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: 7484
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 02 Apr 2018 23:23

Austin wrote:MBDA SAMP/T anti-air system with Aster 30 missiles - Why is it better than Patriot?


SAMP/T as it currently stands cannot offer the entire breadth of the Patriot capability. There is no LR AAW/CA weapon analogous to the 160 km PAC-2 GEM/T which is still capable of performing the AAW mission against ECM unlike the TBM mission where it is a bit dated design. Granted the NATO Air-Forces don't want ground units to be doing long-range counter air for IFF and blue-on-blue concerns (because of disparate systems fielded by coalition elements) but individual users who lack the quality of these air-forces may want that for own self-defense needs although I'm sure the prospects of some NATO members doing or even wanting LR AAW at say 150-200 km range may scare the $hit out of NATO member AF pilots given how not all the air-forces upgrade or even maintain their IFF and other communication systems to the same standard, let alone the latest standard..(plus you have to worry about the Air Defense units themselves being to the latest or appropriate standard and then the competency of the operator and battery commander )

There is no TBM interceptor with SAMP/T, in service, that can reach out against targets in the 1200-1400 km range as the PAC-3 MSE can. Similarly, a 4 launcher Patriot Battery focused on the TBM missile can have up to 64 ready to launch interceptors while a 4 launcher SAMP/T battery manages only 1/2 of that. Then there is the advanced discrimination work down with the two of the latest builds PB-7 and PB-8. The one drawback the patriot had is/was the 360 degree radar capability given that it was a sectored system but that is changing now with LTAMD sensor which is no a program of record and has an export customer in Poland.A 360 degree Surveillance Radar is however integrated into the Patriot and has been used on multiple occasions for both long range surveillance of air-breathing as well as Ballistic Missile targets, although it is seldom actually deployed.

The best European alternative to the Patriot will be the MEADS once Germany places the TVLS order in the coming months (It too is an MBDA and Lockheed JV). Born out of the Corpse SAM concept it is really designed to be a more mobile Patriot-Lite with AESA radars and an open architecture. SAMP/T over the next decade will field more capable interceptors but the problem with the Franco-Italian investment in the system is the minimal testing that is done on the TBM mission. But MEADS too, like the SAMP/T lacks LR AAW capability.

However, the biggest advantages to prospective European customers for the Patriot is now to buy into IBCS and have a plug and play system with NATO systems ranging from MEADS to US Army IFPC and even THAAD. This will be true-Fire-Control level integration through a common command and control unlike a common language interface and data-link to share overlays and situational awareness as would occur between say a SAMP/T and a THAAD unit communicating over L-16. In about two years time, a THAAD AN/TYP-2 radar would be able to guide a PAC-3 MSE launched from a Patriot battery to intercept. This is not possible with the A-30. At best the SAMP-T can aspire to receive some sort of early-warning from the TPY-2 operator over Link-16. There is absolutely no IBCS analogous coming out the SAMP-T family that enables "any-sensor any-shooter" concepts as the Patriot and IBCS-beta has already shown with a dispersed Sentinel radar guiding a Patriot missile to intercept a cruise missile target outside of its radar's coverage. IBCS is expected to be fielded in the 2022 time-frame so it is not that far and in time for any new purchase. With SMART-L and other radars, the European contribution is much more significant on the sensor side than the interceptor or C2 side and the SAMP/T still lacks an AESA unlike MEADS which comes with 2 standard. For nations like Poland and Romania, another important aspect that favors the Patriot has been the fact that they can mix and match fire-units, interceptors and even C2 systems with the US which routinely deploys its systems to these countries and has the size and scale to share during periods of need. Neither France nor Italy deploy as often nor maintain so much surplus stock that they can share with other users during time of need. Nations like Poland, Romania or even Sweden who do not have an organic Air Defense design base and rely on host nation to move the needle with networking, command and control, integration and new sensor would value that as they would like to latch on to host-nation funded R&D as much as possible.


kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3035
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby kit » 01 Jun 2018 13:51

brar_w wrote:
Austin wrote:MBDA SAMP/T anti-air system with Aster 30 missiles - Why is it better than Patriot?




Essentially that means these countries plug into the US globally deployed sensor /warning system. So there's the reason why China and Russia screams at systems deployed near their borders.

jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 968
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby jaysimha » 20 Jun 2018 15:06


dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1087
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby dinesha » 27 Jun 2018 18:21

US may offer air defence system to block S-400 missile deal with Russia
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 753870.cms

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 544
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Trikaal » 27 Jun 2018 19:07

THAAD in India? Interesting! But no thanks, we will stick with S-400.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36303
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby SaiK » 03 Aug 2018 20:08

http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/ ... 52197.html

It would be interesting to know more about the multiple target simulations.
-selecting one of the targets
-identification of the target
-mission objective
-exo-range ? why not 2k test on exo? etc

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7061
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby disha » 03 Aug 2018 21:21

Trikaal wrote:THAAD in India? Interesting! But no thanks, we will stick with S-400.


