Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

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.
Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1225
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Sanjay » 10 Nov 2015 01:13

Ramana, not entirely true.

The radar network has to be organized appropriately.

Radar numbers are a problem for India - even AD radars are in short supply. Being able to make LRTR is one thing, actually doing it is another and that is where things are not moving.

Funding for BMD is still at experimental and not geared up towards even phase-1 deployment.

I have to say - and it would actually be why KaranM may be angry with me - that I am involved in some research on the subject for a new book and let's just say have a problem naming sources (waiting for the chastising).

Just be careful with Saraswat's claims. He didn't lie but it wasn't exactly accurate either.

There are some very serious hurdles being faced and a shortage of funding for tests. The PDV setback and the AAD failure this year have not yet been resolved satisfactorily.

The IAF is not satisfied as the end-user with progress to date. AAD was deemed potentially viable for limited deployment but the last failure set that back.

AD-1 and AD-2 and PDV are the great hopes. However, seekers are continuing to be a problem.

Agni-1 is being considered as a potential target missile.

Again, can't yet share sources but I will as soon as I can.

There is a school of thought which suggests that AAD should be deployed as phase-1 as an experimental system while work is done on everything else.

As you no doubt know, the Israelis have made a proposal to the IAF to integrate the LRTR with the S-400 (hence the reason for the interest in the S-400).

Akash and the MRSAM theoretically have ABM capability but I am advised that some changes to the algorithms need to be done.

Take it for what it is worth right now.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ldev » 10 Nov 2015 09:11

Sanjay wrote:As you no doubt know, the Israelis have made a proposal to the IAF to integrate the LRTR with the S-400 (hence the reason for the interest in the S-400).

Akash and the MRSAM theoretically have ABM capability but I am advised that some changes to the algorithms need to be done.



Thank you for this information. Integrating the LRTR with the S400 makes great sense (after all Israel integrated the Phalcon with the IL76 so I think that doubts about integrating individual components of the S400 system with other assets are misplaced!!). I just hope (and I know I have harped on this in my last posts), that the LRTR and S400 are also integrated with IR launch detection satellite capability for ascent (boost + early midcourse) intercepts. Otherwise when Pakistan does get MIRVed capability, not if, but when the Chinese give them that technology, then a terminal area defence even with the the LRTR+S400 combination will be overwhelmed.

Good news about the the potential that Akash and MRSAM have, eventually the missiles must be homegrown. Only then will they will be available in large numbers, just like the LCA.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 10 Nov 2015 09:43

Sanjay wrote:Ramana, not entirely true.

The radar network has to be organized appropriately.

Radar numbers are a problem for India - even AD radars are in short supply.


Sanjay, if I may use that hoary phrase, Rome wasn't built in a day.

AD radars may be in short supply in some places because there is a lead time for production. If 120-130 radars are on order, they won't be delivered overnight.

But the bigger thing is that we are on the way to recapitalizing our entire network.

Being able to make LRTR is one thing, actually doing it is another and that is where things are not moving. Funding for BMD is still at experimental and not geared up towards even phase-1 deployment.


As regards LRTR building, there is evidence already that we have done a bit to advance the program. Regarding funding, that's a GOI prerogative & DRDO has been underfunded over the past decade and even conventional big ticket imports languished. I don't see why that cannot be rectified by the GOI currently.

I have to say - and it would actually be why KaranM may be angry with me - that I am involved in some research on the subject for a new book and let's just say have a problem naming sources (waiting for the chastising).


Sanjay, but I think you are reading too much into things. I am not "angry" with you, as I have the deepest respect for your work in years past & what you've done. However, I merely go by facts as you may appreciate.

If you were to detail what you surmised from any data & it was up for debate, then its a good thing. However, some of the statements made were contradicted by credible information. If you are looking for information, do ask.

All I can request is, that you rely on credible sources, rather than buffoons like Joshi & Sengupta, both of whom couldn't find the broad side of a barn door if it was placed in front of them. I don't use the above term lightly but there is a lot to be said for people like them (who, unlike you) routinely run down Indian national institutions for fame & notoriety.

And with your experience, you can find somebody local with actual domain knowledge and run issues by them as versus "hint, hint, nudge, nudge" types whom unfortunately we have too many in the "circuit".

By the by, in the entire indian think tank circuit, there are only 1-2 people with actual domain knowledge of the topics, which is why so many claims made are so unreliable & I understand its hard, but you have time on your side.

Just be careful with Saraswat's claims. He didn't lie but it wasn't exactly accurate either.


Saraswat, to my knowledge, based on my own reading & crosschecking each thing he said, was very accurate in his detail oriented interviews with the right audience who asked him broad questions & he replied in detail. I would in fact state he went overboard with offering information (the BMD program should have been completely black and classified). He did so because of the media campaign against his org backed by some vested interests who were backed by some figures in the prior establishment & he was fed up of the negative media coverage implying DRDO was not able to deliver high tech armaments.

