ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

[SaiK]

RS-18 (SS-19 Stiletto) and RS-12M (SS-25 Sickle) will be gradually replaced by new RS-24 ICBMs, equipped with MIRV warheads and characterized by high missile-defense penetration capability.
http://en.rian.ru/photolents/20071030/85898867.html

[Gerard]

Video of the Japanese ABM test...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f1e_1197967978

[derkonig]

May be this is a bit late, but I would like to put this questio to the BRF gurus..
You see PRC did that ASAT test, can the same system also be used as an ABM?

Also, regarding the "disappearance" of our INSAT 4XX, anybody feel like lizard has had something to do with it? "you only live twice" anyone?
PRC has ASAT capability, they also blind unkils spy sats with ground based lasers, have they now come up with something new?

[UPrabhu]

May be this is a bit late, but I would like to put this questio to the BRF gurus..
You see PRC did that ASAT test, can the same system also be used as an ABM?

Also, regarding the "disappearance" of our INSAT 4XX, anybody feel like lizard has had something to do with it? "you only live twice" anyone?
PRC has ASAT capability, they also blind unkils spy sats with ground based lasers, have they now come up with something new?

derkonig sure sounds like lizard name or else why are you so obsessed about lizards capability? you are asking this nth time.... the satellite just drifted for one more round of earth before getting itself parked I guess due to lower apogee ..... ... .. .

[krishnan]

Not lizard, holand?

[derkonig]

May be this is a bit late, but I would like to put this questio to the BRF gurus..
You see PRC did that ASAT test, can the same system also be used as an ABM?

Also, regarding the "disappearance" of our INSAT 4XX, anybody feel like lizard has had something to do with it? "you only live twice" anyone?
PRC has ASAT capability, they also blind unkils spy sats with ground based lasers, have they now come up with something new?

derkonig sure sounds like lizard name or else why are you so obsessed about lizards capability? you are asking this nth time.... the satellite just drifted for one more round of earth before getting itself parked I guess due to lower apogee ..... ... .. .

dude, firstly, have you got absolutely anything useful to add to my post above? i guess not. if it was just a case of a misparked sat, which incidentally ISRO had acknowledged, then why all this "disappearance" thing at all. in fack afaik, ISRO, had said that they had done some orbit correction manoeuvre 2-3 days after the launch. something is not right.

secondly, if you cannot monitor your enemy no.1 's capabilities then who will?

[gopal.suri]

So, 1 question. Were Patroits were able to disrupt Iraqi scuds in gulf war? Did it achieve the objective of hitting the scuds and forcing the Iraqi's to fire it elsewhere as the original targets were defended by Patriots?

[UPrabhu]

Dude, throwing a wild guess about lizards capabilities is not monitoring. And satellites I believe "disappear" only in DDM universe... the satellites initial orbital elements were available soon after the launch on www.n2yo.com and I was able to follow its path to parking slot... what can be wrong is the initial orbit being lower than expected causing too much fuel to be used, thus reducing the life. Unkils facilities might be used to know where the satellite is at given time.

Anyways, this should actually go in Indian Space thread...

derkonig sure sounds like lizard name or else why are you so obsessed about lizards capability? you are asking this nth time.... the satellite just drifted for one more round of earth before getting itself parked I guess due to lower apogee ..... ... .. .

dude, firstly, have you got absolutely anything useful to add to my post above? i guess not. if it was just a case of a misparked sat, which incidentally ISRO had acknowledged, then why all this "disappearance" thing at all. in fack afaik, ISRO, had said that they had done some orbit correction manoeuvre 2-3 days after the launch. something is not right.

secondly, if you cannot monitor your enemy no.1 's capabilities then who will?

[JCage]

I was reading about ABMs and the PAD/AAD test successes are remarkable, given how incremental other countries testing has been. APJ Kalam once mentioned India tests for maximum effect whenever it can, with as many parameters per test as possible. And so it did.

The THAAD is more capable than the PAD, but the test challenges are quite similar, and more so for India given our limited budgets and prior domain experience vs a country like the US.

For instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_H ... ea_Defense

[quote]21 April 1995: THAAD completed its first test flight to prove its propulsion system. There was no target in the test.
31 July 1995: THAAD failed a kill vehicle control test. The test flight was aborted. There was no target in the test.
13 October 1995: THAAD was launched to test its target-seeking system. There was no attempt to hit the target in the test.
13 December 1995: THAAD failed to hit a test target due to software errors in the missile's fuel system.
22 March 1996: THAAD failed to hit a test target due to mechanical problems with the kill vehicle's booster separation.
15 July 1996: THAAD failed to hit a test target due to a malfunction in the targeting system.
6 March 1997: THAAD failed to hit a test target due to a contamination in the electrical system.
12 May 1998: THAAD failed to hit a test target due to an electrical short circuit in the booster system. At this point, the U.S. Congress reduced funding for the project due to repeated failures.
29 March 1999: THAAD failed to hit a test target due to multiple failures including guidance system.
10 June 1999: THAAD hit a test target in a simplified test scenario.
2 August 1999: THAAD hit a test target outside the atmosphere.

