Strategic Implications of India's ABM Test

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 04 Dec 2006 02:09

Alok_N, I'll read them and respond tommorow. It's dead of the night here.

----------

The scientists are not stupid, simply biased.

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 451
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 04 Dec 2006 02:17

Calvin wrote:Srikumar - the strategy already exists - its called NFU. India expects to be nuked first. Wht deterred india in 2002 was the possibility that a riposte may not be possible without a NCA and effective CoC. That has been mitigated now.


Calvin, how do you come to this conclusion? There are alternative explanations - (a) Op. Parakram was never meant to breach Pakistani nuclear thresholds, merely to put the world on notice that high profile terror attacks like 13 Dec will not be seen as business as usual (b) the window of opportunity to exploit conventional superiority turned out to be too small and the projected results turned out not to be worth the effort (c) the American assurances that they would rein in Pakistani terror against India was deemed credible. What makes you reject these?

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 04 Dec 2006 02:21

Vijay J wrote:
The Pakistanis should now focus their attention on building a positive growth of their nation and not on devising ways of murdering millions of Indians, Afghans etc...


Not to speak off topic, but isn't the above a pipedream even for the Pakistani citizens until the pakistani army is out of their way? Any notions of pakistanis correcting course while the Army is still in charge is wishful thinking.

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 04 Dec 2006 02:35

Alokji,

There is some similarity in terms of the timescales. You also know what we have and have not built in the HEP arena.

Rye,

Ultimately they have to understand delhi hanuz dur ast.

They are used to smoking all sorts of things in the pipes, it might as well be that we give them something to dream about.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 04 Dec 2006 02:40

Vijay J wrote:I don't want to disagree with Chengappa, but I point out that what tracking technology was used cannot be made indigenously. So I cannot say with confidence that it is reliable.

I don't know what Chengappa is talking about. This mid course correction as far as I know had nothing to do with any tracked trajectory of the target. Computation of an intercept from a tracked trajectory is resource intensive and cannot to the best of my knowledge be approached within our current capabilities.

I do not see this technology we have right now as being very advanced and I certainly don't think that it actually poses a proliferation threat of any sort.

It represents a major advance for our scientists but I very very strongly caution against overplaying this as an unbelievable technical advance.

There are certain implications of the advance for SAM systems, I refrain from voicing them until someone in a place of authority decides to be more open about it.

It is not my desire to fill fertile Pakistani minds with unnecessary ideas of a Jewish-Hindu-American conspiracy against their national interests.

Neither do I wish to suggest that India seeks to find ways of carrying out decapitation strikes on Pakistan.

Please let me be very clear, this was a programmed intercept test. It has set a baseline for future tests and sales and many people in the media continue to doubt whether an actually deployable system is possible with these tests. I think such deployability doubts exist everywhere in the world, I cannot tell the Pakistanis with a straight face that I have such doubts. I cannot pretend to know whether Postol believes what he is writing or whether Postol is merely pulling the wool over America's adversaries eyes.

Does this change things vis a vis Pakistan? only to the extent that they have no bragging rights. Their silence is proof that they have no answer to this advance on our side.

Pakistan should just give up all notions of competing with India right now. Look Syed Adnan Kakakhel has already stated that they should follow India's example when it comes to democracy. The Pakistanis should now focus their attention on building a positive growth of their nation and not on devising ways of murdering millions of Indians, Afghans etc...



VijayJ, I understand your desire to be circumspect and play down the brouhaha. But DRDO has been open about the fact, that India is currently manufacturing a desi LRTR with input from the GreenPine, with substantial local components. Those who follow such things would have already taken note.

As I said, expect HQ-9 transfers.

Also I disagree that this kills cooperation on the Arrow and PAC-3. If anything it enables that cooperation, for the manufacturers would rather sell us the capability (now that we have shown we might make something similar), rather than lose such a huge market.

The issue was that the PAC-2 was shown, whereas the PAC-3 detailed specs etc was denied. I fully expect the situation to change. Its in nobodys interest to lose such a huge market. And Tehelka shows the depth of prostitution in the MOD, when it comes to pimping for any import.

Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Calvin » 04 Dec 2006 02:53

Anoop:

The conclusions are not mine, they were fairly extensively debated in September 2002, when the GOI announced the NCA and the CoC. For ambiguity reasons, the rationale that you mentioned should be considered viable.

However, in my mind, the sequence of events following Op Parakram (including the recent tests) suggest a conscious efforts at overcoming whatever objections that led to the non-attack in June 2002.

