expect the West to give too much importance to the test anyway. Its not like we tested nukes or something like that. Other than that, I think that the West has other issues to worry about. In the US with stuff like Iraq, Afghanistan, Middle East and then domestic issues. Would Indian newspapers carry the test of a ABM by US on their front page? Probably not.
thats my point to ravikun, thanks for explaining
Sam CS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 02 Dec 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Post by Sam CS »

Lalmohan wrote:i just scanned a bunch of western newspaper sites - little mention of the missile tests apart from 'it happened'

not sure that anyone really has put much importance to it... could also be a reflection on the acceptance of india as a major player on the world stage
There was never any mention of Pukis' PaintShopPro tests all these years in Western media or State Dept briefings except that "It happened". So, you could indeed assume that we are now accepted, at least by the powers that be in Foggy Bottom - which is "our" Condi anyway.

OTOH, if CNN says "blah blah ... tested. India has half of the world's poorest people and has fought 3 wars with Pakistan over the disputed region of Kashmir", you can say it is business as usual.
R Sharma
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 05:30
Location: USA

Post by R Sharma »

ravikun wrote:Edit: Remember even when we did the pokhran2, we violated no treaty.
Hmm.... Lets see... the NPT and CTBT!! We are one of only 4 (then 3) nations that had not signed it but that does not mean that we did not violate those treaties in the eyes of the world. And there is a slight difference between testing a Missile for defensive purposes and testing nukes. Testing nukes will always draw international media attention.
Kamal_raj
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 73
Joined: 10 Oct 1999 11:31
Location: U.K

old new FYI

Post by Kamal_raj »

Please note that this is old news FYI....reported somewhere in 2005. Even though I have provided a link which requires a login id and password which I don't have.

Vijay Kumar Saraswat, RCI director, said Feb 10 that the system RCI is working on will be superior to the Patriot-2 and Russia’s S-300 PMU, and will be ready to enter service by 2008. Saraswat claimed the system will have a mobile launcher carrying three surface-to-air, solid-fuel missiles, equipped with directional warheads.

He said the unnamed system will begin flight trials in mid-2006. RCI will carry out about 10 flights before deploying it with the Indian defense forces.
The DRDO scientist said the indigenous air defense system will have a mission control system that will conduct target acquisition, classification and track estimation, among other functions.

He said another major element is the active phased-array radar system purchased from Israel. Called Sword Fish, the system was purchased in early 2004 for $50 million and is undergoing trials at Hasan in Karnataka state.

Once the air defense system is operational, the DRDO scientist said, RCI will integrate it with other defense systems via satellite links and a secure digital data link that will enable it to track and transmit data up to a range of 1,000 kilometers.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=677035&C=airwar
Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1616
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Post by Sumeet »

whats this swordfish ? local name for Green Pine ?? Else i doubt there is some product from Elta called Swordfish.
A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1205
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Post by A Sharma »

swordfish is the Green Pine.
R Sharma
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 05:30
Location: USA

Post by R Sharma »

Here is the entire article
Indians Divided on Air Defense
Weigh Domestic, U.S. Solutions

By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI, NEW DELHI

A battle is brewing here between the United Progressive Alliance government and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) over India’s future air defense needs.

While the DRDO is pushing for a local solution to meet emerging threats from aircraft, cruise and tactical missiles, the government this month requested and received a classified briefing from Pentagon officials on the U.S. Patriot-2 air defense system.

The crux of the problem is that the DRDO already has an air defense system in development, and officials there have said the government should not be spending money elsewhere for a capability its own industry can produce.

A high-level U.S. defense team, led by Edward Ross, director of the U.S. Defense Department’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), gave its Patriot-2 presentation to top officials of the Ministry of Defence and Army here Feb. 22.

The U.S. briefing focused on how the Patriot-2 system can help India defend against advanced threats, especially from Pakistan and China, an Indian Army official said.

In December 2003, the Army’s Directorate of Air Defense Artillery drafted for the Defence Ministry a procurement proposal to meet the Army’s long-term air defense requirements, suggesting the service needs modern systems such as Russia’s Buk-M1-2, France’s Aster 30 and the Patriot-2.
The new system would replace the Army’s 20-year-old Kvadrat air defense system.