[edit] Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase
In June 2000, Lockheed won the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) contract to turn the design into a mobile tactical army fire unit. Flight tests of this system resumed with missile characterization and full-up system tests in 2006 at WSMR, then moved to the Pacific Missile Range Facility.

On 22 November 2005, THAAD launched a missile in its first Flight EMD Test, known as FLT-01. The test was deemed a success by Lockheed and the Pentagon.

On 11 May 2006, THAAD conducted FLT-02, the first developmental flight test to test the entire THAAD system including interceptor, launcher, radar, and fire control system.

On 12 July 2006, THAAD conducted FLT-03, intercepting a live target missile.

On 13 September 2006, THAAD attempted to conduct the FLT-04 test. The HERA target launched but had to be terminated in mid-flight before the launch of the FLT-04 missile. This has officially been characterized as a "no test."

FLT-05, a missile-only test, was postponed until mid-spring 2007.

On 27 January 2007, THAAD conducted FLT-06 test, intercepting a “high endo-atmosphericâ€

[JCage]

And what Arun S had pointed out - check the contrails!

PAD Contrail:



THAAD contrail:

During test flights at White Sands Missile Range, the missile undergoes the THAAD Energy Management Steering (TEMS) maneuver to burn excess propellant and keep the missile within the test range (see Figure "TEMS contrail" on right).

Pretty kewl stuff!

[vsudhir]

Wow. Maha wow.

Am hajaar, hajaar happy.

Tks Arun, JC and others, for the insights provided in near-english such that nontech folks such as yours truly can see, ponder and wonder at the majesty of the feat DRDO have achieved!

[Austin]

JC I guess it all boils down to do with what you have , We work on limited budget , technological constrains and denial regime , so we try to make the best use of what ever we have.

US works on virtually unlimited budgets and have the liberty to test on system and gradually build up the whole system plus their requirements are different from us.

Difficult to compare and say we did it in one test and they took xx to do that same , since both systems are different and so are the requirements , technology etc.

But the DRDO walla did an excellent job with ABM system.

[JCage]

Vsudhir, thx.

Like I said earlier, the caveat is that the THAAD engages to a higher alt/ speed envelope than the PAD, but then the Indian program is not just one missile but two, which makes the overall effort quite substantial.

This photo. Both have a separate kill vehicle, capable of Hit to Kill (which the PAD did)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wfm_ ... iagram.svg

and see the PAD schematic. Quite a comparison,

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v673/ ... erny/3.jpg

The PAD has the entire gamut of avionics, from Inertial Nav system, OnBoard Comp, seeker, telemetry, guidance links..and then the divert thrusters etc.

This stuff is going to come in handy in many programs imo.

[ldev]

If they keep the momentum up, and undertake a similar design process, I think we can field a THAAD eqvt or even better all the way to ICBMs as well

According to Wiki THAAD missiles have a range of 200km and intercept upto analtitude of 150km. PAD's intercept height is in the range of 50km-80km. What Sarasvat seemed to allude to in his interview was that after the current two tier PAD/AAD system is perfected, then in Phase 2 DRDO will go in for an enhanced third tier which will take on IRBMs and maybe ICBMs. That would be equivalent to the current THAAD intercept envelope. THAAD apparently also has limited ICBM intercept capability.

The current 600km LRTR would have to be augmented either via a more powerful ground based radar or a combination of satellite sensors linked to ground based radar. Also phase 2 interceptors would need quicker acceleration and a higher speed in the range of 4500mph.

[Austin]

That Energy Bleeding Manouvere , they must be using flex nozzle for solid fuel missile to do that stuff plus all that complicated algo which make them do.

[JCage]

US works on virtually unlimited budgets and have the liberty to test on system and gradually build up the whole system plus their requirements are different from us.

Difficult to compare and say we did it in one test and they took xx to do that same , since both systems are different and so are the requirements , technology etc.

If you read what I said, its pretty much the same thing BUT the point is that despite not having an unlimited budget and facing all those constraints, we managed to bypass a LOT of those baby steps (thanks to the IGMDP experience) AND come up with a working system on the first complete test itself.

Check the figures ... multiple test failures, vs this "one at a shot" intercept.

That is what I am pointing to ...that this was a very high risk venture yet they went ahead and pulled it off.

The AAD test is even more surprising, because its an ALL new missile, not just a Prithvi first stage and endo atmospheric.

And you are incorrect that the technology is radically different- its not, thats what surprised me too. Because I was anticipating some multisensor seekers, this that on their vehicles...nope. At the aggregate level, they are quite similar, which is why I think the PAD can serve as the basis of a full blown ABM system (not just IRBMs) since the building blocks are being developed via this system itself.

We need 2-3 more tech areas to concentrate on, which we can certainly manage with JVs etc and proper funding: higher power radars, and long range IIR seekers. The rest will be available via the experience of the PAD project, either inhouse or dedicated suppliers whom we would have vetted.

Also heres something interesting- the US BMD head has now said that he wants more realistic tests because the systems have finally had a bunch of successes in simple test regimens to remove the stigma of repeated failures earlier. Even the SM-3 test by the Japanese was against a Scud equivalent & now decoys etc will be introduced. Though "realistic" given Noko, Iran capability etc.

In our case, our system has to be proof against whatever China gifts Pak, so we have no option but to go for the most complex we can manage.

