India tests Prithvi based ABM-4

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Cain Marko wrote: At least tell us what is WOP?
WOP is the sound of a jhapad falling on the face of CTBT, lizard and peaceful and pure pubeland.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Post by Philip »

Think of Dhanush as a "mobile" version-at sea,of the land based mobile Prithvi.A surface launched Dhanush will pave the way for a sub-surface version,or newer sub-surface missile after the Dhanush experience.
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program ... md-rus.htm
In 1975, the Vympel Central Research and Production Association of the Ministry of Radio Industry, founded in 1970, became the lead organization for development of the domestic ABM system. The state trial of the A-35M ABM system began in May 1977. After the trial the A-35M was adopted and placed on combat duty within the separate corps in 1978. The A-350R ABMs were filled with fuel components and equipped with warheads only at the technical base. Dummy missiles were arranged on the launch position. The A-350R differed from the A-350ZH by elements of the on-board equipment with the improved radiation immunity. The main command and computing center of the A-35M system together with the receiving station of the Dunai-3M EWS radar (NATO code Dog House) was located a few tens of kilometers to the west from Moscow, and the launchers of the Tobol and Yenisei types with the A-350 ABMs with nuclear warheads were arranged along the radius of 100 kilometers around Moscow. Due to the planned deployment of American BMs in Western Europe the Dunai-3U radars were upgraded for broadening of their surveillance sector aimed at covering of the West German territory.

In late 1968, a group of engineers under the supervision of A. Basistov was ordered to prepare a concept of building of the new ABM system for the Soviet capital. According to the prepared concept, it was planned to develop an ABM system for defense of Moscow from single, accidental, provocative blows of BMs, or from a limited group of BMs launched by the third countries, or from a single strike submarine which goes out of control. In late 1969, Command of the Air Defense Forces agreed with the initial specifications for designing of a multi-channel launch system including two echelons: the long-range over-the-atmospheric, and the close-range atmospheric one. In spring 1970, the NIIRP announced a tender for the launcher's radar. In the tender participated the following projects:

-the radar with a rotating phased array from the project of the Avrora ABM system (designed by the NIIRP, Chief Designer Kisunko);

-a radar with the lens of Luneberg from the project of the Avrora ABM system (Chief designer Yu. Burlakov);

-a tetrahedral radar with a fixed phased array (designed by the Radio-Electronic Institute, RTI).

In 1971, development of the project of the new ABM system of the second generation was accomplished. Construction of the system on the testing ground and manufacture of its elements by the plants started in 1974. A. Basistov was appointed the Chief Designer of the system, and V. Sloka was appointed the Chief Designer of the Don multifunctional radar.

The multifunctional Don radar, located not far from Pushkino (Moscow region), had a shape of a truncated pyramid with equal length and width (100 meters), and height of 45 meters. Phased arrays with diameter of 16 meters each were mounted on four sides of the pyramid. The radar was designed by the RTI of A. Mints of the Academy of Sciences. Building of the launcher's radar began in 1978.

By 1978, construction of the field model of the launch system was primarily accomplished on the A testing ground, and preparation for the firing tests was in progress. The plans of the US to deploy Pershing-2 medium-range BMs in Western Europe made the upgraded ABM system of Moscow more important. The work on the testing ground was aimed at interception of BMs with a short flight time.

The ABM system of Moscow of the second generation had to include:

-a launcher's radar providing for detection, tracking of targets and homing of ABMs on them;

-a command and computing post with the Elbrus-2 computers with a speed of up to a billion operations per second, system control devices, and maintenance systems;

-silo launchers of ABMs designed under the supervision of Chief Designer V. Barmin;

-long-range ABMs for target interception in the upper strata of atmosphere and in outer space designed by the MKB Fakel under the supervision of Chief Designer P. Grushin;

-high-speed medium-range ABMs capable of target interception within a broad range of altitudes designed by the Yekaterinburg-based OKB Novator under the supervision of Chief Designers L. Lulyev and P. Kamenev;

-systems for data transmission connecting all components of the system into the common combat cycle.

