ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 29 Mar 2009 21:52

Katare wrote:
Avinandan wrote:“So even if there is a manoeuvre by the enemy missile in the last 500 milliseconds

500 milliseconds means .5 seconds, that doesn't seem much though.
That means that if the RV does some evasive maneuvers much earlier, then the interceptor missile is most likely to miss it.
You may be reading it wrong IMO. The evasive manoeuvre initiated when missiles are pretty close are the hardest to intercept. A manoeuvre done a second or 10 second from hit would be much easier to handle for missile than the one initiated 0.5 sec before a expected hit.

That is correct.
In addition to that PAD terminal engagement often occurs at a phase when the enemy missile is RF handicapped by plasma, while the ABM system is not. This in that regiem the RV has no means to know where is PAD kill vehicle and from which spatial orientation it is coming from.

Vick · Post by **Vick** » 02 Apr 2009 05:45

From DN
March 30, 2009

India Strives To Field Missile Defense by 2012

By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI

NEW DELHI — India’s indigenous Prithvi Missile Defence (PAD) antiballistic missile system intercepted a 1,500-kilometer-range missile at a height of 75 kilometers in a March 6 test, said Vijay Kumar Saraswat, chief controller of missile programs at India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

The test tried out a new guidance system and a modified Long Range Acquisition Radar acquired from Israel in 2004, DRDO sources said.

It was the third successful interception test for PAD, which hit a 48 kilometer-high target in 2006 and a 15-kilometer-high target in 2007.

DRDO officials said PAD would enter service in 2012, but other DRDO sources said it could take another 10 years and help from foreign firms.

Defense analyst Rahul Bhonsle estimates a “functional BMD” could be deployed by 2020, or sooner, if the DRDO is indeed working with Israeli firms or Lockheed Martin.

A senior Indian Army official said, given the past results of DRDO projects, “the proof of the cake would be in the eating.” PAD is based on a modified Israeli Green Pine radar, which can track 200 targets out to 600 kilometers in a 360-degree arc, a DRDO scientist said. With speeds up to Mach 5, PAD’s interceptor rockets engage missiles when they enter the atmosphere or as they pass through it. The system is built to hit incoming missiles with a range of 300 to 2,000 kilometers, the scientist said. Pakistan’s longest-range missile can fly about 1,500 kilometers, the scientist said.

Bhonsle said the next stage would be connecting PAD’s surveillance system and tracking radar, mission control and missile launch systems. “Multiple target tracking and engagement also needs to be looked at,” he said. “More tests would be necessary under realistic conditions — to ensure a hit probability of over 90 percent — than the demonstration flights carried out.” The ministry official said that in phase two, PAD would seek to emulate a system like the U.S. THAAD. The DRDO scientist said PAD is better than the U.S. Patriot-3 and Israeli Arrow-2, which also uses the Green Pine radar. But Bhonsle said PAD will have to be satellite-linked to be comparable with the operationally deployed Arrow-2 and THAAD.

“Arrow-2 and PAD would possibly be comparable provided PAD is linked to satellite-based surveillance, can engage multiple missiles simultaneously, and manual controllers are highly trained in reading missile signatures and launch,” he said. “THAAD is primarily a kinetic system and more accurate than PAD, which has an explosive warhead.” A senior Defence Ministry official said India would have to make its own BMD system, rather than import it, because of its strategic nature.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 07 Apr 2009 20:21

Israel successfully tests missile defense system

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Apr 2009 19:11

Obama may cut Israel's participation in Arrow project

The Obama administraton has raised the prospect of selling Standard Missile-3 missile defense system, produced by Raytheon sea-based missile defense system to Israel. In return, the administration would end the current Missile Defense Agency program to develop and deploy the Arrow-3, an enhanced version of Israel's medium-tier interceptor.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Apr 2009 22:20

sounds like obama wants to capture israeli market as well.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 08 Apr 2009 22:38

^^
NO.

Since the day one of Arrow development program it is costing the Israeli lives to fund the development.though US is helping hard to support the project.

Now US wants to come out of Arrow just mean that the change in US strategy towards Iran.Iran is going to end up building a couple of other reactors with the technology to make a bomb at any moment in handy.

And intelligence circles say the technology is neither based on the home-prisoned AQKhan`s failed enriched uranium design nor the under-powered north korean plutonium design.But suspected to be a hybrid design based on already successfully tested by few countries close to the nation.IT means its a matter of time to assemble the unit as they are preserving the raw material needed.
the new strategy now revolves around how long can US hold the Irans hand before it ditch them again considering its regional gains?

sooner than later israel do want to come out of the US help in funding and development of its own strategic systems.IT would trigger a new collaboration with a friendly country(.....)to achieve its objectives irrespective of US help.