^Why not? In fact India has several B-Towns that will gain in prominence and need to be protected, particularly in the Bihar/UP belt. Having THAAD as an option with India's own AAD/PAD for its B/C Towns will create a complex layer for the adversary.

Imagine how the bants of a PLA commander will be twisted if they try to target any city in India. Including Kolkatta.

Remember, India's economy will be 8-10 Trillion USD by 2030. It will be surrounded by at least two nuclear armed adversaries and one of them is worse than a rabid mongrel. Till that rabid mongrel is put to sleep for good, all of India's assets need to be protected.

AdityaM
BRFite
Posts: 1921
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby AdityaM » 03 Aug 2018 22:47

http://www.delhidefencereview.com/2018/08/02/drdo-successfully-test-aad-endoatmospheric-interceptors-against-multiple-incoming/amp/?q=/2018/08/02/drdo-successfully-test-aad-endoatmospheric-interceptors-against-multiple-incoming/&#click=https://t.co/lWySpLY8pi

The AAD interceptor was initially guided by its on-board inertial navigation system (INS) which received continuous updates about the incoming target’s trajectory from ground-based radars through a secure data link. After that, a radio frequency (RF) seeker in AAD’s nose cone section tracked the target while an intercept course was plotted by its on-board computer (OBC)




How does a simulated target get tracked by radio frequency (RF) seeker in AAD’s nose cone section. Ground radars could simulate the signal. But RF seeker would need a physical target, or not?

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3035
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby kit » 04 Aug 2018 02:49

https://www.janes.com/article/82064/indian-mod-approves-import-of-nasams-air-defence-system


India’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) has approved the USD1 billion acquisition of an upgraded version of the Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace/Raytheon National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) – commonly referred to as NASAMS II – for the Indian Air Force (IAF) to bolster the country’s air defences over the federal capital New Delhi.

A NASAMS battery consists of up to 12 multimissile launchers, each of which can carry six AIM-120-series advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAMs) or other surface-to-air missiles (SAMs); up to eight AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel X-band 3D radars; up to four Fire Distribution Centres (FDCs); and up to four MPS 500 electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensor system vehicles.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 544
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Trikaal » 04 Aug 2018 07:53

disha wrote:
^Why not? In fact India has several B-Towns that will gain in prominence and need to be protected, particularly in the Bihar/UP belt. Having THAAD as an option with India's own AAD/PAD for its B/C Towns will create a complex layer for the adversary.

Imagine how the bants of a PLA commander will be twisted if they try to target any city in India. Including Kolkatta.

Remember, India's economy will be 8-10 Trillion USD by 2030. It will be surrounded by at least two nuclear armed adversaries and one of them is worse than a rabid mongrel. Till that rabid mongrel is put to sleep for good, all of India's assets need to be protected.


This discussion is smoewhat pointless now, considering that US is selling us NASAMS instead of THAAD. In layman's terms, NASAMS to THAAD is Maruti 800 to Ferrari 812.

This is essentially the problem with being a buyer nation. The seller gets to dictate the terms. Anyone can see that this sale is being forced on India, considering we already have Akash and Spyder systems which do the same bloody job.

Coming to your exact point of why S-400 and why not both. Because it costs a ton of money to buy either. Money that can well be spent in developing home capabilities. You will never have the budget of protecting B/C cities with THAAD or S-400. At best, we will be able to buy protection for the big 4 cities(Delhi, mumbai, chennai and kolkata). PLA commanders will be in a bind only when home grown systems have developed enough to be deployed in numbers. This is why I don't want precious resources being frittered away to buy shiny new missile systems. One is more than enough.

Regarding being surrounded by a rabid nuclear power, get out of the defensive mindset for god's sake! Pakistan's defense strategy relies on scaring India with untold damage and reading your post, I think they are quite successful. One should never forget that if Pakistan makes the mistake of firing a single nuke, we can retaliate too! Our nukes aren't just for show. And no, Pakistan is not mad enough to get into a war which could lead to its oblivion. Rhetoric is not the same as action. They are lead by the same kind of people whose number 1 concern is the well being of their own musharrafs.

Everytime Pakistan has attacked us, it has done so when we were qualitatively weaker or it believed escalation to be impossible. Turns out, it was right in those assessments too since we have mostly fought defensively everytime(1971 was an exception).

I am not even going to consider a nuclear war with china because if we are going to be 8-10 trillion economy then they will be a 20 trillion economy at the least. They have much more to lose. Let them protect their B/C towns from us, their rabid nuclear armed neighbors.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7061
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby disha » 04 Aug 2018 23:10

Trikaal wrote:Regarding being surrounded by a rabid nuclear power, get out of the defensive mindset for god's sake! Pakistan's defense strategy relies on scaring India with untold damage and reading your post, I think they are quite successful.


Trikaal'ji humble request to you to not do a pisko-analysis of your fellow posters and derail the discussions. You do not know my mindset and neither can you purport to know my mindset based on your reading of a single post (of mine) from within the enclosures of your own prism. Maybe you are inadvertently giving away your own mindset and biases., but I do not care.