Neupane
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 10:46
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Postby Neupane » 04 Dec 2006 03:05

Video on NMD defense system to protect from Nuke strikes-

http://www.history.com/media.do?action= ... YwodZUtw1w

Neupane
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 10:46
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Postby Neupane » 04 Dec 2006 04:40

http://www.indiapress.org/gen/news.php/ ... e/400x60/0

India inches closer to air defence

Hyderabad, Dec. 3: India has become the fourth nation after the United States, Russia and Israel to have a ballistic missile defence technology with successful testing of Air Defence Target-2 a week ago. The weapon system radar picked up the target and missile had intercepted the target (intermediate range ballistic missile) successfully at an altitude of 50 km near Chandipur in Orissa on November 27. With the success, India got the ability to develop a complete suite of air defence missiles to destroy all types of hostile missiles.

Dr V.K. Saraswat, chief controller of research and development and program-me director of air defence, said on Sunday that six to seven trials would be held to crystallise the result and the defence missiles would be ready in a couple of years for its induction into Army. To evaluate the integrated functionality of weapon system elements and software, air defence (AD) Target-3 was test-fired electronically on November 19 and actual test was held a week later, he told mediapersons in the city. “The terminal guidance and control performed flawlessly. All the mission events took place as expected and the missile intercepted the target successfully,â€

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 451
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 04 Dec 2006 04:51

Calvin wrote:The conclusions are not mine, they were fairly extensively debated in September 2002, when the GOI announced the NCA and the CoC. ...
However, in my mind, the sequence of events following Op Parakram (including the recent tests) suggest a conscious efforts at overcoming whatever objections that led to the non-attack in June 2002.


Calvin, if that (lack of a robust NCA and CoC) were the only objections to the winding down of Op. Parakram, why have there been no Op. Parakrams prosectued after the Mumbai blasts, Diwali attacks etc.?

It stands to reason that we would want to correct any infirmities in our nuclear posture and the establishment of the NCA is a step in the right direction.
-----------
However, if we expect that the Pakistanis will wind down terrorist attacks in India now that we've demonstrated an BMD capability, we are apt to be disappointed. The two conflicts are separated by a large conventional space, which is still not overwhelmingly in India's favor that we can profitably respond to terrorist attacks by going conventional, to say nothing of going so far that a nuclear threshold would be breached.

I expect Pakistani rhetoric to continue unabated, because that is aimed not at India, but first at a domestic audience and then at the West. India has traditionally been ingoring the rhetoric with no ill effect.

The fact that India has been keeping its counsel and using the time to incrementally pull ahead of Pakistan and closer to China's capabilities is to be commended. Ultimately, Pakistan's trajectory is more likely to be strategic surrender than a strategic show-down. But it is not going to happen in the near term. And it is not likely to be attributed to India's overwhelming superiority; rather it is likely to happen because Pakistan's sponsors find it unprofitable to prop it against India. India's actions since the Shakti tests have been tuned to a wider audience not to Pakistan. It appears that they are getting the message - Pakistan is a lame mare although it appeared to be a promising filly and two, India is not interested in shooting it, so the owners and the trainer don't need to feel embarrassed.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7405
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Postby disha » 04 Dec 2006 05:41

abhischekcc wrote:SO, the question that comes up is which is the correct combination:
1. 4 missiles with individual success rate of 80%.
2. 6 missiles with individual success rate of 54%.


To note, after PADE I was wondering what happens if multiple EXO-ABM's are used and was toying with the idea of 5. Later I came across the Yindoo article about using 6 missiles. So I took that number [of 6 missiles] and from the CNN-IBN feed about 99% and calculated the individual probability of the EXO-ABM. I attributed the 99% kill probability for a swarm to DDM'ites when I got the result of 98%.

Then JCage also pointed out that the CNN-IBN news feed talked about 2 Endo and 2 Exo [4 missiles].

I agree that DRDO has set up some smoke and mirrors here. I do have the following questions. Does a ABM unit consists of "Endo" and "Exo" missiles? Or the "Endo" missile is a separate unit? Does the "Exo" become an "Endo" when it intercepts it below a certain limit? Or is the "Endo" a separate beast in itself? An advanced Akash perhaps? There are several permutations and combinations here and at this stage it becomes more of a technical discussion to about the probabilities.

From a strategic perspective any ABM unit achieving >90% kill probability puts paid to an adversary using a Ballistic missile as a bargaining chip.

