ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

sum · Post by **sum** » 26 Jan 2009 14:43

pakistan has a moderately good low level ADGES designed by hughes in the mid-80's.

the protection bubble at low level comprises of crotale, RBS-70 and various AAA and of course the MANPADS like stinger and different examples of the anza series.

at mid level, it is the spada 2000 on duty. it is however the LR-SAM category that is lacking (same with India at the moment but India depends less on SAMs for air defence than pakistan) with only the as of yet unconfirmed HQ-9 sale report to go by.

Rahul-ji,
What are the corresponding equipment India is using for different levels of AD?

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 26 Jan 2009 17:37

sum wrote:
pakistan has a moderately good low level ADGES designed by hughes in the mid-80's.

the protection bubble at low level comprises of crotale, RBS-70 and various AAA and of course the MANPADS like stinger and different examples of the anza series.

at mid level, it is the spada 2000 on duty. it is however the LR-SAM category that is lacking (same with India at the moment but India depends less on SAMs for air defence than pakistan) with only the as of yet unconfirmed HQ-9 sale report to go by.
Rahul-ji,
What are the corresponding equipment India is using for different levels of AD?

I am no expert Sum saar but here's what I know:

Short range: Tunguska M1, SA-16 Gimlet, SA-7 Grail, SA-8 Gecko (OSA), Sa-13 Gopher (Not completely sure abt this one) ZSU-23-4M 'Shilka'ZSU-23-4M 'Shilka', Bofors L40/70, ZSU-23-2
Medium range: Sa-6 Gainful (IA) Sa-3 GOA (IAf)
Long range: Sa-10 Grumble

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Jan 2009 17:46

we dont have Sa10.

our first long range SAM will be the barak-NG under development.

the Spyder can replace all of the smaller SAMs above if purchased in sufficient number.

the Akash can replace the SA-6 if purchased in sufficient number.

I would stress the world sufficient number. we are a large country with a lot of strategic
bases and airfields as static targets. and our army is large and spread out, needing its
own mobile bubble.

its not cheap providing high class AD bubble but its one way to make sure your
high value assets are all difficult to target.

Arunkumar · Post by **Arunkumar** » 26 Jan 2009 19:17

According to news reports, IAF is procuring 18 SPYDER systems. Procurement starting from early 2011 to August 2012.

http://www.idrw.org/2008/12/12/rafael_t ... _news.html

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 26 Jan 2009 20:06

Singha wrote:we dont have Sa10.

the Spyder can replace all of the smaller SAMs above if purchased in sufficient number.
the Akash can replace the SA-6 if purchased in sufficient number.
I would stress the world sufficient number.

Singha Sir,
Just wondering if we should plan to have a Indigenous (and may be Improved) Tunguska ?
I believe there are very few SAM system that provide such compact yet effective support to forward flanks.

Also, would like to know your guess on the sufficient number of Spyder and Akash batteries.

. Also wondering that in recent times there is very less development on shoulder fired SAMs(read Stingers and Iglas). Why is that so? Is this due to the very less room of improvement available on them now ?

TIA.
Avinandan

sum · Post by **sum** » 26 Jan 2009 22:15

andy B wrote: I am no expert Sum saar but here's what I know:

Short range: Tunguska M1, SA-16 Gimlet, SA-7 Grail, SA-8 Gecko (OSA), Sa-13 Gopher (Not completely sure abt this one) ZSU-23-4M 'Shilka'ZSU-23-4M 'Shilka', Bofors L40/70, ZSU-23-2
Medium range: Sa-6 Gainful (IA) Sa-3 GOA (IAf)
Long range: Sa-10 Grumble

So, our air defence scene isnt as bleak as is being projected? A CNN-IBN report recently had mentioned that AD was in tatters. Given that Indo-Israeli SAM of all ranges will strat entering service from 09-10 onwards, things will get even better very soon.

However, is there any replacement planned for the L-70 and ZSU-23s which might be bit long in the tooth?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jan 2009 17:29

A recent AWST had a feature on the new airborne laser weaponry developments that would fit into a future fighter.While it would take over a decade to do so,it was going to be available in the future.