There are some very serious hurdles being faced and a shortage of funding for tests. The PDV setback and the AAD failure this year have not yet been resolved satisfactorily.


Funding has long been a problem for DRDO, so again this is a political issue.

The IAF is not satisfied as the end-user with progress to date. AAD was deemed potentially viable for limited deployment but the last failure set that back.


AAD by itself is not the answer, so I very much doubt the IAF would even consider deploying the AAD in a limited fashion or otherwise. DRDO notes the combination of PAD/PDV and AADs will result in leak proof coverage. Why deploy half the capability for which it is not sufficient?

This is not a minor thing, as you well know. A 99.x% Pk or thereabouts is not a good to have but a must have with the combined PDV/AAD deployment.

As regards IAF satisfaction, or otherwise - IAF won't be satisfied till the overall program is given to them for extensive evaluation & deployment. Which again means funding, which again means GOI decision on making this an operational system.

There is also the trust factor. We all know the legacy of programs such as the Tejas, cancellations like the Trishul. OTOH, there are the Akash & hopefully the Brahmos.. so trust will come.

AD-1 and AD-2 and PDV are the great hopes. However, seekers are continuing to be a problem.

Agni-1 is being considered as a potential target missile.

Again, can't yet share sources but I will as soon as I can.

There is a school of thought which suggests that AAD should be deployed as phase-1 as an experimental system while work is done on everything else.

As you no doubt know, the Israelis have made a proposal to the IAF to integrate the LRTR with the S-400 (hence the reason for the interest in the S-400).

Akash and the MRSAM theoretically have ABM capability but I am advised that some changes to the algorithms need to be done.

Take it for what it is worth right now.


For the above I have no comments because at this point its all conjecture to be honest & I have seen data to contradict some of the above assertions by whichever source/s is/are saying these.

BTW Akash & MRSAM are not near a proper ABM capability, at best they can serve for very short range/SRBM class capability interdiction but their capabilities are not suitable for the kind of missiles the BMD program is set up for.
Last edited by Karan M on 10 Nov 2015 11:52, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 10 Nov 2015 09:54

Sanjay wrote:As you no doubt know, the Israelis have made a proposal to the IAF to integrate the LRTR with the S-400 (hence the reason for the interest in the S-400).


In fact, unfortunately, it does seem these sources on the ABM program relate to shri Sengupta or similar ones as the statements happen to coincide exactly with what he says. Have a lot of respect for Sanjay, lets be clear on that.

However, Sengupta has a habit of misleading well intentioned folks & his claims tend to be picked up by even reputed folks given the paucity of information on Indian defence in such areas, and then such misleading claims become amplified with different people saying the same thing all actually flowing from the same chap who floated that theory in the first place and who will merrily move onto other claims.

http://trishul-trident.blogspot.in/2015 ... ement.html

Consider:

AD-1 and AD-2 and PDV are the great hopes. However, seekers are continuing to be a problem.


Sengupta wrote: The main problem has been the DRDO’s inability to develop hypersonic interceptor missiles and their internally-mounted Ka-band active phased-array radars for terminal guidance. Only homegrown X-band and Ku-band radar seekers have been designed and tested without demonstrable success.


Sengupta at his kiteflying again. The AAD & PDV have been successfully trialed with Russian & local seekers. And why are only the seekers an issue for AD-1/AD-2? And DRDO could not explore any other methods like SAGG or even work with partners for these seekers. No other challenges or even considerations possible, including the fact that Phase-1 development may be extended with PDV availability and that has to be validated first before coming out with AD-1, AD-2.

Sanjay wrote:As you no doubt know, the Israelis have made a proposal to the IAF to integrate the LRTR with the S-400 (hence the reason for the interest in the S-400).


Sengupta wrote: And that is precisely the reason why, two years ago, when a combined team from IAI and Russia’s JSC Almaz-Antey MSDB made an unsolicited presentation to the IAF on an improved version of the S-400 ‘Triumph’ LR-SAM (a generation ahead of what has been sold to China) that would make use of IAI’s latest EL/M-2090U UHF-band active phased-array LRTR, the IAF began making hectic plans for procuring such a system for TMD within the foreseeable future.


LOL - the LRTR is a specific program in L Band derived from the Green Pine. What Sengupta did is take the latest UHF Ultra offered by Israel, named it a generic LRTR & then stated that it is combined with the S-400.

Very easy, no doubt. This when India struggles to integrate R-73Es from non Russian aircraft, Israeli jammers on Russian aircraft (because neither side will cooperate with the other..)..

Almaz Antey would make a combined pitch with Israel. This when empty Hhalcons are flown to Israel, Russia & Israel have to jump through hoops to even get Israeli UAVs to Russia, both would want to share their tech details with each other when both compete in the same market (SAM systems) & of course, poor Russia has no long range radar development capability which it wouldn't seek to tie into such a proposal. Cough, cough.

