Indian Missile Technology Discussion

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Apr 2009 22:41

Forward steering aka thrusters are a way to provide control to the missile. the other technique is fexible nozzle.

Thanks Arun_S for the exposition. I guess next are the Agony trials with aided INS from user stocks!

BTW you need to x-post your shahiri in the Music thread.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 17 Apr 2009 23:55

To set the record straight, my last rejoinder, .
Saar: I was always in 4 D Time-Space coordinate space as I was thinking thought my earlier reply. Beacon signal is generated/computed for a known geodesic position, so if the Beacon datum is apriori determined (by celestial or GPS/Gagan fix), then the displacement delta from the datum to the actual antenna position also yields apriori determined datum fix (measured by physical tape measurement offset from datum). So there is no unknowns left to properly generate the signal for the known Time-Space coordinate.

You know where your antenna was P = (x, y, z) , now you move it to P1 = (x1, y1, z1). How do you apply a time shift to compensate for move from P to P1? The time shift required would be different for different receiver locations, which are not known apriori.

Your claim is, you can apply a simple time shift to the generated signal to compensate for the move from (x, y, z) to (x1, y1, z1).

I am saying that the signal itself needs to convey to the receiver that the antenna has shifted. This information may be conveyed by sending the new location as part of the signal, or by changing the frequency of the signal, or by an offline communication, whatever. This information needs to be conveyed somehow.

Its not that a simple time shift can compensate for the move. (It could if you were in 1D, or if the receiver position is known, but you are not and you dont).

Ground based beacons, aircraft based beacons, etc. are all doable. Infact these are the systems that are guaranteed to be available to you in case you are fighting a strong adversary who can shoot down satellites, destroy your control stations, jam your signals etc. The correct term for these kind of systems is 'pseudo-lites'. These systems are what makes the GPS system a credible threat even against enemies like China/Russia and not just Iraq/Taliban.

Beyond some declarations of intent, the govt. of India has not shown any inclination to develop these systems and the output from the scientific and technical community about these systems is missing. (Where are the papers, the conferences, the seminars, university courses?). Such a system can not be built just by Isro themselves.. It needs a university system with the appropriate background to back it up. Look at the Chinese output in these areas, look at the Japanese output, look at the European output and look at desi output..

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 18 Apr 2009 05:17

sudeepj wrote:
To set the record straight, my last rejoinder, .
Saar: I was always in 4 D Time-Space coordinate space as I was thinking thought my earlier reply. Beacon signal is generated/computed for a known geodesic position, so if the Beacon datum is apriori determined (by celestial or GPS/Gagan fix), then the displacement delta from the datum to the actual antenna position also yields apriori determined datum fix (measured by physical tape measurement offset from datum). So there is no unknowns left to properly generate the signal for the known Time-Space coordinate.

You know where your antenna was P = (x, y, z) , now you move it to P1 = (x1, y1, z1). How do you apply a time shift to compensate for move from P to P1? The time shift required would be different for different receiver locations, which are not known apriori.

Your claim is, you can apply a simple time shift to the generated signal to compensate for the move from (x, y, z) to (x1, y1, z1).

I am saying that the signal itself needs to convey to the receiver that the antenna has shifted. This information may be conveyed by sending the new location as part of the signal, or by changing the frequency of the signal, or by an offline communication, whatever. This information needs to be conveyed somehow.

saar: Two different issues
1. Time shift: Sure, it is required; to account for different propagation delay of the transmission line connecting teh beacon with the selected active antenna.
2. Generate the signal for the known Time-Space coordinate corresponding to the antenna location: I hope you read the following statement:

So there is no unknowns left to properly generate the signal for the known Time-Space coordinate.

As a person versed in the art, I know where you are coming from, and we are saying the same thing albeit from our own perspective in as few words as we can muster. (Engineering is after all the art of concise use of language).

I hope we can get out of the argumentative Indian syndrome.
At least I am taking a bow from this point onward.
Thank you.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 18 Apr 2009 06:03

Got a question: for non-sub-sea missiles, why should pif-pafs, other little thrusters and complex calculations be used for orienting a missile towards the target after a vertical launch? Would it not be cheaper (and more reliable) to:

- have just a pair of simple single-burst thrusters at each end of the missile (They just flip the missile and make it horizontal)
- alignment of a missile towards target is accomplished before launch by mechanically turning the individual launch canisters inside a multi-cell launcher so that the missile's flip thrusters are cued rightly. Then launch.