Also is the above probability during the boost-cruise phase? I believe it is and that is why it is hight. Kill probabilities should change if it is applied to say a terminal phase and including MIRVs and trajectory shaping RVs.

Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Calvin » 04 Dec 2006 05:54

why have there been no Op. Parakrams prosectued after the Mumbai blasts, Diwali attacks etc.?


The government decides what to do when.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 04 Dec 2006 05:59

Disha,

DRDO has released all the info, in fact I think a bit too much even..the issue is that the media has reported bits and pieces..

Eg idiots like Pandit harp on Israel, Israel ignoring what all Saraswat said about the other aspects...another report points out that the radars been modified by DRDO, then another says that most of its components are local ones (I think they used the high average power L Band Tx/Rx modules they developed)..which ties up with the original report of jointly developed. Media should just report what the scientists say, and leave it to the public to make up their mind, or for that matter if they have to editorialize, at least provide the transcripts separately.

Problem is that we have bits of info from many sources, but no media source has uploaded or provided the transcripts of the entire press conference. Its like a dozen blind men feeling around the elephant, everyone saw something else.

For instance, the CNN-IBN video shows Dr Saraswat talking of endo +axo to get the Pk, but he doesnt say 4 missiles in the televised bit, the voice over by Vishal Thapar (another DRDO baiter) says 4..so it seems like CNN-IBN just cut out the part of 4 missiles or Thapar was plain wrong, and just two missiles provide a 99% Pk. ....

The specs revealed are pretty straightforward, upto 30km is endo, beyond that is axo's job, iirc those are the figures. They are trying to achieve an Arrow/ Patriot type combo but in an integrated system, somewhat similar to the S-3XXs which field multiple missiles within the same designation.
Last edited by JCage on 04 Dec 2006 06:01, edited 1 time in total.

Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Calvin » 04 Dec 2006 06:00

disha: It is possible that the endo-atmospheric missiles are intended as a "back-up" if the exo-atmospheric missiles are not successful. Thiswas how the old Soviet Gorgon-Gazelle ABM was supposed to work.

Secondly, if this hypothesis is validated, then it would imply that the system is not a BPI, and that it would be susceptible to an MIRV.

Perhaps the next step in the escalation ladder is will happen when Pakistan claims they have mastered MIRV technology.

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 04 Dec 2006 06:02

JCage,

I am not saying that Green Pine derivatives were not involved in the test, however the intercept itself has nothing to do with the Green Pine system. That is spin doctoring and has nothing do with Dr. Saraswat's comments.

There is a streak of anger in DRDO people and their fans after the behaviour of these media terrorists, people want to tell India how good they are. I understand this but we have to think in the bigger picture. Sometimes in the excitement people lose sight of things.

It is very important that people do not take that the bait.

A misplaced display of prowess will trigger proliferation concerns worldwide.

It is a thin line we walk. Overprojection will be counter productive and I feel it needs to stop.

Whatever the benifits of Indo-Israeli cooperation, it is a misperception to believe that something good will happen to our deterrence regime from an imported product so there is no sense in claiming advanced capabilities which we cannot produce completely indigenously.

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4523
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Postby sanjaykumar » 04 Dec 2006 06:10

Good that people are looking at kill probabilities less naively-there is one more angle. The P is not independent. That is, in an intercalated war-fighting system the Pk is dependent on the SAME upstream systems eg the rocket fuel batch, the electronics quality control, the meteorological and solar radiation environment, the guiding radar, the flexibility of AI in the software. Thus Pk for the nth ABM is not the same as the nominal one. It has a "Bayesian" p, unfortunately if the first one or 2 or 3 miss the p plummets that n will kill.

A shadow centre was set up to take over if the original centre got destroyed.

Also note that there was reference to making telemetry jam-proof. This is very very intriguing , what is DRDO trying to tell us?

That was a post with exceptionally clear insight Anoop. This ABM will deal with Pakistan because it addresses the power imbalance, even if psychological, between India and the direct and indirect sponsors of Pakistan's waywardness

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 04 Dec 2006 06:15

Calvin, that is exactly what Saraswat said. One backs up the other, hence the design Pk of both endo and axo combined.


New Delhi, Dec 02: Buoyed by a successful missile interception in higher atmospheric zone, defence scientists are now planning to shoot down incoming warheads, much closer to ground, with a new missile named Pad.