The most revolutionary element of the 77N6-N and the 77N6-NI hypersonic LR-SAMs will be their on-board nose-mounted, Ka-band millimeter-wave active phased-array radar seekers and their real-time discrimination algorithms required for fire-control and guidance of hit-to-kill interceptors. To this end, the radar seekers have been designed with a rigid mount and narrow beam to provide precise angle metric accuracy. The combination of metric accuracy, wide bandwidth, and high Doppler-resolution capabilities makes them excellent sensors for real-time discrimination, for they can provide extremely accurate identification-processing estimates of motion differences caused by mass imbalances on real and threat-like targets.


Absolute cock & bull based on brochure bashing of Agat working on phased array seekers for its AAMs & taking that to Almaz Antey's missiles & building them into a new story. Here, the Russians are still inducting the S-400, having a tough time even developing new systems for the FGFA and magically, new missiles will emerge for the S-400, were tested in secret with new seekers (with no orders mind) and are now ready for us.

The 300-tonne EL/M-2090U ULTRA C-22 LRTR features an array of 22 UHF-band transmit-receive modules (TRM) in a single clustered unit that has been designed so that modules can be easily swapped. Using UHF, rather than the higher frequency bands, has particular application at long ranges since it suffers from less signal loss in the atmosphere. A discriminating innovation of the ELM-2090U is the digitisation of the signals at the TRM-level, which allows more flexibility in beam-forming and shaping.


LOL, so India would just buy out the ULTRA as versus customizing it for its requirements, which would mean the exact LRTR program all over again & which was the exact aim stated by Saraswat in his own interviews. No, instead Israel proposed this, DRDO didn't think of this, IAF which has been unable to even integrate the EL/L-8222 on its Su-30 MKis would jump at this "easy integration" and drive a program for which it lacks the personnel or resources.

The whole story in Sengupta's writeup is complete hyperbole, mixed and matched from different news reports, his own fervent imagination combined with his usual disdain for anyone local (everything has to be imported because nothing local works).

BTW, India uses the LRTR for firecontrol. This data goes into the battle management system. India then developed specific datalinks (TUT) to interface the purpose designed missiles with the targets.

In Sengupta world, drop an Israeli radar into the S-400 complex, and it automatically gets the right information to the Russian battle management center. Magically, the data is of the right place with the right precision for the S-400 complex. The UHF Ultra BTW is a surveillance radar not a fire control unit like the LRTR (hence the emphasis on the TR ie tracking radar in the LRTR designation) but Sengupta merrily uses the moniker since the Israeli press release mentions tracking capability but he ignores the fact that its mentioned as being directed for surveillance throughout and there is no evidence that it will at extreme long ranges, provide the precision required for guiding or supplanting the limited ranges of a completely different SAM complex.

What a mess.

In short, he probably read/listened to one of Saraswats interviews talking of long range UHF radars and that being a DRDO focus area. Completely ignored the possibility that DRDO may have actually been working on it with the Israelis (since after all DRDO is Indian, and Indians can't do anything :lol: ), came across the buzz on this forum (which Sengupta tracks very closely :lol: ) about the S-400 and news reports, and then happily tied the two together in a very happy marriage, leaving out the only ones in India who actually know such things (the DRDO & production units, since he doesn't like them or understand what they do)... makes for a nice Bollywood wedding. :lol:

----

Even discussing the rubbish Sengupta writes is a waste of time. In the world that he inhabits, the Israelis are building a Death Star, which will be mixed and matched with Russian Missiles, and India is engaged in some secret program to get alien technology. Don't believe me? Search for aliens in Sengupta's articles and their comment sections. :lol:

Sengupta uvach wrote:To GESSLER: There are no confirmed answers to your questions as yet. Therefore, there are only theories & speculations at this stage. Talking of communicable diseases, conjunctivitis is actually a man-made virus & was reportedly a biological weapon created by China. In the late 1970s, there was an accident in a bio-weapon lab in southern China as a result of which this virus got released & it apparently lurks within certain layers of the atmosphere & therefore during only a particular timeframe every year it affects human beings in certain portions of the globe.


Sengupta wrote:So far about 57 different types of alien species or their cloned humanoid workers have reportedly been documented. Bob Lazar’s claims of electro-gravitics & Element 115 have long been proven to be true by various US-based scientists & engineers since the late 1980s. If indeed Charles Darwin’s theory on the evolution of species was true, then evolution would have been uniform universally & there would have been no monkeys or chimps since all of them would have evolved to human beings in the same time-frame. However, as we know, this did not happen & what happened instead was selective evolution within a short span of time that led to the emergence of Homo Erectus & Homo Sapiens. 4) UFOs can be hoaxes, but flying-disks or other intelligently piloted vessels seen on Earth & also in deep-space, plus all the debris associated with crashed flying-discs & their advanced forms of fabrication & usage (discovered in the early 1940s itself) can hardly be hoaxes.