The field model of the new 5ZH60P system was placed on three pads of the A testing ground and included: a radar with a fixed array providing for target detection and tracking and homing of interceptor missiles at them, silo launchers; a data transmission system connecting all components of the system into the common combat cycle. A command and computing post with the computer center and command devices. The second pad of the A testing ground housed the launch positions of the 51T6 missiles for interception of space targets, and the 35th pad housed the launch positions of the 53T6 medium-range interceptor missiles. The eighth pad housed the Don-2NP radar and the 558OP command and computing post of the launch system.

By 1989, the new ABM system was accomplished. The system included missiles of two types: for long-range and for close-range interception. All missiles were placed in silo launchers covered with sliding lids. According to the presidential decree, the A-135 ABM system of the new generation was placed on combat duty in 1995. The A-135 system could intercept hostile missiles at altitudes of 5 to 30 kilometers. The ABMs were equipped with nuclear warheads. Chief Designer of the A-135 system Basistov said, "The system has showed substantial reserves with respect to all parameters. The 53T6 high-speed ABMs of Lulyev can kill ballistic targets at distances of 150% bigger than those we tested them at. The system is ready to kill low-altitude satellites and to fulfill other combat missions."


The Radio Instrument Building Research Institute under the supervision of Academician A. Avramenko developed a plasma weapon capable of killing any target at altitudes of up to 50 kilometers. Engineers and scientists of the institute in cooperation with the National Research Institute of Experimental Physics (Arzamas-16), Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute, and Central Machine Building Research Institute prepared a concept of the international experiment Doverie (Trust) for testing of the Russian plasma weapon at the American ABM testing ground in the Pacific Ocean together with the US. The cost of the experiment was estimated at $300 million. According to Academician Avramenko, the plasma antimissile weapon would not only cost tens times less than the American SDI, but would also be much simpler in development and operation. The offered joint project could save expenditures on development of its own plasma weapon for the US. The plasmoid based on the energy of ground super-high frequency generators or laser (optical) generators creates an ionized territory in the trajectory of a warhead and in front of it, and completely disrupts the aerodynamics of the object's flight, after which a target leaves its trajectory and is ruined by monstrous overloads. The killing effect is delivered to the target at the speed of light.
Abhiman
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 05 Sep 2006 12:47

Post by Abhiman »

Hi. Indigenous ABM tested in Nov. may be superior to S-300 and Arrow systems, as it is similar in operation and equipment to advanced A-135 ABM system of Russia, as described above.
I would like to know which supercomputer is used by analogous computing post (if any present) in indigenous ABM system.
Thanks.
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

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

Post by rakall »

Abhiman wrote: I would like to know which supercomputer is used by analogous computing post (if any present) in indigenous ABM system.
Thanks.
Supercomputer Parakram!
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

Hi. I believe supercomputer Parakram to be better than Parama 10000 and supercomputer Cray XMP. In my view, it maybe a better solution than imported supercomputer.
Thanks.
Nayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2553
Joined: 11 Jun 2006 03:48
Location: Vote for Savita Bhabhi as the next BRF admin.

Post by Nayak »

Hi,

In my view, maybe <Name deleted upon request> aka Jcage is losing it.

Thanks.

Sorry JC-saar, couldnt resist it. :D :D :D

<ofcourse I get the sarcasm, I am getting tired of his fence-s(h)itting posts.>
Last edited by Nayak on 14 Dec 2006 17:50, edited 1 time in total.
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

Please remove the name. Address by JC onlee.

Also you missed the sarcasm. :(
Abhiman
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 05 Sep 2006 12:47

Post by Abhiman »

I request members to answer my question instead of sarcasm or any offtopic posts (earlier by 'analogous', I meant counterpart and not 'analog' computer.)
Thanks.
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

And I'd request you to heed what you were told in another thread on this topic, read up and stop spamming the thread, with your confusing wishlists. That article was posted as food for thought, not glib one to one transference and idle chest thumping.