Bottom line is that ,the game is a multiplayer game.IT is really hard than the monsoons itself to predict which player joins hands with whom and whose relation is going to be held concrete with adhesives.

Mihir.D · Post by **Mihir.D** » 09 Apr 2009 00:15

So is some of the 10000 crore going to the arrow-3 program ?

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 17 Apr 2009 06:27

Israel, US to Stage Large Joint Missile Defense Exercise

US ballistic missile defense elements such as the AN/TPY-2, the American X-Band radar deployed in the Negev and the new Green Pine radar and sophisticated fire control systems will participate in these flight tests and exercises to demonstrate interoperability and develop operational tactics, techniques and procedures associated with this coalition architecture.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 07 May 2009 05:25

Israel Calls Up Reservists for Anti-Shihab Missile Drill

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 07 May 2009 08:14

Vick wrote:The ministry official said that in phase two, PAD would seek to emulate a system like the U.S. THAAD. The DRDO scientist said PAD is better than the U.S. Patriot-3 and Israeli Arrow-2, which also uses the Green Pine radar. But Bhonsle said PAD will have to be satellite-linked to be comparable with the operationally deployed Arrow-2 and THAAD.

Can someone comment on if DDM claims PAD (it should infact be AAD) is better than Patriot-3 hold any water? IMO AAD is not meant to intercept at very low altitudes unlike Akash and Patriot or MEADs. If true that will also explain why DRDO is starting LRSAM project with Israel as a MEADS or Patriot equivalent and an extension of Akash.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 07 May 2009 16:17

abhiti wrote:
Vick wrote:The ministry official said that in phase two, PAD would seek to emulate a system like the U.S. THAAD. The DRDO scientist said PAD is better than the U.S. Patriot-3 and Israeli Arrow-2, which also uses the Green Pine radar. But Bhonsle said PAD will have to be satellite-linked to be comparable with the operationally deployed Arrow-2 and THAAD.
Can someone comment on if DDM claims PAD (it should infact be AAD) is better than Patriot-3 hold any water? IMO AAD is not meant to intercept at very low altitudes unlike Akash and Patriot or MEADs. If true that will also explain why DRDO is starting LRSAM project with Israel as a MEADS or Patriot equivalent and an extension of Akash.

1. The Very low interception is mainly meant as a subsidiary Anti-A/C capability - in case of systems like the Patriot, which started as Anti-ac missiles, it makes sense. However, in case of an ABM, any hit at low altitude is not only extremely tough and has a very low chance of hit, but may be dangerous in that the BM's warhead may already be armed, and it would be too low to fragment, even if the ABM hits.

2. AAD does have a minimum altitude that isn't very satisfactory for anti-ac and anti-CM operations. However, that is understandable given the experimental nature of the project and the first time that a BMD has been developed by us, the scientists would naturally worry more about the max. rather than the min. altitude....

3. Increasing the kill zone, and engagement types, as well as augmenting the Anti-a/c capability, is indeed the aim of AD-2. That is the idea...

so yeah, no need to wory excessively... its all a learning process and natural evolution of technology.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 07 May 2009 21:03

Few observations:
1) PAD is definitely much better than Patriot for ABM and long range anti-aircraft interception. So there is no DDM hype in it.
2) India has many good cooking for medium and long range anti-A/C role (Barak-8), so one does not have to use an AAD for that role.
3) One does not fire a Patriot when a Man-pad missile can be used. The same would be true for AAD too.

My old adage: "Punch of a fist come from fingers of different sizes, where the fingers are configured to carry the punch"

For a change India is on the cutting edge of many aspects of rocketry.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 07 May 2009 23:08

Arun Saar

To play devil's advocate: even though PAD may have a long range a/c interception ability, I dont get the feeling that its going to be very useful in that role. Its still a modified Prithvi. From an operational deployment standpoint, it doesnt seem to belong in the same class as an S300 - the latter is available in self-contained canisterized units that are mobile.

Also our MRSAM (or LRSAM) has only a range of 70 - 80 KM. So, we do have a serious gap in long range aircraft interception ability (150 - 200 KM range)

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 09 May 2009 05:10

Orbital Falls As US Cancels Kinetic Energy Interceptor

MDA Request Kills KEI, Focuses on Ascent Phase

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 09 May 2009 07:43

^^ This is a surprising development.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 09 May 2009 12:20

Prem Kumar wrote:Arun Saar

To play devil's advocate: even though PAD may have a long range a/c interception ability, I dont get the feeling that its going to be very useful in that role. Its still a modified Prithvi. From an operational deployment standpoint, it doesnt seem to belong in the same class as an S300 - the latter is available in self-contained canisterized units that are mobile.