Sengupta wrote:To BUDDHA: A far better option than the book is to go to Youtube & watch all five seasons of the HISTORY CHANNEL series called ANCIENT ALIENS.


.. and many many more.
Last edited by Karan M on 10 Nov 2015 12:39, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 10 Nov 2015 12:19

ldev wrote:after all Israel integrated the Phalcon with the IL76 so I think that doubts about integrating individual components of the S400 system with other assets are misplaced.


I hope you do realize that Israel puts in electronics into an empty shell more or less (the Il76/78) sent to them by Russia? And this is of an order of magnitude different from mixing and matching surveillance radars from one source & attempting to tie them into firecontrol systems for another, and then assuming they will be ready overnight. The Navy took years to develop the capability to select surveillance radars from non Russian sources, feed the data into fire control suites via a CMS and then have that SAM system operate independently via its own FCRs which in many cases is of sufficient range itself. In this case, we are speaking of taking an Israeli UHF Surveillance Radar and having it compensate for the lack of long range detection in the base S-400 & the Israelis would have to handoff proprietary data to the Russians and vice versa for getting the whole thing done, with the battle management being done in the S-400.

This, when we have been unable to even get the Russians and Israelis to share base information to get the EL/L-8222 on the Su-30 MKI to work with the Bars and other electronics on the aircraft, and have had to move to the SAP-518 instead, as confirmed by HAL itself, which too gave up. Even the avionics on the Su-30 of Israeli origin had a lot of Indian hand holding & were done when Russia was truly desperate for orders.

Meanwhile, the Russians have their own Vityaz which competes head to head with the Barak-8, derived from missiles used on the S-400, and both sides (especially the Israelis) would love to get their hands on any S-400 data both for commercial considerations and the fact that Iran may receive the S-300 (and perhaps even Syria).

In short, hardly as easy as made out here wherein we can just mix and match. One of the primary reasons for the Rafale and similar single source deals is because mix-n-match takes so much time to operationalize.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 10 Nov 2015 12:36

Austin wrote:
Karan M wrote:Austin, that's a great find. Confirms PDV has both RF & IR seekers too.


Yes that was always the case , RF for seeker head and IR for Lateral thruster movement.


I think in the PDV, the design changed.
http://iadnews.in/wp-content/uploads/20 ... AD_PDV.jpg

Cant see any optical windows on the side. And the PR mentions.
http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/dpi ... se/pdv.pdf
Once Missile crossed atmosphere, the Heat Shield ejected and
the IR Seeker dome opened to look at the Target
location as designated by the Mission Computer. Wi
th the help of Inertial Guidance and IR Seeker
the Missile moved for interception

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Austin » 10 Nov 2015 12:45

^^ In that case the guidance is IR , likely IIR and not using RF like PAD

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 10 Nov 2015 12:53

On the seeker front BTW, a derivative of the BMD seeker is now being used for Astra. So much for the design being unsuccessful.
http://www.ibnlive.com/blogs/india/saur ... 48587.html

2014, Satheesh Reddy.
Continuing on the RF seeker front, RCI is also developing a Ku-band seeker for anti-aircraft applications. This is a scaled down version of an existing active radar seeker developed by us and is a requirement for the Astra. System qualification is expected to commenceearly next year.

And why is Prasun harping on AESA seekers? :lol:
You see, if you do a google search on seekers and DRDO, this is one of the first results that props up. From 2007.
http://sensorsresearchsociety.org/Senso ... /IT_21.pdf

This goes into the advantages of AESA over Conventional seekers, discusses simulation results, ends with a note that AESA is much better than conventional seekers in terms of response time, beam steering etc.

Ergo, in Sengupta world, AESA is required, DRDO's current seekers don't work since RCI says AESA>Conventional seekers (never mind the above report from Sep 2014 & that RCI would merrily develop a derivative of a non working seeker) and since DRDO can't do anything (its Indian!), some Russian or Israeli AESA seeker is the answer & it must be the only thing holding up the AD-1, AD-2. No other reason.
Last edited by Karan M on 10 Nov 2015 12:57, edited 2 times in total.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 10 Nov 2015 12:55

Austin wrote:^^ In that case the guidance is IR , likely IIR and not using RF like PAD


Austin, the sources I linked to previously clearly mention (they are categorical) that the PDV is multi sensor (ie RF and IIR). However, since the RCI/DRDL team was very confident about their RF seeker performance (after all, the previous tests all worked) but the IIR was new, they used this test to qualify the IIR seeker. This too was mentioned as an aside in another news report, but I need to dig it up.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Austin » 10 Nov 2015 15:49

Karan M wrote:
Austin wrote:^^ In that case the guidance is IR , likely IIR and not using RF like PAD


Austin, the sources I linked to previously clearly mention (they are categorical) that the PDV is multi sensor (ie RF and IIR). However, since the RCI/DRDL team was very confident about their RF seeker performance (after all, the previous tests all worked) but the IIR was new, they used this test to qualify the IIR seeker. This too was mentioned as an aside in another news report, but I need to dig it up.