The country`s top Missile Scientist Vijay Kumar Saraswat told a press conference today that "within the next three to four months the DRDO is planning to carry out another missile interception in the endoatmospheric zone" -- a pattern used by the Americans in the development of their Patriot PAC-III anti-missile shield.

"We have demonstrated the technology to defend against incoming ballistic missile threat," he said, but added it would take another three to four years to develop for the country a full-fledged anti-missile theatre shield.

Saraswat`s announcement comes in the midst of recent criticism of the DRDO which has been accused of allowing "heavy time and cost overruns" in critical projects.

He admitted that the Pad was still a technology demonstrator and said it would need another half-a-dozen tests to validate it as a missile shield.

The scientist said in any future indigenous missile shields, India would have to have a mix of exoatmospheric and endoatmospheric interception capabilities to match short reaction threats.

He ruled out that India might opt out of trying to acquire either the American or Israeli anti-missile system saying "we are only at the beginning and at this stage co-development or outright acquisition cannot be counted of."

Saraswat is the Chief Controller of the country`s missile programme and project director of the air defence missiles, whose team successfully carried out India`s first ever surface-to-surface missile interception in the exoatmospheric zone on November 27.

"In November 27 test, we carried out the interception at an altitude of 50 kms," the missile scientist said adding "we have the capability of increasing or decreasing the range and altitude of hit and kill against incoming missiles".

Asked to amplify on the punch and reliability of these new anti-missiles, Saraswat was guarded in his reply. "Two to three batteries of such missiles were sufficient to protect areas like the capital of the country," he said.

On the earlier test, he said the mission was in complete weapons system configuration where both software and hardware used were indigenous.

He said the new missile was hypersonic and had inertial guidance in mid-course and active seeker guidance in the terminal phase.

"Many new technologies like high manoeuvrability, mobile launching system and indigenous tracking and homing radars were tested for the first time."

The development of the new missile was not listed in the DRDO programmes and scientists had been working on it secretly for the past five years. "We are happy that our efforts have achieved success, but we still have a long way to go," he said.

The missile test was carried out without using any warheads -- in both the target and the interceptor missile. :-o

Before carrying out the actual test interception, DRDO scientists simulated a hit and kill on the interim test range simulators on November 19.

Saraswat said the target surface-to-surface missile used in the test had been developed to attain a reach of 600 kms -- 300 km more than the existing missiles in the defence arsenal.( *see DDM effect- the missile trajectory was actually modified to represent a similar missile, but the text would make you think we laucnhed a new 600km prithvi target*)

Asked why Agni missiles were not used, he said "It would have been an overkill."

The intercepting pad missile is a two-stage weapon with a semi-solid and semi-liquid propellant.

At the interaction, the DRDO missile scientists strongly repudiated enunciations that liquid propellants in any way affected the range, reliability or capability of the missiles.

Saraswat said recently 30 to 40 Prithvi missiles in use with the army had been checked by the DRDO scientists who found no faults in the fuel component.

While saying that the country did not lack solid fuel technology, he added that liquid fuel gave interceptor missiles more advantage in mid-course guidance. (gimballed lf engines = more manoeuverability)

Bureau Report


http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?rep ... =NAT&ssid=

Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Calvin » 04 Dec 2006 06:20

The missile test was carried out without using any warheads -- in both the target and the interceptor missile.


This probably signals that unlike early american versions, the indian version will not rely on EMP and other nuke-warhead related phenomena to destroy the enemy missile.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 04 Dec 2006 06:27

Vijay J wrote:JCage,

I am not saying that Green Pine derivatives were not involved in the test, however the intercept itself has nothing to do with the Green Pine system. That is spin doctoring and has nothing do with Dr. Saraswat's comments.


Oh most certainly- the behaviour of the media is a disgrace. If there was no GreenPine, we would have made our own L Band system and taken more time and money, but so what.

If we still wanted external cooperation to save time and money, its not as if Russia could not have supplanted Israel, and we would have gone for TWT based systems of older vintage, but still quite capable..sure, the services would crib, but its not as if there were no other options.


There is a streak of anger in DRDO people and their fans after the behaviour of these media terrorists, people want to tell India how good they are. I understand this but we have to think in the bigger picture. Sometimes in the excitement people lose sight of things.


Vijay, if DRDO is left out to hang and dry, then it will have to play the game by the "new rules"..otherwise the GOI has to reign in the media jacka$$es. They are simply playing with national security. All those articles on Prithvi and Agni, what the f*** is wrong with these blokes when they are asking questions DRDO cannot publically answer, and China and Pak, let alone the NPAs would be delighted to have a look at our guidance technology! In the process, they are rubbishing the deterrent based on motivated opinion.