Interesting stuff.

[JCage]

If they keep the momentum up, and undertake a similar design process, I think we can field a THAAD eqvt or even better all the way to ICBMs as well

According to Wiki THAAD missiles have a range of 200km and intercept upto analtitude of 150km. PAD's intercept height is in the range of 50km-80km. What Sarasvat seemed to allude to in his interview was that after the current two tier PAD/AAD system is perfected, then in Phase 2 DRDO will go in for an enhanced third tier which will take on IRBMs and maybe ICBMs. That would be equivalent to the current THAAD intercept envelope. THAAD apparently also has limited ICBM intercept capability.

The current 600km LRTR would have to be augmented either via a more powerful ground based radar or a combination of satellite sensors linked to ground based radar. Also phase 2 interceptors would need quicker acceleration and a higher speed in the range of 4500mph.

If all goes well, Phase 2 is supposed to kick off 2009-10ish. The points you mention are correct.

Given whats been printed (and taking it as the minimum), I think the LRTR can manage missiles upto 3-4k Km. Beyond that, we will need a new system to track faster targets.

Another interesting thing is that we are using highly sophisticated targets by themselves, capable of fielding reentry vehicles. The follow on tests (Phase-2) will no doubt have Agni derivatives & if this same testing pattern is followed, the first few tests themselves might have the new missiles tested against RVs and the like.

Besides, by the time this Phase 1 is done, RV equipped IRBMs would have logically been tested against.

I was wondering why DRDO didnt develop a new Black Sparrow kind of vehicle for testing its missiles like the Israelis did. Then I looked it up- it can emulate SRBMs for the most part, and we have equivalents available in terms of actual BM designs which can be modified.

Interestingly, we signed a deal with Galileo for its Mirach drones. I wonder- is that for the AAD then, to proof against cruise missiles!

What a difference uninterrupted funding makes!

[Austin]

Needless to forgot that system like Sword Wish received Israel assistance and same goes the case with France with Master-A.

Any ways I don't think you can scale up PAD in any way to deal with ICBM (if thats what you meant ) , We will have to design a new system from scratch.

The current system when deployed will deal with threats in the range of ~ 3000km.

Let the test get more complicated with Decoys , Maneuvering RV small RCS MIRV and let it consistently deliver the same result.

[JCage]

Needless to forgot that system like Sword Wish received Israel assistance and same goes the case with France with Master-A.

So who said otherwise?

There may be many more components as well, but the design and verification has to be done inhouse. Check MEADS for instance: It will have two radars (one from Raytheon) and one from Europe (Selex & EADS), but with PAC-3s from the US, and the IRIS-T from Europe as the catcher for CM's. The Euro radar itself will have a common digital receiver and exciter with the US one for quickening development and production.

The Arrow Missile itself has 50% of its select systems from US, which iirc include the all important IIR seeker from Raytheon. Interestingly in our case, we are not just subcontracting entire items out either, we are codeveloping them and then building them inhouse.

I do think though that there will be some systems that we will continue to import- if we go in for long wave IIR seekers for instance capable of discriminating multiple targets at tens of KM away and tracking them. There are only 3-4 countries capable of developing these and manufacturing them- US, Israel, France and SA. Add a few in Europe as well, perhaps EADS and Indra etc. So it makes ample sense to source them from abroad if we need them.

That would be rational. You can also stock up excess subsystems in case you anticipate a shortage of a particular system as well.

Any ways I don't think you can scale up PAD in any way to deal with ICBM (if thats what you meant ) , We will have to design a new system from scratch.

No- you are mixing up what I meant, or I should have been clearer. The first statement is correct- you cant "scale up PAD" ie take up the PAD itself and make it an ICBM interceptor, but the second is incorrect- you dont need to design from scratch because many of the technologies and processes developed for the PAD can be developed into variants for a more capable one. Such as divert thrusters, Inertial sensors and navigation, seekers, datalinks, On board computers, s/w for the missile. Not to mention C3I, MCC, LCC etc for the Ground based system.

The current system when deployed will deal with threats in the range of ~ 3000km.

Yes.

Let the test get more complicated with Decoys , Maneuvering RV small RCS MIRV and let it consistently deliver the same result.

That is exactly what has been planned. And the image for the AAD test seems to show two parallel paths- one for the target missile, and the second a RV. Thats what Arun iirc had pointed out. I wouldnt put it past them to try this either, given the way these maha kanjoos tests are progressing. Secondly, the most important part in determining a RV from the missile is radar resolution. Debris is of lower RCS and the LRTR/MFCR combo could track it. MIRVs are also possible because the system is designed to engage multiple targets- check the independent target data transmitters. The limitation here will be of the number of missiles carried per ABM battery.

Decoys are a whole different ballgame, and that is something only tests and extensive development can determine. However, given the amount of money and technology required to develop and field working decoys, I dont think we are going to be facing that threat from PRC or Pak anytime soon.

The key threat is of RVs.

Interestingly enough, the US itself is now asking for complex tests after so many years.

Till date, they havent done any of these tests themselves.

In our case, we might try and get a quid pro quo from Israel- I think they will face a similar threat themselves given the Iran-PRC axis and it might be in their interest and ours to jointly work on cruise missile defence AND developing methods to counter brute force attacks (MIRVs or multiple RVs).