In the Indo-Pak context,there is absolutely no way in which either side can prevent part of a saturated missile strike from reaching its target.Being neighbours,the flight time would be so small that it would require a kind of "Star Wars" technology to defend against such attacks.For one,given the vastness of airspace to be defended,we would require a massive system of satellites,AWACS,AEW aicraft,aerostats and an assortment of radars from ABM radars such as Green Pine to local area defence ones to enhance detection and reduce the threat by using hardkill methods. Then comes the family of missiles needed to defend the land.The US even has Aegis warships with ABM missiles aboard to intercept missiles in the early stages of flight.One can imagine the prohibitive cost even to defend a few key cities and bases.The attacks will also come in the form of SSMs,tactical missiles,cruise missiles launched from aircraft as well as land.In the worst case scenario the warheads will be nuclear.If conventional,there are ways in which the missiles can be defeated even if they strike the target,by using specially designed and hardened underground shelters.The Germans excelled at these during WW2 and only special very large bombs could penetrate the multi-layered underground centres.Some were in perfect condition even after direct hits like their U-boat pens.

So where does one draw the line if perfection in missile defence cannot be achieved? Perhaps the answer partly lies in building up a massive overwhelming inventory of offensive missiles that act as a deterrent by themselves,reducing the threat of any misadventure by the enemy.basing one's key military establishments and centres as far away from the enemy's border increases the time for anti-missile defences to activate.However, missiles launched from the sea ny warship or sub relatively close to the coast will be difficult to deter.The Iran-Iraq War and the missile strikes against cities in that conflict give an idea of how a future war between India and Pak might play out if both sides used large scale missile attacks.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 28 Jan 2009 01:01

^^^ It is not the quantity but quality that is of concern. Most of these are legacy systems 20-30 years old. Considering that it would take about 10-15 years to learn to break into a particular AD system (claiming from Israeli experience). This is discounting any intelligence coup like performance/ tech data of the system.

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 28 Jan 2009 01:22

we dont have Sa10.

We do have 3 Units of the S-300. One at Trombay , One in Delhi and one in a DRDO lab if i believe correctly. Its been in the Media before.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 28 Jan 2009 12:56

Pure speculation.

During the 90's, Fiza'ya speculated bombing Mumbai after the MiG-25 overflights. Trombay is out of range for Fiza'ya fighters. Adding external tanks reduces payload and still doesn’t cover the range. Assuming a suicide sortie, their lumbering strike package will have to pass AD net and SWAC Air Bases at Bhuj, Naliya, Jamnagar, Daman.

They did experiment C-130’s carrying their initial nuclear weapons that were too heavy for fighters, but survivability of such platforms, even if escorted by F-16s, was minimal.

Trombay is less than 20 km from the naval anchorage and even an anchored ship can provide SAM cover, despite the radar clutter.

Many joint exercises have been held where MMCBs and ADA OSA units participated, however I doubt any permanent deployment other than Territorial Army AD battalions.

Standard S-300 wasn’t designed with ABM capability. India had evaluated the Antei-2500 proposed by the Russians with the S-300VM, however development costs were prohibitive without any performance guarantee, hence the indigenous program.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 29 Jan 2009 12:20

Missile Defense related posts from the Pakistani arms sales thread merged with this topic, as they are more relevant here.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Jan 2009 14:07

tsarkar wrote:Pure speculation.

During the 90's, Fiza'ya speculated bombing Mumbai after the MiG-25 overflights. Trombay is out of range for Fiza'ya fighters. Adding external tanks reduces payload and still doesn’t cover the range. Assuming a suicide sortie, their lumbering strike package will have to pass AD net and SWAC Air Bases at Bhuj, Naliya, Jamnagar, Daman.

They did experiment C-130’s carrying their initial nuclear weapons that were too heavy for fighters, but survivability of such platforms, even if escorted by F-16s, was minimal.

Trombay is less than 20 km from the naval anchorage and even an anchored ship can provide SAM cover, despite the radar clutter.

Many joint exercises have been held where MMCBs and ADA OSA units participated, however I doubt any permanent deployment other than Territorial Army AD battalions.