PS: The article speaks of high speed processing for a Mission control center. Also, try to understand the context in which the article was written and what timeframe it represents.

PPS: Many details in the article are germaine to Indian efforts to build an ABM system, but try to keep in mind that the Soviets were working in the 70's- we are 30 years in the future, with different pros and cons.
Last edited by JCage on 14 Dec 2006 18:03, edited 1 time in total.
Abhiman
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 05 Sep 2006 12:47

Post by Abhiman »

I am not indulging in spamming as my posts remain on-topic in all threads everytime. You may 'heed' my request now (and as earlier) to either respond if you wish by being on-topic, or stop making personal comments and posts that are unnecessary.

Regardless of timeframe, inquiring about a important component in indigenous ABM is not offtopic.

I shall pursue ontopic discussion further and not respond to offtopic posts.
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

Take a poll here, and see what the bulk of your posts come across as.
This is what, the hundredth time somebody has told you? Wasnt the farce you made out of Bistatic radars and the need for them, as replaced by your "maybe" belief enough? Yet you are back with the same old, same old type of posting- jumping to some conclusions and then insisting on answers.

Also add in an utter lack of civility and netiquette in changing your posting style from the farcical Hi. Thanks. plus passive language business. Earth to Saturn- its not polite, its not winning you any friends and its merely rubbing people off the wrong way.

Secondly "enquiring about an important component"- why is it so important for you to have this information, and what makes you think a separate supercomputer is used anyways?

Thats the whole problem- your inability to understand the context of a primary source, and then your running off on a tangent and wrecking a thread in the process.
Last edited by JCage on 14 Dec 2006 18:09, edited 1 time in total.
Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1616
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Post by Sumeet »

abhiman,

it seems like if we give you regards, you seem to do hi and thanks or hi again and thanks type posting. but if we avoid that and be a little crude, we see you posting in normal style. btw thanks for atleast not posting in your standard style.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

Abhiman wrote:I am not indulging in spamming as my posts remain on-topic in all threads everytime. You may 'heed' my request now (and as earlier) to either respond if you wish by being on-topic, or stop making personal comments and posts that are unnecessary.

Regardless of timeframe, inquiring about a important component in indigenous ABM is not offtopic.

I shall pursue ontopic discussion further and not respond to offtopic posts.
Just inserting some words that are related to the topic of the thread does not make your posts "on"-topic.

On the other hand, I would argue, that set of words like "in my view", "may be", etc make your posts off-topic. IF you are imagining something then there is not topic! I said this when you started posting: you impose your imagination on the topic and try and make IT the topic.

You also select, from sources, only what supports your view and reject other view/s that oppose yours. That has been done repeatedly.

Get rid of those set of words from your posts and read them yourself and see if they make much sense. Every post of yours has at least one of those sets!
Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5882
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Post by Dileep »

Adam Savage of Mythbusters said: "I reject reality and substitute my own"
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Read to your hearts content

http://nal-ir.nal.res.in/view/year/2005.html

Naidu, VPS and Girija, G (2005) Acceleration and Jerk Models for Tracking Maneuvering Targets. Project Report. National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore, India.
[Department(s): Flight Mechanics and Control Division, Flight Mechanics and Control Division]

Naidu, VPS and Girija, G and Raol, JR (2005) Estimation of Launch and Impact Points of a Flight Trajectory using UD Kalman Filter/Smoother. Technical Report. National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore, India.
[Department(s): Flight Mechanics and Control Division, Flight Mechanics and Control Division, Flight Mechanics and Control Division]


Naidu, VPS and Girija, G and Raol, J (2005) Target Location and Identity
Estimation and Fusion using Disparate Sensor Data 2005-5841. In: AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, 15-18 August 2005, San Francisco, California.
[Department(s): Flight Mechanics and Control Division, Flight Mechanics and Control Division, Flight Mechanics and Control Division]
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Some abstracts of non-public documents:

Target Location and Identity Estimation and Fusion using Disparate Sensor Data 2005-5841

Naidu, VPS and Girija, G and Raol, J (2005) Target Location and Identity Estimation and Fusion using Disparate Sensor Data 2005-5841. In: AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, 15-18 August 2005, San Francisco, California.
[Department(s): Flight Mechanics and Control Division, Flight Mechanics and Control Division, Flight Mechanics and Control Division]

Abstract

A scheme for estimation of target identity and location using synthesized data of disparate sensors is presented in this paper. Target scenario generation is carried out using marked spatial point process. Infrared sensor data and acoustic sensor data for the scenario are simulated using sensor mathematical models. The sensor data are fused using Bayesian fusion wherein the likelihood functions of the two sensors are used to obtain the posterior probabilities. From the posterior probability distribution, the target identity and location are established using search algorithms. A comparison of four search algorithms, Metropolis Hastings, Simulated annealing, Gradual greedy and Ant colony optimization is made for a two dimensional scenario with two targets. Comparative performance is studied based on several criteria. It was seen that gradual greedy algorithm has a better performance compared to the Metropolis Hastings and Simulated annealing algorithms. The ant colony optimization algorithm has performance which compares with the gradual greedy algorithm and may be preferred for real time applications since it is amenable for parallel implementation.
----------------------------------------

Target Tracking and Fusion Using Imaging Sensor and Ground Based Radar Data 2005-5842

Naidu, P and Girija, G and Raol, J (2005) Target Tracking and Fusion Using Imaging Sensor and Ground Based Radar Data 2005-5842. In: AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, 15-18 August 2005, San Francisco, California.
[Department(s): Flight Mechanics and Control Division, Flight Mechanics and Control Division, Flight Mechanics and Control Division]


Abstract

An image centroid tracking algorithm (ICTA) has been implemented in PC MATLAB for target tracking based on the data obtained from an imaging sensor. The gray level image is converted into binary image using the segmentation technique and reduced into clusters using nearest neighbor criterion. Nearest neighborhood Kalman filter and Probabilistic data association filter are employed for state estimation using centroid measurement of clusters. The simulated results showed that it is possible to achieve tracking accuracies of 0.52 pixels root mean square error in position and 0.2 pixels/frame in velocity. Performance of this algorithm is evaluated using several statistical criteria. ICTA has been extended to multisensor scenario, where the trajectories obtained from the imaging sensor are fused with those from a ground based radar using track-to-track fusion technique.
----------------------------------------
Fusion of Radar and Infrared Search & Track Sensor Data using Kalman Filter

Naidu, VPS and Girija, G (2005) Fusion of Radar and Infrared Search & Track Sensor Data using Kalman Filter. Project Report. National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore, India.
[Department(s): Flight Mechanics and Control Division, Flight Mechanics and Control Division]

Abstract

Mathematical Models for radar and IRST sensor are presented. Extended Kalman filter is used for tracking and state vector fusion methodology is developed. The performance of this algorithm is evaluated using simulated data and performance metrics. It is concluded that finite difference method and partial derivative method performed similarly. It is also concluded from the results that fusion of IRST and radar would improve the tracking performance and reduce the positional uncertainty compared to individual trackers.
----------------------------------------
Centroid Tracking and Target Identity Estimation using Image Sensor Data

Naidu, VPS and Girija, G and Raol, JR (2005) Centroid Tracking and Target Identity Estimation using Image Sensor Data. Technical Report. National Aerospace Laboratories,Bangalore, Bangalore, India.
[Department(s): Flight Mechanics and Control Division, Flight Mechanics and Control Division, Flight Mechanics and Control Division]