Hence humble request to get off your high horse and keep the discussion objective.

===

Coming to your point, you are comparing NASAM to THAAD, but the comparison itself is meaningless to me.

THAAD has a very good equivalent in our own AAD/PAD., while S-400 is top-tier and is required for India, NASAM provides immediate operational capabilities to plug the gaps particularly on the lower end of capability of NASAM spectrum.

In terms of capabilities, one can simply put together:

NASAM < (AAD/PAD = THAAD) </<= S-400

Another way to look at it is:

Drones/airplanes/Bandars < SRBM/IRBM < ICBM

One can on paper put THAAD instead of S-400, but again that will be paper exercise since S-400 is more available to India than THAAD. While NASAM is already available to India. Using S-400 for drones is overkill. A SAM unit or set of SAM Units are point defense and does not provide a quick reaction (networked) security bubble like NASM

Going for point SAM - NASAM - AAD/PAD - S-400, will layer the defense. Since all the threats do not emanate from missiles. All not from ICBMs. All not from IRBMs. Some could emanate from aircraft (think Malaysian airlines here) and drones. Or "projectiles" that has breached the layered security bubbles.

NASAM provides a way forward for AAD/PAD to evolve and AAD/PAD will plug the mid-range gap between S-400 and NASAM as it evolves. It also allows for planners to tailor the bubbles according to the threat perception for that city. For example Surat will not require AAD/PAD or S-400 but may require NASAM and Mysore will not require NASAM but may require point-SAM or batteries of SAM. What about Ahmedabad? Does Mumbai require S-400? Will AAD/PAD do for Chennai?

===

On the topic of rabid dogs, your guarantee that bakistani only cares about their musharrafs can be taken at face value only when you guarantee that no jihadi suar is habitating the state of Bakistan, both mentally as well physically and now in present and also in future.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 544
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Trikaal » 05 Aug 2018 13:28

disha wrote:Coming to your point, you are comparing NASAM to THAAD, but the comparison itself is meaningless to me.

THAAD has a very good equivalent in our own AAD/PAD., while S-400 is top-tier and is required for India, NASAM provides immediate operational capabilities to plug the gaps particularly on the lower end of capability of NASAM spectrum.

In terms of capabilities, one can simply put together:

NASAM < (AAD/PAD = THAAD) </<= S-400

Another way to look at it is:

Drones/airplanes/Bandars < SRBM/IRBM < ICBM
One can on paper put THAAD instead of S-400, but again that will be paper exercise since S-400 is more available to India than THAAD. While NASAM is already available to India. Using S-400 for drones is overkill. A SAM unit or set of SAM Units are point defense and does not provide a quick reaction (networked) security bubble like NASM

Going for point SAM - NASAM - AAD/PAD - S-400, will layer the defense. Since all the threats do not emanate from missiles. All not from ICBMs. All not from IRBMs. Some could emanate from aircraft (think Malaysian airlines here) and drones. Or "projectiles" that has breached the layered security bubbles.

NASAM provides a way forward for AAD/PAD to evolve and AAD/PAD will plug the mid-range gap between S-400 and NASAM as it evolves. It also allows for planners to tailor the bubbles according to the threat perception for that city. For example Surat will not require AAD/PAD or S-400 but may require NASAM and Mysore will not require NASAM but may require point-SAM or batteries of SAM. What about Ahmedabad? Does Mumbai require S-400? Will AAD/PAD do for Chennai?

So many things wrong there. Please don't be offended but you seem to lack the understanding of difference between S-400 and THAAD.

THAAD is typically a long range ballistic missile defense system. It works best(much better than S-400) against IRBM/ICBMs. This is why US has installed THAADs in South Korea because the principal form of risk from North Korea is their missiles(especially ICBMs against US). THAAD is not very good against airplanes because that is not its primary objective. Aircrafts can maneuver a lot more than a ballistic missile and THAAD missiles would bleed too much energy chasing them. On the other hand, THAAD missiles are much faster than S-400(or other LRSAMs) and have range enough to engage an ICBM in exo-orbit before it can launch its warheads. Hence, usually THAAD is provided with anti-aircraft protection through other fighter jets.

S-400 on the other hand, is a typical LRSAM system. It works very well against high/low altitude fighter jets. It can work against ballistic missiles too but just like THAAD, that's not its primary objective hence it's ability against missiles is not as good as it is against aircrafts. Aircrafts aren't as fast as missiles so targeting them requires more maneuverability than speed. Dual pulse motors and throttled motors, etc allow conservation of energy to target aircrafts but don't allow good enough speeds to engage ICBMs effectively. Remember, even Russians praise their S-400 system by boasting of its capability to take down F-22 and not about its ability to tackle ICBMs. Frankly, S-400 will be very poorly matched against an MIRV ICBM since it can't engage the ICBM at a far enough distance to prevent the separation of warheads.