(Note: I am not talking about turning the entire launcher/magazine around like in the earlier systems, but just the individual missile canisters on their axis, so simultaneous firing in 360 degrees is possible)

Nayak · Post by **Nayak** » 23 Apr 2009 21:12

Scans from Vayu -

Nayak · Post by **Nayak** » 23 Apr 2009 21:14

Scans from Vayu

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 24 Apr 2009 06:04

India, Israel to Jointly Develop Medium-Range Air Defense Missile

Prime contractor for the program will be the Indian Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) missile and space group acting as leading subcontractor, IAI's Elta Systems providing the radar and Israel's RAFAEL producing the interceptor missiles.

India has also expressed interest in acquiring the Israeli Arrow-II missile defense system, developed under an US-Israeli cooperation. India has already acquired the system's Green-Pine radar, developed exclusively with Israeli funding and, therefore, was unrestricted by US export approval.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 24 Apr 2009 08:25

Refer above, has design changed from http://defense-update.com/products/b/barak8.htm?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Apr 2009 10:24

Nayak wrote:Scans from Vayu -

Arun_S, These scans are very interesting. Can you correlate them with the IA test that was successful?

Nayak, Thanks

jmaxwell · Post by **jmaxwell** » 24 Apr 2009 12:26

Nayak wrote:Scans from Vayu -

From the article:

The Brahmos may have turned out to be an even more deadly ASCM if the Indian software designers had by now matured the already formidable guidance system of the BrahMos predecessor, the Onyx/Yakhont which has accumulated all the NPO Mash experience in developing electronic systems of aritificial intelligence.

I don't understand what the author is trying to say. Is he implying that the missile is perhaps more deadly (than Onyx/Yakhont) because we indians may have improved on the guidance software? I thought this was exactly what we were bringing to the table.

..., the missiles are programmed to ensure destruction of the chief target in a aircraft carrier battle group (CVBG) or surface action group as priority, followed by destruction of other ships by remaining missiles, obviating the possibility of expending multiple missiles on same targets.

Why would it obviate the possibility of expending multiple missiles on the same target? Wouldn't it be prudent to use all the missiles on just the chief target, if I can program secondary targets in case of successful destruction of the chief target?

Little known yet, but in fact a parallel development and as part of Alfa-next generation airborne reconnaisance and strike system, NPO Mash unveiled the Yakhont-M air launched supersonic ASCM at the MAKS 2003 air show, which shares elements with the Indo-Russian PJ10 BrahMos. Armed with multi sensor guidance to engage surface ships and ground targets at up to 300km, reconnaisance and target acquisition are to be provided by radar and electro-optical sensor equipped "ultra-light" (800kg) Kondor low earth orbit satellites.

I just did a double take. Did the russians pull a fast one again? Is there any more info on how the Yahkont-M compares to Brahmos-A -- is it just the guidance software that is different? Can the Brahmos-A utilize these Kondor satellites? Has anyone categorized the impact to international sales for Brahmos-A?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 25 Apr 2009 00:08

ramana wrote:
Nayak wrote: Arun_S, These scans are very interesting. Can you correlate them with the IA test that was successful?

My few Naya Paisa:

1)

>> The missile appears to have been developed to defeat the increasing sophistication of ship-based defense comprising of longer ranged and enhanced flexible phase-array radars in combination with point-defense missile systems, "close-loop" Close-In Weapons Systems (CIWS) and smart decoys.