From Saurav http://www.ibnlive.com/blogs/india/saur ... 48578.html

This puts the PDV in a different category in terms of its propulsion system, navigation set-up and homing seeker capability. Instead of sporting a radio frequency (RF) seeker like the PAD, the PDV uses a new IIR seeker developed by DRDO's Research Centre Imarat (RCI) that has interestingly drawn on its work over the years with the Nag seeker which has an array size of 128 x 128 pixels.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 10 Nov 2015 16:20

And then there is this.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/12/p ... enemy.html

The brand-new PDV will intercept the incoming target at a 110-150 km altitude, far higher than the 50 km-high interceptions the exo-atmospheric Prithvi Air Defence interceptor has been doing so far. The PDV will carry a new Indian electro-optic seeker, to work in tandem with the radio frequency seeker the PAD has traditionally carried.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Austin » 10 Nov 2015 16:37

The dual seeker does not make sense unless the RF is just there for ranging purpose and the GBR generally guides the interceptor very close to an intercept box , Saurav is more reliable on technical issue.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60358
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Singha » 10 Nov 2015 16:54

imo IIR seeker might be more accurate than a RF seeker into getting the KV into the closest kill box?

khan as the choice of any tech it wants to put but the redoubtable raytheon EKV carries a large EO telescope type sensor with which it claims pinpoint precision

Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60358
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Singha » 10 Nov 2015 16:55

its fairly small kv

Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60358
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Singha » 10 Nov 2015 16:56

it is hit to kill so needs to be pinpoint...raytheon has world class radar tech as the maker of amraam and patriot AAM but chose this

Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60358
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Singha » 10 Nov 2015 16:58

IIR also needs less power than than RF and is purely passive, which means a RWR on the incoming missile cannot sense its being hunted and start evasive waverider or corkscrew manouvers or release decoys. it will work well looking up against the cold space background and seeking heat sources.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Austin » 10 Nov 2015 17:04

PDV uses Warhead for Kill plus direct hit with IIR guidance like Israel Arrow-2 , it does not use the KKV concept.

Warhead allows you to kill the BM even inside the atmosphere where KKV dont work or even at lower altitudes , the down side is the interceptor becomes bulky as they have to account for weight of warhead which increases its throw up weight

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5890
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby brar_w » 10 Nov 2015 17:51

Austin, the THAAD does and has demonstrated Endoatmospheric intercepts of Ballistic Missiles without a warhead..

The test involved the intercept of a short-range unitary target in the endoatmosphere (inside the earth's atmosphere). The target, representing a short-range ballistic missile threat, was launched from an at-sea mobile launch platform located in the Pacific Ocean west of Hawaii. Upon acquiring and tracking the target, the THAAD system developed a fire control solution and launched an interceptor missile, which acquired and successfully intercepted the target missile. The intercept occurred at the lowest altitude to date for the THAAD interceptor missile, which has the capability to engage targets both inside and outside the earth's atmosphere.


More from developmental testing (No intercept)

Air Force Lieutenant General Henry “Trey” Obering, Missile Defense Agency director, announced the successful completion of a flight test today of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) element of the Ballistic Missile Defense system at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.
The test involved the launch of a THAAD interceptor missile, which is designed to intercept and destroy short to intermediate range ballistic missiles during their terminal phase of flight. The THAAD interceptor has the capability to intercept a ballistic missile inside the earth’s atmosphere (endoatmospheric) or just outside the atmosphere (exoatmospheric). Today’s test did not include a target missile, so no intercept was planned. The primary objectives for the test included the evaluation of high endo-atmospheric flight environment effects on the THAAD Block 2004 interceptor design; demonstration of proper interceptor launch from its ground transportable storage canister, validation of booster, kill vehicle and shroud separation dynamics; and operation of the interceptor’s divert and attitude control system consisting of small rocket motors to maneuver the kill vehicle to place it in the path of a target missile for a “hit to kill” intercept using only the force of the direct collision to destroy the hostile missile. Equipment on the test range also
Last edited by brar_w on 10 Nov 2015 18:53, edited 1 time in total.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby rohitvats » 10 Nov 2015 18:45

Karan M wrote:<SNIP>

The most revolutionary element of the 77N6-N and the 77N6-NI hypersonic LR-SAMs will be their on-board nose-mounted, Ka-band millimeter-wave active phased-array radar seekers and their real-time discrimination algorithms required for fire-control and guidance of hit-to-kill interceptors. To this end, the radar seekers have been designed with a rigid mount and narrow beam to provide precise angle metric accuracy. The combination of metric accuracy, wide bandwidth, and high Doppler-resolution capabilities makes them excellent sensors for real-time discrimination, for they can provide extremely accurate identification-processing estimates of motion differences caused by mass imbalances on real and threat-like targets.