Coming to Indian requirements, our main threat is Pak bombers on New Delhi/Mumbai and not ICBMs with MIRVs(ababeel is a hoax mirv so let's not bring that up). This is why New Delhi is keen on S-400 and not THAAD. S-400 will be just as good as THAAD against Short ramge missiles(babar series) as long as there is no threat of mirv. Chinese missiles(dong feng, etc) are not a part of indian security calculations. Why is that so? I can't say. Maybe because we believe China will never risk its economy by going into a full scale war against india hence launch of ballistic missiles is a very remote possibility.

Now coming to NASAMs, it is a SRSAM system, exactly the same as Spyder. Spyder uses python and derby A2A missiles while NASAM uses AIM-120 and its derivatives. There is absolutely no difference in their capability or combat specifications. Maybe you can argue that AIM-120 is a better missile than Python/derby. But still both will perform the same role,i.e. protect a unit against A2G attack and from rockets/Short range missiles. They won't start targeting Aircrafts in very high altitudes or IRBMs/ICBMs any time soon. Same is the case with Akash. Which is why I said acquiring NASAMs is completely pointless as it just leads to duplication of equipment. THAAD still has a role, (though one which is not required as per indian security calculations as of now,) as it is quite different from S-400.

AAD/PAD have nothing in common with either S-400 or NASAM. Think of it as desi THAAD(another reason India is not keen on buying THAAD since we are already developing our own). AAD/PAD will suffer from same drawbacks against aircrafts as THAAD.

disha wrote:On the topic of rabid dogs, your guarantee that bakistani only cares about their musharrafs can be taken at face value only when you guarantee that no jihadi suar is habitating the state of Bakistan, both mentally as well physically and now in present and also in future.

Again, jihadis fight by infiltrating borders. They won't get nukes or missiles to fire at india because an attack on india, no matter who fires it, is an act of war. Then we won't differentiate whether it was fired by rogue elements or paki state. And pakistan does not want war, especially one that it doesn't even start intentionally. So it is pakis responsibility to protect their own missiles from these rogue elements. And rogue elements won't get ICBMs. The best they can hope for is a SRSAM, for which Spyder/Akash-S-400 is sufficient. You don't need THAAD for SRSAM because it is overkill and u don't need NASAM because it is a duplication of SpyDer

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7358
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 08 Aug 2018 03:07


Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 544
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Trikaal » 14 Aug 2018 15:42

http://idrw.org/nuclear-missile-trackin ... ore-178000

Does this mean we are working on an Aegis-like BMD system? That would be game-changing.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11070
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby pankajs » 14 Aug 2018 16:16

^
No.

Vamsi_V
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 25
Joined: 26 Sep 2016 09:20

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Vamsi_V » 14 Aug 2018 17:38

So India is going to buy nasams 2 instead of S-400??

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11070
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby pankajs » 14 Aug 2018 18:40

At present the plan seems to be to buy both.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 544
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Trikaal » 14 Aug 2018 22:35

pankajs wrote:^
No.

What do you think the ship based radars will connect to then?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17952
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Karan M » 14 Aug 2018 22:54

Trikaal wrote:
pankajs wrote:^
No.

What do you think the ship based radars will connect to then?


The ship based radars (the golfballs) are for calibrating our tests for BMD/BMs etc and also to keep an eye out for our neighbours tests. They are not dedicated BMD FCRs.

So far, we don't seem to have a plan in place for a naval Aegis style system though the building blocks are there and the LRSAM should be able to handle some classes of BM targets (the IA version of the MRSAM is slated to include testing against BM threats & no reason why the advancements shouldn't be available for the IN as well if possible). Plus the PRC's use of the SRBM/IRBM diving type carrier killers must have definitely made the IN take note.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 14 Aug 2018 22:55


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7484
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Sep 2018 18:27

Trikaal wrote:So many things wrong there. Please don't be offended but you seem to lack the understanding of difference between S-400 and THAAD.

THAAD is typically a long range ballistic missile defense system. It works best(much better than S-400) against IRBM/ICBMs. This is why US has installed THAADs in South Korea because the principal form of risk from North Korea is their missiles(especially ICBMs against US). THAAD is not very good against airplanes because that is not its primary objective. Aircrafts can maneuver a lot more than a ballistic missile and THAAD missiles would bleed too much energy chasing them.



Please don't be offended ;) but THAAD has ZERO residual capability against Air Breathing Targets such as aircraft, cruise missiles or UAVs. Even the TPY-2 is essentially looking up and for faster targets given that the mandate is to execute an exoatmospheric intercept if possible. Additional modes are being added to the upgraded TPY-2s (new ones with GaN TRIMMs) so that they can perform better against the "within atmosphere" Hypersonic gliders but nowhere is the system required to execute Non-Ballistic/Hypersonic missile targets. It isn't a matter of it being goof or not very good against the target type..it is a matter of it not being capable of even planning an intercept against these target types. THAAD is an extension of the Patriot even though it has deployed independently. It essentially beefs up the PATRIOTs capability when longer ranged missiles are prevalent in a region.

