India tests Prithvi based ABM-4

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

Post by rakall »

fanne wrote:. A liquid fuel missile can be filled at any depot in any part of the country. ``The liquid fuel technology of today does not impair reaction time or performance. There is no handicap at all. It has an equivalent life of seven years as compared to a solid fuel missile.
I think it is right & wrong...

On one side the liquid fuel such as Kerosene used in Brahmos say can have that kind of shelf life.. However i dont think the same will be applicable to the hypergolic fuel mixture & volatile RFNA used in Prithvi..

the Prithvi fuel once loaded can stay in readines alert only for a few moths (according to BR Prithvi page)... so we still have to troubleshoot the liq-fuel in the ABM..

I am not sure if DRDO has taken the services on-board in this project.. once again we may end up a situation where services complain about usability, operational ease, etc etc..
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

The key thing is, once loaded..prior to that, it could have long service life.
The reason they went for LF engines was that the Prithvis LF gimballed engine enables precise manoeuvering, which is important for midcourse changes. Developing a brand new solid fuelled motor would have escalated cost and time. Of course, this is not a "perfect solution", and your points about handling are valid, but I daresay the services would go for it provided it met their needs. Another thing to see is that Dr Saraswat has not ruled out foreign assistance, so if Israel provides the Arrow 2 rocket for us to integrate our KV on, that should be good enough - or cooperate with us to speed up development. Or alternatively, GOI funds the program enough so as to purpose develop a dedicated Solid fuelled motor.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

ABM need of Israel are very different from US(and Russia) and that in turn is very different from India.


Arrow in particular is a small missile and has small bubble, very much a specific weapon for small national like Israel.

US ABM are OTOH are expensive to keep in readiness (E.g. THADD requires a F14/F18 maintaining airborne vigil over a small area the size of Manipur. They are suitable for campaign style theater deployment and not a steady deployment to face first strike.

Agies mounted SM3 mid course interceptor are for fleet protection and to blockade N.Korea an array of Agies need to be permanently deployed along a line around N Korea. Far from National Missile Defense.

So for the time IMHO only SM3 is most useful and cost effective. And AAD/PAD are of similar type.
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

Arun S, how necessary would the development of a solid fuelled replacement for the PAD/AXO be? Ie one which can match the required burn time, speed, manoueverability criteria (since the gimballed engines would no longer be available for MCG as stated by Dr Saraswat).

Also, would external assistance help? My take was that ISRO/DRDO have the ability to handle it, provided they receive funding.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

JCage wrote:The key thing is, once loaded..prior to that, it could have long service life.
The reason they went for LF engines was that the Prithvis LF gimbaled engine enables precise maneuvering, which is important for mid course changes. Developing a brand new solid fueled motor would have escalated cost and time. Of course, this is not a "perfect solution", and your points about handling are valid, but I daresay the services would go for it provided it met their needs.
JCage, LF gimbaled engine is not that important. Prithvi was simply a convenient platform to build and prove crucial technology components. The focus of the effort is to solve the targeted problem and not peripheral problem like a new rocket and flight control system and test bed development.

See it this way Prithvi that is designed for 1000Kg payload, is perfect test bed to carry the 1000Kg second stage and KV package. Prithvi airframe, control system is already designed for 1000 Kg payload and the payload CG constrain is compatible. So 700-800Kg second stage and 200Kg KV package acceptable match in spite of poor fuel efficiency, poor accelaration ( & long first stage burn time). A real production ABM OTOH will conserve every possible second (thus will use high acceleration booster motor and also one with high Mass Faction).

In this case the second stage and KV appears integrated.