[NRao]

Dec 3, 2007 AWST has two nice articles:

Ready For Next Steps :: Back on track, MDA adds more complexity to testing, and
Reality Check :: New targets are in MDA's plans to sharpen its defences against countermeasures

Then a third article:

Aegis Road Map :: U.S. Navy, Lockheed Martin line up Aegis upgrades to counter increasingly challenging ballistic missile threats

[JCage]

The AWST article is what I was citing.

Interestingly, the Aegis + SPY radar + SM series missiles have had a good run against ballistic targets. In contrast to the other all new missiles being developed under BMD.

The advantage of starting late- like India has- is you can see what works and what doesnt. We would be watching what the US is doing, and picking and choosing what suits us. (And our limited pockets and ability).

Does anyone remember this?

Link

Now the million $ question is- what abilities will the above bring to the table?

If it was a pure recce system, would DRDO be involved, given ISROs extensive experience with such payloads ..

The recent interviews post AAD & one after the PAD have folks mentioning we are using GB radars because we dont have sats..

So what does the US use to track ICBM launches for early warning etc? Anybody interested in finding details.

[hnair]

This US having unlimited budget might be theoretically true, but in practice, you hear a lot of whining about budget cuts, depending on whom you dint pay off at the Hill. They have so many competing tech programs that it sometimes works against them by cannibalizing each other's funds. Particularly something as highly politicized as BMD funding. Even we in India has this sort of funding pressures at a relatively lesser scale (thanks to DDM "lobby efforts"). The only programs that are fully shielded from such funding issues are the Paki "user induction masquerading as halaal programs" (for Abdul Chestbeater's pleasure). But then they have limited options and are just one-pony acts of chinese systems. Hence it is life and death for them. Like a homeless dude settling for a walmart cart, when the apartment outside which he sleeps are filled with beamers and caddys.

Granted US has unrivaled research base for cutting edge stuff. But defense programs might not be able to utilize all that advantage, unless a severe national threat is identified and all funding is ironed out. Then nothing stops them (eg: Predator family of drones).

Btw, one of the DDM dudes who "outed" the story about the missing sat is a chap I know. I think (purely my own conjecture) from past discussions, he is fed this story by inter-departmental rivals. oh yeah, like any place with really smart and ambitious people, ISRO too have witnessed a few such fratricidal clashes that I heard of. In a way, it is good - the sort of stuff that the PakSat (and the resultant loss of heroin money to Pak Army) had to undergo wont happen without publicity and accountability.

[pradeepe]

In essence, in terms of complexity, the first PAD test was roughly equivalent to the last THAAD test at one go.

We tested ALL the BMD elements- MFCR, LCC, MCC, plus TELs in one test itself AGAINST a live target (with an electronic target the previous time), AND exo atmospheric.

THAAD started in 1987, with the first all up tests w/ full integration in 2006. In our case, we went to the first test in 2007 (after starting it in 1998) and have already conducted endo atmospheric tests with an ALL new missile. And worked on new radars, new C3I..

No wonder Saraswat was pleased as punch after the AAD test.

Jcage, thanks sir for that insight. Amazing as hell!

An interesting contrast one can draw is the confidence that enables them to integrate and test as much as possible in one go. Now contrast that with the LCA program, wherein knives are always out by the usual suspects and so the development and testing has to be in very small increments. A single failure could jeopardize the entire program.

I hope the day is not too far wherein both these efforts have the same level of confidence.

[JCage]

This US having unlimited budget might be theoretically true, but in practice, you hear a lot of whining about budget cuts, depending on whom you dint pay off at the Hill. They have so many competing tech programs that it sometimes works against them by cannibalizing each other's funds. Particularly something as highly politicized as BMD funding. Even we in India has this sort of funding pressures at a relatively lesser scale (thanks to DDM "lobby efforts"). The only programs that are fully shielded from such funding issues are the Paki "user induction masquerading as halaal programs" (for Abdul Chestbeater's pleasure). But then they have limited options and are just one-pony acts of chinese systems. Hence it is life and death for them. Like a homeless dude settling for a walmart cart, when the apartment outside which he sleeps are filled with beamers and caddys.

Granted US has unrivaled research base for cutting edge stuff. But defense programs might not be able to utilize all that advantage, unless a severe national threat is identified and all funding is ironed out. Then nothing stops them (eg: Predator family of drones).

Unlimited funding is always a relative term..in US terms, they might always be whining about budget cuts (and with good reason), but compared to our budgets, they are way beyond whatever we have.
What is truly shameful about India though is what little thought we give to preventing attrition. Comparable salaries to the pvt sector are peanuts compared to what we pay in terms of imports later on.

The other thing is that their budgets are collosal even though they build upon an existing technology base. In ours, we usually begin with less and then budget bare bones budgets. That just exacerbates the problem. I have little doubt that good funding and preventing attrition would have sped up some of our core programs by some 5-7 years.

[JCage]

An interesting contrast one can draw is the confidence that enables them to integrate and test as much as possible in one go. Now contrast that with the LCA program, wherein knives are always out by the usual suspects and so the development and testing has to be in very small increments. A single failure could jeopardize the entire program. .