I have said my piece on it, & have no time for getting into argument.

Also our MRSAM (or LRSAM) has only a range of 70 - 80 KM. So, we do have a serious gap in long range aircraft interception ability (150 - 200 KM range)

What is the purpose/use of Indian interceptor aircrafts?
I fail to appreciate any serious gap in long range a/c interception.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 May 2009 12:50

only inept prc/soviet forces rely on ultra long range SAMs for zonal defence.

the smart ones just send up a troop of F-15/Su-30 to shoot everything down in a more flexible, long duration
and retargetable soln to the problem.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 09 May 2009 20:11

So, is the argument that LRSAM is not necessary since we have aircraft? Isnt the "we have interceptors" line of thinking that led to our serious shortage of a quality SAM network?

I am not saying that it is an either-or type of situation. But an extended kill-zone provided by an LRSAM network would be a serious deterrent against any incursions (& even prevent enemy AWACS from getting too close). Interceptors can be used in conjunction with this.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 12 May 2009 18:33

Has this been posted before?
Israel Unveils Loitering Anti-Missile Drone

IAI is already negotiating potential export sales of the weapon with India and Turkey. The company exposed the system for the first time in India, before the Aero-India 2009 airshow.....

India is considering acquiring Harpy 2 (also known as 'Harop') killer drones developed by Israel Aerospace Industries, as part of a procurement program valued over $US1 billion. Harop is an evolution of the Harpy killer drone, optimized to operate against enemy radars and surface/air missiles. Harpy was developed in the 1990s and has been successfully exported to countries around the world.

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-xdaCF8Fwe0&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-xdaCF8Fwe0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

pkudva · Post by **pkudva** » 12 May 2009 22:19

India has Harpy-1 na,to the best of my knowledge though not in official records.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 12 May 2009 22:33

Yes India does have Harpy Drones , lets move further debate on this topic to UAV thread through

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 13 May 2009 01:56

Lockheed Martin says open to Indian parts in Aegis

US defence industry giant Lockheed Martin said it is open to using some Indian components if chosen to supply the country's navy with its Aegis ballistic missile defence system.
"Because of the way the Aegis combat system is constructed, there is the ability to put specific indigenous capabilities in portions of it,"

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 25 Jun 2009 01:59

Boeing Advanced Tactical Laser Fires High-Power Laser In Flight

During the test, ATL took off from Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., and fired its laser while flying over White Sands Missile Range, N.M., successfully hitting a target board located on the ground. ATL, which Boeing is developing for the U.S. Air Force, is a C-130H aircraft equipped with a chemical laser, a beam control system, sensors and weapon-system consoles.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 25 Jun 2009 02:38

The difference between a LR-SAM and a fighter equipped to shoot down the enemy is in reaction time. While the missile can be hot and ready, air interdiction depends on the fighter being armed and in the air at the critical time.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 25 Jun 2009 02:40

Gerard wrote:Lockheed Martin says open to Indian parts in Aegis

This means that the P-15B Kolkata Class will indeed deploy an AEGIS like system, hence this offer.

Vinito · Post by **Vinito** » 14 Jul 2009 01:05

p_saggu wrote:
Gerard wrote:Lockheed Martin says open to Indian parts in Aegis
This means that the P-15B Kolkata Class will indeed deploy an AEGIS like system, hence this offer.

Given the Aegis system is more or less a complete system what kind of indigenious systems are they talking of integrating with their system? Also since the weaponry is mainly of Russian origin how will the Amriki's be able to integrate them when they have never done this in the past? All this seems to be just a ploy where they will sell us the system( a very capable one if I may add) and once we have integrated it in the Kolkata class lead ship they will cite numerous crappy reasons why the system is not compatible with the Russian systems and then will beat the drum about their own missile systems e.g. Standard, RAM ityaadi. The GOI then to save their face will buy whatever they have to offer just to keep the ship rolling. WE need to get an assurance on the compatibility rather than trusting the Amriki's blindly and ensure that when they talk about indigenious content they dont just mean nuts and bolts.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 16 Jul 2009 04:31

Israel to test Arrow missile on U.S. Pacific range

John · Post by **John** » 16 Jul 2009 19:04

p_saggu wrote:
Gerard wrote:Lockheed Martin says open to Indian parts in Aegis
This means that the P-15B Kolkata Class will indeed deploy an AEGIS like system, hence this offer.