It is very important that people do not take that the bait.

A misplaced display of prowess will trigger proliferation concerns worldwide.



See above, when an org is pushed into a corner, it will have to defend itself to redeem itself from manufactured charges against it. If GOI cannot step up and prevent this kind of mob-lynching, then what else can they do. The DRDO cannot continue in a clime where its successes are portrayed as failures.

It is a thin line we walk. Overprojection will be counter productive and I feel it needs to stop.


No doubt, but thats what the media is achieving, day by day! They want all of Indias strat and sensitive programs to be open to the public eye.

Whatever the benifits of Indo-Israeli cooperation, it is a misperception to believe that something good will happen to our deterrence regime from an imported product so there is no sense in claiming advanced capabilities which we cannot produce completely indigenously.


Vijay, unfortunately India is not as vertically integrated so as to produce everything inhouse. Not at the level of our ambitions anyway. Our forces want the latest geewhiz AESA just as Thales makes it. In such a clime, where GOI is not even actively funding programs anywhere on the scale of China, there is no way but to depend on cooperation. We just have to manage our bets such that we retain the maximal amount of security at our end. For all purposes the GOI has decided to trust the US and Israel, otherwise we would not be engaging in such strategic programs with the Israelis.

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 451
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 04 Dec 2006 06:35

Calvin wrote:
why have there been no Op. Parakrams prosectued after the Mumbai blasts, Diwali attacks etc.?


The government decides what to do when.


That's a circular argument that sheds no light on what factors led to calling off Parakram.

Sanjaykumar, thanks. But it appears that my opinion is a minority one :). I'm not trashing more optimistic estimates about Pakistan's behavior, but I'd be happiest if I were to be proven wrong.

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 04 Dec 2006 07:00

JCage,

The media is a liability at best and an annoyance at worst.

There is absolutely no impact of the media's vicious anti-DRDO campaign on decision making where the importance of self reliance is understood. Those who don't understand the importance of that, they don't matter.

It is important for people not become obsessed with the media imagery, that is exactly what the people behind the media's behaviour want.

An accurate projection of the DRDO's capability is what is needed and that has been achieved with the publicity given to this test.

No attempt should be made to overproject this into capabilities we cannot indigenously produce.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 04 Dec 2006 07:10

Sorry Vijay, I dont agree. We can hope that manufactured opinion doesnt count, but it does.

That opinion is being used to portray the DRDOs successes as failures, and to "reform" our business model in a manner which will actually harm India's drive towards self reliance.

The constant harping on the DRDOs "dismal performance" will have the ultimate effect of reducing the latters access to funding which will ensure that India continues to rely on multi billion $ imports whilst wondering why a hundred million $ projects didnt deliver the same fancy result. The kind of "reform" proposed, ie local subsidiaries of foreign firms, is but screwdriver assembly repackaged and resold. The media is high on Rang de basanti, and they have no clue of what they are doing. The aim is to create a pall of cynicism around any local R&D project, whereas imports are always a good quick fix.

I have mostly held my peace on the kind of muck raking that goes on in GOI, and swings deals, since there were others in GOI who held fast and supported local R&D, but the medias entrance into the taking sides business, has changed the dynamics in a very bad way.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5850
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 04 Dec 2006 07:12

Calvin wrote:
The missile test was carried out without using any warheads -- in both the target and the interceptor missile.


This probably signals that unlike early american versions, the indian version will not rely on EMP and other nuke-warhead related phenomena to destroy the enemy missile.

More than that. It means HTK right?

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 04 Dec 2006 07:19

Whatever is done to detox the media cannot interfere or frustrate wider strategic autonomy.

People should not get carried away.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 04 Dec 2006 07:25

..but they will, unless the media is kept in check. You can wish that strategic programs are kept under wraps and everything is silent and nice (I do), but its only a matter of time when the R&D community has enough and starts its own "leaks"..

..the only loser is India, because a bunch of egotistic retards in the media got carried away..

