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.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5910
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 30 Mar 2017 18:14

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


Not going to be practical for you require quite a lot of speed at a fairly decent altitude where both advanced ramjets and scramjets will struggle. A typical Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile with a 400-500 km apogee will have 2.5-3.5 minute boost phase. Provided you have early warning provided by Satelites and have constant high quality IRST sensor in the air at the time of launch you would still have to give perhaps a minute or so for this to work and the ballistic missile to break cloud cover and be constantly tracked by your targeting sensor. MIT Lincoln Labs in their analysis actually use 80 seconds as a good assumption given varying weather conditions and assume a 180 second boost phase for a 2000km ranged ballistic missile with a 500 km apogee.

They developed a model where a hypothetical air launched, large boost phase interceptor missile with a top speed of 4 km/s (Mach 11) with a 20 second burn time was launched from an altitude of 50,000 ft roughly 90 seconds post ballistic missile launch. Intercept range was limited by IRST targeting sensor performance. In such a case against the ballistic missile described earlier the intercept would take at roughly 170 seconds post launch so you have a 10 second margin. Overall you could do an assent phase intercept post burn out depending upon how quickly PIP is calculated but that would be at altitudes that essentially require a KKV.

For shorter ranged, less sophisticated ballistic missile threats, Dr. Canavan did some academic work at Livermore and found that a ballistic missile with a 500-600 km range, launched a few hundred km's inland has a 75 second burnout time and would require an interceptor with an average velocity of 6.7 km/s . The stress here comes from the significantly shorter boost phase compared to the IRBM example cited above. This assumes that the target ballistic missile is launched from 300 km inside of enemy territory and that the ground launched interceptor is being fed targeting through an airborne sensor and is roughly 400 km away from the TEL (i.e. 100 km inland). In a nutshell, whether that is intercepting very short range ballistic missiles, MRBM's or IRBM's you need a very fast interceptor missile system which makes cruise missiles a poor choice for such a role.

Doesn't mean cruise missiles or loitering munitions aren't helpful in ballistic missile defense, but just not for boost or assent phases. They can play a very important role in left of launch scenarios and TEL hunting.

A 5 km/s interceptor can only get to 100 km in 30 s, which is too small for even short-range missiles. It could get to about 300 km in 75 s, which might be adequate for forward-deployed short-range SCUDs. The 7.5 km/s interceptor could still only get to about 100 in 30 s, but it could reach almost 400 km in 75 s. A 10 km/s interceptor could get to about 500 km in 75 s, and a 12.5 km/s interceptor could get to about 550 km in that time, which would cover most theater threats. Note, however, that for the latter case, a delay of only 10 s would reduce the range about 100 km.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4887
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Supratik » 30 Mar 2017 23:31

OK, good explanation. I was thinking more in terms of reducing reaction time. But in your scenario it doesn't seem possible.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19755
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 09 Apr 2017 12:07

Russian S-400 Systems Receive Missiles Capable of Destroying Near Space Targets

https://sputniknews.com/military/201704 ... e-targets/

Russian S-400 air defense systems have begun to receive missiles capable of destroying targets in the near space, Aerospace Forces' Deputy Commander-in-Chief Lt. Gen. Viktor Gumenny said Saturday.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — The S-400 is Russia's next-generation air defense system, carrying three different types of missiles capable of destroying aerial targets at a short-to-extremely-long range. The weapon is capable of tracking and destroying all existing aerial targets, including ballistics and cruise missiles.

"Recently we have been receiving new missiles, which let us work in near space, long distances and high speeds,"
Gumenny told the Echo of Moscow radio, answering the question on whether the new missiles will be able to destroy objects in near space.

Guddu
BRFite
Posts: 805
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Guddu » 16 Apr 2017 08:57

This may not be the right thread for this, but with NK's missiles going haywire or failing to launch, the speculation is that unkil's cyber skills are responsible for that. Is that a risk for India's missiles..


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

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Bheeshma » 18 May 2017 22:38

Is there any time line for BMD phase-I induction? MR-SAM/AKASH and BMD phase-I will pretty much neuter pakis.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4887
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Supratik » 19 May 2017 00:02

and S400

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19755
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 13 Jun 2017 22:05

Strengthening defence posture

Notwithstanding the purchase of Russian S-400 Air Defence Missile System, the BMD programme has neither been questioned nor its progress audited. India needs a technical audit by independent agencies or joint development with foreign partners to resolve glitches
There is something extraordinarily odd about the indigenous Indian Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) programme. Given that the nuclear tipped missile threats have grown — and the indigenous BMD programme has little to show — the Government has now cleared the purchase of Russian S-400 Air Defence Missile System to protect New Delhi and other cities at the cost of Rs50,000 crore.

Notwithstanding this, the BMD programme has neither been questioned nor its progress audited or verified. It remains the preserve of a select senior Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) scientists. It was started in 1995 under the project director, VK Saraswat.

