ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8296
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 17 Jun 2014 23:43

@ Karan M, I agree with a lot of what you say and many reformist in the US have openly written their "thesis" of how the entire setup can be corrected. Having said that, not all is what it appears given that the system is open and with it comes opinions from all spectrum of society.

B-2? It was a cold war weapon designed to conduct a mission in non-permissive environments where the B-1 and B-52 could not go. Procurement plans were in the three digits. It was designed with that economy of scale in mind. The Cold war ended, its numbers got reduced and the price skyrocketed. Had there been a program goal to acquiring 2 dozen bombers the design and capability would have been a lot different. Its an industrial capacity and capability issue and there is no way around it. The most important things designers look at while designing hardware is the threat, capability requirement, industrial base, supplier base, numbers wanted etc. Reduce the numbers from hundreds to 2 dozen and the price per system is bound to skyrocket. There is no way around that. Blow half a billion dollars on composite research that would have been spread over many airframes and then end of procuring just 2 dozen and one can do the math. Similarly, design an aircraft where the bulk of the cost savings come from economies of scale and your price will increase exponentially with lowering numbers. Same thing happened with the F-22. It was designed (first half of the ATF) for a 700 production run, then cut to 400 odd as the program wound and down select happened. Eventually less then 200 procured. Politics and the geopolitical situation vis-a-vis the threat changed greatly. If you asked the US air force to design an F-15 replacement again in the 80's that would only be procured in small amounts (vis a vis the F-15C fleet) the design would be a lot less ambitious form a program point of view. It would most probably be a highly modified F-15 taking cues from the numerous programs they had to test out advanced capability. But the politics did not turn out as it was planned when the programs started.

The JSF is actually quite favorable compared to the F-16 program historically speaking. F-16's had crashes, had a massive concurrency issue where the block 30 configuration wasn't achieved till more than 1000 aircraft had been produced and also had its fair share of critics. Its just that the F-16's critics wrote in news papers, magazines etc so we don't have that thing as well documented as we do now with blogs and the internet. The LCS is a mess, not only in terms of the capability but because the USN wanted a ship that was modular and was a concept for UAV/UCAV operations in areas where it would operate under the umbrella of existing larger more capable "traditional" ships. The political class was not sold onto that, so front hat aspect its a poor program as it wanted to do too many things in one program (including getting newer shipbuilders into the shipbuilding game) that the establishment was not prepared to pay for. There are also not many MIC's around the world that would offer you the transparency, reporting, freedom of information (even for detailed testing reports) from where we could draw a comparison, and not many have the huge volume of defence reporting either both from the mainstream media and the bloggers, economic activists, anti war organizations and what not. Its all a big MELA and one really has to sift through with some time at hand to see what the systems do and what the problems are. Other MIC's don't have such a problem (not a problem really as it is a good thing from transparency pov). Do we have a complete development testing report, audited by the government office on the S400 missile system? Do we get detailed annual development testing reports issued signed by the head of testing for the PAKFA? There are also things with capability vis-a-vis time frame, most of the "at risk" programs are cutting edge much ahead of what the competition is doing. The F-22 with full mission system was flying in 1997. The B-2 was flying in 1989 etc. There is a very easy way to bring costs down, bring programs within their desired time-frames and reduce the risk of cost overruns considerably. Stop making systems that are bleeding edge. Stop asking for an F-22 in the 1990's or a 6th generation fighter in 2030. Stop asking for carrier borne UCAV's by 2019, stop asking for a stealth flying wing in the 90's, and stop asking for hypersonic weapons by 2020. You can keep on milking "safer" designs like expanding on your 4th gen fitters, modifying your bomber fleet with upgrades and newer weaponry and taking baby steps with UAV's (as the rest of the world is doing). Its a decision every country must take on its own i guess and the services concerned that will eventually fight in wars.

From the ABM side of the business, there is nothing that one can do other then TEST, TEST, TEST, FIX, FIX, TEST, TEST, TEST, FIX, FIX :)..Canceling programs because of failures will only result in clean sheet designs that will take more than a decade and then still have issues (some major) that would need to be corrected and the process begins all over again.

@ Austin, the Defence spending is not second to Social security but third behind Social security and healthcare.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258
Last edited by brar_w on 18 Jun 2014 00:06, edited 2 times in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby NRao » 17 Jun 2014 23:51

Hey guys,

Please take all these non-essential talks to the appropriate threads.

Thx.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18889
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Karan M » 18 Jun 2014 01:28

Brar, not the right thread for this, but its not merely circumstances alone which have led to this state of affairs. And nor is it carping from an "open society". The fact is that the JSFs program management was a disaster till "yesterday" when the AF finally started cracking down, and problems like those faced by the LCS are legion, from what one hears. Only the US has the $$ to get it done even so, rest of the world doesn't. As regards bleeding edge - several systems made by other nations are likewise, some fail, some don't - but its the US which in recent years on the MIC side, seems to have lost the track (cost versus capability matrix) using political leverage to sell its systems to captive customers & recoup the costs (partially).
Anyways, we can continue in other threads.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20447
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Philip » 18 Jun 2014 03:12

$40 Billion wasted!

http://rt.com/usa/166612-missile-defense-times-mda/
US missile defense system proves to be useless after $40 bln spent
Published time: June 17, 2014 16:52

This US Air Force handout photo shows a Ground-based Interceptor, an element of the overall Ground-based Midcourse Defense system (AFP Photo)

Despite a decade of testing and tens of billions of dollars’ worth of research, a major missile defense program in the United States has proven to be anything but successful, a new investigation suggests.

Nevertheless, the Missile Defense Agency, or MDA, plans on conducting next week its ninth exercise of that costly system since 2004, and the outcome of the drill is expected to influence whether or not more than a dozen new interceptors are added to the United States’ arsenal.

According to a recent investigation by the Los Angeles Times, however, that system has so far been marred by mistakes that raise questions about its ability to thwart any major attack and the cost incurred during the last decade.

The results of the Times probe, published by the paper on Sunday this week, show that Pentagon officials with inside knowledge of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, or GMD, say the program has suffered from mishaps more often than the US government would have expected.

“[A] decade after it was declared operational, and after $40 billion in spending, the missile shield cannot be relied on, even in carefully scripted tests that are much less challenging than an actual attack would be,” David Willman wrote for the Times over the weekend.

“Official pronouncements about the GMD system, The Times found, have overstated its reliability.”

Results have been mixed to say the least since as far as 1999 when GMD testing first began — half of the first 16 tests of the system's ability to intercept a mock enemy warhead failed, the Times acknowledged. The system was finally upgraded to “operational” in 2004, but five of the eight tests held in the last decade have failed as well.

The GMD system is expected to intercept incoming missiles, like hypothetical attacks waged by adversaries such as Iran or North Korea. Even when US officials have scripted test drills to try out this ability, however, the GMD program has hardly acted as expected. The last successful intercept occurred five-and-a-half years ago, and the last three attempts — two in 2010 and one last July — all were unsuccessful.

"The tests are scripted for success," Philip E. Coyle III, a former director of operational testing and evaluation for the Pentagon, told the Times. "What's amazing to me is that they still fail."

Because of this tainted track record, all eyes are expected to be on a drill later this month on June 22. MDA Director Navy Vice Adm. James Syring told Congress recently that the upcoming intercept flight test remains his “highest priority,” and with good reason:14 new intercepts could be added to a MDA system currently composed of 30 if the upcoming test is a success, but Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel hinted that failure would mean a halt in funding.

Speaking before Congress, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) said “not just friends of the United States but even our enemies” will monitor the next round of testing in order to gauge the current abilities of the MDA program.

“I’m also optimistic we have identified the cause of the intercept failure involving our first-generation EKV last July when the CE-1 failed to separate from the booster’s third stage,” Syring said. “We have accounted for this issue in the upcoming flight test and we are working toward a correction for the entire fleet before the end of the year.”

Regardless, Syring is appealing to Congress for $99.5 million to begin what he described Wednesday to the Times as "redesign improvement" that would stop short of a complete overhaul, sources familiar with the matter told the paper.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2285
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby John » 18 Jun 2014 04:07

^ That is regarding the GBM, intercepting targets in space hundreds of km away is not easy task to achieve. One has to wonder with all the failures why not scale down the reqs a little bit, at this rate it will cost more to field it than ICBMs.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby NRao » 18 Jun 2014 07:28

^^^^^

I think the idea is to field something like this for countries like NK/Iran and a deterrent like the ICBMs against more conventional potential foes.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8296
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Jun 2014 11:12

Philip wrote:$40 Billion wasted!



Thats what we are talking about, Austin posted this in the last page.

^ That is regarding the GBM, intercepting targets in space hundreds of km away is not easy task to achieve. One has to wonder with all the failures why not scale down the reqs a little bit, at this rate it will cost more to field it than ICBMs.


One cannot lower the requirements when it comes to ABM layered approach. What can the makers do? Ask the threats to lower the performance of their own weapons :) Capability has to be fashioned, tested, worked on, glitches sorted, tested again and again until one gets it right. Its going to be a very very costly thing to have once it is finally delivered as planned and there is a chance this may never happen. ABM is pretty much the highest risk thing in the world as far as defence is concerned and especially when you are seeking a capability to do something that is going to be cutting edge and over and above what you already have operational (SM3). One could cancel the GMD and just build more AEGIS ashore, but then the GMD exists for a different purpose, and that capability would have to developed again from scratch, which would require solving the same complex problems all over again. If an Anti ICBM capability is desired, then the GMD must be developed and followed through to its completion. Cancel it because the article claims (40 billion wasted) a rediculous punchline and you loose a capability. DARPA and other R&D efforts that solve amazingly complex things call a program a success even if 40% of the goals are met, not because of some agenda but because no one expects all the parameters to be verified given the risk associated with development.

Image

As you can see AEGIS takes care of all the IRBM threats (upto 5500 Km).

Raytheon’s Standard Missile-3 program successfully completed five consecutive flight tests in the last year, bringing the program’s space intercept record to 26 in total.


http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/featur ... m-3_5for5/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6rBfwh ... A869A9D909

The GMD fills the role of an Anti ICBM system and as such cannot be scaled back or replaced with an existing setup. Only option is to get it right. This applies to all those agencies around the world that want a working, verifiable Anti ICBM system, its very very hard to have it developed (H2K) and get it working as designed.

The testing report:
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2 ... 013gmd.pdf

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8296
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 21 Jun 2014 13:10

Interview with Dennis Muilenburg president and CEO of Boeing’s Defense, Space & Security unit (the unit behind the BMD) from Aviation week.

In missile defense, the Ground- based Midcourse Defense system has not been consistently tested, and the testing that has occurred has not been largely successful

Overall, the program is going well. Clearly, we were disappointed that the last flight test did not get a suc- cessful intercept. When we do major fight tests, we learn a lot every time, which allows us to improve and inject technology into the system. But to have a reliable missile defense capa- bility for the country, we have to be able to test it on a regular basis. And so we’ve been advocating, along with the Missile Defense Agency, for more frequent, consistent, periodic testing of the system—a combination of regu- lar testing of the system and testing associated with technology injection, including kill-vehicle technology.


This is a multibillion-dollar system, and the U.S. is not capable of showing the world that it works.

That goes back to my point. Currently, there are multiple years between tests. The fact that failures and technology obsolescence occur should not sur- prise anyone. While an intercept wasn’t achieved in the last test, all the rest of the integrated system worked magnif- cently well: the networking systems, the radar connectivity, the situational awareness and the multiple asset con- trol. We didn’t get the intercept, but you shouldn’t conclude that the entire test didn’t work. It actually verifed a great deal of the system. Our ability to con- tinue to make it better and reliable is dependent on regular testing.


Via twitter


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8296
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Jun 2014 14:44

Target Missile Intercepted Over the Pacific Ocean During Missile Defense Exercise

The Missile Defense Agency, U.S. Air Force 30th Space Wing, the Joint Functional Component Command, Integrated Missile Defense, U.S. Northern Command and the U.S. Navy completed an integrated exercise of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element of the nation’s Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). During the test today, a long-range ground-based interceptor launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, intercepted an intermediate-range ballistic missile target launched from the U.S. Army’s Reagan Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands.
The test, designated Flight Test Ground-Based Interceptor-06b (FTG-06b), will provide the data necessary to assess the performance of numerous BMDS elements for homeland defense.
Navy Vice Adm. James D. Syring, Missile Defense Agency director, said, “I am very proud of the government and industry team conducting the test today. Their professionalism and dedication made this test a success.”
He added, “This is a very important step in our continuing efforts to improve and increase the reliability of our homeland ballistic missile defense system. We’ll continue efforts to ensure our deployed Ground-based Interceptors and our overall homeland defensive architecture continue to provide the warfighter an effective and dependable system to defend the country.”
For this exercise, a threat-representative, intermediate-range ballistic missile target was launched from the Reagan Test Site. The U.S. Navy destroyer USS Hopper (DDG 70), with its Aegis Weapon System, detected and tracked the target using its onboard AN/SPY-1 radar, which provided data to the GMD fire control system via the Command, Control, Battle Management and Communication (C2BMC) system. The Sea-Based X-Band radar also tracked the target, and relayed information to the GMD fire control system to assist in the target engagement and collect test data.
About six minutes after target launch, the Ground-Based Interceptor was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base. A three-stage booster rocket system propelled the interceptor’s Capability Enhancement II EKV into the target missile’s projected trajectory in space. The kill vehicle maneuvered to the target, performed discrimination, and intercepted the threat warhead with “hit to kill” technology, using only the force of the direct collision between the interceptor and the target to destroy the target warhead. This was the first intercept using the second- generation Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle.

An operational crew of U.S. Army soldiers from the 100th Missile Defense Brigade, located at Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado, remotely launched the interceptor.
Initial indications are that all components performed as designed. Program officials will spend the next several months conducting an extensive assessment and evaluation of system performance based upon telemetry and other data obtained during the test.
The test was the 65th successful hit-to-kill intercept of 81 attempts since 2001 for the Ballistic Missile Defense System. The GMD element of the system has completed four intercepts using the operationally configured interceptor since 2006. Operational Ground-Based Interceptors are currently deployed at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, protecting the nation, our friends, and allies against a limited long-range ballistic missile attack.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8296
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Jun 2014 14:32

The performance of the EKV in this test builds on last year’s successful non-intercept flight test and validates the latest design, known as the “CE II” variant.

“Raytheon is 100 percent committed and invested in providing innovative, reliable kill vehicles for the protection of the US,” said Wes Kremer, vice president of Air and Missile Defense Systems. “Today is proof that we have fully resolved the issues discovered in previous tests, and I am confident in the system deployed today.”

Kremer said Raytheon supports the need for a redesign to the current EKV, which was originally deployed by presidential decree in prototype status in 2004.

“Raytheon supports a robust EKV redesign that further increases reliability, testability and maintainability of the fleet,” Kremer said. “We know exactly what it will take to mature the EKV from its prototype status into a mature, consistently performing program, and we can do it while significantly reducing costs.”

That sentiment was echoed by Sharon Walk, director of Raytheon’s Space Systems Operations, who oversees the Space Factory where the EKV and Standard Missile-3 kill vehicles are made.

Raytheon kill vehicles are built by the same engineers using the same equipment, and the lessons learned on the highly successful SM-3 program will be applied to future generations of EKV, Walk said.


http://globalaviationreport.com/2014/06 ... ts-target/



Photos from the test

A Ground-based Interceptor roars into the sky carrying a Raytheon-built Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle on June 22, 2014. The kill vehicle destroyed a simulated ballistic missile high over the Pacific Ocean.


Image

Image

Illustrations

Image
Image


Video from twitter



Ranjani Brow

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Ranjani Brow » 30 Aug 2014 19:18

^ from above link
Left unsaid in this latest BMD test by DRDO is the clear demonstration of the low earth orbit (LEO) capabilities of the PDV. The PDV is actually a predecessor to another exo-atmospheric interceptor currently under development that can neutralize RVs at an altitude of over 300 km :mrgreen:. Taken together this means that India has all the elements in place for a direct ascent counter space system that can easily be used for anti-satellite purposes. This in turn means that India now has a very strong hand in the Space NPT that is currently being quietly negotiated by the world's nuclear powers.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 30 Aug 2014 19:43

200-300 km Interception Altitude is excellent , Will give the interceptor atleast 2 Kill Shots chance at ICBM type RV via "look shoot look/shoot look shoot" capability , making it possible to have more than one attempts at the target analyse the kill and go for the next one if required.

This way you also avoid wasting Interceptor per RV by firing multiple interceptor at a single target as DRDO interceptor also has ~ 99 % Kill Probability against the target.

AD1 & AD-2 http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... 714028.JPG

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby RoyG » 30 Aug 2014 21:05

Eventually, the Russians are going to have to have to upgrade their hypersonic RV's to pull crazier maneuvers.

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Rien » 31 Aug 2014 18:01

brar_w wrote:@ Austin, the Defence spending is not second to Social security but third behind Social security and healthcare.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258


http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison

The U.S. spends more on defense than the next eight countries combined. That includes the next biggest spenders, China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia. This is an extremely large sum. And that's per the official account.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... in-charts/

The US doesn't count certain types of military spending as military spending. Benefits for veterans, which came to $127 billion in 2011, or about 3.5 percent of the federal budget. If you count those benefits as "defense spending," then the number goes up significantly. Then there is the 1.5 Trillion for nuclear weapons modernization and various "black" programs the US government runs. To be completely honest, there is no way to actually get a straight answer from the US government on how much it wastes on the military.

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Rien » 31 Aug 2014 18:05

I don't have a clear picture of how our ABM and cruise missile defences compare against the competition. Given the Chinese/Pakistani inventory, including airplanes, how well does our defences match up? Can anyone do a side by side comparison with stats and geography taken into account?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8296
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 31 Aug 2014 18:34

Rien wrote:
brar_w wrote:@ Austin, the Defence spending is not second to Social security but third behind Social security and healthcare.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258


http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison

The U.S. spends more on defense than the next eight countries combined. That includes the next biggest spenders, China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia. This is an extremely large sum. And that's per the official account.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... in-charts/

The US doesn't count certain types of military spending as military spending. Benefits for veterans, which came to $127 billion in 2011, or about 3.5 percent of the federal budget. If you count those benefits as "defense spending," then the number goes up significantly. Then there is the 1.5 Trillion for nuclear weapons modernization and various "black" programs the US government runs. To be completely honest, there is no way to actually get a straight answer from the US government on how much it wastes on the military.


I think you deserve a standing ovation here. Its up to every country to decide what it includes under which category, or are you going to dictate as to what protocol should be followed and where?

Can you provide me an audited document on China' defense spending?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 09 Sep 2014 20:36

Pentagon: Missile defense ‘kill vehicle’ still plagued with problems after years of failure

A Pentagon investigation of the “kill vehicle” warhead, part of a weapons system plagued with years of failed tests, found dozens of quality control problems, according to a new report.

The Pentagon’s inspector general said in the report released Monday that the “kill vehicle,” a warhead meant to intercept missiles, fell short of quality standards in 48 specific cases, including issues with software testing, supply chain demands, and design changes, making the kill vehicle “susceptible to quality assurance failures.”

The warhead, known as the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) is built by Raytheon Co. and is part of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system led by Boeing Co. EKVs are launched by a Ground Based Interceptor (GBI), “which is designed to engage high-speed ballistic missile warheads in space,” according to Raytheon. The current procurement cost for each GBI is around $75 million, said Missile Defense Agency Director Vice Admiral James Syring in July 2013.

The inspector general report, the first of two on the EKV, said the US Missile Defense Agency has agreed with concerns over the interceptor warhead and has started to address 44 of the 48 issues identified.

The GMD missile defense system was deployed in 2004 even before it completed testing to be able to counter what the George W. Bush administration claimed was a looming missile threat from North Korea.

The EKV finally conducted its first successful missile intercept in June after years of failed attempts.

"A combination of cost constraints and failure-driven program restructures has kept the program in a state of change. Schedule and cost priorities drove a culture of 'use-as-is' leaving the EKV as a manufacturing challenge," the report said.

"With more than 1,800 unique parts, 10,000 pages of work instructions, and 130,000 process steps for the current configuration, EKV repairs and refurbishments are considered by the program to be costly and problematic and make the EKV susceptible to quality assurance failures," it added.

The Pentagon inspector general wrote that most quality management systems on the weapons program were in compliance, but problems were evident. The report found 15 major and 25 minor quality problems with Raytheon's EKV work. Boeing’s work on the entire system had six major and one minor problem.

Most of the issues identified in the report have been corrected, the inspector general said, but Raytheon is still working on four issues.

Raytheon has a $636 million development and sustainment contract to produce the EKV, though the Pentagon is seeking one of the major defense contracting firms to develop a more reliable, second generation EKV, Reuters reported. Weapons giants Boeing, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin Corp. are all in the running.

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Rien » 10 Sep 2014 18:54

brar_w wrote:I think you deserve a standing ovation here. Its up to every country to decide what it includes under which category, or are you going to dictate as to what protocol should be followed and where?

Can you provide me an audited document on China' defense spending?


There is no need. China's defence spending is a fraction of the US. We make a big deal of China's defence spending here because our own spending is low. China can't justify its spending from our budget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... penditures

US Bharat

640.0 billion 47 billion


US figure doesn't include any of its many black programs such as nuclear weapons, compared to Bharat. Our defence spending is 1/15th of the US. And the US has no military threat. We have our beloved friends. I don't know why you take it as some type of insult. Most US types, I notice, are proud. From your militaristic "We'll spread democracy to you if you don't watch out" perspective, this is a plus point.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8296
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 11 Sep 2014 04:55

You must realize that china's defense spending is just an estimate. Its not like they provide audited documents of their de-classified military programs. US Black budget is largely accounted for in documents, you just have to do some research. Usually what is in the program is kept a secret. Despite of this, most western military powers have been extremely cautious about what programs to send in the black world. The US will not for example develop an Air to Air missile in black, for it has the potential to kick start an arms race. Similarly they have disclosed funding, and program dates for the LRS bomber but kept everything else classified.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20447
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Philip » 11 Sep 2014 05:55

There is no 100% defence against incoming missiles.Even a few that get through will cause unparalleled devastation.The world will be set back at least 50-100 years in there are nuclear exchanges.The real task is for the globocops to chalk out a credible 21st century SALT (strategic arms limitation treaty) agreement ,that also includes missile defence,and acknowledge the new nuclear powers,India,Pak,NoKo,Israel,etc.It is far better spending a few billions in coming to an agreement over the table than developing systems that still have glitches.In the age of LR PGMs and drone delivery,the need for tactical nukes has lessened (unless you are a Paki!) considerably.However,there is scant movement on this front.Even modernisation of existing N-weapons should come on the table.This way,more money will be available for nations to beef up their conventional systems which is almost as good a deterrence to go to war,plus counter asymmetric terrorist threats as we are seeing and have a few beans left over for eco development.This is one area where the Modi regime can help start the debate with other nations and collectively push the globocops into action.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 17 Sep 2014 21:19

Arrow-2 Intercept Test Misses Target

T
EL AVIV — Israel has determined that a Sept. 9 intercept test of the joint US-Israel Arrow-2 missile missed its target.

Nearly a week of analysis from last Tuesday’s test concluded that the Arrow-2 successfully acquired and tracked its target, yet failed to destroy it in the “end game.”

Experts here blamed the miss on software issues that are easily corrected. They consistently described the Arrow interceptor as performing well, particularly in its ability to discriminate real from what appears to be false targets.

In a press briefing following the Sept. 9 test, Israeli program officials said data from supporting sensors and the Arrow itself could not conclusively determine if an actual intercept occurred.

An official US and Israeli account of the event said the operational Arrow-2 “was launched and performed its flight sequence as planned,” results of which “are being analyzed by program engineers.”

An MoD official at the time said it would take days to analyze the voluminous data.

“Until we have all the objective engineering data… we don’t want to say one way or another,” the MoD official told reporters after last week’s test.

US and Israeli sources said the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency and Arrow program officials in Huntsville, Ala., have received a detailed after-action account from the Israel Missile Defense Organization.

But contrary to the high public profile generated on the day of the test, Israeli and US officials are keeping final results close to their chest.

After eight days, neither the Pentagon nor Israel’s MoD has released definitive results of the Sept. 9 test. Requests for comment from both organizations remain pending. ■


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8296
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Jan 2015 19:40

Philip wrote:There is no 100% defence against incoming missiles.Even a few that get through will cause unparalleled devastation.The world will be set back at least 50-100 years in there are nuclear exchanges.The real task is for the globocops to chalk out a credible 21st century SALT (strategic arms limitation treaty) agreement ,that also includes missile defence,and acknowledge the new nuclear powers,India,Pak,NoKo,Israel,etc.It is far better spending a few billions in coming to an agreement over the table than developing systems that still have glitches.In the age of LR PGMs and drone delivery,the need for tactical nukes has lessened (unless you are a Paki!) considerably.However,there is scant movement on this front.Even modernisation of existing N-weapons should come on the table.This way,more money will be available for nations to beef up their conventional systems which is almost as good a deterrence to go to war,plus counter asymmetric terrorist threats as we are seeing and have a few beans left over for eco development.This is one area where the Modi regime can help start the debate with other nations and collectively push the globocops into action.



Precisely. But to that I would like to add, the cost of Missile defense (what a nation spends on it) should also be looked at in context of what even one or two missiles can do in terms of economic damage if not countered. Clearly the ABM is not designed to mitigate the strategic threats from Russia and China as one can see from the volume of weapons being fielded (or the class). It is also quite absurd because both Russia and China can quickly upgrade their capability and render most of these weapons useless. For strategic reasons you maintain a deterrent. ABM R&D and spending is totally different form something else as you almost never have a 100% ready system sent to the front line. You develop a capability, keep on testing it and fixing what you find in tests. Your testing is only limited by the dollars you have to test that system. Any system, even those approved for production can be broken if stressed and hence the developers always seek a lot of money for test launches every year.

The Soviets spent (according to US intelligence in the 70's) upwards of 400 Billion RUB developing an integrated air defense (all R&D, procurement etc) and based on that and whatever they have done since, they are pretty much the global leaders in an integrated air defense system. The US has absolutely no interest in developing +++ versions of the Patriot system, or even fielding a higher capability of the MEADS for example. Here, the entire funding for AD is against BMD. Every major spender in AD's does so according to the biggest challenges it has to encounter. For Russia/SU it is/was penetrating US aircraft, and aircraft from the western borders. For the US it is Ballistic Missiles coming from the Pacific.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20447
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Philip » 13 Jan 2015 17:48

Exactly.from Russia alone,8+ Borie class SSBNs armed with 20X10 MIRV warheads per sub means 1600 warheads! Each missile will also be armed with several decoys too. Add China's growing SSBN capability and the US facing Pacific threats alone will require a huge number of ABM systems. Given its island territories in the Pacific,the concept of some form of naval ABM capability (which seems as of now to be based upon the SM series) to intercept the missiles as early as poss. after launch could reduce the threat.However,given the alrge number of missiles to be tackled,some sort of ABM arsenal/barge filled of huge numbers of ABM missiles may have to be developed. the vessel could be moved at will wherever required.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8296
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Jan 2015 18:29

In a way you have the deterrent for that as well. Any Nuclear attack on the US territories can and will be perceived as a retaliation worthy event from a Nuclear launch perspective. However conventional attack isn't out of the question. So your AEGIS destroyers, deploying THAAD (hence the THAAD-ER is worth it) and possibly building AEGIS Ashore facilities would make some sense, although from a cost perspective you would rather wait till you master EMRG and have that capability added to your missile defense.

When the Soviets introduced the ABM concept it was calculated under Mcnamara's leadership that for every 1 billion USD in investment in Nuclear missiles, 5-8 Billion would be required for the ABM side. This quickly led to MERV's. However, of you could outspend your opponent 5 to 8 is to 1 then it makes sense and for opponents that are volatile enough to have a rogue launch such as North Korea or Iran for example (or Pakistan in the future) an ABM shield makes perfect sense given the economic damage (to the global economy) if some nut case somewhere decides to press the red button.

There was a major shift that was quietly initiated by the Congress a few years ago. It was to move EMRG research over to the MDA in combination with what the USN is spending on this. As the S&T panel noted last year in Congressional hearings this technology is quite mature and would be out to sea by 2016 at the latest (could be as early as end of this year). Boeing is already contracted to develop and modify a round for multiple applications including Missile defense. This is in addition to the BaE rounds that are being used now. Another advantage these systems field is the extreme low cost (next to nothing) to test. Your biggest cost to test these systems in a Missile defense environment would be the cost of the target and not the weapon as opposed to testing a 10 million dollar THAAD for example. Even without mass production (basically producing testing rounds) the cost is around 25,000$ per round. This can easily fall to below 15K when they have a solid design in place and have a firm sustained requirement. You can continue to test at a massive scale as you design more and more capability into the system. A much better overall system if it can be fully mastered.

Image
Image

member_29151
BRFite
Posts: 121
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby member_29151 » 04 Nov 2015 17:13

AAD/PAD are basically for ballistic missile defense. They are not worked out for taking out fighters. S400 can kill multiple target in one go . can the PAD /AAD system do that ?? Please keep in mind both systems compliment each other and enhance the air defence bubble . that includes Akash, Spyder igla and barak Sam systems... The more they are fused with each other the more will be the kill zone.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Austin » 04 Nov 2015 17:54

Warhead also allows interceptor to intercept close in RV within atmosphere ( 15-30 km ) where KKV becomes ineffective , Even DRDO AD-1 and AD-2 for anti-ICBM role uses warhead

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1726
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ldev » 04 Nov 2015 18:57

The biggest implication of a $11 billion S400 purchase is saturation air and short/intermediate range missile defence of virtually all Indian airspace. That will totally negate the current Pakistani nuclear retaliation blackmail for any Indian anti terrorism action into Pakistan i.e. it will free up India to use its conventional weapons superiority to deal with Pakistan and Pakistan backed terrorism without worry that New Delhi/Mumbai will be nuked. It will also provide India protection against large scale conventional Chinese short range missile attacks against Indian airbases in the opening round of any Chinese attack on India.

IMO, the S400 is worth its weight in gold and a small price to pay for the policy options it opens up for India in dealing with Pakistan.
Last edited by ldev on 04 Nov 2015 18:58, edited 1 time in total.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2997
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Kanson » 04 Nov 2015 18:57

HTK method seems to be another khan thing that people automatically conclude as 'the best'


Russian interceptors for S-500 system employs HTK as Khan does.

Simple way to say is, in Chemical explosives there is always time lag. HTK removes that time lag.

If I'm not wrong, 9M96 variety that is part of S-400 system do have HTK.
Last edited by Kanson on 04 Nov 2015 19:02, edited 1 time in total.

vishal
BRFite
Posts: 331
Joined: 27 Feb 2002 12:31
Location: BOM/SIN

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby vishal » 04 Nov 2015 19:06

Paul wrote:If the S-400 can enable 2-3 squadrons of Sukhois to be redeployed.....


When, not if.

Extract: (UNI) In what could easily be said the biggest ever defence deal with Russia, India has stitched a contract to acquire S-400 anti-ballistic missile systems from Moscow at a cost of around Rs 70,000 crores, top sources in the Defence Ministry said here today.

chaitanya
BRFite
Posts: 187
Joined: 27 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: US
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby chaitanya » 04 Nov 2015 19:51

ldev wrote:The biggest implication of a $11 billion S400 purchase is saturation air and short/intermediate range missile defence of virtually all Indian airspace. That will totally negate the current Pakistani nuclear retaliation blackmail for any Indian anti terrorism action into Pakistan i.e. it will free up India to use its conventional weapons superiority to deal with Pakistan and Pakistan backed terrorism without worry that New Delhi/Mumbai will be nuked. It will also provide India protection against large scale conventional Chinese short range missile attacks against Indian airbases in the opening round of any Chinese attack on India.

IMO, the S400 is worth its weight in gold and a small price to pay for the policy options it opens up for India in dealing with Pakistan.


also to automatically create a 'no-fly zone' over pak airspace when a covert strike mission to cleanse some terrorists take place :twisted:

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54023
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 04 Nov 2015 20:12

ldev wrote:The biggest implication of a $11 billion S400 purchase is saturation air and short/intermediate range missile defence of virtually all Indian airspace. That will totally negate the current Pakistani nuclear retaliation blackmail for any Indian anti terrorism action into Pakistan i.e. it will free up India to use its conventional weapons superiority to deal with Pakistan and Pakistan backed terrorism without worry that New Delhi/Mumbai will be nuked. It will also provide India protection against large scale conventional Chinese short range missile attacks against Indian airbases in the opening round of any Chinese attack on India.

IMO, the S400 is worth its weight in gold and a small price to pay for the policy options it opens up for India in dealing with Pakistan.



Besides the threat is near term and S-400 is also near term.

AAD/PAD/VAD are all futuristic vapor ware.
And US would rather sell PAC-3 and THAAD to gulf countries than to India lest it destabilize TSP!!!

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2020
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby nirav » 04 Nov 2015 21:06

ramana wrote:
ldev wrote:The biggest implication of a $11 billion S400 purchase is saturation air and short/intermediate range missile defence of virtually all Indian airspace. That will totally negate the current Pakistani nuclear retaliation blackmail for any Indian anti terrorism action into Pakistan i.e. it will free up India to use its conventional weapons superiority to deal with Pakistan and Pakistan backed terrorism without worry that New Delhi/Mumbai will be nuked. It will also provide India protection against large scale conventional Chinese short range missile attacks against Indian airbases in the opening round of any Chinese attack on India.

IMO, the S400 is worth its weight in gold and a small price to pay for the policy options it opens up for India in dealing with Pakistan.



Besides the threat is near term and S-400 is also near term.

AAD/PAD/VAD are all futuristic vapor ware.

And US would rather sell PAC-3 and THAAD to gulf countries than to India lest it destabilize TSP!!!


Why would you call them vaporware saar ?
AAD/PAD have had their share of hits and misses.In due course of time, they will be made operational/deployable by the military. Can call it 'under development' ware no ? ;)

Also iirc, US had offered PAC-3 long back.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2997
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Kanson » 04 Nov 2015 21:28

automatically create a 'no-fly zone' over pak airspace


I see quite no. of replies here reflecting that only by S-400 purchase such 'no-fly-zone' can be implemented.

As i see, we do have capabilities and can enforce such 'no-fly-zone' with existing assets and some coming from drdo stable in future.

We already have Aerostats (EL/M 2083) with a coverage of 500 km as well as AWACS + we have adequate ground assets that look deep inside Pak territory.

All that is visibly lacking is a long range missile.

While all ground based radars have limitation including that of S-400, those limitations are removed in case of AWACS and Aerostats.

Now the question is, a 400 Km SAM like 40N6 that more likely have a ballistic trajectory to reach the target is more effective
or
a long range AAM that drdo develops (as that Meteor) that propels continuously at ~4.5 Mach speed towards the target is more effective
in implementing such 'no-fly-zones' ?

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3698
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby kit » 04 Nov 2015 21:34

Kanson wrote:
automatically create a 'no-fly zone' over pak airspace


I see quite no. of replies here reflecting that only by S-400 purchase such 'no-fly-zone' can be implemented.

As i see, we do have capabilities and can enforce such 'no-fly-zone' with existing assets and some coming from drdo stable in future.

We already have Aerostats (EL/M 2083) with a coverage of 500 km as well as AWACS + we have adequate ground assets that look deep inside Pak territory.

All that is visibly lacking is a long range missile.

While all ground based radars have limitation including that of S-400, those limitations are removed in case of AWACS and Aerostats.

Now the question is, a 400 Km SAM like 40N6 that more likely have a ballistic trajectory to reach the target is more effective
or
a long range AAM that drdo develops (as that Meteor) that propels continuously at ~4.5 Mach speed towards the target is more effective
in implementing such 'no-fly-zones' ?




Also create a force multiplier for the IAF vs Pakistan allowing it to concentrate against a full blown Chinese threat !


at least till the requisite LCA squadrons come online .. :mrgreen:

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1640
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Sid » 05 Nov 2015 00:01

Kanson wrote:I see quite no. of replies here reflecting that only by S-400 purchase such 'no-fly-zone' can be implemented. As i see, we do have capabilities and can enforce such 'no-fly-zone' with existing assets and some coming from drdo stable in future.

We already have Aerostats (EL/M 2083) with a coverage of 500 km as well as AWACS + we have adequate ground assets that look deep inside Pak territory.

All that is visibly lacking is a long range missile. While all ground based radars have limitation including that of S-400, those limitations are removed in case of AWACS and Aerostats.

Now the question is, a 400 Km SAM like 40N6 that more likely have a ballistic trajectory to reach the target is more effective or a long range AAM that drdo develops (as that Meteor) that propels continuously at ~4.5 Mach speed towards the target is more effective in implementing such 'no-fly-zones' ?


1> We don't have Aerostats or AWACS in numbers. Out of two (or maybe three), one was damaged and was on ground till recently as per CAG report.
2> Aerostats are fixed, tethered and most importantly of western origin. Even our AWACS are of western origin. How it can integrate with Russian SAM system?

Our own custom desi mixture could have worked if AAD/Akash 2/Akash/Spyder were to be woven into home built detection/tracking network comprising of LRTR, Aerostats, Phalcon, INDRA, CAR, Ashwini etc etc.

Now it won't be easy to simply integrate this COTS solution into our own concoction of home built air defense network. Nor Russians will be willing to allow such integration, unless motivated to do so.

I think they will be used specially to safeguard nuclear installation or major metros.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Cybaru » 05 Nov 2015 08:54

Kinda funny. This was the last window they could have sold us something like this. After this PAD/AAD/LRSAM/Akash-2 pretty much come online making any purchase from outside difficult.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2074
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Picklu » 05 Nov 2015 09:42

Nah, there will be always something new like direct energy weapon and so on and so forth ...

For the time being, lets just be happy that we have a nationalist DM who are giving the final push to so may desi weapons in their final testing leg

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Gyan » 05 Nov 2015 10:34

I think that there will be dalal fight between:-


Akash-2 vs Barak-2 JV

AAD, PAD, AD-1,2 vs S-400

No points in guessing who will win.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dennis and 39 guests