Standard S-300 wasn’t designed with ABM capability. India had evaluated the Antei-2500 proposed by the Russians with the S-300VM, however development costs were prohibitive without any performance guarantee, hence the indigenous program.

But the Pakis would look at using one of thier ballistic missiles to carry out a nuke strike on something as "deep" as Trombay, wont they? Its anyway as you say too far away for a strike aircraft..So the defence required will be some sort of a minimal missile defence setup..SA10 adds up by that logic - though the news on that always has been very very speculative..

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 30 Jan 2009 01:41

Regarding laser based BDM, I had a few doubts, did some lookin up..

1. Will this system be all weather capable? A full scale war can be fought when we have heavy cloud cover, dust etc.
2. Lasers need a direct line of sight. Short range ballistic missiles launched from Silos on mountain slopes don't give much reaction or engagement time.
3. Deuterium Fluoride laser works on the Red/Infrared part of the spectrum. Whereas the more effective absorption occurs at shorter wavelengths.
4. Also checked on the reflectivity required to counter laser based attacks - a simple polished Aluminium/Copper skirt around the fuel tank area reflects most of the laser's energy.(Reflectivity index)
5. Wikiseems to have some information on reflection coating being used as a counter measure. It also talks of other difficult countermeasures like - gaseous cover around the missile, a complicated trajectory, Non-cylindrical missile geometry etc.

With all these issues, our laser based approach may be just a proof of concept with limited practical use. Anyone can cover their missiles with Aluminum coatings/paints much faster than we can develop lasers, guidance and tracking systems, integrate it with a platform, test it and deploy it.

**Another issue is within the given time, we need to match up the signature of the missile and determine exactly where its fuel tank is (i.e., what type of missile it is). Else we would be letting them through.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 30 Jan 2009 09:22

In 2000/2001, India purchased at least two IAI EL/M-2080 Green Pine radar systems for ABM use. The US objected to the sale of the Arrow-II, but India was suppose to have modified the PAD to intercept the Chinese M-11 missiles.

In Aug 1995, India signed a contract with Russia for over $1 billion to purchase six batteries of the S-300PMU-2 (NATO Designation: SA-20B) each with 48 missiles.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jan 2009 09:34

are you sure that contract was signed and product delivered? seems very strange that for 13 years nobody has reported seeing a S300 system in India nor has it been displayed in any parade?

why then is IA funding the 150km range Barak-NG rather than going the
9M96E2 route to salvo 9-12 missiles out of each 3-bigtube TEL.

imho it was decided the S300/400 would be heavily compromised
because the chipanda were purchasing it in bulk from early 90s and
had even developed a ARM ft2000 based around same system. so
we probably backed out and have resisted all further offers.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 30 Jan 2009 10:00

The PMU-1 is what China has and then copied and modified it, calling it the HQ-10/15. The PMU-2 is a different missile system and not only one with extended range, but supposedly of a different radar.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/ai ... 300pmu.htm

Since 1995 India has been negotiating with Russia regarding purchase of the S-300, in response to Pakistan's deployment of M-11 missiles from China. In 1995 Russian Defense Deputy Minister Kokoshin offered to sell S-300 missiles during his trip to India. Following this offer Indian officials started negotiations with the Russian manufacturers, and in August 1995 the Indian Defense Secretary Nambiar went to Russia to observe tests of the missiles near Moscow. The $1 billion purchase is said to include six S-300 systems, with each combat system consisting of 48 missiles. Reportedly in June 1996 27 S-300 missiles were delivered to India.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jan 2009 10:07

We have evaluated the S-300PMU's and S-300V extensively in Russia and in desert exercises at Rajasthan , but the system suffered breakdown and did not performed the way it was advertised , hence we did not opt for S-300 system as it did not meet our requirement. The reports of we purchasing any S-300 types are untrue.