BrahMos precision flight in Thar desert has clearly demonstrated Indian engineered BrahMos as
A) precision flying,
B ) precision targeting
C) incisive feature discrimination (thus robustness against smart decoys)

Add to that the best kept secret in the open, that brahMos has more range than the published 290 Km, and that additional fuel allows it to do precision random S trajectory curve at high "G" in 4 dimensions (3 dimensions of space and plus velocity) that even when precisely tracked by phase-array radar makes trajectory prediction impossible. Given that Brahmos travels at the speed of bullet, a Close-In rapid fire weapon will be unable to correctly aim at the small RCS target due to flight of time delay against a unpredictable trajectory. This is the same type of problem that ABM missiles have against high speed BM missiles (not enough time for interceptor to gain speed to meet the incoming at sufficiently far off distance). Bullet solves the speed problem, but it is blind after that since it does not any in flight maneuvering/guidance ability. 3 x speed difference w.r.t. subsonic ASM means the gun's rate of fire has to be at least 3 times higher to get equivalent "wall of lead" range, not to mention that the kinetic energy of BrahMos demands a protection bubble that is at least 6 times bigger radius than that required from sub-sonic missiles.

2) Once the missiles RF sensor (that earlier in Thar discriminated small target features) has caught the first glimpse of the ship, INS navigation will finish it, no amount of ECCM will save the target.

3) Once the chief target fo CVBG is gone, one only needs 3 more hours to allow the air power dissipate into sea and then lacking long air protective bubble the rest of the BG is easy munched by even an Atlatique with a salvo of sub-sonic CM, much less the good stuff BrahMos.

4) Just one MKI penetrating into 300Km bubble of the Battle Group will obviate the BG into pieces of doha floating in sea. Normal MKI strike force will be 4 ship flight. That means 12 ships are toast.

5) What this article also intriguingly mentions is:

>> Yakhont-M air launched supersonic ASCM ay the MAKS 2003 air show, which shares elements with teh Indo-Russian PJ-10 BrahMos. Armed with multisensor guidance to engage surface ships and ground targets at up to 300km, reconnaissance and target acquistion are to be provided by radar and electro-optical sensor equipped 'ultr-light' (800 Kg) Kondor low-Earth-orbit satellites.

For comparison Indian EOS provide better capability.

6) First indication of BrahMos sporting "Optical/image sensor"

>> The quest for Brahmos LACM was hinted at in a test at Pokharan during December 2004, the missile being equipped with special image processing softwrae for terminal homing. Although not officially stated, it could well be a DSMAC variant, which uses a zoom lense to collect images and matches them with snaps of the approach to the target stored in the memory. ..... . . . During the Pokharan test BrahMos searched for, located and destroyed a 50 cm thick concrete bunker with pin point accuracy. The version has already been transferred to the Indian Army for land based applications .. . .. .

So possibly the recent IA test also used this optical sensor, my guess will be the sensor was multispectral, including IR band for night operation.

7) This is intriguing:

>> .. while Indian scientists have for at least a decade, been working on solid state laser for use as super-high speed ignition systems to arm missiles, although their present status is a closely guarded secret.

I would have thought of using laser to disarm missile rather than arm missile.

8') the last paragraph is a clincher:

>> IAF Su-30MKI armed with BrahMos-A will be in a position to dominate and dictate "terms" throughout the Indian Ocean region specially if permitted to conduct 'one-way missions', that is recovering at 'friendly' bases in Pacific islands and West Asia.

I see correct use of the word West Asia, and not Middle East. Reversing the UK/USA bas-tardization of words to change the meaning of Middle East that historically meant 'India-Afghanistan region', and Jordan Iraq region was called 'West Asia'. Now the SOBs want the world to believe otherwise by calling that region as Middle East and South Asia instead.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 25 Apr 2009 01:14

Arun_S wrote:I would have thought of using laser to disarm missile rather than arm missile.

Arun-saar
FYI http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1989/PV1989_2870.pdf

Laser ordnance firing systems (LOFS) are replacing conventional electro-mechanical arm/fire devices in many ordnance initiation applications. The most significant benefits associated with LOFS are safety, simplicity, multiple functions, reliability and cost.

(LAFD), which is safer, smaller, lighter, lower cost and can initiate multiple events, has been developed and demonstrated. By combining the laser arm/fire device with fiber optic cable, connectors, couplers, and various insensitive ordnance devices, a very simple, safe, versatile, and cost effective laser ordnance firing system (LOFS) is formed.

The Small Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (SleBM) and the Hardened Mobile Launcher (HML) depend on lasers to initiate all system ordnance.