According to the Army official, the Indian officials during the presentation told the U.S. delegation that if they selected the Patriot-2, they would insist the purchase occur only through the U.S. Foreign Military Sales program so that service, spare parts and support would be guaranteed for the life of the system.

The official would not discuss how much India was willing to spend on an air defense system or when a procurement plan might be approved by the Defence Ministry.

U.S. Army Lt. Col. Scott Denny, chief of the Office of Defense Cooperation in the U.S. Embassy here, declined to comment on the purpose of the visiting U.S. defense team. But other diplomats in the embassy confirmed that a classified briefing was given to Indian defense officials Feb. 22.

The U.S. briefing comes just a few months after Moscow issued a warning to New Delhi: If the Patriot missile is purchased, Russia will withhold the source code that would allow that missile to be integrated with existing Russian-built air defense systems the Indian Army now operates. Moscow made this stance known during the November visit here by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

DRDO Disagrees

More capable air defense has been a top government priority here for several years. To meet the Army’s future requirements, the DRDO diverted some funds from its missile program in January 2003 to begin developing its own air defense system capable of tracking ballistic missiles.

The Research Centre Imarat (RCI) in Hyderabad, a premier defense laboratory that produces the Agni and Prithvi missile systems and is under the administrative control of DRDO, has been developing a system since early 2003 that would have a range of 100 kilometers.
A DRDO scientist said the previous National Democratic Alliance government was so impressed with the RCI proposal that $444.4 million was allotted in June 2003 to complete the indigenous air defense system by 2008.

Vijay Kumar Saraswat, RCI director, said Feb 10 that the system RCI is working on will be superior to the Patriot-2 and Russia’s S-300 PMU, and will be ready to enter service by 2008. Saraswat claimed the system will have a mobile launcher carrying three surface-to-air, solid-fuel missiles, equipped with directional warheads.

He said the unnamed system will begin flight trials in mid-2006. RCI will carry out about 10 flights before deploying it with the Indian defense forces.

The DRDO scientist said the indigenous air defense system will have a mission control system that will conduct target acquisition, classification and track estimation, among other functions.
He said another major element is the active phased-array radar system purchased from Israel. Called Sword Fish, the system was purchased in early 2004 for $50 million and is undergoing trials at Hasan in Karnataka state.

Once the air defense system is operational, the DRDO scientist said, RCI will integrate it with other defense systems via satellite links and a secure digital data link that will enable it to track and transmit data up to a range of 1,000 kilometers.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

Miles to go
The missile system has to be tested in battle conditions.


While few details are available on the Defence Research and Development Organisation’s (DRDO’s) atmospheric intercept system that was tested on Monday, the experience of militarily advanced countries like the US, Russia and Israel, indicate that such a system is highly challenging to develop. The DRDO’s unknown missile interceptor, aims to be the forerunner of an anti-missile defence system and its claim that the test is a “milestoneâ€
milindc
BRFite
Posts: 740
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Post by milindc »

Similar to Deccan Herald article, these DDMs can't seem to digest crow.

Aim it right

[quote]To be sure, the technology “to shoot a bullet with a bulletâ€
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

R Sharma wrote:
ravikun wrote:Edit: Remember even when we did the pokhran2, we violated no treaty.
Hmm.... Lets see... the NPT and CTBT!! We are one of only 4 (then 3) nations that had not signed it but that does not mean that we did not violate those treaties in the eyes of the world. And there is a slight difference between testing a Missile for defensive purposes and testing nukes. Testing nukes will always draw international media attention.
Not quite correct. The 1950s Vienna convention on Treaties negotiated right after WWII, to which India has acceded, states that treaties not signed by a counry will not be imposed on it as it is not a party to it. So the three and four letter treaties that India has not acceded to do not apply to it. We have to learn to differentiate between de jure and de facto.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

add to the list of things that DRDO fights:
- Technology Sanctions
- Pirang Clouts
- Greased Politicians
- Vested Middlemen (including men in uniform (yamuna-men))
- DDM
- SD (United States)
- CIA operatives
- KGB
- ISI operatives
- Local Gangs and Thugs that gets aided from all of the above