<SNIP>


All right Karan, you asked for it...don't blame me now!!!

Sample of Shri Sengupta's 'depth' of knowledge :mrgreen:

Please refer to page 274 of document linked here:

https://www.ll.mit.edu/publications/journal/pdf/vol12_no2/12_2widebandradar.pdf

To this end, the radar was designed with a rigid mount and narrow beam to provide precise angle metric accuracy (≤50 µradians). Several contractors assisted the Laboratory in the development of the MMW radar, among them researchers at the University of Massachusetts, RCA (now Lockheed Martin), and Raytheon. The combination of metric accuracy, wide bandwidth, and high Doppler-resolution capabilities makes MMW an excellent sensor for a real-time discrimination test bed. It provides extremely accurate estimates of motion differences caused by mass imbalances on real and threat-like targets and other feature-identification processing


I'm sure there are other such gems in his latest uvacha but this should be enough for now!

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Austin » 10 Nov 2015 19:18

brar_w wrote:
The test involved the intercept of a short-range unitary target in the endoatmosphere (inside the earth's atmosphere). The target, representing a short-range ballistic missile threat, was launched from an at-sea mobile launch platform located in the Pacific Ocean west of Hawaii. Upon acquiring and tracking the target, the THAAD system developed a fire control solution and launched an interceptor missile, which acquired and successfully intercepted the target missile. The intercept occurred at the lowest altitude to date for the THAAD interceptor missile, which has the capability to engage targets both inside and outside the earth's atmosphere.


More from developmental testing (No intercept)

Air Force Lieutenant General Henry “Trey” Obering, Missile Defense Agency director, announced the successful completion of a flight test today of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) element of the Ballistic Missile Defense system at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.
The test involved the launch of a THAAD interceptor missile, which is designed to intercept and destroy short to intermediate range ballistic missiles during their terminal phase of flight. The THAAD interceptor has the capability to intercept a ballistic missile inside the earth’s atmosphere (endoatmospheric) or just outside the atmosphere (exoatmospheric). Today’s test did not include a target missile, so no intercept was planned. The primary objectives for the test included the evaluation of high endo-atmospheric flight environment effects on the THAAD Block 2004 interceptor design; demonstration of proper interceptor launch from its ground transportable storage canister, validation of booster, kill vehicle and shroud separation dynamics; and operation of the interceptor’s divert and attitude control system consisting of small rocket motors to maneuver the kill vehicle to place it in the path of a target missile for a “hit to kill” intercept using only the force of the direct collision to destroy the hostile missile. Equipment on the test range also


THAAD minimum altitude of interception is 40 km to max at 150 km , below that altitude it cant intercept for system like PDV with warhead they can intercept at lower altitude in the atmosphere , they can afford a near miss too

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 10 Nov 2015 19:54

Rohit, why, why am I NOT surprised. I should have remembered Sengupta's tendency to copy impressive sounding stuff from other brochures and what not.! :lol: :lol:

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 10 Nov 2015 19:56

Austin wrote:The dual seeker does not make sense unless the RF is just there for ranging purpose and the GBR generally guides the interceptor very close to an intercept box , Saurav is more reliable on technical issue.


Austin, if there is a dual seeker my understanding is that it is there for decoy discrimination (IIR is useful in the presence of decoys, i.e. chaff, jamming) and also with the added advantage of precision (effective ranging which can be sensor fused with the IIR feed, if need be).
Last edited by Karan M on 10 Nov 2015 19:59, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 10 Nov 2015 19:59

ramana wrote:Sanjay, RVs are tracked sideways everywhere. Not frontal.


The DRDO data clearly proves you correct. They have two LRTRs both offset to get maximal sideways coverage & even if one BM is directly targeted towards an ABM site, the other site is located optimally.

Anyway folks keep the discussion going.

KaranM, Do we want a ABM thread to capture the discussion?


IIRC we did have an ABM thread and we could move the discussion there.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 10 Nov 2015 20:12

Singha wrote:it is hit to kill so needs to be pinpoint...raytheon has world class radar tech as the maker of amraam and patriot AAM but chose this

http://www.raytheon.com/media/kill-vehi ... iagram.jpg


Singha, our design can hit to kill but also has EFPs to do the job. In short, adds volume and weight to the missile but is more effective than relying on HTK alone.