So at times of a conflict these two systems will be deployed together and PATRIOT batteries will be co-located with THAAD batteries and the entire system will then be able to cover the entire spectrum of the potential threat. The reason they are two distinct systems and not just a NG PATRIOT is that of the theater requirements. PATRIOT has a higher emphasis on mobility while THAAD has sensors that are larger, and longer ranged so it didn't need to be as mobile because of its coverage. Secondly, TPY-2s have a secondary surveillance role and are indeed deployed as stand-alone sensors and in that capacity, they provide much valuable sensor data to AEGIS ships at sea to enable Launch On Remote operational concepts with Standard Missile -3 Interceptors.

More on the TPY-2 upgrades mentioned above (AviationWeek) :

Raytheon Boosting Performance Of TPY-2 Radar

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and Raytheon will greatly improve detection range and sensitivity of the X-band TPY-2 missile defense radar through the introduction of gallium nitride semiconductor components, and Saudi Arabia could be among the first beneficiaries.

Raytheon says going forward all new and upgraded TPY-2 active electronically scanned array radars for domestic and international customers will be delivered with GaN-based transmit/receive modules rather than legacy gallium arsenide elements.

The manufacturer also will boost the TPY-2’s computing power and image resolution by introducing X86 microprocessors and digital receiver/exciter units.

As the eyes of Lockheed Martin’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (Thaad) antiballistic missile system, the radar can detect and track short- to intercontinental-range ballistic missiles from ascent to decent, depending on its proximity to the threat.
GaN components can operate at higher power levels, or more efficiently at the same power levels, compared to gallium arsenide components. By improving the TYP-2’s range through the introduction of GaN components, military operators will have more time to act against ballistic missile threats. By adding processing power and higher resolution, the radar also can take advantage of more complex target tracking and discrimination algorithms.

Judy Lewis, vice president of business development at Raytheon’s mission systems and sensors business, says the transitioning to GaN components as well as the X86 processor and digital receiver/exciter will multiply the TPY-2’s performance.

“If you can see it farther out and see the details, that’s incredible for missile defense,” Lewis says. “It overall increases the battlespace.”

The TPY-2 has an unclassified detection range of 621 mi. (1,000 km), but can probably see much farther. Raytheon won’t say how far.
Raytheon produces GaN radio frequency amplifiers for military radars at its foundry in Andover, Massachusetts. GaN components already feature in the company’s new SPY-6 Air and Missile Defense Radar and Next Generation Jammer, designed for the U.S. Navy’s DDG 51 Flight III destroyer and Boeing EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft, respectively.

Under a “production planning” contract awarded to Raytheon last year, the company has been preparing for the introduction of GaN-based components into the TPY-2 production line. Once the first GaN-based TPY-2 unit is assembled and tested, all radars thereafter will be built to the same specifications, domestic or foreign.

The U.S. government currently operates 12 TPY-2 units: seven providing terminal-phase fire control for U.S. Army Thaad batteries and another five in a forward-base mode for early warning of missile threats.Two more radars were ordered as part of an unspecified foreign military sales case, likely Qatar, which the State Department cleared in 2012 to receive up to 12 Thaad fire units and two TPY-2 radars.

The Pentagon could consider buying more Thaad batteries and radars to counter the growing missile threat abroad, or it might convert existing TPY-2s to the improved configuration through a depot-level upgrade that Raytheon has proposed.
Saudi Arabia could become the first foreign military operator of the GaN-based TPY-2 if it proceeds with a massive Thaad deal worth up to $15 billion. On Oct. 6, the State Department approved Riyadh’s request for up to 44 Thaad launchers, 360 interceptors, 16 fire control units and seven TPY-2 radars.

“After the production planning period, all new TPY-2s that are developed will incorporate GaN,” Lewis says. “And, as old antennas are upgraded and replaced, those new components will receive GaN.”


Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 544
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Trikaal » 09 Sep 2018 19:12

brar_w sir, thank you for enlightening me again :oops:

You are right, THAAD was conceptualized to deal with exo-atmospheric threats. However, if I remember correctly, there was a report a few years ago, during talks of THAAD deployment in S. K., that US had improved THAAD to also be able to deal with aircrafts. I based my assessment of THAAD having minor capabilities against aircrafts on that report. It could very well be false or just a reference to the joint deployment of Patriots and THAAD as you mentioned.

But I guess my main point stands, that S-400 and THAAD have very different roles and cannot substitute for each other.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7484
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Sep 2018 19:14

^ No, THAAD has ZERO capability against aircraft, cruise missiles, UAV's or any other non Ballistic Missile target other than perhaps a LEO Sat.. The requirements for the system were to put into a theater a purely BMD system that was deployable, mobile, and one that could cover the MRBM-IRBM threat. THAAD is also ineffective against the sub-1000-1500 km ranged threat hence the PAC-3 MSE. You can add Terminal ICBM defense to THAAD by upgrading the interceptor and this is an area of growth that is possible in the future. You could also add Air Breathing target capability but then this really begins to go into Patriot territory and there needs to be a good reason why this enhanced capability is simply not added to the PATRIOT as opposed to the THAAD. Think of integrating a THAAD launcher on the PATRIOT and firing a longer ranged SAM as an example.