Why would n't these men take time? Actually, in a corollary sense, I think DRDO will come out flying colors. When the going gets tuff, tuff gets going. This is a crisis situation for DRDO.
bhavin
BRFite
Posts: 101
Joined: 28 Sep 2005 23:04
Location: A point in three dimensional space

Post by bhavin »

One thing that I don't get in the reports is about Identification of Friend or Foe. Why would we need that Identification?? Just based on the trajectory itself, it would be possible to judge whether the missile is coming towards us or going away from us ?? Is it a case of DDMitis ?
Last edited by bhavin on 30 Nov 2006 05:17, edited 1 time in total.
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

I have no doubt that there are good folks at IE but the con jobs done by Aroor and Ranjan and now this need to be remembered!

Can the INDIAN EXPRESS edits make it any more clear whose side they are batting upon:
The politics of anti-missile missile systems, however, is already positive. Monday’s tests put an end to India’s prolonged hypocrisy on missile defence. Although it badly needed missile defence to guard against Pakistani nuclear blackmail and to complicate the Chinese nuclear calculus, New Delhi feigned opposition. When Jaswant Singh dropped the pretence for a moment in May 2001, when he was minister for defence and external affairs, there was political outrage both within and outside the government. Opposing the Bush administration’s plans for missile defence was considered more important than India staying close to military technological development elsewhere in the world. Since then India repeatedly spurned the US’s offer to cooperate on missile defence.
OMG...so bloody funny...the GOI at the time supported Bush over BMD..but this is not enough for Shekhar Gupta! Nothing less than total obedience will do!

And India must and should have the US offer (hello- what about *Indian interests*- leave it to GOI and DRDO to decide whom to cooperate with shall we! Who gives us TOT and source codes will be the winner!)
Given the most likely involvement of the sophisticated Israeli radar, which India bought a few years ago, in Monday’s missile test, DRDO has wisely not made the claim that the system was indigenous. Given the scale and complexity of the technologies involved, India must now stop being coy about cooperating with America on missile defence. For India, missile defence is surely the way to go. The quickest way of getting there is through open international collaboration.

More mealy mouthed platitudes.

Since the DRDO cannot be targetted on the test success, now use the "indigenous" issue to target it!

This test was not 100% indigenous, yada yada yada! :lol:

Waah saab waah!

So if the missile etc are locally derived, who cares.

Anyone can tell DRDO is using foreign assistance as and when required but keeping the all-important C3I and software close to its heart, as it should be.

And for the radar, what will you do when a local one replaces it? :P
Last edited by JCage on 30 Nov 2006 05:10, edited 2 times in total.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

I can imagine only when we have deployed.. our own missile test should not enable an anti-missile shoot off.. , in the sense IFF signals can be used as feedback to say the target is a friendly one doing the test or an NFU launch.

Other cases of fault conditions would be, a failure of the NFU launch, and then the very same missile totally misbehaves and needs to be canceled, but somehow by the misbehavior, cancellation of the launch is not terminated, and hence we need to destroy it in the boost phase (I am not considering the real worst case scenario (that should be actually for DDM) with our own anti-missile battery. Of course that situation is a damn crisis one.. never get there, but a fail safe system must ensure such accidents.

Yes, if the trajectory origins are foreign, and tending towards us, then we should ignore IFF, and proceed with the ABM launch. NFU politics apart, at that time of the launch, we could decide to enter MAD, if need be.
bhavin
BRFite
Posts: 101
Joined: 28 Sep 2005 23:04
Location: A point in three dimensional space

Post by bhavin »

Thanks for your reply SaiK. I would think that the missiles would have a self destruction mode, so that would take care of our misbehaving missiles, our missile tests will still be going away from India and not towards it right ?? Can ballistic missiles do dogleg maneuvers coz in that case you might need IFF.

IFF would make sense for local area defence where you can shoot down planes ingressing into /egressing from our territory but not for ballistic missiles.
Nalla Baalu
BRFite
Posts: 153
Joined: 24 Aug 2006 07:16
Location: Yerramandi, Dhoolpeta

Post by Nalla Baalu »

In everything that IE publishes on defence R&D, the highly irritable collective harping on international collaboration is striking & consistent. Now who can it be who can collaborate on NMD that can buy-out editorial boards of indian newspapers ovenight?