In its 22-year existence, where nearly Rs10,000 crore (Rs8,000 crore for missile readiness and the remaining for its production) have been spent, not a single BMD deadline has been met. Moreover, unlike the other strategic missiles — the Agni series — whose status or capability is known to the National Security Advisor and the commander-in-chief, Strategic Forces Command (SFC), whose troops have test-fired the missiles, the status of the BMD is shrouded in secrecy.

For example, in February 2010, in a longish conversation with me, the then DRDO chief, VK Saraswat, had said that by 2013, phase I of the BMD shield would be ready to protect New Delhi from hostile missiles with 2,000 km range. And by 2016, according to him, the phase II of the shield would be operationalised to kill hostile missiles with 5,000 km range. Ironically, the inter-Governmental agreement for purchase of Russian S-400 was signed in 2016.

This, of course, has not dampened the zeal of DRDO scientists, who every six or nine months do an interception test all by themselves and declare it successful. Two recent test-firings were on February 11 of an exo (outside) atmospheric interception at 50 km altitude, and on March 1 of an endo (inside) atmospheric test.

A few technical issues about interception would help to place them in perspective. To begin with, all hostile missiles with 2,000 km to 5,000 km range would certainly have nuclear, and not conventional warheads. As a general rule, the nuclear chain reaction, which then cannot be controlled, gets activated about 10 km (airburst is achieved with proximity fuse for maximum casualties) above the earth. If the hostile payload, that has the nuclear warhead, gets a direct conventional warhead hit before the payload drops to this low height, the nuclear core will not get activated and it will not burst. It is evident that interceptor missiles with conventional warhead should be used only if it has 100 per cent accuracy to hit the bull’s eye. Otherwise, the preferred option for interceptor missile warhead is a smaller-sized nuclear warhead, which while engaging the hostile missile ideally in exo-atmosphere, detonates its warhead by its blast (it need not be a direct hit), with the nuclear debris then suspended in space. In short, it should ideally be nuclear warhead for nuclear warhead to destroy enemy’s long range missiles.

Moreover, 30 km height is the dividing line between the atmosphere and space — two medium with different characteristics. Above 30 km is space. It is evident that both the interceptions (for outside and inside the atmosphere) should be designed to hit the hostile missile as high as possible so that the destroyed missile’s debris falls as much away as possible from friendly territory. Thus, the exo interceptor should be able to engage at heights of 200 km plus with hypersonic speeds to hit long range hostile missiles with ranges up to 5,000 km coming at high speeds. If this hit is not achieved, the endo-interceptor should then kill the missile the moment it is at 30 km height and enters the atmosphere.

Given this, there are four main problems with DRDO interceptions. All interceptions have been claimed to be with conventional warheads and direct hits. Since a conventional warhead is always armed with proximity fuse, which will explode within 20 metres of the hostile missile, how can it do a direct hit? If the hostile missile with nuclear warhead does not get a direct hit, it will continue on its trajectory path and its nuclear warhead will detonate at designated height. Thus, the claim of direct hit seems to be doubtful and should be audited or verified independently.

Hypothetically speaking, since the trajectory and coordinates of both the interceptor and hostile missile are known beforehand, it is not difficult for the interceptor to bang at pre-determined location pretending a direct hit at an electronic or imaginary point (fixed or moving) which would appear as a real hit on the observation screen.

The second issue concerns the hostile missiles. In all test-firings by the DRDO, these have been Prithvi or enhanced Prithvi missiles, which have slow speed, very high radio contrast and small ranges. The maximum Prithvi range is 350 km, which is far less than the claimed 2,000 km or 5,000km range of hostile missiles. Moreover, there is no independent verification of whether the warhead of the hostile Prithvi missile was deliberately exploded or blown off by a direct interceptor hit or it burst by self-ignition. The need is clearly to use Agni series missile as hostile missiles and to allow the SFC to do the test-firing with DRDO as observers.

The third issue concerns the high-energy propellants which are needed to increase the interception altitude to more than 120 km; the higher it is, the better. While certain modifications have been claimed in the exo-interceptor, these are not enough. For example, the first stage of exo-interceptor, which was a liquid motor has been replaced by a solid motor stage with higher energy levels. The second stage has also been modified for higher interception accuracy by replacing the Radio Frequency seeker with Imaging Infra-Red seeker.

The fourth issue concerns the other components besides the interceptors of the BMD. These are the early warning system; the long-range tracking radar; the multi-functional fire control system; and the battle management system. All these components are nowhere near the desired capabilities to neutralise hostile 2,000km to 5,000km range missile.