The S400 and THAAD are designed by different users for different needs. Similarly, in the case of the US systems, they are developed and are being marketed by different OEMs (THAAD by Lockheed and PATRIOT by Raytheon and now by Northrop Grumman as well). I guess if one wanted to create a MIM-XXX and blend the PATRIOT and THAAD and market it as one solution then you could have an uber system of different radars, launchers etc but that is not the way it is done however the end result of the operational deployment is the same i.e. if adequate threat presents itself these assets are deployed together.

In US Army nomenclature they are simply known as an upper tier and a lower tier system and if threats exist in both of those areas then they are supposed to be deployed together and co-located. There are operational needs and doctrinal differences here. The US Army has no homeland defense need from either of these two systems, while the Russians use their systems primarily from home. Similarly, doctrinally OCA/DCA is an Air-Force and Navy mission area and Army SAMs only play a secondary role. This is why the 350+km interceptors that the US Navy fields on its ships haven't really made it to the US Army launchers (or similar weapons)..Same when it comes to surveillance. The US Army relies on USAF, USMC and USN assets providing long-range Air to Air (AWACS, E-2s, UAVs etc) and Ground to Air (Marines and USAF with their LR and MR surveillance radars) radar picture so itself does not deploy as many surveillance sensors organically.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby arun » 05 Oct 2018 19:16

X Posted from the India-Russia thread.

Russian media outfit Sputnik on the deal for 5 squadrons of S400 Triumf quoting Kremlin Spokesman Dmitriy Peskov and Rosoboronexport Director-General Alexander Mikheev. Deliveries to begin in October 2020:

India, Russia Formally Ink $5.4 billion S-400 Air Defense System Deal – Kremlin


JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4076
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby JayS » 07 Oct 2018 12:17

brar_w wrote:^ No, THAAD has ZERO capability against aircraft, cruise missiles, UAV's or any other non Ballistic Missile target other than perhaps a LEO Sat.. The requirements for the system were to put into a theater a purely BMD system that was deployable, mobile, and one that could cover the MRBM-IRBM threat. THAAD is also ineffective against the sub-1000-1500 km ranged threat hence the PAC-3 MSE. You can add Terminal ICBM defense to THAAD by upgrading the interceptor and this is an area of growth that is possible in the future. You could also add Air Breathing target capability but then this really begins to go into Patriot territory and there needs to be a good reason why this enhanced capability is simply not added to the PATRIOT as opposed to the THAAD. Think of integrating a THAAD launcher on the PATRIOT and firing a longer ranged SAM as an example.


If I am correct THAAD has only one kind of missile as of now, right..? I think THAAD couldn't be put to use with its existing missile against endo-atmospheric interception due to limitation of DACS system. I think it would not be able to give enough control in thicker atmosphere. The endo and exo atmospheric interception essentially need two different kinds of solutions. And then agains as you mentioned, a system with lower range interception capability would need higher mobility. So it makes sense to certain extent to develop two specialised systems separately. Even Indian BMD has two different kinds of missiles for endo and exo interception.

I read there was THAAD-ER proposed to fill in the gap between PATRIOT and THAAD vis-a-vis hypersonic gliders. The missiles for that were bit bigger than the existing ones.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7484
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Oct 2018 19:05

JayS wrote:If I am correct THAAD has only one kind of missile as of now, right..? I think THAAD couldn't be put to use with its existing missile against endo-atmospheric interception due to limitation of DACS system.


THAAD can intercept both within the atmosphere, and outside the atmosphere. The envelope that is usually attributed to its altitude is around 50 km (min) and around 150 km (max) although there are rumors that the max altitude is in reality significantly better than what is claimed. Designing one missile with that envelope was the most challenging part of the program (while also meeting 8 per launcher requirements which dictated size) and the lower altitude requirement (originally set b/w 30-40 km iirc) had to be moved up. The US Army refers to this as the upper tier system. The PATRIOT is the lower tier system and any capability below THAAD is its mission area. In the coming 18 or so months, the THAAD radar would be able to integrate with the new PAC-3 MSE and guide it to intercept so it will be capable (if deployed with Patriot launchers, PAC-3 MSE missiles and IBCS EOC) of improving its minimum altitude intercept capabilities as well but only against the type of Ballistic Missile threats the MSE is designed for (sub 1500 km ranged missiles).

https://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet- ... rcept-test

https://i.postimg.cc/T17NDKTT/THAADPAC3.jpg

I read there was THAAD-ER proposed to fill in the gap between PATRIOT and THAAD vis-a-vis hypersonic gliders. The missiles for that were bit bigger than the existing ones.