And its not even surprising that IE & its ilk (coterie of DRDO-bashers) balked for couple of days in putting out editorials, before getting ammunition on nascent ABM from their minders!
kgoan
BRFite
Posts: 264
Joined: 30 Jul 2001 11:31

Post by kgoan »

Hullo folks:

Okay, apparently the "resonance" of this test and it's ripples are based on an issue that we (on BR) perhaps need to pay more attention to.

Note: I admit I don't fully grok the arguments, but from the gossip from people who do know this stuff, it is *huge*.

Technological independence. This apparently translates to strategic independence. The test is compared to Pok 2 because the implied mastery of key technology came as a *strategic* surprise. The tech independence assumed here is on a par with our thorium plans!

The issue also relates to supposed "cooperation" with our natural allies on ABM systems. Apparently they were happy to cooperate because they didn't fully grasp where we were.

Think of it this way:

Someone says to Microsoft "Gee our business wanted to cooperate with you guys. How does your software work, and could you code share since we need to work out some problems".

Microsoft thinking it's a potential customer is happy to "partner" with said dude. Then after certain cooperation already happens and agreements are signed, said dude says to MS, "by the way, the business partners names are Linus Torvalds and Steve Jobs".

All of a sudden it's a whole different ball game

People are scrambling to find out what they may have inadvertently given away and what they may give away in the future and it's implications. What MS may give and tell some company X is one thing - showing code to these folks could permanently damage MS unless rigorous precautions are taken.

This is well above the concern expressed about the Brahmos. Kinda like Open Office versus MS Office. Just as good, possibly dangerous, but not a strategic danger.

I think we, (BRites that is), need to get a better grasp of technological *independence* as a *currency-of-power* in international relations.

Interesting point: Apparently the our ABM plans are "well known". Sometime back GoI or some GoI department apparently quietly published a paper detailing what GoI wanted to achieve.

Key point: The numbers given was approx "80 missile/units".

I don't know what that is. Are we defending against a presumed attacking force of simutaneously launched 80 odd missiles? Or does it mean we need "80 units" to defend against Pak-China. What is a unit? A single missile or a battery?

We need to look this up.

Singha: now if these fora are NPA run places

No. Completely different. No relationship at all.

Ramana, Vijay J: Strategic surprise. . .

Yes and no. Funnily enough it was expected *eventually*. The surprise is the *speed* at which we're moving. Confusion apparently arises because of the simultaneous snail like pace in some areas and the swiftness of others.

Some areas they thought we would speed up we haven't. Others come like a bolt out of the blue. They can't figure out whether it's deliberate or haphazard.

If it's deliberate it implies they've completely misread our strategic priorities. If it's haphazard it implies they'll never be able to be fully sure what assets and what *weight* those assets would have if we decide to throw them into the game.

Raja Ram: If you look back and piece together some of the statements

Yes - that whole "80" number . . . seems to be a mystery. Apparently No one payed any attention at the time.

But they will now. Will post the odd summary of what I hear, if I can, over time.

abhishekcc: Good series of posts. An interesting way of looking at the *possibilities*.

Jcage Good reply to IE.

Folks: Keep in mind what happened after the nuke tests and the "analysis" that followed. If this is being compared to Pok 2 as a strategic surprise, you can bet your arm they (leave aside who "they" are for now), will move heaven and earth to prevent further development.

We need to follow and counter as many arguments as possible - as JCage just did with those creeps from IE and Vijay J's smack across the ear to Pioneer. (Fanne, this *is* necessary. Pioneer can get it wrong at times. And its arguably more important to try and set Pioneer right than it is the IE becasue of where a Pioneer argument may find takers.)

Folks, remember, BR is read. Far more widely than you would think. No, it's *not* outright influence like the media have. But you would be astonished where some arguments made on BR turn up.

Admins: Please save these threads. I assume when news dies out and this stuff will fall into the general Indian missile thread. But it may be worth keeping a permanent thread, like the LCA one open on this issue.