This explains the likely purchase of S-400 systems. Indian Air Force or SFC should be convinced to not lose interest in DRDO efforts. While it is not suggested that the indigenous BMD should be shut down, what is needed is its technical audit by independent agencies or we need to seek joint development with foreign partners to resolve technology glitches. Since India has good relations with the US, Russia, Israel, and France (countries with advanced BMD technologies), the Government should review the programme. Spending money without clarity will not help India’s defence posture.

(The writer is co-author with Ghazala Wahab of the recent book, Dragon On Our Doorstep)

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33700
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby shiv » 13 Jun 2017 22:09

Austin wrote: As a general rule, the nuclear chain reaction, which then cannot be controlled, gets activated about 10 km (airburst is achieved with proximity fuse for maximum casualties) above the earth.]

Bullshit

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17637
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Philip » 14 Jun 2017 11:36

Quotes from the above posted link.'Tall claims" organisation being brought to account.

A senior MoD official said the ministry "is even considering to carry out an audit of DRDO claims about the performance of the tests."

Despite tall claims made by DRDO five years ago regarding completion of the first phase, there remains no word from the agency on the project's completion, the MoD official added. DRDO has been developing the indigenous BMD system since 1995.

It was in the wake of the system's delay that India last year cleared the $5 billion purchase of S-400 air defense systems from Russia; however, the final contract is yet to be inked.

DRDO had earlier said that by 2012 or 2013, the first phase of the BMD shield would be ready to protect New Delhi from hostile missiles with a 2,000-kilometer range. It also boasted that by 2016, the second phase would be operational, allowing the system to kill hostile missiles with a 5,000-kilometer range.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby jamwal » 14 Jun 2017 17:27

Warhead detonation at 10 km altitude ? Is he talking about 100 megaton warheads ?

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10672
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Gagan » 14 Jun 2017 20:07

BS article, by someone who was coached on a few aspects of N missiles.
What a joke :rotfl:

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19755
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 22 Jun 2017 17:46

MBDA Aster missile interception scenario



Aster Block 1 NT missile: the advantages of the new Ka-band seeker


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19755
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 22 Jun 2017 17:47


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5910
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Jun 2017 17:56

Finally the European operators and OEMs are moving ahead with their long delayed IAMD plans. In addition to the Aster upgrade mentioned above, Germany is also set to finalize its first bulk MEADS order by the end of the year. Thales Netherlands is also getting the Smart-L's ground variant into production. Poland, Norway, and Sweden are also in various stages of developing or upgrading their IAMD capability and Italy is likely to follow Germany with an initial MEADS order.

Germany Aims to Finish Missile Defense Deal With MBDA, Lockheed by Year End: Ministry

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5910
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Jun 2017 18:23

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency and the Japan Ministry of Defense conducted a development flight test today of a new Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA missile off the coast of Hawaii.

A planned intercept was not achieved.

The SM-3 Block IIA is being developed cooperatively by the U.S. and Japan to defeat medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. This is a new, developmental interceptor that is not yet fielded by either country.

At approximately 7:20 p.m., Hawaii Standard Time, June 21 (1:20 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time, June 22), a medium-range ballistic target missile was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Kauai, Hawaii. The USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53) detected and tracked the target missile with its onboard AN/SPY-1 radar using the Aegis Baseline 9.C2 weapon system. Upon acquiring and tracking the target, the ship launched an SM-3 Block IIA guided missile, but the missile did not intercept the target.

Program officials will conduct an extensive analysis of the test data. Until that review is complete, no additional details will be available.

This was the fourth development flight test using an SM-3 IIA missile, and the second intercept test. The previous intercept test, conducted in February 2017, was successful.

Though currently still in the development and test phase, the SM-3 Block IIA interceptor is being designed to operate as part of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system. Currently, the Aegis BMD system operates with the SM-3 Block 1A, SM-3 Block 1B, and SM-6 interceptors.


LINK

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19755
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 15 Jul 2017 18:15

S-400 AD System Interceptor Missile

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5910
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 16 Jul 2017 20:47

A good table of US land and sea based BMD RF Sensors -

Image

Another trend seen here into the future systems is that many of the UHF sensors are being supplemented by, or in some cases being replaced by higher frequency S-band sensors. This is seen with the Long Range Discrimination Radar (Alaska), Medium Range Discrimination Radar (Hawaii), and the Space Fence (kwajalein) which collectively are amongst the three largest GaN AESA projects in the world. There are two main reasons driving this change. One being that along with long range detection and early warning there is an unmet need for long range discrimination and decoy and countermeasure rejection for strategic ballistic missile defense systems such as the GBI system.