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 30 Jan 2009 10:10

In 2000/2001, India purchased at least two IAI EL/M-2080 Green Pine radar systems for ABM use. The US objected to the sale of the Arrow-II, but India was suppose to have modified the PAD to intercept the Chinese M-11 missiles.

if we had two ABMs under development, then why India was interested in purchasing Arrow. is it the technology India was interested in? just like the Greenpine.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 30 Jan 2009 10:16

The Arrow-II was already mated with the Green Pine, which is suppose to be a very good OTH radar.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jan 2009 11:04

The key thing for us was the Kill Box we needed was between 50 - 80 Km , the leekers would be taken care off at 20 - 30 km which is AAD.

The Arrow 2 has a Kill Box of 40 - 50 Km , similarly S-300V and PAC-3 were of 40 and 20 Km , so none satisfied our requirement.

The only one which could do was Thaad system with a min and max altitude of interception of between 40 and 150 km and S-400 which has a capability similar to Thaad was in various stages of development and/or not available to us.

That left us designing and developing our own Interceptor and using Greep Pine as a basis to develop LRTR

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 30 Jan 2009 12:18

Discussing/Evaluating does NOT mean purchasing.

If IAF holds discussions or evaluates with IAI on Arrow, Raytheon on PAC-3, R…export on S-300, that doesn’t translate into purchases.

Hopeful sales reps give media interviews saying sales in imminent. Media finds such reports fancy & prints. Sales reps use these reports to highlight their performance during job appraisals.

Just like if we test drive a car doesn’t mean we’ll purchase it. IN evaluated Camcopters extensively on its OPVs. However decided to go forward with NRUAV. Same for these ABM discussions, whether Arrow or PAC-3 or S-300.

There was NO ABM requirement in 1995. Global ABM capabilities against TBM were quite nascent, despite Patriot Scud engagements in GW1.

Russian industry was in dumps in 1995. No way they could have delivered a working system in 1995. ecollect in mid 90s the MKI and MKK deals were signed that allowed Sukhoi, IAPO & KnAAPO to deliver quality products in early 2000s.

Secondly, neither GoI, MoD or IAF or IA budgets in 1995 reflect any large expenditure of this nature that can be possibly tied to such purchases.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 Jan 2009 04:50

Missile shield

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 31 Jan 2009 09:58

If you recall back in 2001 there was a lot of interest in getting the Arrow-II, but it was denied by the US. We still wait for another ABM test as its been more than a year since the last test in Dec. 2007.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 31 Jan 2009 17:06

WRT S-300 and India.

There were two known sites for the missiles, both empty for many many years. One at hindon AFB and the other within BARC premises. No missile sightings ever.

Now as I google earth around I see one more potential S-300 site that's cropped up. Spanking new and looks like it has an SA-3 deployed in one corner. I posted a pic of this site a few months back.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 31 Jan 2009 17:13

Here it is. One brand new S-300 site within India, and looks like a SA-3 system deployed near 7 'O clock, and yet another SA-3 system around 3 ' clock.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 01 Feb 2009 04:35

Isn't it a bit of speculation that that is a S-300 site ? Is there any real proof - official or even unofficial of S-300s in India ?

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 02 Feb 2009 03:35

Sanjay wrote:Isn't it a bit of speculation that that is a S-300 site ? Is there any real proof - official or even unofficial of S-300s in India ?

How can anyone tell just by looking at sat picture what kind of missile it is?

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 02 Feb 2009 21:25

Russia losing defense market in India
Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:21:46 GMT

India has progressed far enough the air defense field and currently is not in need of Russian assistance, says a Russian arms trader.

On Monday, the Russian arms trading company Rosoboronexport acknowledged India's achievements in the field adding that it was not going to supply the country with air defense systems in the near future, ITAR-TASS reported.

"India has begun to develop air defense according to scientific principles of other countries, and has progressed far in this field," said deputy director general of the company Viktor Komardin. "Simple purchases no longer suit them,” he added.

The maximum range of Russian arms exports is carried out through the company which represents Moscow in the international market. Indian and Southeast Asian demand accounts for half of the orders Rosoboronexport receives.

The company, however, says it would not cease to make offers to New Delhi.

To keep up the long-standing bilateral strategic and military-technical cooperation, India also reportedly plans to order the advanced MiG-35 fighter aircraft which Russia plans to exhibit in the upcoming airshow in Bangalore Aero India-2009.