Because it seems to me that merging this with the general missile thread would be equal to merging discussions on nuke warheads with the general artillery threads and arty ammo.
Last edited by kgoan on 30 Nov 2006 05:54, edited 1 time in total.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

bhavin, that was from a logical angle, imow. technically many gurus here are watching me already..., so you can expect a better answer.

added later..:
actually decoys are more important headache for DRDOs than IFF. from the US missile defense test:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2924

The flight test saw a prototype Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle hit its target at an altitude of 227 kilometres. The Agency says that four decoys were also released alongside the missile, but the interceptor correctly identified the right target. The test is the seventh in a series that started in 1999.
wonder what would be possible and plausible decoy technology... that say does emit IR signature constantly replicating the actual missile. Is there any measure of the heat trail or thermodynamic differences between IR decoys and the actual missile?

maybe i am thinking, decoys like MIRVs will get ejected once the target missile's sensors pickup ABM, and then deploys the decoys., and whatifs should include plain and simple anti-missiles directed at ABM and launched from the piggybags. i am imagining too much.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

Key point: The numbers given was approx "80 missile/units".

I don't know what that is. Are we defending against a presumed attacking force of simutaneously launched 80 odd missiles? Or does it mean we need "80 units" to defend against Pak-China. What is a unit? A single missile or a battery?
http://cns.miis.edu/research/china/pdfs/op4_sjd.pdf
US Planners assume that four interceptors would be needed for each ballistic missile but Chinese experts assume a two to one ratio of interceptors to targets
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

KGoan wrote:Yes and no. Funnily enough it was expected *eventually*. The surprise is the *speed* at which we're moving. Confusion apparently arises because of the simultaneous snail like pace in some areas and the swiftness of others.

Some areas they thought we would speed up we haven't. Others come like a bolt out of the blue. They can't figure out whether it's deliberate or haphazard.
Thats because few people have really analyzed the Indian MIC or understood the nuances of (say) BEL vs an OFB and the capabilities of differing organizations. The chorus of contempt for the long in gestation projects has entirely overshadowed the ancillary industry DRDO and its partner orgs have built up over the years *via* those projects and whose accomplishments should have otherwise been obvious. If the Raksha Udyog Ratna plan & DRDO plans go through, the scale of effort and success rate is only going to increase.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

SaiK wrote:wonder what would be possible and plausible decoy technology... that say does emit IR signature constantly replicating the actual missile. Is there any measure of the heat trail or thermodynamic differences between IR decoys and the actual missile?
After reentering certainly the total wattage emitted from various objects will be different based on weight and shape of objects. And if a light decoy tries to emit a larger IR signature, it will at expense of larger drag and will slow down more rapidly (radar and optical sensors on ABM will detect that easily). Before entering atmosphere however the decoy is as good as it can replicates the spectral emission from a real RV across all electromagnetic band: RF(radar), IR & visible. in case of light band it must also show similar size/facets as real RV.

OTOH if the decoy is a full RV albeit without a real payload, it requires more sophisticated discrimination to remotely inspect the content inside the RV. Thus a strong neutron emitter accompanied by an instrument that measure high energy particles from fission process will be able to tell which one has enriched fissile material. That will thus require a volley of ABM projectiles the lead ABM element carries the measurement package and reports its results and the tail elements contain the punch to knock it out.
maybe i am thinking, decoys like MIRVs will get ejected once the target missile's sensors pickup ABM, and then deploys the decoys., and what ifs should include plain and simple anti-missiles directed at ABM and launched from the piggybags. i am imagining too much.
yes you are imagining too much. The RV game is at a level of sophistication like the RAF Spitfires were against German attackers in WW-2. The interceptors has radar visibility to their side and the Germans airplanes were fighting blind.

No RV to date has any on board radar or optical sensor to detect an approaching ABM. It makes no sense because many elements of ABM seekers are passive in nature and the active radar sensors may well be using LPI (low probability of intercept) RF emission techniques so that target RV doesn't even know that a radar is watching it.
Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5882
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Post by Dileep »

The sensors in the RV WILL NOT work during the fiery re-entry period, so what is the use anyway?
rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Post by rocky »

Miles to go
The missile system has to be tested in battle conditions.
Right. Now will someone please do us a favor and lob a nice multi-megaton nuke carrying IRBM/ICBM on India so we can see whether DRDO is really competent or not.