Abstract

Algorithms for centroid tracking and target identity estimation using image sensor data are implemented in PC MATLAB. For tracking using image sensor data, the centroid of images is determined by using segmentation technique. This is achieved by converting the gray level image into binary image and reduced to clusters by nearest neighbor (NN) criterion. The performance of the algorithm for centroid tracking has been evaluated using simulated data. Bayesian sensor fusion technique is used for estimation of target identity and location using simulated data of an imaging sensor and an acoustic sensor. This is achieved by computing the likelihood functions for the two sensor data and fusing the posterior probabilities. From the posterior probability distribution, the target identity and location are established using search algorithms. A comparison of three search algorithms: Metropolis Hastings, Simulated Annealing and Gradual Greedv is made for a two dimensional scenario with two taraets.
----------------------------------------
This example if for F16 but applicable for missile characterization/recognition too.

Global Nonlinear Aerodynamic Model Validationby 6 DOf Simulation- Application to F-16

Ismail, Shaik and Singh, Jatinder (2005) Global Nonlinear Aerodynamic Model Validationby 6 DOf Simulation- Application to F-16. Technical Report. National Aerospace Laboratories,Bangalore, Bangalore, India.
[Department(s): Flight Mechanics and Control Division, Flight Mechanics and Control Division]

Abstract

This report deals with the validation of global nonlinear parametric models of F-16 from a simplified wind tunnel database, using multivariate orthogonal function in conjunction with least-squares regression technique and the Predicted Squared Error metric. Six DOF nonlinear simulations were carried out for validating the global models. Aircraft responses and the total aerodynamic force and moment coefficients were simulated using the longitudinal and lateral control inputs. A good agreement between the aircraft responses obtained from simulations using the wind tunnel aerodynamic database and the nonlinear global models for the aerodynamic force and moment coefficients was observed.
----------------------------------------
Really nice full report.
http://nal-ir.nal.res.in/949/01/tr-pdfc-0506.pdf

Acceleration and Jerk Models for Tracking Maneuvering Targets
v PS NAIDU,GIRIJAG

FlightMechanic&sControDivision
Project Document FC050 6 March 2005
----------------------------------------
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Our Austin's blogSuccess Ahoy

Very good article.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Post by Austin »

thanks ramana :)

Is it possible for the missile gurus to figure out the approximate range for the AAD Interceptor , We do know about the max altitude of interception as 30 Km , based on the little information we have on AAD can we figure out the approx range ?
Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Post by Drevin »

Austin, very informative article .... very well structured. Thanks a lot for the link Ramana.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

Austinji,

See if you can explain what "AAD" stands for.

Also, IIRC, Chicom too has no NFU against India (only). I'll see if I can find some material on that. If my recollection is right then that makes a huge difference from an Indian PoV (actually in many matters).
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Post by Austin »

Thanks Akramas , NRao , I would make a note of your suggestion , if you have some information which we can improve upon the present write up , It would be welcome :)

China IIRC has a NFU as a matter of policy , But based on our 1961 and paki experences would you believe the Chinkis , Unke kathni aur karni mein pharak hai :twisted:
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

PRC has clarified that its NFU is for P-5 only. Also does not apply on its 'own' territory. general expert opinion is that it was psotulated for Taiwan. But that begs teh issue that Arunachal Pradesh etc are also considered 'own' terriroty by PRC.

For all purposes India should beleive that PRC's NFU does not apply to it and plan accordingly. All data indicates it has.
Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Post by Raj Malhotra »

Hi Arun_S

Waiting for your article man!
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

PRC has declined a proposal from India to negotiate a bilateral NFU. (google)

I did read an article - some months ago - that PRC does NOT have a NFU vs. India (specifically). (I have not been to find that article so far.)


Some thoughts:

When it comes to nukes, India should not differentiate between PRC and TSP.

India should, from a phy-ops perspective, deal only with missile ranges and use no names (all TSPian missiles are imported and renamed. Using TSPian issued names in specific gives some amount of validation to their theories and phy-ops.)

