ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 29 Jul 2009 12:22

Reaction time.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 30 Jul 2009 09:12

between AAD & PAD,

if the incoming missile is tracked from a distance, then PAD can be readied to meet it at a high altitude, if PAD misses, perhaps several AAD's would need to be fired to intercept

the last launch of the target missile was from 100-150km distance, and PAD had sufficient time to take off and intercept

Assuming the ABM radars have a typical range of 500km, and a sub cannot launch any closer than 100km from shore (owing to ballistic missile's minimum range and stealth reasons), PAD will have its shot

if the longer range target SLBM is fired in a lofted trajectory, PAD will have to intercept either in AAD's speed regime or at a higher altitude, while AAD will have a tough time

-----------------

for high altitude interception, sounding rockets were discussed earlier in addition to them being used for ASAT purposes

KALI (when it comes) which looks like it is barrel shaped can be put in the form factor of an AUV tethered by a power cable to the sub, it then can reach the surface for pulse shots against SLBMs in boost phase

anyways, in the news today was Beijing's request for a hotline with New Delhi

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 12 Aug 2009 04:12

Russian S-500 Missile: Star Wars? Russia ready to counter US space threat

"The development of air and space offensive weapons by foreign states demonstrates that by 2030 radical changes will take place in the exploration of air and space as an integral sphere of armed struggle," Russian news agencies quoted three-star General Alexander Zelin as saying.
...
Zelin said that by 2020 Russia would create its own new air and space defense.
...
Zelin said Moscow was now developing a fifth-generation, surface-to-air rocket, the S-500. "It is able to implement in full the tasks of air and space defense and is capable of engaging ballistic hypersonic targets flying at a speed of 5km per second," Zelin said.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 20 Aug 2009 00:06

Industry, MDA Buoyed By Thaad Success

“Actually, what happened on the flight test was that the first interceptor hit just as it was supposed to and the second interceptor looked at all of this debris and said, ‘OK, I’ve got another something that looks interesting,’ picked out another threat, and went out and killed it,” says Tom McGrath, Thaad vice president for prime contractor Lockheed Martin. “The second intercept hit another piece of hardware. We can’t talk about what that was, but it picked out what logically you would expect it to pick out and killed it.”

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 13 Sep 2009 00:14

Japan Should Cut ‘Useless’ Missile Defense, DPJ Official Says

“Missile defense is almost totally useless,” said Tsuyoshi Yamaguchi, a Lower House lawmaker who served as the party’s deputy defense spokesman prior to its Aug. 30 election victory. “Only one or two out of 100 are ever effective,” he said yesterday in an interview in his Tokyo office.

“We’ll probably cut” the overall defense budget, said Yamaguchi, who holds a Ph.D. in international politics from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. “There’s so much else we have to do, such as child-care allowance, education, health care and pensions.”

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 18 Sep 2009 07:51

Super Green Pine Radar selected by S korea

The EL/M-2080 Green Pine Block-B, or Super Green Pine, is capable of detecting and simultaneously tracking dozens of targets about 800 kilometers away in any weather conditions, a DAPA official said.

http://idrw.org/?p=912#more-912

how much range does our current green pine radars incorporated with AAD and PAD have ?

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 18 Sep 2009 08:07

Swordfish has 600 odd km but swordfish-2 for Ad-1/2 will have 1000+ km.

Mahesh_R · Post by **Mahesh_R** » 19 Sep 2009 22:50

Guru's,

Any updates on the when the BMD will be ready and counter any threat from China and Pak ?

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 30 Oct 2009 10:59

LM start integrated testing of second missile warning satellite

SBIRS is designed to provide early warning of missile launches, and
simultaneously support other missions including missile defense, technical
intelligence and battlespace characterization.

Japan just tested the Aegis again

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 04 Nov 2009 14:07

Missile defense off priority list during India-US talks

India was among a select group of non-NATO countries to have been exposed by the Pentagon to missile defence concepts. As late as early last year, the Bush government had hoped for greater cooperation in BMD with India. Now with the Obama administration actively reviewing the ballistic missile defence policy, the issue has further receded from the DPG deliberations, said the sources.