The difference IMO is the contribution of the IGMDP and the Akash and Trishul programs to the testing regimen and overall knowledge base. In contrast, before the LCA we didnt have any such iterative development program in aircraft manufacture. Whatever HAL manufactured were either licensed programs or small items w/limited impact on such an ambitious project. Wherever we have had any level of iterative development, we have had success- not a complete comparison for obvious reasons, but lets take sonars. We began with APSOH, then went to HUMVAAD and HUMSA and now we are with submarine sonars, HUMSA-NG and hopefully we'll have several towed array types as well.

Then there is the role of the services and media. To be honest, I dont think the above concept has really been understood extensively in either GOI or the IA/IAF or MOD. Which is why the knives are always out for the first program because it is delayed, not 100% or whatever.
Plus add the funding, bureaucracy (both within DRDO & services) and attrition.

In contrast, Navy Chief Arun Prakash pointed out how important it was to induct Block 1 even if it was 80% and then Block 2 would build upon it, and so on and so forth.

[NRao]

Unlimited funds, like shoe-string funds, has its own problems. On the flip side, those who are the first in any arena have to build ground up, deal with more uncertainities than others. The Indian technical progress has been great, now the political components needs to keep pace.

[JCage]

Better to be rich than poor. I wouldnt even want unlimited funds, all I want is that programs like the LCA, Arjun etc be backed to the hilt come what may, and follow on programs launched if the first is hit by service disinterest because block 1 was 80% not 100% or whatever.

The problem is that we have too much uncertainty about each program which causes the import lobby to make hay with suborning the process and the media is too illiterate (take a look at worthies like Aroor, Ranjan, Pandit etc) to even understand and support a long term view.

[ldev]

The recent interviews post AAD & one after the PAD have folks mentioning we are using GB radars because we dont have sats..

So what does the US use to track ICBM launches for early warning etc? Anybody interested in finding details.

The earliest US system was the BMEWS with radars based in Alaska, Greenland and the United Kingdom for detecting launches from the USSR in the early 1960s. This has since been supplemented by satellite sensors. However even today the importance of ground based radars cannot be underestimated. Hence all the controversy over the siting of the BMD radar site in Poland. Because of the theoretical possibility of its satellites being blinded the US continues to push for ground based coverage of possible launch sites, launches from which will enable initial computation of the missile track and possible impact point.

To go back to PAD/AAD, in one interview Saraswat had stated that protection bubble of the 2 tier combination being tested now is 200 sq kms. That is a 14km X 14 km area. If one were to take the city of Mumbai, a minimum of two such units would be needed to protect the BARC area as well as the financial district of south Mumbai. That would still leave Navi Mumbai and the northern suburbs unprotected. As such the present system would provide protection for:

1. National command leadership.

2. Second strike launch/storage sites.

3. Critical economic infrastructure areas.

The cost for providing this protection per 200sq km bubble also needs to be investigated. How many such 200 sq km bubbles need to be protected in the entire country?

Phase 2 will provide longer range interception. How will the size of the bubble be impacted and by what factor will it increase in a THAAD style interception. Obviously fewer radar/battery combos will be needed as one moves further up the intercept height slope but the cost per unit will be higher.

The current PAD/AAD system is adequate for protection against Pakistani launches both in terms of range as well as Pakistani capabilities. Phase 2 will be necessary to provide protection for launches from northern China as well as SLBMs.

The link below has a fascinating article from the US CBO on Boost Phase Intercepts.

Performance Needed for an operationally effective BPI system

[JCage]

Ldev, good points. I was aware of the GBRs since I had looked through them earlier- radars like the PAVE PAWS etc are amazing in terms of range & ability (and cost no doubt).

But I was wondering more about the sats part of it. IE how does the US plan to track real time ICBM/IRBM launches using sats and how many would (say) India require against the PRC.

Thanks to the terrain/ LOS issues plus limited warning times, I dont think GB systems will suffice for Boost phase interception..might be somewhat useful for mid course interception, as compared to terminal interception.
With PRC, BPI is anyways ruled out. Air superiority deep into PRC is impossible imho.

With Pak we are better placed. The other problem upon relying upon sats is that PRC already has a full scale ASAT program underway..its going to be real tricky versus those guys. We aint the US either to have launch on demand sats as backup or multiple redundancy built into the n/w in terms of excess SATs. Midcourse intercept using airborne sensors might be another option once we move beyond Terminal interception as we are currently doing (and planning for).

That link is excellent.

The cost of a shield for Delhi is stated to be Rs 5200 crores per Raj Chengappas article in IT. Now how many batteries are part of that is a good question.

[JCage]

Its worth revisiting R Prasannans article from a few years back. It was initially brushed off as moonshine, but for Ramana who asked folks to treat it more seriously. And apparently with good reason. Even if the exact programs dont go forward - the intent and the options explored deserve mention. The part that is of relevance to an ABM discussion is in bold.

Fast forward
Defence: India enters the cruise missile race;
hyperplane Avatar reaches planning stage

By R. Prasannan

Cruise missiles," observed Prahalada, director of the Defence Research and Development Laboratory two years ago, "are the present currency of power." Though in smaller denomination now, India is acquiring that currency.