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 25 Apr 2009 21:18

Ramana Boss
As always, I was delighted by your post. One point I want to make clear for newbie's that to understand the gravity and sophistication of "desi maal" of target discrimination software and hardware. There were atleast double or triple factors stacked for Brahmos II testing. Two heat zones were available for this testing, one was heat generated by reflectors, and other natural heat zone of desert sand. Their heat signature differs from eachother on large scale, so Brahmos had to discriminate, eliminate target from natural impediments, artificially created clutter, is a scientific and engineering feat. The enormity of overcoming this taks was enormous, DRDO and Desi Maal deserves all the kudos and accolades.

I hope our military comes to her senses and start believing in desi maal and forget about their bias toward phoren maal.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Apr 2009 23:12

You mean Arun_S!

munda · Post by **munda** » 26 Apr 2009 05:35

Is it safe to say that Brahmos is fastest missile in the world?

Shyam_K · Post by **Shyam_K** » 26 Apr 2009 05:43

munda wrote:Is it safe to say that Brahmos is fastest missile in the world?

maybe fastest cruise missile, but Brahmos is slower than ballistic missiles.

John · Post by **John** » 26 Apr 2009 06:15

Shyam_K wrote:
munda wrote:Is it safe to say that Brahmos is fastest missile in the world?
maybe fastest cruise missile, but Brahmos is slower than ballistic missiles.

Moskit is actually faster than Brahmos/Yakhont and few other ramjets fueled missiles like Kh-31 are also faster at sea level. There are plenty of solid fueled missiles (SAM and air to surface missiles) that are much faster than Brahmos.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Apr 2009 09:14

almost any good AAM is mach4+. phoenix was mach5.5

Granit top speed is Mach4 per web reports. its the biggest shtick in RuN.

Klub's terminal dart is also a fit faster at Mach3.5..being small it would be a more difficult target
than the brahmos airframe for SAM/radar guide AA guns. if we could obtain the Klub under TOT
and fit the brahmos block2 seeker that would be good inshallah.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Apr 2009 10:00

The fastest missile operational ( air to surface ) AFAIK is the Raduga Kh-15 NATO ( AS-16 ) , it has a range of 150 Km to 300 Km depending on flight profile and has a top speed of Mach 5 , there is an anti-radar and antiship missile available ( who needs hypersonic brahmos

)

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 26 Apr 2009 16:47

Brahmos attracts buyers

he supersonic BrahMos cruise missile has impressed countries at the recently concluded Latin American defence expo held in Brazil, with at least three nations showing keen interest in buying the missile system, a senior official said.

"Brazil, Chile and South Africa have shown interest in the shore-based and ship-based versions of the missile," a senior official of BrahMos Aerospace Ltd., told IANS.

John · Post by **John** » 27 Apr 2009 00:08

Singha wrote:almost any good AAM is mach4+. phoenix was mach5.5

Granit top speed is Mach4 per web reports. its the biggest shtick in RuN.

Klub's terminal dart is also a fit faster at Mach3.5..being small it would be a more difficult target
than the brahmos airframe for SAM/radar guide AA guns. if we could obtain the Klub under TOT
and fit the brahmos block2 seeker that would be good inshallah.

I do not think think Granit can do over Mach 2.5 and that is a high altitude at low altitude it speed barely over 400 m/s (Mach 1.5?) based on declassified docs.

As for AAM keep in mind it is high altitude when launched by another missiles even Kh-15 and other HARM achieve those speed by accelerating downwards towards the target.
Ramjet gives considerable range but you need Scramjet for speeds over mach 4 and higher altitude.

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 27 Apr 2009 21:09

ramana wrote:You mean Arun_S!

Yes, My Mistake. Sorry Arun_S Boss!

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 28 Apr 2009 11:06

No news on Astra Trial on Rambha Platform,it was scheduled for jan 2009

K_Reddy · Post by **K_Reddy** » 29 Apr 2009 13:40

I would like to once and for all clear the confusion over the Barak 8 / NG / MR-SAM.

