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.
vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1459
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 25 Feb 2017 23:03

Excellent development, seems like real world Red team and Blue team exercise

is there scope for air launching the endo or exo?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5737
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Indranil » 26 Feb 2017 12:00

Prasad wrote:Hit-to-Kill Successfully Demonstrated By DRDO’s PDV Interceptor

Some interesting information on the PDV program.

Excellent reporting. This is a defense journo. Kudos Jha-ji!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17594
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Philip » 01 Mar 2017 15:07

Excellent news .Progress on the ABM system is vital to deter the enemy. Here's some info on the S-400 acquisition. Perhaps the cost could be used in offsets elsewhere as part of a larger package so that induction isn't delayed.

https://in.rbth.com/economics/defence/2 ... 400_707448

India may forego offset package for S-400
22 February 2017 MIKHAIL NEKRASOV
An offset package could delay deliveries by up to two years.

Shoot at sight: The S-400 boosts Indian air defence
Turkey is discussing purchase of S-400 systems from Russia — minister
Despite budgetary constraints, purchase of S-400 top priority for India

S-400 Triumf is Russia’s long-range anti-aircraft missile system that went into service in 2007. Source: Mikhail Voskresenskiy/RIA Novosti
India's Defence Ministry may forego the offset clause to speed up deliveries of the S-400 Russian air defence system, The Economic Times reported on Feb. 21.

The offset clause mandates foreign companies to invest at least 30 per cent of the contract value in the Indian aerospace and defence sectors.

Viktor Kladov, director of international cooperation at Rostec holding, told the paper that the purchase of the S-400 is a strategic project and delivery should not be delayed by offset packages.
According to Kladov, the offset package may delay delivery by up to two years. A deal with no offset package is the best choice, he added.

Despite budgetary constraints, purchase of S-400 top priority for India
The S-400 Triumf is a Russian long and medium-range air-defence missile system, designed to provide complete air defence, against all current and future air and space attacks, at distances of up to 400 km.

An intergovernmental agreement on the sale of the S-400 was signed in October 2016 at the 17th India-Russia summit between President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The agreement to buy five divisions of the S-400 system is worth $6 billion. Final negotiations will start in March.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2012
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby JTull » 01 Mar 2017 16:12

DRDO test-fires homegrown supersonic interceptor missile

BALASORE: India today successfully test-fired its indigenously developed supersonic interceptor missile capable of destroying any incoming enemy ballistic missile at low altitude.

This the second time that the missile has been test-fired in less than a month and is part of an effort to put in place a multi-layer missile defence system.

"Today's test launch was conducted in order to validate various parameters of the interceptor in flight mode," a defence official said, adding that it was a low altitude trial.

The interceptor was engaged against a target which was a Prithvi missile launched from launch complex 3 of the Integrated Test Range (ITR) at Chandipur near here, taking up the trajectory of a hostile ballistic missile.

The target missile was launched at about 10.10 hours from Chandipur.

After about four minutes the interceptor, Advanced Air Defence (AAD) missile positioned at Abdul Kalam Island in the Bay of Bengal, getting signals from tracking radars, roared through its trajectory to destroy the incoming hostile missile in mid-air, in an endo-atmospheric altitude, the official said.

"The mission was excellent and it was a direct hit," said a scientist of the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO).

The interceptor is a 7.5-meter long single stage solid rocket propelled guided missile equipped with a navigation system, a hi-tech computer and an electro-mechanical activator, the official said.

The interceptor missile had its own mobile launcher, secure data link for interception, independent tracking and homing capabilities and sophisticated radars, the official added.

On February 11, an incoming hostile ballistic missile target was successfully intercepted at high altitude, above 50 km of the earth's atmosphere by an exo-atmospheric interceptor missile off the Odisha coast.

Earlier, a low altitude (endo-atmospheric) test of AAD missile was successfully test launched on May 15, 2016 from the same base.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 181
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby ashishvikas » 01 Mar 2017 22:19

DRDO’s AAD Endo-atmospheric Ballistic Missile Interceptor Hits Bullseye
By Saurav Jha - March 1, 2017

http://www.delhidefencereview.com/2017/ ... -bullseye/

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1459
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 01 Mar 2017 22:32

While the successful test is good, if they do multiple tests in a year then its probably getting deployment ready vs the yearly tests signifying development trials

it would be nice if they put out pictures for people to understand the engagement profile of S-400 and the AAD/PDV system and the type of targets they are meant for, that reduces FUD. Same with various SAM systems being developed locally as well as acquired.

Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Bheeshma » 01 Mar 2017 23:49

S-400 is not really ABM, but a very good long range SAM that we lack. It essentially enforces NFZ over whole of pakistan and Tibet. Hopefully we will see a test of the complete Phase-I system (AAD+ PDV) against a salvo fired targets (4-8 modified prithvis) this year or next.

Look at the image in the website: http://www.delhidefencereview.com/2017/ ... -bullseye/
The fins at the top are new? Are they for improved maneuverability?

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1459
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 02 Mar 2017 00:32

On defence savvy folks, the S-400 profile is understood not on the broader set of people.

The top fins on AAD are new for sure and probably part of the hit to kill mission, hopefully Kanson can throw more light.

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

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Karan M » 02 Mar 2017 00:34

The version of the LRTR used in today’s AAD mission is an L-band array that can track a ballistic target with a radar cross section (RCS) of 0.1 sqm from over 1500 km away. MFCR, which is a S-band array has a tracking range of over 370 km for a target with a RCS of 0.3 sqm. Both radars are capable of variable track rates.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2012
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby JTull » 02 Mar 2017 00:59

Why can't we build S-400 type system based on our active homing AAD and PDV missiles? Why are we throwing billions at this? What urgency do services see that cannot wait for 3-4 year development cycle given we have most of the components?

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2114
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby kit » 02 Mar 2017 01:42

How does the S400 fare against cruise missiles . By my reckoning the most serious threat from Pakistan would be submarine fired nuclear cruise missiles

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5737
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Indranil » 02 Mar 2017 02:20

vasu raya wrote:The top fins on AAD are new for sure and probably part of the hit to kill mission, hopefully Kanson can throw more light.

I have no idea what your sentence means!
Bheeshma wrote:The fins at the top are new? Are they for improved maneuverability?

Not maneuverability, those nose strakes provide for additional stability.

Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Bheeshma » 02 Mar 2017 06:05

kit wrote:How does the S400 fare against cruise missiles . By my reckoning the most serious threat from Pakistan would be submarine fired nuclear cruise missiles


Aren't Akash/ Akash-II and MRSAM enough for cruise missiles? Other than the 400 Km range of S-400, I don't see it as being useful in any way. Even if ordered today it will only come in 2+ years. Hopefully BMD phase-1 would already be deployed in a dozen important places by then.

pravula
BRFite
Posts: 108
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 05:01

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby pravula » 02 Mar 2017 06:09

Bheeshma wrote:
kit wrote:How does the S400 fare against cruise missiles . By my reckoning the most serious threat from Pakistan would be submarine fired nuclear cruise missiles


Aren't Akash/ Akash-II and MRSAM enough for cruise missiles? Other than the 400 Km range of S-400, I don't see it as being useful in any way. Even if ordered today it will only come in 2+ years. Hopefully BMD phase-1 would already be deployed in a dozen important places by then.

ack ack is good enough. Radar/detection is the issue

sooraj
BRFite
Posts: 880
Joined: 06 May 2011 15:45

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby sooraj » 02 Mar 2017 06:10

ashishvikas wrote:DRDO’s AAD Endo-atmospheric Ballistic Missile Interceptor Hits Bullseye
By Saurav Jha - March 1, 2017

http://www.delhidefencereview.com/2017/ ... -bullseye/



Today’s test was conducted from a mobile launcher that can house a total of 6 AAD interceptors in canisterized configuration (see the video below). The launcher has been built by Tata Power SED and can also be used to launch the Prahar short range surface to surface missile which has air frame commonality with AAD. Overall, today’s AAD was tested in what is essentially going to be its deployed system configuration. (Although, only one canister was loaded onto the launcher frame for today’s test.)



SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21711
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby SSridhar » 02 Mar 2017 07:16

vasu raya wrote:The top fins on AAD are new for sure and probably part of the hit to kill mission . . .

Those fins certainly are new. They are part of the Kinetic Kill Vehicle (KKV) that smashed into the incoming missile apart from releasing the pre-fragmented warhead with radio-proximity fuze.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1492
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Sid » 02 Mar 2017 08:39

sooraj wrote:
ashishvikas wrote:DRDO’s AAD Endo-atmospheric Ballistic Missile Interceptor Hits Bullseye
By Saurav Jha - March 1, 2017

http://www.delhidefencereview.com/2017/ ... -bullseye/



Today’s test was conducted from a mobile launcher that can house a total of 6 AAD interceptors in canisterized configuration (see the video below). The launcher has been built by Tata Power SED and can also be used to launch the Prahar short range surface to surface missile which has air frame commonality with AAD. Overall, today’s AAD was tested in what is essentially going to be its deployed system configuration. (Although, only one canister was loaded onto the launcher frame for today’s test.)



This launcher was showcased as Prahar launcher. It was publicly showcased in 2013 during ADEX in South Korea.

Also the fins are not new, been there since the beginning

Image
Last edited by Sid on 02 Mar 2017 08:41, edited 2 times in total.

abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2809
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby abhijitm » 02 Mar 2017 08:40

ashishvikas wrote:DRDO’s AAD Endo-atmospheric Ballistic Missile Interceptor Hits Bullseye
By Saurav Jha - March 1, 2017

http://www.delhidefencereview.com/2017/ ... -bullseye/

Quite impressed with Saurav Jha. His narrative, attention to details stand out. Excellent reporting.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5737
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Indranil » 02 Mar 2017 08:59

Sid wrote:
This launcher was showcased as Prahar launcher. It was publicly showcased in 2013 during ADEX in South Korea.

Also the fins are not new, been there since the beginning

Image

Nice find Sid. What's more, the folding wings which I also thought was new, can also be seen in this picture.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1492
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Sid » 02 Mar 2017 09:28

Next step should be to place these silos on a heavyweight destroyers as a desi Aegis system. Not sure if Navy is involved except in launching those target missiles.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1459
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 02 Mar 2017 09:32

thanks all, I thought the forward fins were for quick nose pointing on a maneuvering target for a hit to kill, the PDV did the hit to kill by using the thrusters entirely whose control mechanism is more complicated while the AAD can use fins being endo atmosphere

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9194
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby arun » 02 Mar 2017 21:58

X Posted from the “Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14” thread.

A couple of Hi-Res photos from PIB. Click the photo and it will blow up.

1.A view of the Target Missile used by DRDO in the successful test firing of the Advanced Area Defence Endo-Atmospheric Interceptor Missile, at Abdul Kalam Island, Odisha, on March 01, 2017.

CNR :94047 Photo ID :99432:

Clicky Target Missile

2.Take off view of the Advanced Area Defence Endo-Atmospheric Interceptor Missile of the DRDO successfully test fired, at Abdul Kalam Island, Odisha, on March 01, 2017.

CNR :94046 Photo ID :99431:

Clicky AAD Endo Atmospheric Interceptor

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

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 03 Mar 2017 10:45

arun wrote:2.Take off view of the Advanced Area Defence Endo-Atmospheric Interceptor Missile of the DRDO successfully test fired, at Abdul Kalam Island, Odisha, on March 01, 2017.

CNR :94046 Photo ID :99431:

Clicky AAD Endo Atmospheric Interceptor


Nice Pics , Why do they have short fins near the nose , Roll Stability ?

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

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 17 Mar 2017 11:59

Iran Test S-300PMU2 Against Cruise and BM Targets in Field Exercise



The drill was dubbed Damavand and was attended by senior military commanders and officials, Tasnim news agency reported.

The Russian system was pitted against various aerial targets with small radar cross-section, including a ballistic missile, which the S-300 “smashed,” according to Air Defense Commander Brigadier General Farzad Esmaili. The Iranian military also ran a simulation of electronic warfare countermeasures to test the ability of the S-300 to lock on targets in difficult conditions.


https://www.rt.com/news/379427-iran-tests-russian-s300/

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20336
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Prem » 18 Mar 2017 05:27

http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Repo ... ley-484452
ARROW DEFENSE SYSTEM INTERCEPTS SYRIAN MISSILE FIRED AT IAF FIGHTER JET

Arrow missile defense system for the first time Thursday night after Israeli jets were targeted with Syrian anti-aircraft missiles during an operation over Syria.In a rare confirmation of Israel carrying out airstrikes in Syria, the IDF said on Friday morning that “several anti-aircraft missiles were launched from Syria during the operation. One of the missiles was intercepted by the air defense systems of the IDF.”The Arrow 3 is highly maneuverable system designed to provide ultimate air defense by intercepting ballistic missiles when they are still outside the Earth’s atmosphere and is considered one of the world's best interceptors due to its breakthrough technological capabilities. Two Reuters witnesses heard an explosion a few minutes later. Another Reuters witness in the central Israeli city of Modiin reported hearing an explosion and a more distant bang was heard from as far away as Jerusalem.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1492
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Sid » 18 Mar 2017 07:55

They fired Arrow 3 to intercept what? S-300?


Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1492
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Sid » 18 Mar 2017 09:03

So it was an S-200, still does not explain why Arrow was activated as this could have been tackled via their iron dome.

Their ABM is/should be smart enough to identify a long range SAM from a ballistic missile.

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

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Mar 2017 09:07

Sid wrote:So it was an S-200, still does not explain why Arrow was activated as this could have been tackled via their iron dome.



Unless you know the distances, trajectory and intercept dynamics you, I or anyone else cannot really claim that. Iron dome is not for high altitude ballistic targets but mostly a counter rocket system. You may be referring to David's Sling that uses the Stunner (which covers partial SRBM of up to 300 km ranged ballistic missiles envelope although it would have probably been able to intercept a lofted trajectory terminal SA-5). There are many possible explanations as to why they did what they did.

TR and some others in the media (from which he sources his work) have probably wrongly attributed this to an Arrow-3 launch which would not make sense since it is an exoatmospheric KKV intercept system. This is most likely the work of the Arrow-2 as has been reported by other defense publications. Since they don't operate PAC-3 or PAC-3 MSEs an atmospheric Arrow-2 / PAC-2 followed by a Stunner would be a good intercept strategy especially for cases where the threat of a saturated attack is rather low.

- http://www.defensenews.com/articles/isr ... ainst-what

Their ABM is/should be smart enough to identify a long range SAM from a ballistic missile.


A SAM with a 40-50 km ceiling if lofted in a ballistic trajectory should mimic the flight profile of a 150-200 km SRBM...There are target missile systems out there that essentially modified SAMs to get that aspect of the SRBM envelope to simulate the sub 500 km ranged ballistic missiles. One such example is that of the Patriot-as a Target (PAAT) which is essentially a modified PAC-2 SAM.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1492
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Sid » 18 Mar 2017 10:33

^^ So hypothetically countries like Pakistan can fire their long range MRLS type systems (to mimic Ballistic missiles) and exhaust our AAD/PAD batteries before the main strike.

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

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Mar 2017 17:12

Sid wrote:^^ So hypothetically countries like Pakistan can fire their long range MRLS type systems (to mimic Ballistic missiles) and exhaust our AAD/PAD batteries before the main strike.


How did you deduce that from what I wrote or from this particular incidence? As I said, a Ballistic trajectory can be intercepted if it is within the intercept parameters of the anti missile system. Any operator can use any shot doctrine during peace time and can modify it during time of war or heightened alert when the threat of a saturated attack is more real. While you can afford to be extra cautious outside of all out conflict you would have to exercise appropriate restraint when it comes to all out war so that may involve adjusting shot doctrine depending upon a number of parameters.

As I said given a relatively benign environment vis-a-vis the threat of saturated incoming ballistic targets an Arrow-2 launch seems logical..In such instances a shot doctrine of a more expensive and larger Arrow-2 followed by a Stunner seems like an appropriate doctrine. At times of war, against a sub 300-km ranged ballistic target they may as well decide to preserve their Arrow-2 or PAC-2's and go for the cheaper and more abundant Stunner option.

I don't understand why you think an Arrow-2 was out of line here. As explained there are multiple reasons why you would use it. One could be that the envelope, range, and the trajectory of the incoming missile was outside of any Stunner missiles capability (who knows exactly where they were deployed). Secondly, an Arrow-2 could have afforded a cleaner intercept at higher altitude and at greater stand off distance given its capability. Perhaps the impact point of these missiles was in an area where the IDF decided that the higher cost interceptor was worth it. Lastly, they may have simply been given clearances to intercept anything that even remotely resembles a threat to send a message and prove out their systems.

An Arrow-2 much like the PAC-2 GEM/T (which the Israelis also use) is an appropriate SRBM interceptor here with the key difference being that it is much better at the role than the legacy GEM/T (higher altitude, much better guidance etc etc). An SRBM is a typical missile target this is designed to defeat in the first place and this weapon likely flew a similar trajectory. Stunner is designed to fill in the lower SRBM (sub 300 km ranged targets) envelope at a fraction of the cost but as I said there are many reasons why that could not have been used. In fact if you go back into the early 2000's and OIF, both Kuwaiti and US Patriots successfully engaged 7-9 Al-Samoud II and Abdali 100 missiles (sub 300 km ranged SRBM's) using either the PAC-2 GEM/Ts or PAC-3s. Possibly not very different from the trajectories we are talking about here. Again an appropriate intercept for the threat type at the time. Below is an alledged video of one of the booster stages that landed up in Jordan -



The Iron Dome and the associated Tamir interceptor as I mentioned earlier does not intercept such targets. It for all practical purposes is a Counter Rocket or a CRAM type system purposely designed against the low end rocket threat to keep cost of intercept very very low. The IDF has a 3 layer ABM system with the Arrow-3 being used for exoatmospheric intercepts, Arrow-2, Patriot and Stunner used for endoatmoshperic threats.

Interestingly one of the baseline threats for which the Arrow-2 was designed was the Scud B and C missiles that correspond to a 250-500 km range..It can obviously defeat higher performance systems and at much higher altitudes than the PAC-2.

Sid wrote:^^ So hypothetically countries like Pakistan can fire their long range MRLS type systems (to mimic Ballistic missiles) and exhaust our AAD/PAD batteries before the main strike.


It would be tough to mimic ballistic missiles with a sub-100 km rocket system. Once you get into the 50-70 km ranged rockets the Israelis can handle that with the Tamir and Stunner interceptors..The primary defense against that threat is obviously to use offensive capability in the immediate threat area . A large SAM with a flight ceiling of 40-50km, or a 200 km ranged ballistic missile will have a different trajectory from a double digit ranged rocket. This will be reflected in the apogee and the peak decent velocity which for a 250-300 km ranges ballistic trajectory should be around 1500-1800 m/s. A Smerch wouldn't get that high and that fast.
Last edited by brar_w on 18 Mar 2017 19:29, edited 4 times in total.

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

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Mar 2017 18:11

Some hints being dropped that MDA may be getting ready to explore (once again) ALHTK concept for the BPI mission supporting PACOM..With Pat Shanahan as the Deptt.SecDef expect AMD to get a lot more funding.

Image

Last edited by brar_w on 19 Mar 2017 00:03, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 18 Mar 2017 22:55

Patriot PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) Test


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

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Mar 2017 22:58

i had posted this JUNO intercept last year here..which was subsequently removed by them and this particular version was created (i couldn't tell any difference b/w the two). Juno PTV is based on the Minuteman-II two stage motors and can simulate various SRBM's depending upon the range (kwajalein or WSMR)..

The U.S. Air Force's Rocket Systems Launch Program and its mission partners successfully completed the fourth launch of a Patriot Test Vehicle today.

"Continued success of the Juno target series provides a reliable and affordable test target for our US Army mission partners," said Lt. Gen. Samuel Greaves, Space and Missile Systems Center commander and Air Force program executive officer for space at Los Angeles Air Force Base. "Congratulations to the Launch Enterprise team and its mission partners."

The Patriot Target Vehicle, known as Juno, was designed by Orbital ATK to provide a realistic threat target, which meets the stringent performance requirements of the U.S. Army's Patriot missile defense system. The target's first stage lifts the rocket from its launch pad to above the earth's atmosphere. After a short coast period, the rocket's second stage ignites, extending the range of the target missile to complete its flight path into the defended footprint of a Patriot test battery. In addition to Orbital ATK's work as the prime contractor for the target, TASC Inc. provided mission assurance services to independently verify and validate the Juno Target's performance.

The Juno Target contributes toward meeting the Rocket Systems Launch Program responsibilities to re-utilize excess motors from intercontinental ballistic missiles for U.

S. government research, development, test and evaluation efforts, incorporating two solid rocket motors from the LGM-30F Minuteman II weapon system which was retired in 1994.

The Air Force Space Command's Space and Missile Systems Center, located at the Los Angeles Air Force Base in El Segundo, California, is the U.

S. Air Force's center of excellence for acquiring and developing military space systems. Its portfolio includes the Global Positioning System, military satellite communications, defense meteorological satellites, space launch and range systems, satellite control networks, space based infrared systems and space situational awareness capabilities.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 23 Mar 2017 09:54

India's ABM system: In the war on ballistic missiles, India plods along
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.ca/2017/03/i ... india.html


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

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 30 Mar 2017 15:38

An interesting program/solicitation from the US although not specific to ABM but missile defense in general -

Overhead Miniature Sensor Experiment OMniSciEnT

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is responsible for developing a Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS), integrating land, sea, air, and space-based assets to defend the United States, friends and allies, and deployed forces from ballistic missile attack of all ranges and in all phases of flight. As the emerging threat increases in number and sophistication, a globally persistent, space based sensor layer will be required to accurately track and effectively target the enemy.

MDA requests white papers from competent U.S. entities, including defense prime Contractors, commercial industry, national laboratories, universities, and university-affiliated research and development centers. The specific area MDA is considering in this solicitation is an on-orbit demonstration of the technology required to track emerging non-ballistic weapons traveling at high Mach velocities. The Agency envisions the demonstration to consist of two (2), 50-kilogram class satellites in Low Earth Orbit operated within modular, open system architecture with common user interfaces. Capabilities to be demonstrated are sensor, optic design, communications (crosslinks and downlinks), and pointing accuracy. The white paper should also describe in detail how this design could lead to an architectural element of a future constellation of globally persistent sensors.

The Agency envisions contract award(s) in 2017 for a two (2) satellite demonstration program. This demonstration will include launch, on-orbit operations, and participation in multiple campaigns to assess the technical performance and operational utility of the concept.

Provide a white paper outlining a two (2) satellite, technology demonstration program. The program should be fully inclusive of all the requirements for an end to end demonstration of capabilities. This includes launch, command and control, and participation in at least two (2) years of BMDS test campaigns. The characteristics of each satellite should be as follows:



a. Fully fueled weight of no more than 50 kilograms if a stand-alone satellite option is selected. A payload hosted on an existing multi-mission bus would also be acceptable for consideration. Even smaller satellites are preferred in order to minimize launch costs.

b. Capable of being mounted on a common multi-satellite adapter (e.g. ESPA) for ride-share launches.

c. Design life of a minimum of two (2) years with a goal of five (5) years.

d. Low Earth Orbit operations, with an altitude of no more than 1,000 kilometers.

e. Tracking data (Object Sighting Messages) to be provided in near real time to the Ground System with accuracy sufficient to enable BMDS sensor and weapons operations. The primary function of the two (2) satellite demonstration is real time tracking and reporting.

f. Sensor focal plane data is not required in real-time, however the satellite shall have a store and forward capability.

g. Sensor performance parameters should be optimized to address the most challenging of emerging threats as defined in the classified annex.

h. An assessment of system performance and key performance parameters should be provided.


Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Supratik » 30 Mar 2017 15:59

They should try out a hypersonic cruise missile based ABM system to take out Pak missiles in boost phase.

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

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 30 Mar 2017 16:11

Supratik wrote:They should try out a hypersonic cruise missile based ABM system to take out Pak missiles in boost phase.


A hypersonic cruise missile to intercept ballistic missiles in the boost phase? Good luck :)

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Supratik » 30 Mar 2017 16:24

Yes. Trying to do out of the box thinking unless it is not scientifically possible. The idea is to neuter in the boost phase.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w and 43 guests