India is thinking of Space-based laser weapons Durga and Kali. Hyperplane Avatar will be a reusable missile launcher

The Brahmos cruise missile programme was perhaps the most hush-hush of India's missile projects. The long-range missile programme Surya is heard of at least through official denials. The reusable missile launcher-cum-hyperplane Avatar, the most ambitious of all projects, is openly talked about. Questions are asked at least in aerospace circles about the 'forgotten' Durga and Kali, though replies are rarely given. Agni-III is a matter of logical conjecture and extension of Agni-II. (The defence minister had claimed last November that "India has the capability to design and develop an ICBM having a range of more than 5,000 km. However, in consonance with the threat perception, no ICBM development project has been undertaken.")

But Brahmos is altogether a new name, though there has been talk about a cruise missile programme for some time. The success of Lakshya and Nishant is said to have given the Aeronautical Development Establishment the expertise to work on the cruise missile. However, till recently ADE authorities were claiming that they were engaged only in 'concept studies', and far from developing or even planning a cruise missile.

The 280 km-range missile, presently configured as an anti-ship weapon, is one of the few supersonic cruise missiles in the world. Ballistic missiles fly in a ballistic trajectory, much like a bullet. Their longer-range versions have to go up into the heavens and face problems when they re-enter the atmosphere. The enemy can also trace their launchers by calculating the ballistic trajectory and destroy them.

A cruise missile, on the other hand, is like an unmanned plane, flying at low altitude. Before launch it is fed information about the terrain over which it has to fly and the missile flies either by comparing the fed-in data with the camera pictures it takes or by constantly identifying its location with the help of global positioning systems.

Over sea, a cruise missile has a definite advantage over a ballistic one. The enemy ship out at sea can hide behind the earth's curvature against a ballistic missile which flies straight. On the contrary, a cruise missile can fly long ranges parallel to the surface and, if needed, a few metres above it. Brahmos's supersonic speed gives the enemy very little reaction time. The Indo-Russian Brahmos is learnt to be the starting point of an ambitious cruise missile programme. Studies have been going on for the last three years at the National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL) on the cost-effectiveness of a hypersonic missile (which fly at five or more times the speed of sound). Parallel studies in the US and Europe have concluded that the future belongs to hypersonic missiles. The US is already developing the F-16 into a hypersonic fighter.

Studies in India, not only at NAL but DRDL (the DRDO's missile lab), IIT Mumbai and ADE, are learnt to be running parallel to and not behind the Euro-American ventures. The hyperplane Avatar, the most ambitious of all, is already reaching the end of the conceptual stage and entering the planning stage. The kerosene-fuelled scramjet-powered vehicle is claimed to be much cheaper than the design concepts worked in the US, Germany, the UK and Japan.

The idea is to develop a vehicle that can take off from conventional airfields, collect air in the atmosphere on the way up, liquefy it, separate oxygen and store it on board for subsequent flight beyond the atmosphere. In fact, Air Commodore R. Gopalaswami, former chairman and managing director of Bharat Dynamics, India's missile factory, had once claimed that it can be developed even into a commercial transporter. Incidentally, it was Gopalaswami who suggested the name Avatar.

Avatar is primarily intended as a reusable missile launcher, one which can launch missiles, land back and be loaded again for more missions. The vehicle will be designed to permit at least a hundred re-entries into the atmosphere. The vehicle could also act as a satellite launcher at a hundredth of the present cost of launching satellites. A miniature Avatar, which is also being conceived, would be hardly bigger than a MiG-25 or an F-16.

Meanwhile, there is also talk of developing Nishant into a cruise missile. The present vehicle, an unmanned battlefield surveillance vehicle which can carry a payload of 45 kilos, completing test phase at ADE, is powered by a German Alvisar-801 engine. Nishant's cruise missile potential had been pointed out three years ago by Air Marshal Bharat Kumar in a United Services Institution (USI) research paper: "Nishant holds a lot of promise and provides us a take-off vehicle for potential UCAVs (uninhabited combat aerial vehicles) applications as well as (a) cruise missile programme."

With the limited production of the 200-km Agni-II having already begun, the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme is almost at the end of its fiery run. Indeed, a few of the short-range tactical missiles like Nag, Trishul, Akash, the naval Prithvi (otherwise called Dhanush) and Astra are yet to be fully developed or tested, but it is only a matter of time before they are.

Space-based laser weapons are another frontier technology that the military brass is thinking of. Recently the chiefs of staff committee ordered a feasibility study on them. (Incidentally, the Air Force is already demanding that India set up an aerospace command.) The DRDO, however, had anticipated this and already begun research.

One system that has been talked of in a USI paper by Dr V. Siddhartha, officer on special duty in the secretariat of the scientific adviser to the defence minister, is Durga or directionally unrestricted ray-gun array. Though no details on this are available, it is said to be an Indian version of the US's Star Wars project in which in-coming missiles can be shot down, or burnt down, by laser guns based in space. Still less known is Kali or kinetic attack loitering interceptor, a more advanced version of Durga.