From the Israeli site defense-update (a reliable site on Israeli defense issues):
http://defense-update.com/newscast/0707 ... _mrsam.htm
India, Israel to Jointly Pursue Medium-Range Air Defense Missile

Covering a range of 70 km, the new missile will extend the 60km range of the vertically launched Barak 8 shipborne missile (also known as Barak NG) currently being developed for the Indian and Israeli Navies under a US$480 million five year program launched in early 2006.
The new system is expected to streamline with the original Barak 8 schedule, adding about $300 million to the program development cost. In its decision last week the Indian Government earmarked a total funding of about Rs10,000 crore (about US$2.5 billion) for the medium range surface-to-air missiles (MR-SAM) project. The program will include the deployment of up to nine air defense squadrons.

There is an image of the proposed SAM on the site.
Image: A view of the Barak NG. MR-SAM is expected to be longer and use slightly different aerodynamic design.

For reference this is the Navel Barak 8.
http://defense-update.com/products/b/barak8.htm
In the above link, the MR-SAM is said to have twice the range (?), and there is still some confusion on the name (Barak 8 = Navy, NG = MR-SAM?). It is an older article.
But one thing is clear - there are 2 slightly different missiles in development. I propose we call the Navy version Barak 8 and the IAF version the MR-SAM.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Apr 2009 22:20

Can you make a short note and illustrate with pics or sketches and a table of specs? It can then be loaded to the Missile page and we can point people to it?

K_Reddy · Post by **K_Reddy** » 30 Apr 2009 13:10

Would it be copy write infringement to take the pic off the pages posted above? I'm sure they wouldn’t mind.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Apr 2009 13:20

a) Yes
b) they probably would, better ask them.

Thanu · Post by **Thanu** » 30 Apr 2009 13:43

http://www.drdo.com/pub/nl/2009/may09.pdf

Shri R Rajesh, Sci C, Centre for Air Borne Systems (CABS), Bangaluru, for his successfully
developing the signal processor for the SSR using state-of-the-art algorithms and has
successfully integrated the processor with other subsystems. He has also developed
anti-jamming techniques for a GPS receiver and has demonstrated the interference
cancellation in real time using a hardware test set-up.

Could this be the reason for the recent success of the Brahmos missiles?

jmaxwell · Post by **jmaxwell** » 30 Apr 2009 13:53

K_Reddy wrote:Covering a range of 70 km, the new missile will extend the 60km range of the vertically launched Barak 8 shipborne missile (also known as Barak NG) currently being developed for the Indian and Israeli Navies...

I am sure other than range extension there will be a requirement for some changes to the radar (perhaps an entirely new one); though the article isn't very clear about this.

K_Reddy · Post by **K_Reddy** » 05 May 2009 11:51

EL/M-2248 MF-STAR Naval Multi-Mission Radar
http://defense-update.com/products/m/mf_star.htm

The Israelis claim it is superior to AEGIS. The above page says the same radar is used for both missiles. I don’t understand the point in changing the missile rocket engine or wing configuration for the IAF (at a cost of 300 M$). There is a chance the motor is the same and the aerodynamic changes have produced the 10Km range increment. I think the IAF is looking for maybe a limited ABM capability (high altitude intercept capability from the look of the missile, the fin congif of the Barak 8 is more akin to a low and slow IR AAM).

Also the whole thing about the AAD not being suitable in tale chase is bull crap. It is designed to intercept missiles, it has to be super maneuverable and highly energetic. The info put out by the DRDO after the test suggests the AAD reaches a high altitude and dives in for the kill – it approaches the target from the rear, presumably so the target + interceptor velocity is lowered this way. Does the PAD do the same thing or go for ahead on collision? What are the advantages of such an approach?

I will send a mail to Defense Update asking for permission to ‘use’ their pics and create a simple essay about the Barak 8/MR SAM endeavor, and mail it you guys.

K_Reddy · Post by **K_Reddy** » 07 May 2009 16:48

Well here’s a gem.