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 04 Dec 2006 08:32

sanjaykumar wrote: The P is not independent. That is, in an intercalated war-fighting system the Pk is dependent on the SAME upstream systems eg the rocket fuel batch, the electronics quality control, the meteorological and solar radiation environment, the guiding radar, the flexibility of AI in the software. Thus Pk for the nth ABM is not the same as the nominal one. It has a "Bayesian" p, unfortunately if the first one or 2 or 3 miss the p plummets that n will kill.


yes, I agree that there are likely to be correlations ... what has Bayesian got to do with it? ... and how does the laundry list of "rocket fuel batch, the electronics quality control, the meteorological and solar radiation environment, the guiding radar, the flexibility of AI in the software" indicate correlation? ... the randomness is dominated by tracking error ... how do these factors convert randomness to correlated probs? ... are you suggesting that things like solar radiation govern creation of priors that alter the outcome? ... :shock:

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4523
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Postby sanjaykumar » 04 Dec 2006 08:51

Er-- solar radiation may generate spurious signals in ICs that cause mistracking, misfiring. Yes I will have to give Schrodingers cat another look to add to the laundry list :wink:

Bayesian theory I understand has many interpreters hence the quotation marks.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 04 Dec 2006 09:03

the IC's used in such applications are hardened against radiation induced single event upsets ... shroedinger's cat doesn't enter the picture at all ... the system is purely classical ...

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5850
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 04 Dec 2006 10:45

Bringing all these variables is un necessary. The effect of all those would be insignificant compared to the primary variable, namely the guidance control loop. Many of them, like inconsistencies in propulsion, aerodynamics, as well as inaccuracies in the electronic measurement, are counteracted by the guidance loop, adding to its weightage in the probability equation.

Everything boils down to TWO factors. One, there is a FAILURE in the system. Two, the guidance misses the target. The former is binary and is easier to work out. The latter is fuzzy and will need a lot of simulations etc to work out.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 04 Dec 2006 11:06

I agree that unnecessary variables are being brought in when there is a 5000 lb gorilla called tracking error in the mix ... however, the following does not make sense ...

Dileep wrote:Many of them, like inconsistencies in propulsion, aerodynamics, as well as inaccuracies in the electronic measurement, are counteracted by the guidance loop, adding to its weightage in the probability equation.


how can inaccuracies in the target trajectory measurement be countered by guidance loop of the interceptor?

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5850
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 04 Dec 2006 11:25

Alok_N wrote:how can inaccuracies in the target trajectory measurement be countered by guidance loop of the interceptor?

That statement was referring to the homing loop. It has a converging property, ie the measurement inaccuracy reduces as it closes in. This do not apply to the command guided portion of the flight.

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 04 Dec 2006 11:34

JCage wrote:
Vijay J wrote:JCage,
Vijay, unfortunately India is not as vertically integrated so as to produce everything inhouse. Not at the level of our ambitions anyway. Our forces want the latest geewhiz AESA just as Thales makes it. In such a clime, where GOI is not even actively funding programs anywhere on the scale of China, there is no way but to depend on cooperation. We just have to manage our bets such that we retain the maximal amount of security at our end. For all purposes the GOI has decided to trust the US and Israel, otherwise we would not be engaging in such strategic programs with the Israelis.

Jcage Sir I'd like make a point here, Israelis have no problems with us be it historically or normally as Jews were safe here,
So see Plus Israels Cooperation is not like any other countries where either we have to pay huge sums for TOT or buy, ISRAEL acts as a consultant which is itself a biggest thing to happen.

They are making us know the small spin offs that is helping us from reinventing the wheel.
I dont think GOI trusts US as much as Israel by any means, IMHO also Israel covertly spies on US..............

If India maintains this steady partnership i can seriously see JV in lots of things as both have excellent talent pool and resources to start with.

If US was cooperating we would have seen Raytheon integrating the missile with radar with we getting IR seeker and compromising a lot of things, instead it was BEL who integrated means it has full source codes for Green Pine Systems.

India and Israel is more like US-UK where both can share a lot of R&D if they need to and work jointly.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 04 Dec 2006 11:36

Dileep wrote:That statement was referring to the homing loop. It has a converging property, ie the measurement inaccuracy reduces as it closes in. This do not apply to the command guided portion of the flight.


ok, I see what you mean ... if it is a convergence algorithm, how does it handle branch points? ... specifically, if it is presented with a live warhead and a few decoys, will it get confused or will it converge onto a decoy with equal probability as that for a warhead?

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 04 Dec 2006 11:43

joey wrote:If US was cooperating we would have seen Raytheon integrating the missile with radar with we getting IR seeker and compromising a lot of things, instead it was BEL who integrated means it has full source codes for Green Pine Systems.


joey,

I am new to this so please bear with me ... do you mind explaining what "full source code" means in this context? ... earlier, Vijay had stated that Indian shortcoming is in rf-circuitry ... presumable, the green pine system provides that ... so, assuming that the hardware is in place, what exactly is the IP problem with source code? ...