The end result is a KV velocity of Mach 9.5 (2.9Km/sec) quite decent for tech demonstration purpose.
Last edited by Arun_S on 07 Dec 2006 12:20, edited 1 time in total.
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

Thanks Arun, could you take a dekko at the other Qn/post as well, time permitting?
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

JCage wrote:Arun S, how necessary would the development of a solid fuelled replacement for the PAD/AXO be? Ie one which can match the required burn time, speed, manoueverability criteria (since the gimballed engines would no longer be available for MCG as stated by Dr Saraswat).
It is erroneous to think that ABM requires tight maneuvering. At most ABM requires hard maneuvering right after launch to enter a spiral trajectory for specified amount of time to waste energy for a kill box that is too close (i.e. straight flight to killbox will take a time shorter than the time to expend all motors). Thus ensuring that all stages are expended few seconds before arrive at kill box, such that the KV is separated from rocketed motors and KV can use using cross thrusters to take hard cross acceleration (that is only possible at rarefied high altitude atmosphere (i.e. such maneuver will be impossible to perform at below 15Km altitude). { One can also see why ABM interception require precise BM trajectory determination beforhand, and is not like an aircraft chasing SAM).

So before sonic boom hard manuvers are required and for that purpose the large aerodynamic fins works like charm. Thrust vectoring engine are useful but IMHO not critical.
Also, would external assistance help? My take was that ISRO/DRDO have the ability to handle it, provided they receive funding.
DRDO's high thrust Booster was made 5 years ago, thus they have it in hand. But that is fixed nozzle. Should flex nozzle be a hard requirement, DRDO made it first flex nozzle for booster use for Agni-3 missile (alas that booster stage failed during flight). Having made flex nozzle for the big A-3 booster, making one for smaller ABM booster will not be a big deal if indeed required. Flex nozzle (liquid or solid motor) is however added complexity (& cost) and will challenge tube launcher configuration that use hot gas generator.
Last edited by Arun_S on 07 Dec 2006 14:26, edited 1 time in total.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

I forgot to mention that the 4.2Tonne second stage of Agni-2 has flex nozzle (for high altitude operation) and very respectable burn time as well as very high ISP. So it can very easily replace Prithvi booster.

I just verified that AG2-2 (Agni-2 second stage)with a second stage motor of 1200 Kg will kick a 200Kg KV to 4.7Km/sec (Mach 17) at 78Km altitude.
rakall
BRFite
Posts: 798
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

Post by rakall »

JCage wrote:Arun S, how necessary would the development of a solid fuelled replacement for the PAD/AXO be? Ie one which can match the required burn time, speed, manoueverability criteria (since the gimballed engines would no longer be available for MCG as stated by Dr Saraswat).
.
The necessity is there.. If and when DRDO will take the plunge is the question...
and how finicky are the services to this requirement will also determine the path adopted in future..

with the experience that DRDO has with Agni, the booster they developed for AAD and also the alleged 700-800kg solid motor in the PAD cone -- burntime, spped are not something DRDO cant achieve with a new solid motor..

Manouerability is not an issue.. PAD anyway has the 2nd stage (RChengappa says solid-fuel) with a fair degree of TVC as also seen in the CNN_IBN video.. its the first stage that needs replacement and i feel there isnt a huge manourability criteria in 1st stage which burns only for about ~40-50seconds and then just coasts due to inertia & gravity... corrections can be made with control surfaces before 2ndStage/KV TVC takes over..


Added Later:
-------------

As Arun said A3 was a big blow.. Now that we have taken the first step to BMD, among other things (like ATV, IAC) there are two key things that we need to really make the pukes pee (& northern neighbours as well) -- we need to urgently demonstrate MIRV tech & develop a variety of stand-off missiles and precision bombs..
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

rakall wrote:Now that we have taken the first step to BMD, among other things (like ATV, IAC) there are two key things that we need to really make the pukes pee (& northern neighbours as well) -- we need to urgently demonstrate MIRV tech.
It will come sooner than later. There is another surprise up Yindu's sleeve for the lizard, will email you later.

How about Taiwan developing indigenous ABM in 3 months flat with bright Taiwanese red and blue paint on it? I recall from WOP there was an experiment that Mrs Gandhi authorized called "Tickling the Dragons tail" (Later they ate the dragon to answer Chacha Lizard). I am talking of ABM and nu-clear convergence. That will permanently break Chinese Atoot-Ang. Just and fair retribution.
Last edited by Arun_S on 07 Dec 2006 14:30, edited 1 time in total.
Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Post by Drevin »

I agree that we must keep MIRV technology in mind as the final frontier for our BMD evolutionary process. Since it is confirmed that boost phase intercepts are very difficult we need to track each of the warheads in a MIRV missile warhead and destroy it before it hits the target.