This as I have explained in other threads cannot be met by lower frequency sensors. The second reason is that with Gallium Nitride technology you can now get substantial increases in both the ability to create small, very powerful high frequency power-amplifiers that are not only more powerful but are also more efficient. This allows you to get a very good mix of very long range detection, tracking and discrimination i.e. combine the best of both worlds.The downsides obviously being that higher frequency sensors will drive up cost in terms of the radar cost itself, but also much higher life-cycle cost compared to VHF or UHF sensors that are more efficient given a fixed mission.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1076
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Kakarat » 18 Jul 2017 14:30

@livefist wrote:Spotted! India's 1st BMD ship shaping up at Vizag shipyard. Our report from January. https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/01 ... essel.html … (Image cleared for release)


Image

nash
BRFite
Posts: 681
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby nash » 05 Aug 2017 01:16

http://www.dnaindia.com/jaipur/report-2 ... my-2520834

The forest department has cleared the acquisition of 850 hectares of land in Khoa in Alwar district and 350 hectares in Roopnagar for installing ballistic missile defence grid that will protect the western and northern parts of the country.

The state government has also allotted 80 hectares of land in Pilani for setting up the Bramhos missile assembly line .

These two sites in the state have been strategically chosen by DRDO and has a stealth feature. The ballistic missile defence system can be put in place at short notice.


Alwar should be for NCR region and Pali should be for western region, which includes Gujarat's Major cities, Indore and may be Mumbai region.

Swordfish LRTR Radar even with 600Km range would be enough to cover almost all of pakistan from these two location.

DRDO people were tight lipped during AI-17 on BMD system status, seems like deployment phase is on and hopefully by end of this decade they are able to cover as much area as possible.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 886
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby RKumar » 05 Aug 2017 02:04

^ Lets leave aside the deployment timeline :mrgreen: :wink:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5910
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Aug 2017 14:57

Some insight into the AN/TPY-2 performance enhancements with the switch from 2nd generation GaAs TRIMMs to the latest generation GaN TRIMMS. The last 2 US TPY-2 deliveries, and all export TPY-2s will now include GaN TRIMMs. With the delivery of the last Dual Band Radar to the DDG-1002 over the next few months, Raytheon will perhaps be the first US radar OEM to have completely switched over to GaN AESAs in their development and/or manufacturing portfolio for large land or sea based multi function AESA radars.

AUSA 2016: All future Raytheon AN/TPY-2 radars to be built with GaN

TPY-2 will now be built using GaN modules just like Raytheon's SPY-6(V) for the Arleigh Burke-class of guided missile destroyers and the new enterprise air surveillance radar (EASR) for future Ford class aircraft carriers and amphibious ships. GaN is also a key component in the new Patriot radar that includes an Active Electronically Scanned Array and is used in the Next Generation Jammer.

GaN is a wideband gap semi-conductor so it has a higher voltage breakdown, which provides radars a higher power density on the radio frequency (RF) MIMIC amplifiers that Raytheon builds.

"With GaN you can increase your search capability by 5x the search volume, Bedingfield said on 29 September. "It allows the power to be much more effectively used." GaN enables the search volume to be greatly enhanced and the range increased by upward of 50%, Bedingfield said. "And you can increase the discrimination capability."

It is also possible to decrease a radar's aperture size because the system is operating more efficiently. "You could package the same capabilities into a smaller aperture size"; however, TPY-2 is not going that path, Bedingfield added.

AN/TPY-2 is an X-band radar that has a high degree of discrimination; it clears up the complexity of dense scenes allowing operators to understand what is the difference between a threat and non-threat, Bedingfield said.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3969
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 09 Aug 2017 04:21

India to deploy two Ballistic Missile Defense systems near Pakistan border
https://sputniknews.com/asia/2017080710 ... e-systems/

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5910
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Aug 2017 06:56

Layout for the Long Range Discrimination AESA Radar (S-Band GaN) that is currently under construction -

Image

DrRatnadip
BRFite
Posts: 326
Joined: 31 Dec 2016 00:40

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby DrRatnadip » 20 Aug 2017 12:39

India Plans to Buy this US Air Defence System to Protect New Delhi Soon

http://idrw.org/india-plans-to-buy-this ... elhi-soon/

Seeking to provide protection to dignitaries including the President and Prime Minister as well as the national capital territory from enemy cruise missiles, drones and aircraft, India is considering an American system under the Delhi Area Defence project. “The National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System (NASAMS) is being considered for the Delhi Area Defence project to provide aerial protection to the Capital from airborne threats,” government sources told Mail Today. The programme is being undertaken as the threat perception from incoming enemy missiles, drones and aircraft is on the rise because of their increasing use by terrorist organisations such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba. US defence officials have made presentations to the Air Force and other agencies concerned and the proposal is under the consideration of the government, the sources said. The same anti-missile system is used by the Americans to guard their national capital region in Washington DC and has been in deployment there since 2005. The Indian Air Force has been using the Russian-origin missile systems for giving protection to the national Capital and the vital assets and vital points. The NASAMS is claimed by the Americans to be a state-of-the-art air defence system that can maximise the ability of the users to quickly identify, engage and destroy current and evolving enemy aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicle or emerging cruise missile threats
Last edited by DrRatnadip on 20 Aug 2017 14:30, edited 1 time in total.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 20 Aug 2017 12:48

^Ridiculous idea, imagine clintons type of cheen pak lover administration in power while we are at war, first thing they will disable this system.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5910
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 20 Aug 2017 16:21

BS article..NASAMS isn't an ABM system and is essentially a Norwegian system with US radar, missiles and a Norwegian launcher, command and control and support. Akash already does what this can and more. QRSAM will add further to this capability.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20349
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Prem » 10 Sep 2017 04:31

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/russ ... 41713.html
Russian S-400 Triumf air defence system: India closer to getting game-changing weapon

oving a step closer towards acquiring the formidable Russian S-400 Triumf air defence system, the Indian Air Force has completed the trials of the missiles, which can shoot down fighter and surveillance aircraft, cruise missiles and drones at the range of 400 kms over enemy airspace itself.
"The field evaluation trials of the Russian air defence system have been completed by the Indian Air Force in Russia and they have been quite successful. The trials were conducted on two separate occasions and it performed to the satisfaction of the users," government sources told MAIL TODAY.After the completion of trials, the defence ministry will now start the process of initiating the contractual negotiations with Rosoboronexport, the Russian agency which handles defence deals with foreign countries, including the fixation of price, the sources said.
Despite the high price tag attached with the five S-400 systems India is planning to acquire, the Indian Air Force is extremely happy to get the weapon system as it will give them an edge over Pakistan and bring them on par with the Chinese who have already installed this system, the sources said.he missile system manufactured by Russia's Almaz Antey consists of a set of radars, missile launchers and command posts and the radar of each system can track between 100 and 300 targets simultaneously.With a tracking range of 600 km, the missile system can engage up to 36 targets simultaneously within a range of 400 km.The missile system gives India the capability to track all Pakistani air bases, while bringing the Chinese assets in Tibet in its striking range.
An intergovernmental agreement on the sale of S-400 was signed in October 2016 at the 17th India-Russia summit between President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which was earlier speculated to be pegged at Rs 54,000 crore.After the top level negotiations, the deal is likely to cost less than Rs 40,000 crore and may go down even further in the Russian Triumf to give India edge over China tough negotiations on price with the Russians.he Russian missile system would be used by the IAF, along with the other new air defence systems coming up in the country including the India-Israel joint venture Medium range-Surface to Air Missile system and the SPYDER systems that India recently acquired from Israel.India has also developed its own air short range air defence systems including the Akash air defence missiles while the Missile complex of DRDO has also successfully tested the new Quick Reaction Surface to Air Missile system.Air defence missile systems which can strike incoming targets at different ranges are deployed in tandem all over the world so that if one misses, there is a backup system to take down the enemy at the other level.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14470
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Karan M » 10 Sep 2017 07:06

Why would anyone buy NASAMS when Delhi has access to MRSAM, SpyDer and Akash?

Katare
BRFite
Posts: 1870
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Katare » 12 Sep 2017 10:10

You know the answer!

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19755
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 12 Sep 2017 10:28

Fifth Missile of S-400 Series Short Range 9M100 Missile ( 15 km ) shown at MAKS

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17637
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Philip » 12 Sep 2017 11:42

"Turkish delight" Indian samosas and jelkabis to follow too...!

Xcpts:
Vladimir Kozhin: S-400 contract with Turkey signed, about to be executed

Military & Defense September 12, 8:20 updated at: September 12, 9:00 UTC+3
The presidential aide for military-technical cooperation has spoken to TASS about Russia's military-technical exhibitions, promising deals and the impact of Western sanctions

Russian presidential aide for military-technical cooperation, Vladimir Kozhin, reviewed the results of these events, the conclusion of a number of major military-technical contracts, including those with Turkey for the supply of S-400 air defense systems and also promising agreements in that sphere that may materialize by the end of 2017 in an interview granted to TASS.
- Did Army-2017, MAKS-2017 and IMDS-2017 rise to the expectations of the military-technical sphere captains and the main manufacturers?


READ ALSO
Russia to fine-tune MiG-29N fighter jets for Malaysia
Russia to supply another batch of transport helicopters to China in 2018
Russia may supply first ten Ka-226T helicopters to India in 2017

Russia to sign contract with India on S-400 air defense missile system deliveries

On the sidelines of the Army-2017 show there was a meeting of the observer council of our joint venture with India that manufactures Brahmos missiles. The venture’s future development and guidelines for the promotion of its products to the market were discussed.

- There has been much talk about the provision of project 11356 frigates for India. When will Russia and India come close to concluding this contract? What power plants will be installed on the frigates to be built at an Indian shipyard? The Russian Navy’s Deputy Commander for Armaments, Viktor Bursuk, said that a second troika of these frigates would be built at the Yantar shipyard for the Black Sea Fleet, although the original intention was to sell two of the three to India. Will you please explain how will it all look like in the end?

READ ALSO
Project 11356 frigate
Two frigates of 11356 project to be finalized for Indian Navy
- As far as these frigates and their delivery are concerned, we hope that all final contracts will be signed by the end of this year. Under the terms of the contract we are to build the frigates. India is to purchase the power plants on its own. We know that the power plants will be Ukrainian, but that’s the customer’s realm of responsibility. India confirms that it is moving in this direction. We will honor our obligation regardless of the circumstances. I would prefer to say nothing about the state defense order or comment on what Defense Ministry officials say. These two themes are in no way related with each other.
- You said that Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand would like to purchase Russia’s project 636 submarines Varshavyanka. At what stage is the negotiating process at the moment? And when will it be possible to say specific contracts may be concluded?
Gallery 4 photo

© Pyotr Kovalev/TASS
Sixth Varshavyanka class diesel submarine joins Russian Navy

- It is true that the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand have taken interest in these submarines. Their technical parameters and the price-quality ratio as they are, these submarines are among those most in demand in the world.
Negotiations with all three countries are underway, but it is too early to say that a contract with any of them may be signed tomorrow. It should be remembered that a submarine is much more complex than a battle tank. Building it is a time and effort-consuming process. Also, the customer is to have a special infrastructure where ships of that class are based. The process is not a fast one, but the talks proceed. There is hope that in the future we will forge specific agreements.
- Although our submarines are one of the best, the share of naval technologies in the overall contract portfolio is not as great as we would like it to be. What’s the outlook for promoting our naval technologies to new countries and regions? What might help build up its share in the overall export?
According to our estimates, in 2017-2025 Russia’s export of naval hardware may be up to $40 billion

- A few words about another major aviation contract then. Rosoboronexport has already said that MiG-29 planes have begun to be delivered to Egypt. Photo news sections on some Egyptian websites confirm this. Official information on that score is scarce, though. When will this contact be implemented?
- Quite right. The contract has been signed. Some fighters have been delivered to Egypt already. About fifty planes will be provided over a period of several years. Everything will depend on the manufacturers’ capabilities. I am certain that we will cope with our contractual obligations on time.
- There have been conflicting reports about the contract with Indonesia for Sukhoi-35 jets. Wouldn’t you explain where these talks are at the moment? When can one expect the contract to be signed and how many planes would that country like to have?
- Our partners there wish to have a dozen planes. The situation looks like this. Indonesia has adopted a new law on the purchases of military products. It says that there must be a large offset component. India is pushing ahead with the Make in India program. Indonesia is proceeding in the same direction.

READ ALSO
Erdogan announces deal with Russia on S-400 air defense missile systems

Incidentally, I would like to point to one significant circumstance: there is a waiting list of likely buyers eager to have this system.
- Who is there in this queue of potential buyers?
- Southeast Asian and Middle Eastern countries and some CSTO member-states. There are many applications. A number of countries have taken specific interest in that system. But one should remember that it is a very expensive item of military hardware and far from everybody can afford it. The current contracts for these systems keep the manufacturers fully busy.

http://tass.com/defense/965028

Will
BRFite
Posts: 538
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Will » 12 Sep 2017 21:32

I am left scratching my head. After the Turks shot down a Russian aircraft they now get the S-400????

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2205
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby darshhan » 12 Sep 2017 21:36

Will wrote:I am left scratching my head. After the Turks shot down a Russian aircraft they now get the S-400????


Bijness is bijness.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2117
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby kit » 12 Sep 2017 23:29

Will wrote:I am left scratching my head. After the Turks shot down a Russian aircraft they now get the S-400????


:mrgreen: :mrgreen: Thats Putins bribe from Erdogan for giving early warning about the Western attempt at overthrowing his regime .. quid pro quo. Nothing else.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19755
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 13 Sep 2017 16:26

US was not willing to hand over Gülen movement cheif to Turkey who Erdogan believe was key leader to the coup and second is US supply of arms to Kurds and independence of Kurds goes against Turkey interest ,the rufugee crisis with EU and EU not granting Turkey EU member status these national interest where Turkey wont compromise.


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17637
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Philip » 16 Oct 2017 11:15

Russia's booming exports esp. of S-400s to India and others. How it is going to be integrated with our own ABM system would be v.interesting.

Exports of Russia’s S-400 missile systems
Military & Defense October 09, 16:31 UTC+3
Currently, the S-400 systems are in service only in Russia

TASS-FACTBOX. On Monday, the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation announced that Russia and Saudi Arabia reached agreements on the supplies of S-400 missile systems to Riyadh.

READ ALSO
Contacts with Riyadh over S-400 supplies have good preliminary result — Kremlin
Russia, Saudi Arabia agree on S-400 systems’ supplies
Saudi Arabia interested in buying S-400 missile systems

Currently, the S-400 systems are in service only in Russia. As of Monday, the contracts on the supplies of S-400 Triumf systems (NATO reporting name: SA-21 Growler) have been signed with four countries, including Saudi Arabia.

China
In July 2014, then-Kremlin chief of staff, Sergey Ivanov, told reporters that China could become the first foreign customer of the S-400. Shortly after, Russia’s Zvezda TV channel reported about China’s plans to buy at least six S-400 divisions worth more than $3 bln. On November 26, 2014, Vedomosti business daily reported, citing sources close to the Russian Defense Ministry, that Moscow signed a contract to supply the S-400 to China. On October 27, 2015, Director General of Rosoboronexport, Russia’s arms exporter, Anatoly Isaykin told reporters that it would supply the S-400 to China "within the timeframe set by the contract." Neither the sum of the deal nor the exact date was announced.
In November 2015, Russia`s Presidential Aide for Military-Technical Cooperation Vladimir Kozhin confirmed to journalists that the contract had been signed. In March 2016, Director General of the Rostec state corporation Sergey Chemezov said China had made an advance payment for the supplies of these missile systems. In June, he said the Chinese army would obtain these systems not earlier than 2018. On April 26, 2017, the press service of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation confirmed that the contract started being implemented.

India
On October 15, 2016, after talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the BRICS summit in Goa an agreement on S-400 supplies to India was signed. Neither the sum nor other details of the deal were unveiled. Earlier, Indian mass media reported about the country’s plans to buy five S-400 divisions.


Turkey
In November 2016, the talks between Turkey and Russia on the S-400 came to light. In March 2017, Rostec CEO Sergey Chemezov told reporters that the Turkish side expressed its wish to get a Russian loan on purchasing armaments, including the S-400.
On July 25, 2017, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that "certain documents" as part of a deal on buying Russia’s S-400 were signed. The Russian side confirmed on September 12, 2017 that the contract was inked. President Erdogan said that Ankara had made an advance payment under the contract.

READ ALSO
Turkey says it may annul S-400 contract if Russia rejects idea of joint production
Turkey makes down payment on S-400 systems — Russian presidential aide
Kremlin comments on Russia-Turkey deal on S-400 supplies
Supplies of S-400 systems to Turkey may begin within two years

Turkey became the first NATO member-state purchasing Russia’s S-400. Russian Presidential Aide Kozhin stressed that giving to Turkey production technologies for S-400 systems was out of question. No details on the number of divisions were provided.
According to Kommersant business daily, Turkey paid more than $2 bln to buy four S-400 divisions. Turkish Undersecretary for Defense Industry Ismail Demir later said the delivery of S-400 systems would begin within two years.
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu told the Aksam daily in an interview on Monday that Ankara could give up plans to buy the S-400 if no agreement on joint Russian-Turkish production of this system was reached.
Russia’s Defense Ministry representatives earlier said the S-400 could be exported to Belarus and Kazakhstan. No such supplies have been officially reported.
On August 28, 2017, the head of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation, Dmitry Shugayev, told Kommersant that about a dozen of bids to buy the S-400 were being considered.
In September, Russian Presidential Aide for Military-Technical Cooperation Vladimir Kozhin said in an interview with TASS that there was a waiting list of likely buyers eager to have this system. According to the official, countries of Southeast Asia, the Middle East and some member-states of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) showed interest in the S-400.

http://tass.com/defense/969682

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19755
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 16 Oct 2017 16:34

9M96 and 9M96E2 missile from S-400 System displayed at MAKS 17

Image
Image
Image

Image
Image
Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19755
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 18 Oct 2017 10:37

Decks Cleared For the Contract Signing of S-400 ADMS in December

Pravin Sawhney
India will purchase five regiments of Russian S-400 Triumf Air Defence Missile System (ADMS) valued at over six billion dollars. The contract is slated to be signed after two months in December in New Delhi as the Contract-Negotiation-Committee (CNC) comprising Russian and Indian officials, which has been working furtively since July, has wrapped up its work. The Union finance ministry has cleared the purchase and the file is with the Prime Minister’s Office.

It will be a government-to-government purchase with no provision for transfer of technology. Russia has assured that the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) — Almay-Antey Air Defence Corporation — will deal directly with the user, the Indian Air Force, to ensure timely product support. At present, all product support including spares and overhaul is done through Rosoboronexport, which is the official Russian export agency for arms sales.

Since India hopes for an early delivery of S-400, it has not considered Moscow’s offer of credit line for the purchase. Instead, cash will be given in tranches. The first, or perhaps two regiments, could be delivered by early 2020.

Each S-400 regiment comprises two batteries with four launchers each; this makes a total of 40 launchers for five regiments. Interestingly, India has ordered a total of 1,200 missiles in the very long-range and long-range category, with none in the medium and short ranges category. There will be fewer very-long range category missiles as compared with the other category.

S-400 can fire four different missiles: the very long-range 40N6 missile with a range of 400km; the long-range 48N6 missile with a range of 250km; the medium range 9M96E2 with 120km range; and the short-range 9M96E with 40km range. The 40N6 is ideal to kill enemy Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACA), while the 48N6 will be able to destroy all air objects including airplanes, helicopters, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles up to the speed of 4,800 meters per second. The ballistic missiles are killed 60km away from the target; this includes nuclear armed missiles which once destroyed will leave a thick nuclear haze over the target. The ideal ballistic missile for destruction could be Pakistan’s Nasr which has been touted as the answer to Indian Army’s Cold Start doctrine on the international border, and the sub-sonic Babur cruise missile.

Five regiments of S-400 will protect two to three major Indian cities including the capital city of New Delhi. In terms of configuration, India would need two surveillance radars each with phased array and multipath radar with range of 600km across 180 degrees to track up to 100 targets simultaneously. Moreover, each regiment which comprises two batteries with eight launchers will require one sectoral radar to acquire hostile target and pass its coordinates to the sectoral command post. Each Tractor Erector Launcher (TEL) which houses the missiles can carry four 48N6 missiles or two 40N6 missiles.

India and Russia had signed the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) for the purchase of S-400 on 15 October 2016 on the side-lines of the BRICS summit in Goa where Prime Minister Narendra Modi had sought an early agreement on the missile system from President Vladimir Putin. The S-400 purchase had been cleared earlier by the Defence Acquisition Council in December 2015. On the occasion of the signing of the IGA, the head of Russian Roctec, Sergey Chemezov had said that he hoped that “the contract would be signed by the middle of 2017. I believe the delivery will begin somewhere in 2020.”

There is a queue for purchase of S-400; while priority goes to the Russian armed forces — which have been inducting the system since 2008 —, China and Turkey have already paid for the purchase. China has sought just one regiment of S-400, perhaps to cover its Taiwan flank. Moreover, there are reports that Algeria too have paid for two regiments of S-400. According to Russian officials, Saudi King Salman, who was recently in Russia on the trip with deep geo-political significance, spoke with the Russian President for an early purchase of S-400.

The purchase of S-400 ADMS — which is known as SA-21 Growler by its NATO name was previously called S-300 PMU-3 — by India has signalled two things. One, India, which has adopted strategic and operational defensive posture against both Pakistan and China needs to protect its metropolitan cities and other high value targets from hostile AWACS (which have the dual purpose of air defence and offensive air operations), ballistic and cruise missiles. China has plenty of these assets and given its inter-operability (ability to fight together for common mission) with Pakistan, has transferred a large number of these to its closest ally.

That India is willing to purchase the S-400 by cash payment is testimony to the hope that Russia might place India ahead in its exports queue. Moreover, India, which was keen that Russia integrates indigenous Akash short-range anti-missile system with the S-400 has now decided to save time by first going ahead with the procurement. In the Russian armed forces, the S-400 has been integrated with the TOR system for short range target destruction. Russia was, therefore, keen that India buys its TOR system too; but this has not made much headway at this juncture.

The second clear signal from India is this: the Defence Research and Development Organisation cannot be trusted with real things. In a detailed conversation with me, the then DRDO chief, Padmashri Dr V.K. Saraswat had said in March 2010, “I will have all needed systems for Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) Phase-I (meant to hit medium-range ballistic missiles at ranges of 2,000km) including missiles, radars and all other elements required for strategic defence ready to protect New Delhi by 2013.” He had added that, “after that we will start work on Phase-II to cover ranges up to 5,000km.”

The BMD missiles, according to him, would be able to hit and kill hostile ballistic missiles both outside (exo-atmospheric) and inside (endo-atmospheric) during its trajectory which re-enter the atmosphere after first entering space on its launch. The purchase of S-400 ADMS underscores that India has little faith in the indigenous BMD. Given this, it is time that technical audit be done on all DRDO strategic systems including the BMD, Agni series of missiles, and of its claimed anti-satellite capability to hit satellites in all orbits — low, polar and even geo-synchronous. Dr Saraswat had told me that unlike China which has repeatedly demonstrated its anti-satellite capability by killing of its own legacy satellite, “We will have no technical benefit by actual flying test of anti-satellite capability.” It should be remembered that unlike conventional war systems which are tested by the users before induction in their inventory, the strategic systems meant for nuclear weapons deliver are not tested. India has little option but to trust its DRDO on this crucial aspect.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w, Google Feedfetcher, jpremnath, Karan M, prahaar, rakall, ravikr, srin, uskumar and 56 guests