HN/MMN

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=84 ... =351020602

I really appreciate Russia's stance in India leaning more towards domestic/indigenous products.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Feb 2009 01:08

Katare wrote:
Sanjay wrote:Isn't it a bit of speculation that that is a S-300 site ? Is there any real proof - official or even unofficial of S-300s in India ?
How can anyone tell just by looking at sat picture what kind of missile it is?

deployment pattern and subsystems. the SOC fellow over at keypubs does it quite well.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 03 Feb 2009 02:14

RahulM, no offense to SOC, I think it's still a bit too much speculation. I mean I was writing about the S-300s since the 1990s and I have not been able to confirm a single unit yet. Mind you I am still hoping that p_saggu is right !

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 03 Feb 2009 02:44

Sanjay wrote:Isn't it a bit of speculation that that is a S-300 site ? Is there any real proof - official or even unofficial of S-300s in India ?

Katare wrote:How can anyone tell just by looking at sat picture what kind of missile it is?

This huge circular design of roads is typical of the S-300 sites I have seen of google earth. There are half a dozen sites around Beijing and Shanghai where you can see the S-300s deployed.

Even with the current resolution of this google image, you can see the 4 missile per carousal launchers typical of the SA-3. If you look carefully you will see three such launchers in a equilateral triangle at 3'o clock and 7 'o clock of the circle. (You can freely see these SA-3 launchers around any of the IAF bases on Google Earth).

What is missing in this Image is the S-300 system. I can't see the launchers or the radars here.

So this is a S-300 site with two SA-3 missile units protecting a high value target within india (Just like two SA-3 units protect each IAF Base)

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 03 Feb 2009 02:53

Again I am posting this picture of just how seriously the Chinese take the security of their national capital. There is no such ring around any of our cities. If a missile/air attack occurs on any metro city today, you can be sure we don't have the technology or the numbers to protect ourselves.

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 03 Feb 2009 08:04

Again I am posting this picture of just how seriously the Chinese take the security of their national capital. There is no such ring around any of our cities. If a missile/air attack occurs on any metro city today, you can be sure we don't have the technology or the numbers to protect ourselves.

we rejected S-300, not interested in Patriot, denied Arrow-II, delayed Akash. So that only means we have to wait DRDO Long Range SAMs or one developed with Israel. that would mean wait for another 5 years. Its only now that IAF has ordered SPYDER n Akash missiles. Navy is far far ahead when it comes from SAM systems, they were not only first to acquire modernized buk but also anti-missile barak and also initiated development of Barak-II.

Keerthivasan · Post by **Keerthivasan** » 08 Feb 2009 02:44

A query to the Gurus:

Is there anything called "Cruise Missile Defence" ? Can India be protected aganist the curise missiles (Babur) of Pakistan & China (DH-10) ?

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 08 Feb 2009 03:08

IMHO,
Cruise missiles are very easy to kill once they are detected. They are subsonic and they can be taken out by shoulder fired IR SAM manpads, SAM or Antiaircraft gun batteries. Even fighters can shoot them down with AAM or gunfire.

The problem is detecting a low flying cruise missile. these subsonic birds fly close to the ground, with the ground clutter interfering with radar detection. On top of this some of them try and jam radar signals actively. Typically they need very powerful radar systems to detect them; like the Green Pine AESAs deployed by us or from a Phalcon AWACS

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Feb 2009 03:20

saggu ji, AFAIK even more than powerful radar, what is required is cheap and reliable but more importantly extensive radar coverage.
and jamming would be akin to calling out "here I am !" not to mention that power required for effective jamming is unavailable in most CMs. I'm not aware of any in-service CM with on-board jammer. it would be great if you point me towards one.

at the end of the day, defending against cruise missiles is a question of detection in time, once you detect them it's not too difficult since CMs, unlike a/c won't do extreme maneuvers to evade attackers or have any kind of on-board counter measures like flares/chaff.

babbupandey · Post by **babbupandey** » 08 Feb 2009 09:01

p_saggu wrote:Again I am posting this picture of just how seriously the Chinese take the security of their national capital. There is no such ring around any of our cities. If a missile/air attack occurs on any metro city today, you can be sure we don't have the technology or the numbers to protect ourselves.