From the DRDO site:
AAD warhead test
http://postimg.org/image/lmgk7nowv/9f0b72d3/

PDV warhead test
http://postimg.org/image/ka4k2ce13/a33aff7e/

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5890
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby brar_w » 10 Nov 2015 20:12

Austin wrote:
THAAD minimum altitude of interception is 40 km to max at 150 km , below that altitude it cant intercept for system like PDV with warhead they can intercept at lower altitude in the atmosphere , they can afford a near miss too


I Know but it can still intercept well within the atmosphere.. was the point ;). Below that altitude the PAC-3 MSE and its future IAMDS iterations kick in..

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Austin » 10 Nov 2015 21:40

brar_w wrote:I Know but it can still intercept well within the atmosphere.. was the point ;). Below that altitude the PAC-3 MSE and its future IAMDS iterations kick in..


The point i was making is system like PAD/PDV can intercept much lower altitude that inspite of fact of AAD takes care of lower tier , the number of intercept shot available to such system are much higher or trade off range and hence ability to defend much larger area , the pk is also higher as large warhead afford some miss distance

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5890
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby brar_w » 10 Nov 2015 21:52

Austin wrote:
brar_w wrote:I Know but it can still intercept well within the atmosphere.. was the point ;). Below that altitude the PAC-3 MSE and its future IAMDS iterations kick in..


The point i was making is system like PAD/PDV can intercept much lower altitude that inspite of fact of AAD takes care of lower tier , the number of intercept shot available to such system are much higher or trade off range and hence ability to defend much larger area , the pk is also higher as large warhead afford some miss distance



Agreed on most points but a missile defense system layer is designed around an optimized specification for each component of the layer. There are huge cost implications to merge THAAD's lower envelope with that of either the MSE or the standard PAC-3. Similarly there are cost implications of adding to the upper envelope beyond 150Km. From what I recall the original THAAD design was to cover the MSE area (pre MSE) as its minimum but it was determined that a 25/30-150Km intercept altitude envelope would impose too much cost on the program and it was much better to bring up the MSE then to strain the THAAD which is essentially a high altitude system for terminal defense since in the absence of a land launched SM (this is pre AEGIS ashore) there was no other high altitude weapon in sight. The way they plan on moving ahead is ESSM Blk II/AMRAAM-ER for sub 13-15 Km altitude intercepts, PAC-3 and PAC-3MSE for altitudes all the way up to 35 or so Km and THAAD for 40-150km altitude intercepts. THAAD ER will extend the THAAD envelop out through a dual pulse motor and also provide greater capability against some hard maneuvering hypersonic RV's. As far as PK is concerned I don't think they are bothered by this system being H2K. Since an operationally representative version of THAAD was nailed down, it is yet to fail an intercept (13 of 13 since July of 2006).
Last edited by brar_w on 11 Nov 2015 00:19, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 10 Nov 2015 21:55

>>THAAD ER will extend the THAAD envelop out through a dual pulse motor and also provide greater capability against some hard maneuvering hypersonic RV's.

Whats the plan against these in particular? Depending on the GB radar system for constant fixes and using onboard seeker for constant update?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5890
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby brar_w » 10 Nov 2015 22:01

Karan its an internal study at the moment and more information would be available Around Feb. and March when the Pentagon submits its 2017 budget request. If the MDA plans on starting a program in 18 we will have to wait even further. Right now they are concentrating on the GMD which is the only component of the system that is not performing extremely well and requires restructuring. Lockheed conducted an internal AOA and project analysis for an ER and hasn't shared it publicly since they paid for the analysis themselves. I would think they'd stick with the current THAAD targeting approach and add a dual pulse motor to get a larger envelope. If the requirements are created that look to considerably enhance the envelope of the THAAD then it would have to be a competitive program and require a lot more funding and time to develop. Raytheon would then want to compete with a version of the SM6.

Today’s Thaad booster is 14.5 in. in diameter, and features a single-stage design. Static fire trials for a prototype of a 21-in. first stage, as well as a second, “kick-stage,” were conducted by propulsion subcontractor Aerojet in 2006, Tom McGrath, who was a Lockheed Martin vice president during that time, told Aviation Week in 2009.

Funding for this early work on both stages came from Lockheed Martin’s international R&D accounts from 2006-08, he said in the interview.

The increased diameter for the first stage is designed to expand the interceptor’s range. The second stage or “kick-stage,” would then close the distance to the target and provide improved velocity at burnout, Trotsky told reporters during a Jan. 7 media teleconference. Higher velocity at burnout allows for improved divert capability, or more lateral movement during an engagement, which is needed for maneuverable targets.

“We continue to work on the booster stack and some of the system engineering that has to be done to [finalize] the design. I think what you will see from MDA is an acceleration of some of that engineering work in the next few years, because of the kinds of threats we are seeing being developed by some of our adversaries.”