However, all video-game gadgetry presupposes matching advances in space technology, both in launch vehicles and military reconnaissance satellites. Without capable launch vehicles, none of these can be lifted into space. With the recent success of the geosynchronous satellite launch vehicle, the ISRO has acquired heavy-lift capability. Work has already begun on a hypersonic launch vehicle which would be the forerunner to Avatar.

The more recent of the IRS series satellites are said to have limited military reconnaissance capability. The recent military exercises in the Rajasthan desert did make extensive use of IRS pictures, but military demands higher resolution pictures. According to Dr Siddhartha's paper, Satish Dhawan [former ISRO chairman] had talked in 1996 of a national early warning and response system (NEWARS), a space-sensor and communications-based integrated space-ground system meant exclusively for peaceful purposes. Siddhartha superposed on Dhawan's techno-scenario diagram a series of operational military reconnaissance satellites named Sanjaya.

Cruise missiles may be the currency of power today. But the currency of future would be Avatar, Durga and Kali.

[ldev]

But I was wondering more about the sats part of it. IE how does the US plan to track real time ICBM/IRBM launches using sats and how many would (say) India require against the PRC

For launch detection and tracking the US went through various phases from early development to today's sophisticated systems.:

They began with the MIDAS satellites in 1960 which relied on space based telescopes and followed that up in 1971 with the DSP series put into Geo orbit and using infra-red telescopes to spot ICBM and SLBM launches at the latest after they cleared any cloud cover over the launch sites. GEO orbit meant fewer satellite numbers. The DSP satellites served the US from 1970 all the way through the 1991 Gulf War where they detected Iraqi Scud launches. Since then they are being replaced by the SBIR (Space based Infrared System) satellites.

For Chinese launches India will need a similar system.. They should be in Geo orbit. 3/4 satellites (including for redundancy) should be adequate providing coverage for any Chinese SLBMs launched either from the Sea of Japan, the South China Sea or the Indian Ocean and given the 8000km range of Chinese SLBMs

This detection and tracking system should be coupled with a THAAD or a THAAD + interceptors which will provide for mid-course intercepts plus the existing terminal phase PAD/AAD tiers. This has to be a given because of the impracticality of a boost phase intercept for Chinese launches.

[narasimba]

for space based detection of missile launches, wonder a GEO Sat can pick a CM launch signature and track it? considering our economic realities, an iridium kind of LEO based Sat network primarily for global communications yet which double as missile launch detection sats during war time, its a goal, at the heart of which is merging of AESA with comm. protocols such as TDMA/CDMA. now, AESA on Phalcons detect missile in the 600km range, so a Sat at 200-300km altitude with a 600km slant range should be possible.

until we offset expenses for dedicated defense systems through defense exports, we will have to account for cost of these systems.

would we be able to bring in the well off ASEAN nations under an ABM umbrella? talk about success of foreign policy!

a 5200 crores tag for ABM protection of Delhi alone reduces the effective coverage, in comparing with Thaad, we have another goal to fulfil, perhaps it gels with many nations cost vs. security equation.

multi-nation involvement improves scale of economics?

[hnair]

Unlimited funding is always a relative term..in US terms, they might always be whining about budget cuts (and with good reason), but compared to our budgets, they are way beyond whatever we have.
What is truly shameful about India though is what little thought we give to preventing attrition. Comparable salaries to the pvt sector are peanuts compared to what we pay in terms of imports later on.

The other thing is that their budgets are collosal even though they build upon an existing technology base. In ours, we usually begin with less and then budget bare bones budgets. That just exacerbates the problem. I have little doubt that good funding and preventing attrition would have sped up some of our core programs by some 5-7 years.

Agree. Compared to our budgets, their cappuccino machine maintanence contract would be bigger. But then we have not yet reached a stage where DRDO have to hire the pricey law firm of Sibal, Jaitley and Chatterjee. Apparently the lobbyists are like blackholes, they actually can eat up unlimited funds

The biggest strength of India in cutting edge science is that the elderly lady or chap whom you meet at the corner grocery store with a folded "LG brand" asafoetida bag, might be doing the same level of work that the dudes who are attending a Defense Contractor's convention in Vegas' Bellagio might be doing. The overheads of Unkillland orgs must seem crazy for Indian research orgs. That is why I believe that the field is more level than we feel. And of course, no amount of tribute will be sufficient to honor these humble folks of Indian research, who has yet beaten any game that the west played on us.

Of course, funds are something we all wont grudge for our folks. if you ask me to choose between a bejewelled Controller and a khadi-clad Controller? Give me the hip-hop moghul version anytime!! It is time to put out the blings.

[JCage]

Wow! $ 55 Million for one test! They shoul ask India how to keep costs down.


http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F= ... &C=asiapac

Japanese navy destroyer shot down a ballistic missile in space Dec. 17 in a test over the Pacific, a first for a U.S. ally, a witness said.

The medium-range target missile was launched from a U.S. range on Kauai. The Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency, or MDA, said Japan paid entirely for the $55 million test.

[Austin]

There may be many more components as well, but the design and verification has to be done inhouse. Check MEADS for instance: It will have two radars (one from Raytheon) and one from Europe (Selex & EADS), but with PAC-3s from the US, and the IRIS-T from Europe as the catcher for CM's. The Euro radar itself will have a common digital receiver and exciter with the US one for quickening development and production.