But as Dileep mentioned we have beaten the Pakis again :) So lets celebrate. Who has the champagne :P
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

Advanced missile system within four years’

Monday December 4 2006 11:21 IST
HYDERABAD: Within four years the country would have an advanced missile defence system and join the select group of US, Russia and Israel in the world, according to DRDO Chief Controller and Programme Director (Air Defence) V K Saraswat.

Addressing media persons at DRDO campus, Saraswat said with the successful launch of PAD-AD Target Interception Mission on November 27, India made history by making a beginning in the missile defence system.

The mission was in complete weapon system configuration with Weapon System Radars LRTR, MFCR, MCC, LCC, MCT, TUT, Fusion Computer and CHAYA systems

All the elements were interconnected through redundant communication links, he explained..


DRDO chief said that to take the present missile defence system to a level of maturity (complete weapon system) it would take at least four years.

At least seven more similar trials have to be conducted. The recently launched missile was a two-stage missile, that intercepted the target successfully at an altitude of 50 km.


“We will launch a single stage missile that will intercept the target at an altitude ranging between 30 km to 10 km,â€
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

Missile = Interceptor missile.
1:4 ratio is acceptable. I suspect when one considers total cost it is cheaper to have interceptors. Specially when we can afford to go after decoys too.
Interestingly the development seems to be complete. Now starts the tweeking and build-test phase. No more hard core dev.

Time to push that Kidwai line across TSP.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

I think we need to take Saraswat's word that what they have is the best option right now. He already has three regmts of Prithvis right now.

The best is the enemy of the good.
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by fanne »

What are these, some we knoe others we do not? JCage Saar

LRTR, MFCR, MCC, LCC, MCT, TUT, Fusion Computer and CHAYA systems
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

So the PAD test was a total weapon system test and not just an interception. Some of those three and four letter acronyms refer to radars and computer systems I guess.

Wonder if two TUTs are used it will be Tut-Tut per Rajat Pandit. 8)
Ananth
BRFite
Posts: 346
Joined: 16 Mar 2002 12:31

Post by Ananth »

fanne wrote:What are these, some we knoe others we do not? JCage Saar

LRTR, MFCR, MCC, LCC, MCT, TUT, Fusion Computer and CHAYA systems
Some guesses

LRTR long range tracking radar
MCC mission control center ?
Fusion computer: fusion of info from multiple sensors
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Post by Vivek K »

Do we currently have enough of the tracking radars etc to cover the entire country? If the system is based on the Green Pine we had only two. So how do we plan to cover the entire country - viz large cities on the North, South, East and West. Certainly seems to indicate that indigenous LRTR is on the anvil.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Post by Singha »

Boss, outside of the ATC controlled airlanes nobody has any clue what flies over the country. even in some airlanes they depend on the plane's transponder being ON and radio active to get a clue.

we need PAVE PAWS and we need it yesterday.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Post by Vivek K »

Well for civilian ATC that may suffice to an extent. I am sure (read I hope) that military radar coverage should be better. If not, then we need it like GD says for the ABM system and also for homeland air-defence.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10032
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Post by Mort Walker »

In the US, there are Air Route Surveillance Radars (ARSR) and Long Range Radars (LRR) to give full coverage of the CONUS for civil aviation & military. The ARSR facilities are manned by military personnel and provide a direct feed to them. So its essentially dual use and paid for that way.

PAVE PAWS was primarily for BMD and space object tracking and although something like that would be useful for PAD, IMHO, I think in India we need an ARSR + LRR system that is shared by the IAF and civil aviation. OT, but of much value as the Phalcon.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

However i dont think the same will be applicable to the hypergolic fuel mixture & volatile RFNA used in Prithvi..
what about the storable liquid fuels used in the vikas engine? These are the same used by Russians for their SS-18.
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

fanne wrote:What are these, some we knoe others we do not? JCage Saar

LRTR, MFCR, MCC, LCC, MCT, TUT, Fusion Computer and CHAYA systems

LRTR- Long range tracking radar
MFCR- Multi Function Control Radar (guess)- could be a 3D CAR
MCC- Mission Control Center
LCC- Launch Control Center
TUT- Target Update Transmitter (which transmits updates on the target to the missile)
MCT- Mobile Communication Terminal
Fusion Computer- Fuses all the sensor data together (guess)
CHAYA- it means shadow/reflection in Hindi, and remember the reports of a "shadow mission center" ?

I think the MFCR stands for a radar on account of sensor 2 in the Prithvi LCC picture. The 3D CAR would make ample sense, it can detect upto 30 KM alt. and has 360 degree rotation ability, which would be good for the AAD, if it is to operate in a dual role, aircraft and missiles.
Last edited by JCage on 08 Dec 2006 14:19, edited 1 time in total.
Harry
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Post by Harry »

Or "Tea" centre?
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

http://www.hindu.com/2006/12/03/stories ... 771000.htm
Except for the long-range tracking radar, all other elements were "totally home-grown'' by 35 private and public sector companies. Three million lines of code were written in India for the Mission Control Centre, the hub of software and hardware systems. A shadow centre was set up to take over if the original centre got destroyed or inactivated. Transmission links to the interceptor missile were based on jam-proof CDMA technology and multiple data transmission links were set up so that if one was jammed the others could function. In this trial, various data transmission and control centres were spread over a distance of 1,000 km.
mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Post by mandrake »

So seems like it uses a dual mode architecture.
Kinda like flip flop circuits, with avoiding the race condition.

if one fails another takes over hmm nice.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

After several simulations and changes in guidance and control software, the target missile was launched on November 19 this year and intercepted electronically
Hmmmm.....

Did some one say that every time Pakistan tests a missile she is expected to notify India?
Ameet
BRFite
Posts: 841
Joined: 17 Nov 2006 02:49

Post by Ameet »

Hi Arun, could you expand on your thoughts of our proposed plans with Taiwan? I am greatly interested in this aspect. I am disappointed that we have not taken to Taiwan with the same disregard that China has to Pakistan. Any comments would be appreciate, thanks in advance.

Arun_S wrote:[It will come sooner than later. There is another surprise up Yindu's sleeve for the lizard, will email you later.

How about Taiwan developing indigenous ABM in 3 months flat with bright Taiwanese red and blue paint on it? I recall from WOP there was an experiment that Mrs Gandhi authorized called "Tickling the Dragons tail" (Later they ate the dragon to answer Chacha Lizard). I am talking of ABM and nu-clear convergence. That will permanently break Chinese Atoot-Ang. Just and fair retribution.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

NRao wrote:
After several simulations and changes in guidance and control software, the target missile was launched on November 19 this year and intercepted electronically
Hmmmm.....

Did some one say that every time Pakistan tests a missile she is expected to notify India?
8) . where is the orig link?

btw, possibilities of enlarging the larger ranger arrays, and track in real time feeds from paki launches, and intercept them on an "exercise mode".

what do we call, Project Advanced Target Launch Detection, Tracking & Firecontrol. we can grow into larger hemisphere later with such a project, and perhaps tag it under Department of Science & Technology, and ISRO, so that kids could get participations from univs., and pretty useful under the tag like SETI, Deepspace mission etc. :twisted:
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

joey wrote:So seems like it uses a dual mode architecture.
Kinda like flip flop circuits, with avoiding the race condition.
This architecture is typical of mission critical high reliability and high availability cluster design with 'K' deep redundancy to ensure ABM system operates in-spite of up to 'L' simultaneous sub-system failure (irrespective of reason of failure). Also nice disaster planning.

I am afraid I do not see anything here related to race condition or similarity to Flipflop or JK-FF.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Post by Singha »

http://www.hindu.com/2006/12/03/stories ... 771000.htm

The DRDO modified the Israeli Greenpine radar to enable it detect IRBM missiles with a velocity of 5 km per second from a distance of 600 km. There was no warhead in the interceptor missile but the radio pulse accurately detected the target missile and the high speed of the collision destroyed it completely.

---
oops did anyone say hit-to-kill :twisted: ?
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Post by Philip »

Dhanush's size poses a problem for small amd medium sized warships,where Klub and Brahmos missiles can be fitted into VLS launchers more easily.If the IN goes in for larger capital ships from 8- 12,000t,which can carry larger missiles and in greater numbers,then missiles like the Dhanush become an interesting alternative.However,for what role? Brahmos is proving to be a far better option as a tactical role missile than Prithvi and a sea based ABM system centred around the Prithvi ABM though possible is unlikely for a variety of reasons,its size being one.Secondly,unlike the US which has a huge fleet of warships,the IN does not have sufficient platforms to play a purely defensive ABM role for the entire coastline.A long range land based missile system involving perhaps two or more missiles to handle potential threats at every level.
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

The Dhanush is a concept demonstrator, and a way for the IN to stake a claim for its role in the Nuke triad, and associated funding.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

For what it is worth:

MoD.in reports

Select the 2005-2006 report (scroll down into page):


Page 88:
The Navy has accepted Dhanush on its off shore Patrol Vessel
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Post by Austin »

JCage wrote:The Dhanush is a concept demonstrator, and a way for the IN to stake a claim for its role in the Nuke triad, and associated funding.
I doubt Dhanush is just a concept demo and its use and utility goes much beyond that , And it seems its an operational system in the IN on limited platforms
ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1390
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Post by ashish raval »

Has anyone thought about adding the stealth to the interceptor missile ! i think this concept is new but if the ballistic/cruise missile is made to be manouverable in midflight by detecting the enemy interceptor missile it can actually evade the interceptor missile which gives the idea that a stealth interceptor is very much in need.
Last edited by ashish raval on 08 Dec 2006 20:10, edited 1 time in total.
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

Austin wrote:
JCage wrote:The Dhanush is a concept demonstrator, and a way for the IN to stake a claim for its role in the Nuke triad, and associated funding.
I doubt Dhanush is just a concept demo and its use and utility goes much beyond that , And it seems its an operational system in the IN on limited platforms
Austin, think of it this way- what will Dhanush lead to?

Of course its operational, which is why the second part of my post. The Navy wants to develop BM capability, and not let it remain in IAF/IA hands alone. Even so, how many OPVs do we have? Think of LF Dhanush as as a step, in the Navys plans for future variants and projects.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Post by Austin »

The way way Prithivi has been developed , into a Multirole & Multiplatform system is something amazing , The concept of a Tri Service quasi-BM (and now ABM ) would have been in work for almost a decade now.

No doubt Dhanush has served as a Rock Bed for developing new technology and concepts , But the Dhanush goes beyond TD and is a very operational system , Is it only restricted to OPV or can other platform will/can carry it specially in times of war needs to be seen.

Its a very effective system against our western neighbour and for hitting pinpoint at time critical & hardened targets

It would be nice to see a solid fuel compact variant with a 600+ km range equipping Front Line future warships. Although recent comment by Saraswat really makes me think , if solid or liquid fuel really matters a lot
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Post by Cain Marko »

Ameet wrote:Hi Arun, could you expand on your thoughts of our proposed plans with Taiwan? I am greatly interested in this aspect. I am disappointed that we have not taken to Taiwan with the same disregard that China has to Pakistan. Any comments would be appreciate, thanks in advance.

Arun_S wrote:[It will come sooner than later. There is another surprise up Yindu's sleeve for the lizard, will email you later.

How about Taiwan developing indigenous ABM in 3 months flat with bright Taiwanese red and blue paint on it? I recall from WOP there was an experiment that Mrs Gandhi authorized called "Tickling the Dragons tail" (Later they ate the dragon to answer Chacha Lizard). I am talking of ABM and nu-clear convergence. That will permanently break Chinese Atoot-Ang. Just and fair retribution.

I second Ameet's thought, Arun Saar, some juicy tidbits please. I was just thinking of this angle last night and now this. At least tell us what is WOP?

Eagerly awaiting some thing - even crumbs will do :D

Regards,
CM.
Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Post by Tilak »

Cain Marko wrote: At least tell us what is WOP?

Eagerly awaiting some thing - even crumbs will do :D

Regards,
CM.
Weapons of Peace - By Raj Chengappa
Locked