"In the BMD project we track 0.1 sq m targets". Impressive but...
Please look at this for RCS calculations with an interesting slide on RV RCS. They can go as low as 0.001 sqm from the front angle.http://aess.cs.unh.edu/Radar%202010%20P ... on%201.pdf
From your own statement above, LRTR will be hard-pressed to do so.
"From your own statement above, LRTR will be hard pressed to do so"
When did i say this? First, using the fourth square law & simplifying things, the above RCS translates to a 190 km detection range from the very front for a LRTR! This is sufficient for fire control purposes.
This assuming the radar since 2006 has had no further improvements (actually Austin's quote implies that by 2012, they were at 1000km for 0.1 Sq Mtrs) but lets leave that aside.
You have the answer on your slide itself. Page 9.
Radar A sees 0.001 Mtr Sq. Radar B, located at the side sees 0.75 Mtrsq.
So DRDO has two radars aka LRTR for the purpose - in short they are very aware of how RCS can vary from different angles & have taken that into account.
The combination of two radars is sufficient for surveillance & fire control. By enhancing the power & playing around with different bands (at the cost of further mobility/power trade offs) they may even go to one radar. But for now, they have their answers in place.
In short, lets not assume that folks who are doing this day in and night out, don't know as much as we can from a link on the internet. Fundamentally, that's the issue with a lot of critique from the other folks (not you) who seem to come up with a lot of claims.
KaranM, did I ever say anywhere that India cannot make more LRTR ? Please show me the quote or withdraw the statement.
Well that statement most certainly implied it with otherwise what's the relevance of stating 2 LRTR or even 3 or 4? If we make our own, the initial number is meaningless.
Be as it may, lets address that line of thought:
2 Swordfish were procured and one was used to tinker around with to evolve into the LRTR. Until the BMD project enters a production phase, production facilities are going to be kept to a minimum.
The number is irrelevant because India already has significant production facilities for AESA radars in that it can turn out enough radars of differing kinds. That was the exact point of stating how many AESA programs are in place.
I keep seeing this OMGZ Israel sold AESA radars to India in xyz time & then they completely ignore the Indian advances in the field since then.
BTW Swordfish is the DRDO name for the LRTR program. Claiming two Swordfish were procured and one was modified into the LRTR does not make add up.
The Swordfish aka LRTR is basically a modified GreenPine expressly developed for the purpose. Two were developed with Israeli help for the BMD program, DRDO subsequently indigenized it further, replacing the original Israeli components.
If you want to know the big difference between LSTAR and LRTR, it isn't in technology gradient but in the nature of the targets to be tracked.
LSTAR can track cruise missiles and aircraft. A cruise missile seems to have a RCS of about 0.1 sqm.
I am afraid you didn't get the point I was making. Fundamentally, there is no technological challenge or in the nature of targets tracked which is unique to the LRTR and not the LSTAR for DRDO since it began with the LRTR developing its algorithms and proceeded to move ahead to the LSTAR.
The LSTAR is actually more sophisticated from the hardware perspective as it has several improvements in its waveform generator as versus technology used for LRTR and MFCR. The recent MPRs & LLTRs are one further step ahead in terms of beam forming & the advantages that accrue. By making more sophisticated multi-function AESAs we demonstrate we can build huge semi-mobile AESAs as well.
In short, your statements looked like that the LRTR is some huge issue which we cannot improve upon or even address. That is not the case.
Lets track what happened.
The DRDO worked with Elta to design the LRTR, did the signal processing for LRTR, indigenized the hardware for the LRTR/MFCR, then went onto develop improved AESAs for multifunction requirements which hence have more technology in them then the original LRTR.
BTW, the MPR/LLTR AESAs developed for the IAF and in trials now, are per reports, more sophisticated than the AESA on the AEW&CS.
A scaled up LSTAR can do a lot of what the LRTR can do. A LSTAR can detect a 0.1 Sq Mtr target too, and much lower targets provided its signal processing is modified accordingly. The ranges will be lower because its a less powerful system but as mentioned, it can be scaled.
The significance of the LSTAR is in that DRDO has actually gained domain experience in a very complex field for AESAs - that they can now field lightweight AESAs with significant signal processing improvements (which require compact hardware/power requirements) as versus ground based AESAs where the DRDO can literally stick one in a building & call it a day. However, the services would not accept that lack of mobility hence the LRTR is the largest we can do, but its still a far sight less restrictive than making an airborne AESA.
Which is why this entire 1-2-3 LRTR stuff is meaningless.
We are now at the level we can develop various classes of radars of different kinds. We have a ways to go with compact x-band airborne radars or more non traditional bands but we will get there.
Please note that the missiles were are trying to guard against - except the M-11 - have detachable RVs.