Is it pattern recognition? ... or, is it lower level software, i.e., come sort of encrypted digitization that has to be decoded? ...

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 04 Dec 2006 12:17

Source code normally refers to the exact software that drives the system, so that you can tinker with it and also make sure that there are no backdoors or kill-switches to shut your multimillion $ gizmo off..the usual deal with most radars (AFAIK) is to provide the customer with a limited amount of high end tinkering ability via the GUI, you can configure certain parameters, etc - but the actual stuff, that literally drives the radar is kept out of bounds- as you correctly stated, some amount of measures are taken to prevent reverse engineering. The reports indicate that we have indeed got this, but some hardware components in the radar may still be supplied from IAI Elta.
We'll know in a couple of years by seeing the stuff DRDO's private public partners make, or in fact this AI-2007 if some BR junta go and bug the DRDO people, who will tell the specifics.

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 04 Dec 2006 12:33

joey wrote:They are making us know the small spin offs that is helping us from reinventing the wheel.
I dont think GOI trusts US as much as Israel by any means, IMHO also Israel covertly spies on US..............

.


Joey I am not attacking you. However there are a bunch of folks here who think US bad Israel good. The folks who think that Israel would do anything against US wishes is seriously deluding themselves.

If Israel is working with us, there is not a chance that US has winked at the deal.

In my reading (and taking nothing away from DRDO) when GoI-GoTus said they will work together for ABM, it could precisely mean this "That GOTUS will not throw a tantrum against Join India-development of systems the Israel are know for ABM systems"

Seriously do people here think that if Israel was a partner, to what ever extent, that Israel and by extenstion US did not know that a ABM was in works?

Given what they know of our program would they expect us not to have a system soon? Could this be the real reason for the silence (as opposed to Parakaram)

I know Vijay J wants us to be circumspect when painting the picture of Jews-Hindus-US together, however I think people will make the deductions anyway, and not all strat brains are in India or on BRF alone, so we can quit worrying if we are letting on too much.

I think Chini's will make this analysis based on hard information that they purloin and will not be limited to the guess work we do anyway and this info will get to bakistan anyway.

So basically what I am saying is
1) There was cooperation.
2) The co operation was blessed by many, and therefore there is NO surprise in this case and thats why the quite acceptance.
3) The cooperation in NO WAY diminishes DRDO's achievement. In my view really enhances it.
4) This really talks about a different GEO pol era.

I think this is what R^2 etc. have been alluding to in whispers.

I also dont understand what difference does it make whether we used Green pine derivate or not.

What exact techonologies we cant manufacture or buy off the shelf and use it for integration. This talk about how cooperation cuts down credibiltu of reliance is a little baffeling to me.
Last edited by saty on 04 Dec 2006 13:12, edited 2 times in total.

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 04 Dec 2006 12:38

Alok_N wrote:
Dileep wrote:That statement was referring to the homing loop. It has a converging property, ie the measurement inaccuracy reduces as it closes in. This do not apply to the command guided portion of the flight.


ok, I see what you mean ... if it is a convergence algorithm, how does it handle branch points? ... specifically, if it is presented with a live warhead and a few decoys, will it get confused or will it converge onto a decoy with equal probability as that for a warhead?


Prior to becoming an algorithimic issue, and in fact rather than an algo issue isnt this a detection issue? If at reentry the warhead splits into multiple you need to first know which warhead you target and then go for the same.

The other approach could be a salvo of missles cooperating with each other to select one reentry vechile and thus divide the problem.

The second would be a more algo driven approach. However it is not clear if such techinques are enabled in DRDO KV.

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 04 Dec 2006 12:49

Abhishek_CC, Anoop.

Thanks for the replies, since the thread moved ahead by such a distance before I could respond I will try and give my thoughts on the current topics rather than the earlier posts.

Yes, the ABM system cuts down Paks strat space when deployed, and yes the primary target is Chin. Pak is only one of its front and thus can be subsumed in further discussions.

I agree with Anoops last post above substanitally, but to just say related things in my own manner and some other thoughts:

1) In the meantime I expect it to trigger furhter Pak-Chin proliferation in both attack and defend domains.

2) I also expect Pak to go for larger counts of lower intensity cuts. Arm the Naxals, ULFA what have you. Basically this will cause Pak to lower the threshold but increase the magnitude.