So they are letting us go with our own program. Good or bad?

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 04 Nov 2009 14:11

Great IMHO , US might have forced their tech. down our throats, this way we get to move along our own project, which ofcourse has come to the testing phase without US help.

sourab_c · Post by **sourab_c** » 04 Nov 2009 20:30

Kailash wrote:Missile defense off priority list during India-US talks

India was among a select group of non-NATO countries to have been exposed by the Pentagon to missile defence concepts. As late as early last year, the Bush government had hoped for greater cooperation in BMD with India. Now with the Obama administration actively reviewing the ballistic missile defence policy, the issue has further receded from the DPG deliberations, said the sources.
So they are letting us go with our own program. Good or bad?

They are not "letting us go," instead this is a result of aggressive opposition by the scientific community to wait for indigenous technology to mature.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 04 Nov 2009 20:46

seeker 1SB4M on earlier kub SAMs

http://www.rwd-mb3.de/technik/3m9_13.jpg
http://www.rwd-mb3.de/technik/3m9_5.jpg
http://www.rwd-mb3.de/technik/3m9_6.jpg
http://www.rwd-mb3.de/technik/3m9_7.jpg
http://www.rwd-mb3.de/technik/3m9_8.jpg
http://www.rwd-mb3.de/technik2/3m9_30.jpg
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S200 missile seeker
http://s200-wega.de/images/stories/s200 ... rak-03.jpg
http://s200-wega.de/images/stories/s200 ... rak-05.jpg
http://s200-wega.de/images/stories/s200 ... rak-06.jpg

cabin for S200 missile complex
http://s200-wega.de/images/stories/s200 ... o-ziel.jpg
http://s200-wega.de/images/stories/s200 ... k-frag.jpg

for full reading go to
http://translate.google.com/translate?p ... ry_state0=
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S300V command post
http://peters-ada.de/s200-digital.jpg

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 12 Nov 2009 13:04

X-posting from Missile Tech dhaga..

Fresh ABM tests soon

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_fr ... on_1310453

Since endo and exo mode have been tested separately in previous years, this one must be the simultaneous interception of one incoming by 2 interceptors.

nmadhav · Post by **nmadhav** » 13 Nov 2009 14:06

EDITED

Dont know what to make of it, hope its just not paranoia from the other side.

PS: Hope i am posting this in the right thread. Please let me know

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 13 Nov 2009 14:29

nmadhav wrote:deleted.
Dont know what to make of it, hope its just not paranoia from the other side.
PS: Hope i am posting this in the right thread. Please let me know

It is worth mentioning that the Indian government is spending not billions but trillions of dollars on defence purchase while the hundreds of millions of the general public lack even the basic living facilities

So we must be multi-trillion dolloar economy to be able to do so!
And since we are not, it implies that this article is trash

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 27 Nov 2009 00:22

I have a naive question, Gurus.. bliss to answer onlee..

The logic as I understand of AAD and PAD is that the interceptor missile goes very near (as much as possible) to the incoming ballistic missile and explodes, thereby destroying the incoming rocket in flight...

The question is, what is the probability of destruction of warhead in this system?

I mean, in case a mijjile is tipped with newclear warhead, it is designed to go boom at particular height above sea level to cause maximum destruction. In case the rocket of the incoming BM is destroyed, the warhead might simply fall off and while in descent initiate the chain-reaction and cause boom.

Of course, the original target will be saved, but country will still have to suffer a nuke-blast, even if it is on unintended territory.
Is AAD/PAD designed to destroy the warhead specifically? OR just the rocket of the BM?

If it cannot differentiate between warhead and rocket ( i guess may be that is too much sophistication to ask), what are the chances of warhead simply falling off undamaged (OR relatively less damaged, enough to trigger itself, in case the bomb-design is like that) and blasting?

negi · Post by **negi** » 27 Nov 2009 02:01

Chiron ji the publicly disclosed altitudes for interception of projectiles for PAD and AAD are at about 45-80km and 10-30Km approx respectively . At these altitudes specially for the PAD the incoming projectile is a RV (for a IRBM) and may be the final stage of a SRBM (the one's with non separating warheads eg. Scud, Iskander) , in both the scenarios the kill vehicle will intercept the target virtually head on . Iirc the first test of PAD involved interception of Prithvi at about 48/45Km and during the second test interception was done at about 75Km and utilizing a directional HE warhead weighing about 30Kg , moreover the AAD should take care of the parts/projectiles which escape the PAD layer.

Given the complexities of a nuke warhead when compared to a conventional warhead ,chances of the former going off despite being subjected to an explosive event are remote , moreover for a nuke to go off at a programmed altitude it requires a radar altimeter or some similar system which is likely to be destroyed by the interceptor.

--typos

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 27 Nov 2009 02:04

^ Not a guru by any standard or yardstick so take it FWIW!

I am assuming you mean non-MIRV scenario here. For MIRV scenario, see the last para of my post

AAD & PAD are both designed for Hit-to-Kill (HTK) interception with a proximity blast option for added redundancy. In a HTK scenario, the warhead will mostly be destroyed/severely damaged rendering it incapable of detonation. In the proximity blast scenario, the warhead may or may not be damaged and hence there is a chance of detonation. To understand the fallout of such action we need to familiarize on how nuclear weapons can be used in different blast scenarios - Air burst, Surface burst, Sub surface burst and High Altitude burst. Read up the FAS link for more info on what happens with these options. http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm
Also read the wiki link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of ... explosions This link has a table with weapon yields and burst altitude correlated to damage expected/projected. Recall that AAD can intercept upto 30km altitude and PAD upto 80km. We may never know what burst scenario was set to be triggered but any detonation of warhead will mostly be a high altitude burst scenario.

Wearing my tin foil hat and pulling some burst scenarios out of my musharraf, here's what may happen:

WRT to surface burst and sub-surface burst scenarios, damage/destruction of the warhead will inhibit much of the explosion fallout leaving only radioactive debris to take care of. This will only lead to some radioactive fallout and exposure to radiation.

WRT to air burst, the altitude of the air burst depends on the yield of the warhead. Lower the yield lower the burst altitude to focus the blast effects. In this case detonation of the warhead at a higher altitude due to interception will severely reduce the damage based on the designed yield of the warhead. This will have some radioactive fallout with exposure to radiation but primary effects are that of High altitude burst.

WRT to high altitude burst, this is mainly done for EMP purposes. The nuclear explosion and the resultant ionization of the atmosphere will cause severe electro-magnetic interference and make most electronic devices go kaput. Satellite communication signals maybe also be jammed in this affected area for quite sometime. But this will not really inflict any material or human damage.

So based on the above scenarios, it can be seen that even if the warhead detonates, which will mostly be a higher than desired altitude, it is an acceptable scenario compared to others which will cause more material damage and human casualties. There will be some radioactive fallout but even that can be managed compared to the other options. The worst thing with the higher altitude burst is frying up of your electronics and jammed satcom signals. But given that our armed forces and national security network is moving to OFC, it will have little to no impact on communication abilities. Also the satcom signals will be jammed only in a limited area for a limited period. Given our vast size we can uplink to the satellite from other locations and use the OFC for the affected areas. Most mil grade electronics is rad-hardened anyways so they should be able to survive the EMP blast within their threshold.

Now us mango abduls will have to be treated for exposure to radiation (much easier compared to dealing with actual damage and casualties) and jamming of satellite signals will lead to no cable TV. But if you have had a nuclear burst above your city, you will hardly care for the saas-bahu serials or Burkha & Sagarika going ape-shit on TV!

The above reasons are why ABM technology is being driven to intercept at higher altitudes and in early stages of missile trajectories - Boost Phase Interception, etc.

Now I have a question based for MIRV scenario - At what altitudes do MIRV warheads usually separate from the bus? Do we currently have the ability to track the independent warheads and engage them? Based on the altitudes they are released and engaged, how much of the burst scenario will change wrt to what I outlined above? any gyaan on these will be highly appreciated. TIA.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 27 Nov 2009 15:26

Thanks, Negi ji and Marut ji...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 29 Nov 2009 15:31

and just another point, for a succesful hit to kill intercept whatever fissile material is there in the debris will likely get burned up in the atmosphere in the absence of a protective shield.

kit · Post by **kit** » 29 Nov 2009 17:53

vavinash wrote:Swordfish has 600 odd km but swordfish-2 for Ad-1/2 will have 1000+ km.

I think the DRDO has tweaked the original Green pine radar to guide its interceptors.This newer version is more capable than the original in terms of performance and range.Do not have any references to link but some one here might have more details.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 29 Nov 2009 18:58

kit wrote:Do not have any references to link but some one here might have more details.

I got something...!!
http://www.india-defence.com/reports-4182

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Nov 2009 19:17

there is no guarantee about the warhead + boom destruction much before it hits target, even the khans have none yet. best kill without loss would be in mid-course and out of earth atmos.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 16 Dec 2009 06:39

Panwallah alert:

Smokes coming out from the launch of a Prithvi variant from a naval OPV.
the guy eating pan spitting a red thing links the launch related to PAD.

missile techies please try to join the dots and bring up the clear picture.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Dec 2009 09:40

http://defensetech.org/2009/12/23/us-pl ... ake-shape/

interesting..

so there is a reason to go for liquid fueled for final stage, especially for long range mid-course kill, where say our our AD1 or 2 could be shut off leaving least IRs, and then go for the terminal kill

Given our NFU stand, there may be some use to this mid course shutting off strategy. Since these would be ABM kill vehicles, there should be no problem if many of them actually orbit like sats, and takes the terminal course guidance upon receiving signal to kill. [Assumption: I could have many deployed ABMs in space in the terminal zombie phase]

Is that okay for Russia or countries who are already into many treaties? I am sure there should be some hidden agenda behind this new shutting off strategy.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 29 Dec 2009 21:59

X Posted ---- Indian Space Program Discussion // ABM/Missile Defense Discussion // Beam Weapons and Future of Deterrence ---- Hope it’s not OT.

Hello everyone,

I would like to draw your attention to a radio programme that will be broadcast on tonight’s/today’s ‘Coast to Coast AM’ show. The guest is William B. Scott, who has researched and authored “Space Wars: The first Six Hours of World War III” and “Counterspace: The Next Hours of World War III”. The author will be discussing many aspects of ‘Future Weapons’, surely to include HAARP, the US-SDI and ‘Rods-from-the-Gods’. His book notes…

"Although the characters and actual events depicted in Counterspace are fiction and bear no relationship to actual person living or dead the action and weapons depicted herein are based on actual technologies and war gaming strategies used by the United States military and civilian war planners in preparation for the types of events depicted".

For those in North America, the broadcast starts at 1am EST on Wednesday, December 30, and can be heard on many AM radio stations. For those in India, the broadcast can be heard over the internet starting at 11:30am IST on Wednesday, December 30. If you don’t know where you can hear it, simply go to the show’s website www.coasttocoastam.com and follow the link along the top labelled ‘Radio Affiliates’ (under regular host George Noory’s picture). This link will bring up a map of the United States, and you can click on the map to find the radio stations that carry the program (there are well over a hundred affiliate broadcasts). If all of these radio stations are beyond your area of reception (which is likely for those in India), you can find a radio station that has a ‘Listen Live’ or ‘On-Air’ internet audio capability, as most do, and listen-in over the internet.

Enjoy!

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 12 Jan 2010 20:35

China tests new technology to shoot down missiles in mid-air

"We detected two geographically separated missile launch events with an exo-atmospheric collision also being observed by space-based sensors," said Major Maureen Schumann, a Pentagon spokeswoman.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 05 Feb 2010 01:47

Romania to host US missile interceptors

...........
"Romania has been officially invited by US President Barack Obama to be part of the missile defence system," Basescu said at the end of a meeting of the supreme defence council.

The former communist state had agreed to participate as the new system would "protect the whole of Romania's territory", the president added, stressing that it should not be seen as hostile towards Russia.

"This defence system is not directed against Russia," Basescu said.
...........