I take note of all the claims and press reports by DRDO that they are simulating and factoring it in.
If you make the claim that the system can deal with M-11s - perfectly fine. Any other claims, I do not reject but will say that it has not been fully demonstrated.
The last test in 2014 clearly looked at a detachable payload. Clearly, the new target is purpose designed for the aim.
As regards fully demonstrated, a definite case can be made for a substantial increase in # of tests, with services involvement (AF) but per se, this is not a technology challenge or one DRDO has ignored.
But I ask this, why not try a test against an Agni-1 RV ? You are correct in the need for a floating test range, but it is something that must be considered for the future.
Again, this is good to have, but not essential given they have data on Agni RVs and would design the target accordingly.
BTW, had the Shaurya system been pushed, Agni-1 may have been phased out.
Shourya being originally derived from a naval system has extra dead weight, this was noted by the DRDO head in a direct response to an India today journalist.
Your point about the S-400 is noted but remember that the S-400 will be operating as part of Russia's AD network which is capable of tracking ballistic missiles.
India's AD network isn't there yet. Still relying on THD-1955s is an indication of the neglect the ADGES network has faced (to be fair upgrades have kept them viable).
Sanjay, as mentioned above, our LRTR based system is sufficient to deal with 2K class ballistic missiles.
Next, regarding ADGEs being ignored.
Have you seen this regarding the THD-1955?http://hal-india.com/Common/Uploads/Ten ... 0RADAR.pdf
These are not the answer because the THD-1955 & the IAF's HPRs are not meant for BMs. But the ADGES is not being ignored.
Unfortunately, we will have to invest in both separately partly because of the nature of the beast - scan angles, power requirements, mobility, precision differences etc. And before you ask as to why we are ordering HPR from abroad or putting out a tender - the answer is there are around 10-12 DRDO AESA programs are currently underway..
India has ordered around ~130 radars of different types over the past few years across MPR/LLTR/LLWR/Mountain Radar classes. Further, there are force accretions due to the different SAM networks being acquired - Akash (8 squadrons), MRSAM (9 squadrons), SpyDer etc.. plus the 3 Phalcons, some 4 aerostats (3 operational in likelihood), 2 DRDO AEW&CS .. etc
In short, I don't think the ADGES is being ignored & the CAGs dire warnings etc did have a salutary effect as did the improvements in local radar development.
Two interceptor missiles have been successfully tested: AAD and PAD. PAD was only tested twice - 2006 and 2009 - and has a speed of about Mach 5. A max altitude of 75km has been achieved. However, has the PAD been viewed as anything other than a TD ? AAD tested more times with a speed of 4.5. For the AAD, intercept altitudes above 16km have not been demonstrated. Hemant Kumar Rout made a claim (will need to look for it) that some of the tests (not the outright failures) did not result in successful intercepts.
I would take whatever Rout says with skepticism or gather further data to crosscheck his statements. His record on Akash was abysmal. He has sources on failures but they are not always accurate. PAD was in my view & I can only speak for myself, an attempt to rapidly qualify a capability in case India needed it, and GOI gave political sanction for immediate development. The AAD envelope at 30km test can most certainly be done, its more a function of cost at this point & with services employment, specific points can be used as representative.
In 2012, VK Saraswat made the statement that
"The DRDO chief said the Indian missile defence system is comparable with the U.S. Patriot 3 system, which was successfully used during the 1990 Gulf War against Iraq."http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 390404.ece
That is an interesting claim. Completely plausible but at odds with capability vs 2000km range missiles as the very short range of the PAC-3 would render it less than effective at those targets.
And there are comments the Akash is a Patriot too.
IMHO VKS is referring to the Patriots allure as being a sophisticated high end system which India has now equaled in that the endoatmospheric capability is equivalent. And PAC3 was not really used in the Gulf War either. And which PAC3 variant matters and may not even be germane overall, given the huge differences in architecture between the systems.
In short, not that useful as versus the detailed statements made in a more comprehensive fashion.
Interesting to note that in neither the case of the AAD or the PAD, was the slant range revealed (happy to be corrected on this).
Ashwin aka Prahar is derived from the AAD. It has achieved 150km in its ballistic configuration.
WRT Austin's find - all good. However, PDV was not completely successful on its first try and at this stage cannot be counted on as part of Phase 1 (nobody is thinking that it is I hasten to add).
I hope they are thinking of it! Why deploy the PAD when a better alternative is now available and needs some further trials.
A liquid fueled PAD was always a bugbear meant for quick induction. We can do better.
At any rate before any Phase-1 induction is done, there have to be user trials, and a comprehensive system of test fires.
Which means its a GOI decision at this point on how to proceed.