Lifafagiri is one thing, but this is just insane.
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

What if the decoy is built with a IR transmitter in place of war head to lure the ABM interceptor?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Kgoan, The one to watch is Sandy Gordon. What does he say?

I believe 80 units are fire units of three each. ie 240 ABMs. From what was posted about 4 vs 2 it says a lot.

In my What next I said there could be 125 places that have to be defended. So they have narrowed it down to 80. The attackers need 80*2 for first strike. In times of reducing arsenals thats quite a challenge.

GOI should call for a global arms control regime right now.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

John Snow wrote:What if the decoy is built with a IR transmitter in place of war head to lure the ABM interceptor?
You mean IR transmitter focusing it energy on ABM? That is fallacious because that assumed decoy know whereis the ABM. OTOH if IR transmitter is not focussing its energy but is transmitting omni directional, it needs as much radiated power as the real RV, and no known chemical fuel has that kind of energy density (to radiate many megawatts for few tens of seconds).
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Post by Austin »

Well decoying an ABM system is not an impossible task

One of the way to decoy as shown in a video of Topol-M was to place the warhed in a baloon like thing , which protects the warhed IR signature etc and then you have multiple baloons among which one carries the real warhead , They all reenter at the same speed and the interceptor cannot discriminate the real warhead and dummies

We still dont have much open literature as to how sophisticated the decoys itself are much less is known and depending on the country's sophistication and technology reach it ranges from simple measure to very sophisticated ones to defeat ABM's
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6088
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Post by sanjaykumar »

Well well well so DRDO seems to have scored a technological tour-de-force.

-look for an economic payoff in the form of increased orders for everything from satellites to shoes. Brand your tech savvy and market it lads.

-look for a political payoff-this should knock down the Euro second tiers Germany, France, Britain down a bit-parley it into a security council seat lads.

-push sales of missiles to Vietnam, Mongolia, South Korea, Phillipines, Myanmar. Offer 2 for 1 to Pakistan. Play the encirclement game.

-Ignore DRDO pronouncements at your peril. All this was in the press-all dismissed as hot-air or to be charitable-ambitious.

-Re-examine all those CVs posted on the web by Indian post-docs and Mtechs on India's hypersonic projects. I personally believe they had engineering goodies flying in the early 90s.

-relish the thought that this is the productivity of a country with a relatively small modern economy-what is to come in 10 years?
Rishi
Forum Moderator
Posts: 746
Joined: 29 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: Maximum City

Post by Rishi »

Ramana, are there plans to start a "Strategic implications of India having ABM" in the Strat forum?

Old article from the Tribune:

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030116/world.htm#1

[quote]ABM system for India ‘could threaten’ Pak

Washington, January 15

If the ongoing missile defence cooperation talks between the USA and India culminate in the deployment of a missile defence system for India, South Asian stability could be seriously impacted, according to a leading geopolitical analytical firm.

“A missile defence system would shift the balance in India’s nuclear standoff with Pakistan,â€
Last edited by Rishi on 30 Nov 2006 11:06, edited 1 time in total.
Sudhanshu
BRFite
Posts: 307
Joined: 14 Feb 2006 22:15
Location: USA

Post by Sudhanshu »

JCage wrote:
Sudhanshu wrote:I remember the days when we could not write the required codes for any programming home work. We just fool our instructor just by writing something which would give us required output for some "fixed range" of input and take those output for verification of our codes.

Same way I think after so much bashing of DRDO (so many faliure in past), they have come up with a very similar idea. It wont surprise me if they have lowered the speed of the target prithvi for this particular test and might have manipulated other missile parameters which would be completely different from an incoming "enemy" missile.

It was just an image makeover, not a breakthrough.
Nothing will satisfy you chaps. If you think the likes of Saraswat and co would commit fraud, it speaks more about what you dont know about the BM program, then about them.
With due respect, I might not be knowing them as a person and I might not be having that technical knowledge about BM program. 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.