Highly unlikely since P-15 platform is not large enough for SPY-1D unless we fit in scaled down version like SPY-1D(v) or F. While SM-3 offers AMD capability it is unlikely US will sell it and in terms of performance against sea skimming missiles the platform is hampered by its FCRs (Burke can only handle 3 to 4 targets ). Coupled that with scaled down SPY-1 radar, Barak-8 or Aster is much better alternative or even APAR (16 targets on each side) +SM-2.

If using is willing to offer SPY-3 then it is whole another story

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 16 Jul 2009 19:09

Vinito wrote:
Given the Aegis system is more or less a complete system what kind of indigenious systems are they talking of integrating with their system?

Indians will paint the system in Tricolor that is the ultimate indegenisation.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 16 Jul 2009 19:14

Amitji you better edit your post, before admin garu see it

koti · Post by **koti** » 17 Jul 2009 23:15

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-xdaCF8Fwe0&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-xdaCF8Fwe0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube][/quote]

There was no explosion when the system struck the ship. I am surprised to see the extent of impact this relatively low velocity drone had on the ship. I am wondering what a Brahmos could do to any ship by mere impact.

But what was this doing in ABM thread?

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 18 Jul 2009 00:59

A little query for anyone who wants to answer it.

Is the only distinct advantage an SLBM enjoys is that of anonymity wrt to launch position and prevention from first strike. Once launched , does it have the same chance of being intercepted by ABM as the surface launched ones.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 29 Jul 2009 07:28

Arrow 2 test failure a 'serious setback'

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Jul 2009 07:40

Nihat, all depends on detection, trajectory and velocity. assuming detection factor being equal-equal,

higher the range of missile greater its velocity which makes interception tough. iirc ICBM warheads have
re-entry at Mach15.

A flattened 'shaped' trajectory delays the detection by ABM/early warning radars at any range. Topol-M/Shourya.

big missile will have more room to carry decoys and fuel for a hypersonic 'vehicle' to do zig zag dance in
upper atmosphere.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 29 Jul 2009 07:50

just a guess, during the recent ABM tests Prithvi was used to simulate a 2000km range missile and thats possible because they have launched it closer to the shore

so, if tomorrow TSP decides to launch an SLBM (to be acquired from China) on say Mumbai, Bangalore, Chennai or Kolkata, that missile most probably will fall in the Chinese ICBM threat category which currently we do not have an ABM defense for

that said TSP threat is always an inspiration for us to do more

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 29 Jul 2009 08:49

vasu_ray wrote:just a guess, during the recent ABM tests Prithvi was used to simulate a 2000km range missile and thats possible because they have launched it closer to the shore

Nope. It snot because its closer to shore, BUT because it is launched with zero-payload + more fuel.

so, if tomorrow TSP decides to launch an SLBM (to be acquired from China) on say Mumbai, Bangalore, Chennai or Kolkata, that missile most probably will fall in the Chinese ICBM threat category which currently we do not have an ABM defense for

that said TSP threat is always an inspiration for us to do more

TSP is a non-issue as far as nuclear weapons delivery on India is considered.
The Peaceful Islamic state knows that the piss land will cease to be pissed by human if it launches a nuclear weapon against India.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 29 Jul 2009 09:42

not to argue with gurus, however, when payload is removed or range to target is reduced, the apogee can be increased and so does the closing mach no? in that sense SLBM would have a reduced range advantage ...

TSP may not engage us directly, however it will instigate and relish a India-China conflict

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 29 Jul 2009 10:35

vasu_ray wrote:just a guess, during the recent ABM tests Prithvi was used to simulate a 2000km range missile

Its not Prithivi, my friend, its a modified PAD, a two stage missile.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 29 Jul 2009 10:39

Nihat wrote:Is the only distinct advantage an SLBM enjoys is that of anonymity wrt to launch position and prevention from first strike. Once launched , does it have the same chance of being intercepted by ABM as the surface launched ones.

1. For a country, like India in early 2000, with few ABM radars, SLBM is a porblem. As those radars are positioned to gaze in a particular direction from where threat is expected(ex. Pakistan). SLBM can circumvent that and can be fired from any direction as SSBN can prowl anywhere around the globe.

2. SLBM can reduce the reaction time, as the subs get as closer as possible to relase the missile, in times.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 29 Jul 2009 11:58

which regime is more challenging for an ABM system, reaction time or mach?