I don't know about the rest of the cities, but for Delhi, I read somewhere has around 6-7 installations of SAM batteries. Two of them I have seen myself. One of them is in Narela (on the outer peripheries of Delhi) and the other is near Budda Jayanti Park (which incidentally is adjacent to Rashtrapati Bhavan).
Apart from that, there is also Hindon air base in Ghaziabad. I wouldn't worry too much about the air security of Delhi

George J · Post by **George J** » 08 Feb 2009 10:00

Absence of proof does not automatically mean that we do not possess a certain system. Case in point is the IN having the 4K51 Rubezh system for 26 years and not talking about it (or us not recognizing it as such). It has been argued that the system is too old to be viable while I can assure you there is enough empirical evidence which indicates otherwise. Off course it is only panwallah type of info.

India is VERY good at keep secrets, its so good at it that we think it has none.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 09 Feb 2009 19:28

No George. The MMCB was often displayed at Shivaji Park and IIT Powai. They have featured in numerous Quarterdecks and other magazines. They regularly deployed at Gujarat and Maharashtra coast and caused major public irritation on the highways.

MMCB's wasnt as glamorous, hence didnt receive media attention. There is absolutely no such information on S300.

You're right - the system was thrice upgraded, the last in late 90s

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 05 Mar 2009 05:49

http://www.hindu.com/2009/03/04/stories ... 611100.htm

Crucial interceptor missile test this week

Y. Mallikarjun & T.S. Subramanian

It will establish India’s capability to intercept Pakistan’s Hatf and Ghauri missiles

PAD will also feature “trajectory optimisation”

PAD missile will use gimballed directional warhead for the first time

CHENNAI: A missile which will waylay and destroy an incoming ballistic “enemy” at an altitude of about 80 km will be launched off the coast of Orissa later this week.
Network-centric warfare

This “crucial test” will seek to prove the efficacy of a host of new technologies, said officials in the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), which is conducting it. They described it as “a major test to establish a ballistic missile defence [BMD] shield as part of the network-centric warfare.” This is the third time an interceptor missile test is being conducted under the BMD shield that India seeks to establish.

The launch will feature two missiles. The “enemy” missile will be a modified version of Dhanush, a surface-to-surface missile. It will take off from a naval ship in the Bay of Bengal and simulate the terminal phase of the flight of a ballistic missile with a range of 1,500 km, similar to Pakistan’s Ghauri. As it zeroes in on the Wheeler Island, off Damra village on the Orissa coast, a Prithvi Air Defence (PAD) missile will lift off from the Wheeler Island, intercept the incoming “enemy” missile at an altitude of 70-80 km in the last one second and a half of its flight and pulverise it.

The interceptor PAD missile will use, for the first time, the gimballed directional warhead. It has so far been used only in the U.S. and Russia. When the directional warhead fragments in 360 degrees all round, the target missile coming in from only one direction is sure to be blown up. “Ground tests have been done on the directional warhead. In flight, it will be done for the first time. This is a new thing,” the DRDO officials said.
Light, lethal

A directional warhead weighs less than 30 kg but its lethality is equivalent to a 150-kg warhead. The PAD would also feature “trajectory optimisation” to enable interception at not only a higher altitude of 80 or 85 km but also at 45 km. It could engage missiles with a range of 300 to 1,500 km.
Risk elimination

“The distinct advantage” of intercepting a missile at a higher altitude of 80 km is that the debris will take longer to fall through the atmosphere before it hits the ground and hence will become cinders because of the re-entry of heat, the DRDO officials said. In a typical war scenario, this would reduce the effect of any fallout of nuclear debris and the risk associated with radiation.

The first interceptor missile test, which took place on November 27, 2006, waylaid an incoming ballistic missile in the exo-atmosphere at 48-km altitude. The second test took place on December 6, 2007 against a target missile at 15-km altitude in endo-atmosphere. The third test would be part of India’s plan to deploy a two-layered BMD system in the coming years.

In terms of strategic importance, the test would establish India’s capability to intercept Pakistan’s Hatf and Ghauri missiles.