In the next 3-4 years India should also consider including BD, Myanmar and SLanka to the list of those geographic areas that are entitled to be included in Chicoms sphere of nuclear influence and therefore Indian retaliation. Given the amount of Chicom activities in these countries and no direct way for India to validate it, it is fair enough to target them.
Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Post by Vijay J »

The Chinese rely heavily on carrying out one superbly aggressive gesture that somehow positions them for a long term strategic leverage.

If their intention is to nuclearise the Tibetian plateau then holding off on NFU discussions until the preparations for that are finalised seems a viable option. With a redundant command structure and a survivable nuclear arsenal in Tibet, it is possible for the Chinese to enter the NFU negotiations from a position of strength. Quite unlike their present state when even they can't guarentee that a nuclear armed force can be based in Tibet in a cost effective way.

Also refraining from NFU discussions keeps the picture in Pakistan flexible. Are those Chinese missiles that will be fired on India per the whim of China or are they Chinese missiles that will be fired on India per the needs of Pakistan. Without an NFU discusssion China can go on doing what it likes in Pakistan without having to give consistent answers to either India or America.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

Very true.

However, there are parts of the equation - such as the current Indian ABM efforts - that can derail their game plan. IF redundant systems in Tibet can be neutralized without having to actually target their assets physically, then, the game changes.

IMHO, Indian strategy should be to become more aggressive in neutralising their game in the entire region and have them ask for a bilateral NFU. Or, the cost of friendship with Chicom should become so costly that the regional players should not even think in those terms.

I think we are headed in that direction.

Altho' Chicom and TSP are very good at pointing out that India is getting to be aggressive and needs to slow down................
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

Crossposted.


LRTR

5. Long Range Tracking Radar: The LRTR was codeveloped with Elta of Israel, using Elta's proven GreenPine long range Active Array radar as a basis. The LRTR introduced more ruggedization, and uses mostly Indian made components. DRDO had previously revealed that it had developed high power, L Band Transmit-Receive modules of its own design, crucial to a long range radar, as well as other enabling technologies necessary for active phased array radars. In 2004, DRDO noted that its LRTR could track 200 targets and had a range of above 400 km. In 2006, it was revealed that the LRTR could detect targets as far away as 500 km and beyond, including Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles, and that India now had the capability to manufacture these radars on its own. The LRTR is meant to be the backbone of an Indian ABM system, other elements of which are currently in development.


ABM project

Unveiled in 2006, the ABM project was a surprise to many observers. While DRDO had revealed some details about the project over the years, its progress had been marked by strict secrecy, and the project itself was unlisted, and not visible among DRDO's other programs. The ABM project has benefited from all the incremental improvements achieved by the DRDO and its associated industrial partners via the long running and often contentious Akash and Trishul programs. However, it is a completely new program, with much larger scope and with predominantly new subsystems. The ABM project has two Missiles- namely the AAD and PAD (Prithvi Air Defence) missiles. The former is an endo-atmospheric interceptor of new design, which can intercept targets to a height of 30 Km. Whereas the latter is a modified Prithvi missile, dubbed the Axo-atmospheric interceptor (AXO) with a dedicated second stage Kill vehicle for ballistic missile interception, upto an altitude of 80 Km. Both these missiles are cued by an active phased array Long Range Tracking Radar, based on the Elta GreenPine. The missile launchers are connected to a launch control center (LCC) and mission control center (MCC) which can be located upto a 1000 Km away. There are multiple links between the centers and the launcher, to avoid jamming. Both wireless links (based on CDMA technology for anti-jamming purposes) and fibreoptic links are used. The entire set up was tested in November 2006, under the Prithvi Air Defence Exercise, when a prototype AXO, with a designation of PAD01 successfully intercepted another Prithvi missile at a height of 50 Km. The target missile (PAD02) was set to mimic the profile of a Tactical Ballistic missile with a 600 km range. The test was a complete success, with the hit to kill methodology successfully tested (Neither Missile had a warhead). The prototype had an active radar seeker integrated with its kill vehicle. After the test, the program Director Dr. Saraswat noted that there were still more tests to be done (six in all) before the DRDO could certify the AXO as functional, and that it was too early to rule out cooperation with other countries. Even so, the flawless functioning of the entire setup (hardware and software)- much of which was custom developed for the project, was a big shot in the arm for the DRDO. The project leader also noted that they had evaluated the S-300V in depth, and that its radars and missiles would not meet the specifications of the Indian made system. The DRDO plans further tests of the endo-atmospheric interceptor as well, which can target aircraft as well as ballistic missiles. At present, the aim of the project appears to be modest, despite its challenges for a developing country such as India. For one, it does not aim to field capabilities such as boost-phase intercept or intercept Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Its directed primarily against the plethora of Intermediate range and short range Ballistic missiles fielded by Pakistan and China against India.