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

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

It is up to you to suggest me what should I think.
saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Post by saty »

Sudhanshu wrote: It is up to you to suggest me what should I think.
Read read read read read read read

Listen listen listen listen listen listen

After a few years of this MAYBE speak.
Nalla Baalu
BRFite
Posts: 153
Joined: 24 Aug 2006 07:16
Location: Yerramandi, Dhoolpeta

Post by Nalla Baalu »

Please to observe this youtube clip closely at around 1:00 minute into the clip onlee to see how real warhead atop a topol-m is concealed in a group of mylar(?) balloons.
Austin wrote:One of the way to decoy as shown in a video of Topol-M was to place the warhed in a baloon like thing , which protects the warhed IR signature etc and then you have multiple baloons among which one carries the real warhead , They all reenter at the same speed and the interceptor cannot discriminate the real warhead and dummies
Sudhanshu saar, please do come-up with better analogies that can be applied to DRDO, like past history of frauds, if any. Please save us from pathetic anecdotes of how you cheated your instructors with your homeworks during your college days and army/police & DRDO equal-equal lectures.
akutcher
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 31 Oct 2006 21:54

Post by akutcher »

Sudhanshu wrote:
In a country where army guys do fake shootouts to gain medals. It is believed that no one is as patriotic as they are. 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.
Now do i need to read something else or is that proof enough of your nationality?
saumitra_j
BRFite
Posts: 377
Joined: 24 Dec 2005 17:13
Location: Pune, India

Post by saumitra_j »

There we go again ... classic un adulterated drivel.......
With due respect, I might not be knowing them as a person and I might not be having that technical knowledge about BM program.
If you don't know please don't voice your opinion as a fact and keep quiet.... I hope you are aware...."If you keep quiet people take you to be a fool, if you open your mouth, they are convinced" ... or words to that effect.
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.
So the Tarang & Tempest are failures? The MKI RC is a failure? Prithvi and Agni are failures? Sonars for the Navy are failures? Dhruv is a failure? Your entire nuclear program is a failure? Do you even realise what kind of rubbish you have put forth?
In a country where army guys do fake shootouts to gain medals. It is believed that no one is as patriotic as they are. 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.
You are entitled to be cynical but this is plain stupid.
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.
At one point in time even the russians and the americans have had failures so all their ar$enal just doesn't work? Russians have had a recent failure of the Bulava so that means that all their ICBMs are junk?
If I would think it rationally I would say "Do I look like a fool?"
And the answer my esteemed friend is a resounding YES.
It is up to you to suggest me what should I think.
At BRF we don't control thoughts :P so we don't go about suggesting what an individual should think - BUT if you think you can get away with wild statements then be prepared for getting it back.
[/quote]
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Some food for thought:
R Sharma wrote:I'm just going off of Abhishek's logic, which is credible, that we will force Pakistan to get into a big time arms race with us. China will get the technology from Russia, and if there is the Russo-Sino collaboration, I don't think the Ruskies would mind giving them the S-300 technology either. Then China in a so called "joint venture" with Pakistan, will give them the technology. We will again have to increase the number nukes fielded by us as well.

And you can shoot down missiles during reentry. You do not need space lasers etc to shoot down missiles in the enemies territory. So basically what that means is if the Pakis have S-300 equivalent, they will also have ABM capability which means that we will have to increase our nukes as well which means more of a chance for us to also get into the costly arms race.
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. But now it is open to Indian boost phase intercept (a more easier problem, in this context) and of course India can hit Pukistan with A-2 and A-2+ from nuclear command in A&N even if jinn provided them S200/S300.

On another thought what if Taiwan fields this kind of ABM ?
Taiwan will pay an arm and leg to puncher the air out of repeated Chinese threat of invasion (Jihadi speak for forcible re-integration) with 1000 odd Red SRBM facing it. Very destabilizing to the prospect of re-integration Taiwan in next 500 years. It is perhaps worse than a Nuclear Taiwan. Arming Taiwan with a defensive weapon (ABM) is far easier to sell, than arming it with offensive weapons (nuclear weapon).
Locked