Turns out 'Piff-Paff' is an actual a technical term. A French acronym for "Pilotage induit en force—Pilotage aérodynamique en force". Basically thrusters used for maneuverability as we suspected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA_Aster

Maneuverability
New control system: control flaps are associated with four powder maneuver rockets at the center of gravity of the missile (also referred to as PIF-PAF for Pilotage induit en force—Pilotage aérodynamique en force). The system prevents a rupture of the missile under high-g maneuvers during trajectory corrections, and allows such maneuvers to be performed without losing aerodynamic performances, improving the precision of the impact on target. A standard launch of the Aster can include 90-degree trajectory changes

I wonder if the French have contributed more then we know to our missile program. What is ‘powder maneuver rockets’, typo for ‘Power’. If the thrusters are close to the center of gravity (a missiles CoG shifts in flight as fuel is used up), when fired the missile will not ‘turn’ but move laterally. The Aster has a max altitude of only 20 Km but uses the PIF-PAF system purely for maneuverability.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 May 2009 21:39

Powder manuovere Motors = Solid fuel rocket motors (short duration impulse)

Its taught in all aero classes that one can steer a rocket efficeintly by means of ahead (ahead of CG) controls: fins, impulse motors etc.

And Indians are very high in aerodynamics from the 1950s as its mostly advanced mathematics. Check th faculty of most US utys!

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 08 May 2009 02:03

Astra missile test-fired

HYDERABAD: As part of developmental tests, the flight trial of Astra, Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile (BVRAAM), was successfully carried out by scientists of the Defence Research and Development Organisation recently at Balasore, Orissa.

DRDO sources told The Hindu here on Thursday that the missile’s dual mode guidance was fully proved when it was fired from the ground at an imaginary target.
...

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 08 May 2009 04:33

RaviBg wrote:Astra missile test-fired

DRDO sources told The Hindu here on Thursday that the missile’s dual mode guidance was fully proved when it was fired from the ground at an imaginary target.
...

Dual mode guidance, interesting.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 May 2009 21:15

If the "dual mode guidance" refers to ARH and IIR, it would be just soo totally cool, like wow man. Fingers crossed onlee.

CM.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 08 May 2009 21:35

Cain Marko wrote:If the "dual mode guidance" refers to ARH and IIR, it would be just soo totally cool, like wow man. Fingers crossed onlee.

CM.

The page put up by Arun-saar in BR here
Says "It uses dual mode guidance i.e. Inertial navigation during midcourse and active radar homing in terminal phase"

So looks like Inertian navigation/mid course correction/ARH terminal phase.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 08 May 2009 23:35

Any word on how long is it going to be before we see Astra in service? Initial target was 2009.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 09 May 2009 00:47

Do we know "under what conditions" does Astra have a 80 KM head-on and 20 KM tail chase range? Found this interesting article describing how these numbers are inflated by missile manufacturers and are achievable only under "ideal" conditions - like high altitude, non evading targets, which are never the case in reality. If we look at most literature about say R-77, you wont even find what the tail-chase range is. I have seen the tail-chase range being reported only for the Astra.

Air-to-Air missile non-comparison table

http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/t ... s/aam.html

John · Post by **John** » 09 May 2009 04:04

K_Reddy wrote:EL/M-2248 MF-STAR Naval Multi-Mission Radar
http://defense-update.com/products/m/mf_star.htm

The Israelis claim it is superior to AEGIS. The above page says the same radar is used for both missiles. I don’t understand the point in changing the missile rocket engine or wing configuration for the IAF (at a cost of 300 M$). There is a chance the motor is the same and the aerodynamic changes have produced the 10Km range increment. I think the IAF is looking for maybe a limited ABM capability (high altitude intercept capability from the look of the missile, the fin congif of the Barak 8 is more akin to a low and slow IR AAM).

Also the whole thing about the AAD not being suitable in tale chase is bull crap. It is designed to intercept missiles, it has to be super maneuverable and highly energetic. The info put out by the DRDO after the test suggests the AAD reaches a high altitude and dives in for the kill – it approaches the target from the rear, presumably so the target + interceptor velocity is lowered this way. Does the PAD do the same thing or go for ahead on collision? What are the advantages of such an approach?

I will send a mail to Defense Update asking for permission to ‘use’ their pics and create a simple essay about the Barak 8/MR SAM endeavor, and mail it you guys.

MF-Star is not superior to SPY-1 radar in terms of range or target tracked especially after the recent software upgrades, however it is far smaller and easier to fit in. Barak-8 in terms of performance is between Aster 15 and Aster 30.