3) The above to events are slowly moving the world to a geo-sphere where Pak-Chin will be the common pain for a overlapping (but not traditional bloc) set of powers. US-Israel-India would cooperate more, I expect Russia to drift closer to China but not closer than India. So Russia will do more double dealing now we have to be prepared to stop that movemovent by exerting pressure, and/or learn to handle that through other means.
Last edited by saty on 04 Dec 2006 14:30, edited 1 time in total.

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 04 Dec 2006 12:55

saty wrote:
joey wrote:They are making us know the small spin offs that is helping us from reinventing the wheel.
I dont think GOI trusts US as much as Israel by any means, IMHO also Israel covertly spies on US..............

.


Joey I am not attacking you. However there are a bunch of folks here who think US bad Israel good. The folks who think that Israel would do anything against US wishes is seriously deluding themselves.

If Israel is working with us, there is not a chance that US has winked at the deal.

In my reading (and taking nothing away from DRDO) when GoI-GoTus said they will work together for ABM, it could precisely mean this "That GOTUS will not throw a tantrum against Join India-development of systems the Israel are know for ABM systems"

Seriously do people here think that if Israel was a partner, to what ever extent, that Israel and by extenstion US did not know that a ABM was in works?

Given what they know of our program would they expect us not to have a system soon? Could this be the real reason for the silence (as opposed to Parakaram)

So basically what I am saying is
1) There was cooperation.
2) The co operation was blessed by many, and therefore there is NO surprise in this case and thats why the quite acceptance.
3) The cooperation in NO WAY diminishes DRDO's achievement. In my view really enhances it.
4) This really talks about a different GEO pol era.

I think this is what R^2 etc. have been alluding to in whispers.

I also dont understand what difference does it make whether we used Green pine derivate or not.

What exact techonologies we cant manufacture or buy off the shelf and use it for integration. This talk about how cooperation cuts down credibiltu of reliance is a little baffeling to me.

Yeah it strue US Relies on germany/Israel etc etc for many of its Defence OEM needs.

Anyways see what I mean Israel wasnt involved massively in this ABM project, I'm talking of Israels Help in Pinaka MLRS.

See, US would never agree on any tech transfer/help that is violating MCTR, If that was the case we could have seen IR seeker which is manufactured by Raythoen in our ABM.

Israels case is diff, Israel helped china once but when US said not to they stopped, same here we are mainting a good relation with US but in the same thing we are not typing up pur foreign policy with them, and that is giving Israel enough room to help us.

Israel need not to ask US if they wants to help us or not, but Israel ofcourse will refrain in some way if US asks them not to by then we will have the whole industry base we were carving for.

What i want from India is she have to be the France of Asia, as we are always doing our middile finger should not be under US's control and that is what exactly we are doing through Israel.

And their way of involvement is giving us self reliance by sorting out the issues and not giving us buy off shelf thingy.

Afterall in this world noone is noones friend its all interest, in this case if you see Israelis are a bit close to us for their religious for their religious things, so i find it zero problematic if cooperations helps to mould the defence industry in long term.

And yes like it or not US didnt knew about this ABM much......We were ready to buy Arrow 2 when it was denied, we almost did everything indigenously here.
US is definitely Bad[not american but their policy], they have "greed for something", you can thank our commies and BJP some way as they are preventing US from making India another Japan.

If you look closely can you tell me any non-christian countries under US influence from Cold war are peaceful today?
look at iran/pakistan etc etc.

Now look at Cuba/Vietnam etc etc who were under USSR influence.
US has a unacceptable foreign policy and out policy is "you agree with us yes or no, if not we'll do it maybe not now but a decade after surely"
Its actually a blessing in long term.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Postby negi » 04 Dec 2006 13:00

Just a thought .Why are we concerned so much about dealing with decoys (in Bm or ICBM perspective onlee)

Why would one waste ones delivery platform by caping it with decoys ?(specially when nukes are no longer scarce and even a country like TSP has a plenty of them stocked in their backyard).

IOW if at all an adversary has a BM/ICBM with MRV capability they would try to inflict max damage via each missile (for cost and economics arent an issue when any one is at war).

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 04 Dec 2006 13:07

By the time they'll have MIRV/Decoys etc etc completely deployed We'll have space based laser so dont worry.
Its virtually impossible to make a decoy/mirv ICBM with single test atleast 10 to 15 test should follow............

Else you know who helped them........
I always wonder how come our neighbours gets success with single missile test and dont test it anymore again.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests