ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Mar 2009 09:17

radars on hills and aerostats can do detection and tracking of cruise missiles, because not enough awacs are available.

you only need to cover the major target areas because nobody except massa has 1000s of CMs. for airbases, a mast mounted radar cueing the spyder missiles will work. for cities or cantonments, again a aerostat radar would suffice to cue spyder.

we sure need a lot of spyders though.

negi · Post by **negi** » 10 Mar 2009 09:21

Few questions :

1. What were the two EOTS perspectives in the video ? I thought EOTS was only on the interceptor .
2. Before stage separation the interceptor missile executed some violent spiral maneuvers is that customary ? i.e. lining up for injection of the final stage into the kill box at the correct time slot.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 10 Mar 2009 09:55

Dismissing PAC-3 as "an outdated system'', the scientist said India's BMD system was "20-30% more capable'' than it. He, however, acknowledged the BMD system had received some help from countries like Israel (LRTRs), France (fire-control radars) and Russia (seekers).

Can someone elaborate on French help?

Cheers....

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Mar 2009 09:59

He, however, acknowledged the BMD system had received some help from countries like Israel (LRTRs), France ( and Russia (seekers)..

So to put the help received ( TOT /Co-development ) from these three countries

Israel : LRTR/MFCR AESA ( Green Pine Derivative / Advanced version of GP )
Master-A: Multi Function AESA Radar ( provides FC to AAD )
Russia : Ku band Active Seeker ( for PAD/AAD )

If you would recall , the best DRDO developed after more than a decades of inhouse research was Rajendra Passive Phased Array Radar .

The above help has leap frogged DRDO in a different league , not to mention these system form a very critical part for the ABM program to succeed.

Since ABM is a strategic project , there must have been a political decision in these countries to help India with it.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 10 Mar 2009 10:05

negi wrote:2. Before stage separation the interceptor missile executed some violent spiral maneuvers is that customary ? i.e. lining up for injection of the final stage into the kill box at the correct time slot.

IMVHO that spiral trail was a contrail (formed at certain atmospheric conditions and altitude). Spreading of that in upper atmosphere ( winds

) is giving the illusion of heavy maneuvering. Ideally the PAD is kept on course starting from the boost phase till interception. Even the launch time is decided by the fire control system, so, I don't think that PAD did large maneuvers for lining it up.

Cheers....

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 10 Mar 2009 10:31

As can be seen from the list of countries that helped us with ABM. Unkil cannot and will not be trusted against the chinks or pakis.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 10 Mar 2009 11:02

negi wrote:2. Before stage separation the interceptor missile executed some violent spiral maneuvers is that customary ? i.e. lining up for injection of the final stage into the kill box at the correct time slot.

Negi-saar

I interpreted it to be that stage separation had occurred and the first stage was either spiralling out of control (because of control commands being stopped) or coasting a bit before spiralling towards the earth.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Mar 2009 11:14

Gas thrusters are used for fine trajectory correction during the terminal homing phase.

It isn’t a spiral maneuver. Since gases are ejected from and around the [relatively] circular cross section of the kill vehicle, for someone looking from the ground below, the expended gases look like rings

Here are kill vehicle thrusters at work http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/images/mkv0717.jpg

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 10 Mar 2009 11:15

Austin wrote:
He, however, acknowledged the BMD system had received some help from countries like Israel (LRTRs), France ( and Russia (seekers)..
So to put the help received ( TOT /Co-development ) from these three countries

Israel : LRTR/MFCR AESA ( Green Pine Derivative / Advanced version of GP )
Master-A: Multi Function AESA Radar ( provides FC to AAD )
Russia : Ku band Active Seeker ( for PAD/AAD )

If you would recall , the best DRDO developed after more than a decades of inhouse research was Rajendra Passive Phased Array Radar .

The above help has leap frogged DRDO in a different league , not to mention these system form a very critical part for the ABM program to succeed.

Since ABM is a strategic project , there must have been a political decision in these countries to help India with it.

there was lot of talk, media hype sorrounding Indo-US cooperation on missile defence. MOUs, Presentations, Statemenste ctc but nothing happened on ground. instead Russian, israel and france are silently cooperating.

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 10 Mar 2009 12:00

ajay_ijn wrote:
Austin wrote:He, however, acknowledged the BMD system had received some help from countries like Israel (LRTRs), France ( and Russia (seekers)..
So to put the help received ( TOT /Co-development ) from these three countries

Israel : LRTR/MFCR AESA ( Green Pine Derivative / Advanced version of GP )
Master-A: Multi Function AESA Radar ( provides FC to AAD )
Russia : Ku band Active Seeker ( for PAD/AAD )

If you would recall , the best DRDO developed after more than a decades of inhouse research was Rajendra Passive Phased Array Radar .

The above help has leap frogged DRDO in a different league , not to mention these system form a very critical part for the ABM program to succeed.

Since ABM is a strategic project , there must have been a political decision in these countries to help India with it.
there was lot of talk, media hype sorrounding Indo-US cooperation on missile defence. MOUs, Presentations, Statemenste ctc but nothing happened on ground. instead Russian, israel and france are silently cooperating.

Even after the end of cold war and so called Democratic brotherhood, the ground realities have not changed. It is surprising that that they signed the nuclear deal with us, but then they needed India as a front to keep China in check. It is a great game where the master teaches the student everything except one last art.

b_patel · Post by **b_patel** » 10 Mar 2009 12:09

“We do not want to talk about competition,” Saraswat said. “As far as we are concerned, we have been tasked to do a job, and that is what we are doing.”

Saraswat claimed India’s ballistic missile defence system was better than the US-made PAC-III. “The PAC-III is an outdated system. Our system is at least 25 per cent to 30 per cent superior to the PAC-III in range and capability. The PAC-III has only a 15km range,” Saraswat said.

Wow!! That is all i have to say to this. The PAC-III system is actually proven in combat and it is not outdated. The Indian Ballistic missile defense system hasn't even been inducted. You can't say this based off of a couple trials. It maybe superior in terms of range but I doubt its superior in terms of capabilities. Without Israeli help the defense system would still be years away.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 10 Mar 2009 12:13

b_patel wrote:Without Israeli help the defense system would still be years away.

Can you tell me any one who did everything on his own? Mind u missiles was not an American invention. It was German..
Will you tell but for German, US would have been years away?

-Nitin

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 10 Mar 2009 12:31

>>>The PAC-III system is actually proven in combat and it is not outdated.

Yeah, proven in combat that it can't shoot straight..

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 10 Mar 2009 12:36

full video of Target and Interceptor

(is this posted earlier?)

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 10 Mar 2009 13:07

When was PAC-III proven? It is a worthless missile made in last minute since the combat proven PAC-II failed miserably against the 1960's scud missiles of Iraq. Israel refused to go for PAC-III and fields arrow-I and II.

SKrishna · Post by **SKrishna** » 10 Mar 2009 13:10

Wow!!!! Awesome video!

It does confirm that the target was a Dhanush launched from Warship (INS Rajput??).

Just one thought why does the Dhanush missile seem to be sway just a little at lift off?

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 10 Mar 2009 13:27

SKrishna

Is it asking login id and password?

-Nitin

SKrishna · Post by **SKrishna** » 10 Mar 2009 13:33

nrshah wrote:SKrishna

Is it asking login id and password?

-Nitin

No login or password required. only thing funny i found was that the page showed the same video in 2 frames one above the other!!

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 10 Mar 2009 13:45

That EOTS view was nice

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Mar 2009 14:25

geeth wrote:>>>The PAC-III system is actually proven in combat and it is not outdated.

Yeah, proven in combat that it can't shoot straight..

Well PAC-III is indeed a battle hardened system with quite a good success rate against Iraq AL-Samoud BM i read 20 plus.

It did had two mis hits one against British Tornado and US F-18 , attributed to software issue and non operating IFF.

But it is the only missile which has seen it learn and grow in real battle field and had its trial by fire.

In recent wars , Patriot operated in full automatic mode in complex AD environment of allied force

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 10 Mar 2009 14:38

vavinash wrote:When was PAC-III proven? It is a worthless missile made in last minute since the combat proven PAC-II failed miserably against the 1960's scud missiles of Iraq. Israel refused to go for PAC-III and fields arrow-I and II.

Israel Seeks PAC-3 Upgrade for Three Patriot Systems

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Mar 2009 14:52

Nice Video , Looking at the video the first stage of PAD does seem to be performing certain complicated manouvering ( trying to bleed energy to keep interception within range ? ) , Since it has a gimballed nozzel with three degrees/axis of freedom , it can very well perform such kind of manouveres using thrust vectoring in flight .

Also when stage seperation occurs , the second stage coasts for quite a while before ignition occurs in 2nd stage , I think the imparted energy from the first stage is powerfull enough for the second stage to coast.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Mar 2009 15:14

ajay_ijn wrote:there was lot of talk, media hype sorrounding Indo-US cooperation on missile defence. MOUs, Presentations, Statemenste ctc but nothing happened on ground. instead Russian, israel and france are silently cooperating.

I think we got some kind of observer status and attended some ABM test , well no harm in co-operating if we can learn from their mistakes , it is also good way to share our experience and learn from their.

Plus I dont think GP approval for India and Israel co-operation with India on strategic project like ABM is possible without a blink from US.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 10 Mar 2009 15:16

Skrishna,

Dhanush (Target missile) is shown being launched from INS Subhadra (no, not INS Rajput)

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 10 Mar 2009 15:20

Nitesh wrote:
jaladipc wrote: Sounds like yindoos are looking for the bull eye itself.Phase-II might incorporate technologies needed for boost phase interception IMHO.
BTW......wot is the range of PAD and AAD themself?
Jaldip yaar the PAD is exo atmospheric intercept missile which first hit the incoming missile at 48km (2006) AAD is endo atmospheric missile which hit the incoming missile at 15 km (2007) now the news is about hitting at approx 80km

isn't 80km the figure for max altitude? range should be a different figure i guess.

Plus I dont think GP approval for India and Israel co-operation with India on strategic project like ABM is possible without a blink from US.

yes thats true. wonder what would they say India again tried to acquire Arrow-II.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 10 Mar 2009 15:45

Nitesh wrote:
jaladipc wrote: Sounds like yindoos are looking for the bull eye itself.Phase-II might incorporate technologies needed for boost phase interception IMHO.
BTW......wot is the range of PAD and AAD themself?
Jaldip yaar the PAD is exo atmospheric intercept missile which first hit the incoming missile at 48km (2006) AAD is endo atmospheric missile which hit the incoming missile at 15 km (2007) now the news is about hitting at approx 80km

I am asking RANGE not the ceiling it can reach and intercept upto........

I estimate the range could be more than 150km itself for PAD-I. gurus can shed light here.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 10 Mar 2009 15:59

>>>Plus I dont think GP approval for India and Israel co-operation with India on strategic project like ABM is possible without a blink from US.

I feel it is more of co-operation or exchanging products behind the scene. May be Israel got the software codes used in Indian Systems in exchange for the hardware they gave. That is the feeling I got reading in between the lines of various reports, and ofcourse is pure speculation.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 10 Mar 2009 17:57

More grist for milvoyeuers...

India readies shield against Chinese ICBMs

Sandeep Unnithan in India Today.

Sandeep does seem to have deep contacts in the desi defence establishment. Recall the ATV story was broken on India Today via Unnithan.

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has begun developing an extended range versions of its home-grown missile defence shield to shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) or missiles which have ranges greater than 5000 km. Phase 2 of the missile defence shield will be the class of the US Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) missiles, Dr V.K. Saraswat, DRDO Chief Controller (Missiles and Strategic Systems), said on Monday.

While Saraswat did not mention it, defence analysts feel that Phase 2 of the missile defence shield is almost certainly meant to defend India from China's arsenal of ICBMs. China is the only Asian country which has an ICBM arsenal, including submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

Dr Saraswat said that Phase 2 was far more challenging because it calls for detecting ICBMs hurtling at twice the speeds of intermediate range missiles. It not only requires bigger interceptor missiles flying at hypersonic speeds of between six and seven times the speed of sound (present interceptor speeds are between Mach 4 and Mach 5) but also radars to detect incoming ICBMs at ranges of over 1500 kms as opposed to the current detection ranges of over 600 km.

For Phase 2, Dr Saraswat said that the organisation had already begun development of a two-stage hypersonic missile interceptor called the PDV and it would be ready in two years. It had also put in place the building blocks for developing extended range radars of over 1500 km.

The only Achilles heel in the Phase 1 of the ballistic missile interceptor is that it cannot tackle strategic cruise missiles like the Tomahawk flying a little over tree-top height. For intercepting such flat-trajectory weapons would call for airborne systems capable of tracking them, Saraswat said.

Goes without saying, read it all. Ensoi.

sum · Post by **sum** » 10 Mar 2009 18:34

very, very impressive video.

Now, next is to secure ourselves against the raa(n)ds and barbers...

Added: Is there any particualr reason that we are not trying the AAD/PAD against a actual IRBM like the Agni-I/II?

Hariprasad · Post by **Hariprasad** » 10 Mar 2009 18:45

The interceptor in the video seemed pretty fast when it was nearing the target for the kill. Also the interception was almost at the peak of the trajectory curve of the target.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 10 Mar 2009 18:55

Hariprasad wrote:deleted.

Try the direct link here

http://media1.itgo.in/indiatoday/video/ ... 1_156k.wmv

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 10 Mar 2009 19:02

sum wrote:very, very impressive video.
Now, next is to secure ourselves against the raa(n)ds and barbers...
Added: Is there any particualr reason that we are not trying the AAD/PAD against a actual IRBM like the Agni-I/II?

may be its due to the limited numbers. but then how are we going to test it. Agni should be launched from Central/Northern India to reach Orissa. would that be a problem to civil aviation and safety because seperated motors may fall anywhere.

The only Achilles heel in the Phase 1 of the ballistic missile interceptor is that it cannot tackle strategic cruise missiles like the Tomahawk flying a little over tree-top height. For intercepting such flat-trajectory weapons would call for airborne systems capable of tracking them, Saraswat said.

if airborne systems can provide fire control too then it would be a gr8 solution. AWACS would detect, track cruise missiles, Fighters would launch cruise missile interceptors and AWACS would provide mid-course updates. whichever cruise missile gets through will be tackled by LR/MR SAMs and finally CIWS.

Hariprasad · Post by **Hariprasad** » 10 Mar 2009 19:11

Anujan wrote:
Hariprasad wrote:deleted.
Try the direct link here

Thanks Anujan.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 10 Mar 2009 19:14

AmitR wrote: Even after the end of cold war and so called Democratic brotherhood, the ground realities have not changed. It is surprising that that they signed the nuclear deal with us, but then they needed India as a front to keep China in check. It is a great game where the master teaches the student everything except one last art.

If India were to walk out of all the pending US deals now (p-8i, CJ-130, missile defense, mmrca etc), the nuke deal would be free-lunch. US would have just given away the nuke deal, without much returns.

Guys, wasn't the patriot system having some serious friendly-fire issues? If I remember right, they were shooting down their own fighter/bombers returning from Iraq.

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 10 Mar 2009 19:20

jaladipc wrote: I am asking RANGE not the ceiling it can reach and intercept upto........

I estimate the range could be more than 150km itself for PAD-I. gurus can shed light here.

I am telling you the RANGE in which it can hit the enemy missile with accuracy total may be 10-15% more. Not double.

JMT

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Mar 2009 19:37

US would go any length to get the PAC3s into their sale.. its important for the next test, DRDO does an online video transmit using on board camera with both target and the ABM. DRDO needs lot of marketing for their ABM to sell this to our defence institutions.

Israeli, French and Russian help does help here in terms of getting ahead and selling it to our forces.

great show... if its IA, wait for a slew of articles that mimics similar to brahmos. Nevertheless, we need to test, perhaps with say multiple missiles launched... and another one with dummies, and target acquisition selecting the right target.

I don't think so, in two tests, the system would be ready.. IA would ensure, DRDO do a special version for them, to do these.

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 10 Mar 2009 19:43

Nitesh wrote:
jaladipc wrote: I am asking RANGE not the ceiling it can reach and intercept upto........

I estimate the range could be more than 150km itself for PAD-I. gurus can shed light here.
I am telling you the RANGE in which it can hit the enemy missile with accuracy total may be 10-15% more. Not double.

JMT

Is there any explanation for that.

other ABMs
SM-3 Altitude 250km (intercepted Satellite at 240km)
THAAD Range 200km est, Altitude- 150km
Arrow-2 Range 90km, Altitude- 50km
PAC-3 Range 20km, Altitude- 15km

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Mar 2009 20:29

sum, One never shoots down one own active deterrent vehicles. It gives bad message. Its Ok to shoot down obsolete or non-operational/development vehicles.

kobe · Post by **kobe** » 10 Mar 2009 22:15

One way to cooperate with USA in missile defense would be to allow one to launch a target missile and the other to launch the interceptor (first in designated area) then globally.

- phase-1: launch indian missile from indian coast and allow american missile to shoot it down (first with known parameters, then with unknown parameters), and then vice-versa.

- phase-2: launch american missile from alaska and allow indian missile to shoot it down (again first with known parameters and then with unknown parameters) and then vice-versa

known / unknown could be: number of dummy/real war heads, missile type, launch time, etc

wishful thinking onlee

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 10 Mar 2009 22:22

Why?? Since Ru, Israel and france are cooperating why not with them. They have SS-18, Topol, Jehrico and M-51 etc.