That is correct for Europe and Israel specially for the latter , many critical components are procured from US.

In a way any Israel help for ABM system that DRDO might have got would have got tacit US approval as well .

We can import non critical system or rely on it because of economy of scale or cost effective reason , but for any critical system even it means investing $$$ we got to indigenous it

No- you are mixing up what I meant, or I should have been clearer. The first statement is correct- you cant "scale up PAD" ie take up the PAD itself and make it an ICBM interceptor, but the second is incorrect- you dont need to design from scratch because many of the technologies and processes developed for the PAD can be developed into variants for a more capable one. Such as divert thrusters, Inertial sensors and navigation, seekers, datalinks, On board computers, s/w for the missile. Not to mention C3I, MCC, LCC etc for the Ground based system.

I kinda beg to differ from you , you can use and reuse many components from existing PAD like the one you have mentioned.

But if you want to intercept higher range IRBM (>3000 km) in near space or ICBM in space then you will have to design a new interceptor.

IMHO the current PAD which inherits many Prithvi like design its huge wing surface for controls at least for first stage will make it draggy and inefficient , plus these winged control surface is not effective in thin air or near space environment.

What we need in long run is a Lean and Mean interceptor which is all solid fuel and uses flex nozzle and divert thrusters and reusing many PAD components and technologies.

[gopal.suri]

Looks like you need to convert Agni 1 for IRBM interception.

[Austin]

Yes Gopal , Even if you look at interceptors being developed around the world , you might end up with some thing similar.

[gopal.suri]

Hope to see longer detection ranges. We need baloon/aerostat based detectors. Can see through horizon and can change location, can be manouvered to particular location and can be deployed at will. I believe the interceptor hardware is within our control, our radar detection capbility is foreign hardware (not software). We should have scattered locators, it will also help us realtime warning. Atleast, if its not a solution, its a part of solution for satellite jamming and groundbased radar jamming.

[JCage]

We can import non critical system or rely on it because of economy of scale or cost effective reason , but for any critical system even it means investing $$$ we got to indigenous it

The problem is that we dont have the facilities and resources to dedicate to an abinitio program to indigenize certain components. COTS are one thing which everyone uses. But for eg, long range IIR seekers - the investments required for developing and manufacturing these items is huge. Not to mention time taken etc. IMO, what we should explore is a) to either codevelop these and get technology transfer for complete local production OR b ) stock up on critical systems in advance via large orders.
Meanwhile launch your program to replace them over due time, and you wont have delays yet get the job done.

Frankly, I have zero faith in GOI/MOD and MOF to get the job done for 100% indigenization. Idiots wont even pay industry standard wages to the R&D folks and will shamelessly sign deals 100x the amount in the guise that a project is delayed.

There may be many more components as well, but the design and verification has to be done inhouse. Check MEADS for instance: It will have two radars (one from Raytheon) and one from Europe (Selex & EADS), but with PAC-3s from the US, and the IRIS-T from Europe as the catcher for CM's. The Euro radar itself will have a common digital receiver and exciter with the US one for quickening development and production.

That is correct for Europe and Israel specially for the latter , many critical components are procured from US.

In a way any Israel help for ABM system that DRDO might have got would have got tacit US approval as well .

We can import non critical system or rely on it because of economy of scale or cost effective reason , but for any critical system even it means investing $$$ we got to indigenous it

No- you are mixing up what I meant, or I should have been clearer. The first statement is correct- you cant "scale up PAD" ie take up the PAD itself and make it an ICBM interceptor, but the second is incorrect- you dont need to design from scratch because many of the technologies and processes developed for the PAD can be developed into variants for a more capable one. Such as divert thrusters, Inertial sensors and navigation, seekers, datalinks, On board computers, s/w for the missile. Not to mention C3I, MCC, LCC etc for the Ground based system.

I kinda beg to differ from you , you can use and reuse many components from existing PAD like the one you have mentioned.

But if you want to intercept higher range IRBM (>3000 km) in near space or ICBM in space then you will have to design a new interceptor.

IMHO the current PAD which inherits many Prithvi like design its huge wing surface for controls at least for first stage will make it draggy and inefficient , plus these winged control surface is not effective in thin air or near space environment.

What we need in long run is a Lean and Mean interceptor which is all solid fuel and uses flex nozzle and divert thrusters and reusing many PAD components and technologies.

Austin, reread what I wrote, I said the same thing.

The first statement is correct- you cant "scale up PAD" ie take up the PAD itself and make it an ICBM interceptor, but the second is incorrect- you dont need to design from scratch because many of the technologies and processes developed for the PAD can be developed into variants for a more capable one.

..ie you will have to develop a new missile, but this time, you wont have to start from scratch as you have the building blocks from previous systems and the experience.

[JCage]

Hope to see longer detection ranges. We need baloon/aerostat based detectors. Can see through horizon and can change location, can be manouvered to particular location and can be deployed at will. I believe the interceptor hardware is within our control, our radar detection capbility is foreign hardware (not software). We should have scattered locators, it will also help us realtime warning. Atleast, if its not a solution, its a part of solution for satellite jamming and groundbased radar jamming.

Actually, the radar hardware wont be foreign either. Eg: The all critical transmit recieve modules are of local origin.