THAAD-ER actually filled the gap between the THAAD and SM3 and provided better look-shoot-look opportunities in areas where there was no AEGIS or AEGIS-Ashore protection, but in general it would have given a better capability even within the existing endoatmosheric envelope of THAAD as the two stage motor would have allowed greater kinematics and envelope (hence also improved its ability to go against gliders). The US MDA is competing this whole mission area (hypersonic glider defense) and DARPA is currently studying it under the "Glide Breaker" program so THAAD-ER is not a shoo-in.
Last edited by brar_w on 07 Oct 2018 19:38, edited 5 times in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66607
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Singha » 07 Oct 2018 19:12

doesnt the US have a huge GBI ground based interceptor with a ceiling of 2000km to hit ICBMs ?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7484
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Oct 2018 19:14

Singha wrote:doesnt the US have a huge GBI ground based interceptor with a ceiling of 2000km to hit ICBMs ?


Yes GBI is for those sort of threats (Upper IRBM to ICBM) but those are from fixed sites and protect against threats coming from the West. THAAD on the other hand is not a homeland defense system, it is designed for Theater needs hence its current envelope (MRBM-IRBM). THAAD (and Patriot) is a terminal stage intercepting system while GBI, along with AEGIS are mid-course defense system (Though AEGIS with SM6 now has excellent Terminal defense capabilities against SRBMs and MRBMs and with SM6 Mk1 against IRBMs as well in the near term). It is cost prohibitive for the US to try to provide terminal coverage over the entire country (much the same reasons for Japan choosing AEGIS Ashore hybrid vs THAAD) hence there the mid-course option is preferred.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 07 Oct 2018 19:52

How S-400 air defence system can be a game changer for India

https://www.indiatoday.in/programme/ind ... 2018-10-05

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4076
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby JayS » 07 Oct 2018 20:04

brar_w wrote:
JayS wrote:If I am correct THAAD has only one kind of missile as of now, right..? I think THAAD couldn't be put to use with its existing missile against endo-atmospheric interception due to limitation of DACS system.


THAAD can intercept both within the atmosphere, and outside the atmosphere. The envelope that is usually attributed to its altitude is around 50 km (min) and around 150 km (max) although there are rumors that the max altitude is in reality significantly better than what is claimed. Designing one missile with that envelope was the most challenging part of the program (while also meeting 8 per launcher requirements which dictated size) and the lower altitude requirement (originally set b/w 30-40 km iirc) had to be moved up.


Wait, don't the consider >50km as exo-atmospheric..? IIRC, 50km is considered as the boundary above which its difficult to get any meaningful control through aerodynamic controllers without having to retort to very high speeds and below which DACS would be rather ineffective due to the denser atmosphere rendering the tiny thrusters practically useless, i.e. boundary between the endo and exo atmosphere.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7484
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Oct 2018 20:09

JayS wrote:Wait, don't the consider >50km as exo-atmospheric..? IIRC, 50km is considered as the boundary above which its difficult to get any meaningful control through aerodynamic controllers without having to retort to very high speeds and below which DACS would be rather ineffective due to the denser atmosphere rendering the tiny thrusters practically useless, i.e. boundary between the endo and exo atmosphere.


Generally, in Missile defense nomenclature, anything below the Karman line (100 km) is considered endo while anything above it is considered exo.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/endo.htm

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4076
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby JayS » 07 Oct 2018 20:43

brar_w wrote:
JayS wrote:Wait, don't the consider >50km as exo-atmospheric..? IIRC, 50km is considered as the boundary above which its difficult to get any meaningful control through aerodynamic controllers without having to retort to very high speeds and below which DACS would be rather ineffective due to the denser atmosphere rendering the tiny thrusters practically useless, i.e. boundary between the endo and exo atmosphere.


Generally, in Missile defense nomenclature, anything below the Karman line (100 km) is considered endo while anything above it is considered exo.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/endo.htm


Hmm. I think DRDO considers >50km as exo. At least for Phase-1 of BMD, PAD had pretty low altitude of interception, 80km max, wiki tells me. Only PDV now is designed for 150km altitude. Or may be its just semantics. :wink:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7484
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Oct 2018 20:51

brar_w wrote:
Austin wrote:MBDA SAMP/T anti-air system with Aster 30 missiles - Why is it better than Patriot?


SAMP/T as it currently stands cannot offer the entire breadth of the Patriot capability...


Here is another strong indication of where the Patriot is headed. The incumbent for the radar (Raytheon) is not designing a rotating 360 degree sensor. It is well known in US defense industry circles that the US Army rejected MEADS because it did not want a rotating radar for TBM duties (it was fine with it for the cruise missile and AAW duties). Raytheon is the only company in the program (of the two) that is working on a long range fire-control radar that will have individual panels that cumulatively provide 360 degree coverage. SAMP/Ts PESA rotates and is similar to MEADS.

Army chooses Raytheon, Lockheed to mature new missile defense radars


McIntire noted that while a 360-degree capability is a top priority, there might be some key performance parameters that rank higher such as more efficiency and better range.