From Wiki on DRDO
Nalla Baalu
BRFite
Posts: 153
Joined: 24 Aug 2006 07:16
Location: Yerramandi, Dhoolpeta

Post by Nalla Baalu »

JCage saar!

Wasnt there an innocuous acronym for PAD revealed after the test firing in one of the newspapers? Something like 'Project Advanced Device'?
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

Prithvi Air Defence Exercise, PADE
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

The target missile (PAD02) was set to mimic the profile of a Tactical Ballistic missile with a 600 km range.
Does it mean this baby's range was actually 600 KM?
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

No. 600Km tells what what speed class of target was. The small Hatf are already dead from this test and 800-1200km Ghauri awaiting the next swoop of PADE test. They are history.
Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Post by Drevin »

Supposedly,
The AAD is supposed to be equivalent to the Patriot/PAC3 or better.
The PAD is supposed to be equivalent to the Arrow or better. :!:

How can PAD be compared to Arrow. PAD is a HTK weapon without a warhead whereas Arrow is not a HTK ABM and carries a proximity warhead. Infact I think there is nothing similar between PAD and ARROW series. But people still think on those lines.

Guru's Arun, Austin, JCage, ... is AAD gonna a HTK too?
Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Post by Raj Malhotra »

Hi Arun as I asked in another thread, where is your much awaited article dude! We/I hereby demand it right and now!!
Nalla Baalu
BRFite
Posts: 153
Joined: 24 Aug 2006 07:16
Location: Yerramandi, Dhoolpeta

Post by Nalla Baalu »

Nalla Baalu wrote:Wasnt there an innocuous acronym for PAD revealed after the test firing in one of the newspapers? Something like 'Project Advanced Device'?
JCage saar, I was referring to the following statement in a news article in Deccan Herald about possible names for PAD
...
Once the development of the missile defence shield is completed in about three years, India will join a select band of countries like the US and Israel that has ballistic anti-missile defence systems with catchy names – Patriot and Arrow respectively. The indigenous system is simply known as Project Advanced Device or PAD. But more tests and research are required. For that scientists are now preparing for a second test for a somewhat similar type brand-new indigenous ballistic anti missile defence system by March 2007.
...
Missile shield: experts scour Sanskrit tomes
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

akramas wrote:Supposedly,
The AAD is supposed to be equivalent to the Patriot/PAC3 or better.
The PAD is supposed to be equivalent to the Arrow or better. :!:

How can PAD be compared to Arrow. PAD is a HTK weapon without a warhead whereas Arrow is not a HTK ABM and carries a proximity warhead. Infact I think there is nothing similar between PAD and ARROW series. But people still think on those lines.

Guru's Arun, Austin, JCage, ... is AAD gonna a HTK too?
The PAD iirc will carry a warhead as well. Take a look at the sectional diagrams of the KV from archives and you'll have your answer.

The similarity between these systems is because of similar configuration- layered ABM system with two missile classes.
mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Post by mandrake »

IIRC if we really did a HTK interception then its a HUGE leap.
A succesful HTK system can be easily developed SM3 by adding another stage.
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7127
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by JE Menon »

Raj, what's the hurry?
krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Post by krishnan »

We? no one seems to be in any hurry except 'U'
Locked