Thaad-ER’s larger booster design does not require changes to the Thaad kill vehicle. But the ground-based launcher design would have to be modified. Five of the 21-in. interceptors would fit into the launcher that now carries eight of the 14.5-in. boosters today.


http://aviationweek.com/defense/thaad-er-search-mission

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 10 Nov 2015 22:13

Thanks Brar. Very interesting and helps to put some of DRDO's work in perspective.

The increased diameter for the first stage is designed to expand the interceptor’s range. The second stage or “kick-stage,” would then close the distance to the target and provide improved velocity at burnout, Trotsky told reporters during a Jan. 7 media teleconference. Higher velocity at burnout allows for improved divert capability, or more lateral movement during an engagement, which is needed for maneuverable targets.


http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/12/p ... enemy.html

The PDV will be a solid-fuel missile, to be powered by a sophisticated new “pulse motor”. This will provide surges of propulsion during the missile’s later stage, increasing its manoeuvrability when very close to the target.


..

wheels within wheels. As I said before, (not to you), people tend to underestimate the domain experience of some of the folks working on programs like these and the efforts they undertake.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Austin » 11 Nov 2015 11:29

New Dual Band Array Radar from IAI , Terra System

https://youtu.be/9kK9fh8235E

Israel Aerospace Industries Unveils Dual-Band Radar System

This is OT for this thread - JE Menon

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 11 Nov 2015 12:02

LOL, next Sengupta article - "secret offer to India of dual band system, only 2 Indian LRTRs possible". :lol:

As I mentioned the UHF radar does NOT have high grade precision tracking and hence the S-Band Terra which the video and article clearly mentions with the S-Band for tracking.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6075
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby disha » 12 Nov 2015 05:48

Thanks Mods!!

----
I was thinking about the capabilities of Triumph and from my rough calculations, 4 batteries should do it. So event hough we are led to believe that Triumph is baki specific (from the media)., it appears that triumph is China specific., in bonus we are kicking the baki dog for good.

----

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 12 Nov 2015 13:05

53T6 missile of A-135 System , has top speed of Mach 10-11 and average speed of Mach 8.7



Image

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Karan M » 12 Nov 2015 17:44

Been reading up (on weekend when i had some time) on the S-400 radar complex. Whats interesting is that what we have in trials - Arudhra MPR and Ashwini LLTR can definitely serve as the basis for something similar. The range, RCS, capabilities are similar, of course further customization would be required for firecontrol & target acquisition as vs standard surveillance, but as Rajendra shows we can do it. Where Russians excel is in automation, and prime movers. The capabilities in latter (high grade trucks) basically means they care two hoots for weight additions due to automation, hydraulics scaled up systems. We really need DRDO to sponsor TATA/Ashok Leyland to develop our indigenous BAZ type designs.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3315
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby hnair » 12 Nov 2015 18:37

53T6 looks very much like Sprint and both are RV shaped and seemed to have tough ablative skins. Must be the concept of "hit an RV with another RV", due to the skin heating up at lower atmos.

btw, those Sprint missile videos, are they speeded up? IIRC, Arun_S mentioned that it might be speeded up a bit. If not, very impressive acceleration.

The RVs landing on the atoll are kind of cool


Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Karan M » 12 Nov 2015 19:25

They dont seem to be designed for intercepting manouvering targets though.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Karan M » 13 Nov 2015 10:57

tata group is proposing SMARTL for IAF HPR and IN requirements
https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/defau ... ewc_hr.pdf

It could be a combination BMD + HPR system - even though IAF reqs dont call for BMD

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2921
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Kanson » 13 Nov 2015 16:20

Karan M wrote:
Singha wrote:it is hit to kill so needs to be pinpoint...raytheon has world class radar tech as the maker of amraam and patriot AAM but chose this

http://www.raytheon.com/media/kill-vehi ... iagram.jpg


Singha, our design can hit to kill but also has EFPs to do the job. In short, adds volume and weight to the missile but is more effective than relying on HTK alone.

From the DRDO site:
AAD warhead test
http://postimg.org/image/lmgk7nowv/9f0b72d3/

PDV warhead test
http://postimg.org/image/ka4k2ce13/a33aff7e/


Directional warheads also bear the moniker Hit-to-Kill, as it also destroys target by hitting (through projectiles). Russians do, as well as we(aka drdo ) applies that moniker for directional warhead.

LRTR's accuracy was some 4-5 meters during initial test of PAD. That is, it can take PAD as close as ~4 meters to the incoming Ballistic missile. Upon successfully achieving the target, the team involved was planning to improve the accuracy to 1 to 2 meters.

As the image shows, the effect of warhead was studied at a distance at 5 meters and 7 meters on the target missile. And by the way, those images were old and warhead used also underwent changes, if i'm not wrong.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Karan M » 13 Nov 2015 16:42

Those images are from a publication in december 2014.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w, marimuthu and 39 guests