“We are proud to be selected as one of the companies to move forward to the Technical Maturation and Risk Reduction phase for the Lower Tier and Air Missile Defense Sensor that will provide the United States Army the ability to detect, identify, track and report aircraft and missiles,” a Lockheed spokesperson said in an Oct. 3 statement to Defense News.Raytheon spokesman Mike Nachshen told Defense News that the company is entering the technology-maturation and risk-reduction phase of the program with a brand-new radar, rather than an upgraded Patriot radar.

The capability was designed from the ground up using gallium nitride technology and a staring array, rather than a rotating one, to provide constant 360-degree coverage, according to Nachshen. The company has its own GaN foundry.


^ Note that they are not going with an upgraded Patriot radar with GaN AESA antennas as they have proposed for export (upgrading existing deployed Patriot radars). They are developing a totally new radar. This will be a very interesting solution to watch given long range radars at those frequencies consume a lot of power. A Rotating MEADS FCR requires a 300kW generator so one could imaging what a staring 360 degree radar with better performance would require. Raytheon's move is even more surprising given that they have had a prototype C-Band GaN Long Range radar in testing for well over 5 years now and are on contract to deliver dozens of those radars to the USAF. Similarly, they have also had the upgraded C Band GaN Patriot radar in testing for a number of years.

Lockheed's solution is a scaled version of its dual band/dual aperture (S and C band via the same radar and antenna) radar that they will scale as per the US Army's performance requirements. They have not indicated that they plan on switching to a staring radar yet although they could also very much follow that path.
Last edited by brar_w on 07 Oct 2018 21:16, edited 2 times in total.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 544
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Trikaal » 07 Oct 2018 20:59

brar_w wrote:
Here is another strong indication of where the Patriot is headed. The incumbent for the radar (Raytheon) is not designing a rotating 360 degree sensor. It is well known in US defense industry circles that the US Army rejected MEADS because it did not want a rotating radar for TBM duties (it was fine with it for the cruise missile and AAW duties).

What's the advantage of fixed array over rotating array radar?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7484
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Oct 2018 21:03

Trikaal wrote:What's the advantage of fixed array over rotating array radar?


For ballistic missile defense, the US Army prefers a fixed/staring array given the higher revisit rates against the most pressing targets that also require better discrimination (scenarios such as a ballistic missile raid on an airbase where many missiles are launched simultaneously along with other types of weapons like cruise missiles). Disadvantage is of course that if you were to also pile on the requirements for 360 degree coverage (while holding range and performance constant) you then increase the power requirements of the system significantly at those frequencies (US Army trade space is largely considered to be C band or higher given discrimination needs).

MEADS solution for this for the US Army requirement was to include three radars in a deployed unit, one staring X band FCR for sectored coverage, one rotating X band FCR for 360 degree coverage, and one rotating UHF Surveillance sensor for 360 degree surveillance. The US Army rejected that because it meant buying three sets of radars, with the logistical footprint that that entailed while still not getting the sort of 360 degree TMD coverage that it wanted (besides other factors such as a smaller magazine and the sheer cost of buying 2 10K T/R module X-band radars).

High performance, High Frequency radars require a lot of thermal management and come with a high power requirement footprint. For example, the TPY-2s Prime power unit is a 1.3 megawatt generator consuming something like 90 gallons of fuel an hour. This on top of other smaller generators powering the C2 and launcher elements. Besides the higher cost, you also pay for the higher performance by having to account for those elements. Otherwise you shift to more efficient radars (L band or S band for example) but then pay the price in terms of discrimination so it is always a function of what capability you really need and what type of threat systems you are expecting to be up against.

Raytheon's move here (shifting away from the three panel Patriot GaN AESA upgrade), to me, suggests a 360 degree TBM requirement because the upgraded patriot was really designed for sectored TBM and 360 degree cruise missile / AAW threat (rear panels were too small to explore full MSE TBM envelope). This isn't unexpected given the hypersonic glider threat looming ahead. There you really need the same capability in multiple sectors.

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 1721
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Vips » 08 Oct 2018 02:10

News now coming of India inserting a Rider clause in the S400 deal and Russia accepting of never supplying S400 or other derivative class system to Pakistan. Not that Shitistan will be able to afford it for any time soon.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby John » 08 Oct 2018 02:19

Vips wrote:News now coming of India inserting a Rider clause in the S400 deal and Russia accepting of never supplying S400 or other derivative class system to Pakistan. Not that Shitistan will be able to afford it for any time soon.

Why they can get Chinese clones in couple years lot cheaper? Considering China likely got full tech transfer with their S-400 and likely to be cranking out their own S-400 soon ( of course Russia is gonna act surprised and claim they reverse engineered it but we all know they been supplying tech under the table to China).

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3507
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 08 Oct 2018 05:29

^considering that this is exactly what many thought would happen with Chinese s300 and the complete lack of evidence that the tsp has anything of this sort, this is conjecture at best. Nor have we seen any flanker analogues in tsp livery despite the Chinese churning them out by the dozens


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sagrawal, UlanBatori, Yogi_G and 52 guests