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 05 Feb 2010 05:27

Barak-2 LR-SAM maiden flight later this year

01 Feb 2010 8ak: Shiv Aroor reports that the maiden flight of India-Israel jointly developed Barak-2 long range surface-to-air missile (LR-SAM) is scheduled to take place in August this year. For full news. The Barak-2 LR-SAM is being developed jointly by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) under a Rs2,600 crore contract.

The Barak-2 version will have a longer range between 120-350Km in comparison to the Barak MR-SAM, which has a range of 60 km vertically. The new LR-SAM is being developed to replace the aging Pechora (SA-3 GOA) missiles currently in service with the Indian Air Force.

Military cooperation between the two nations post Kargil war has been on a high. The Indian Government has earmarked a total funding of about Rs10,000 crore (about US$2.2 billion) for the medium range surface-to-air missiles (MR-SAM) project. The program will include the deployment of up to nine air defence squadrons. The MR-SAM development will be conducted under the bilateral agreement signed between the two countries, which will guide the scope of collaboration formulating between DRDO and IAI defined in a memorandum of agreement signed in New Delhi, June 2007.

India has also signed a US$1.1 billion deal for buying the state- manufactured state-of-the-art Barak 8 missile system. New Delhi is expected to receive the upgraded Barak missile system costing US$20-25 million if experts in India are to be believed, over the next six to eight years. The Barak-8 missile system is designed for use aboard ships and can shoot down incoming missiles, planes and drones, with the most advanced version capable of being deployed on land.

Other defence deals between the two nations include IAI Malat-built Searcher MkII and IAI Heron unmanned aerial vehicles for the Indian Air Force. The US$1.1 billion deal for delivery of three Phalcon Airborne Early Warning and Control Systems from Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), fitted on Russian-built Ilyushin II-76 aircraft. The first of the AWACS were inducted in the Indian Air Force in May last year. Upgrade of 32 Mi-24 helicopters by IAI and the 2008 contract for Rafael’s low-level quick reaction missile system (LLQRM.

One of the most important reasons for this substantial increase has been the common problem of terrorism being faced by both the nations. There have also been several high level visits by serving armed forces chief’s of the two nations. Israel’s Navy chief Vice Admiral Elizer Marom visited India to hold high level talks with his Indian counterpart and MoD officials.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 09 Feb 2010 01:57

Iran to make Air-Defence Missile System Better than Russian S-300: Iran Air Force (IRIAF)

Iran boasted on Monday it is manufacturing a home-built air defence missile system which would be better than the Russian S-300, which has been ordered by Tehran but yet to be delivered by Moscow."Today, we are building all our air defence weapons by ourselves ... the only thing we wanted to import was the Russian S-300 which so far they have not delivered for some unacceptable reasons," senior airforce commander Heshmatollah Kasiri was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency.

"But our air defence experts and scientists found a way and in very near future we will produce an air defence system which has the capabilities of the Russian S-300 or even more."Kasiri's comments come after Iran in late November threatened to take legal action against Russia if it fails to honour a deal to supply Tehran with the S-300, an advanced air defence missile system.Russia, Tehran's sole ally among world powers, has so far not delivered the system, in a delay which Iranian officials blame on growing pressure on Moscow from Washington and Iran's arch-foe Israel.

..................

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 09 Feb 2010 03:29

Craig Alpert wrote:Iran to make Air-Defence Missile System Better than Russian S-300: Iran Air Force (IRIAF)
Iran boasted on Monday it is manufacturing a home-built air defence missile system which would be better than the Russian S-300, which has been ordered by Tehran but yet to be delivered by Moscow."Today, we are building all our air defence weapons by ourselves ... the only thing we wanted to import was the Russian S-300 which so far they have not delivered for some unacceptable reasons," senior airforce commander Heshmatollah Kasiri was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency.

"But our air defence experts and scientists found a way and in very near future we will produce an air defence system which has the capabilities of the Russian S-300 or even more."Kasiri's comments come after Iran in late November threatened to take legal action against Russia if it fails to honour a deal to supply Tehran with the S-300, an advanced air defence missile system.Russia, Tehran's sole ally among world powers, has so far not delivered the system, in a delay which Iranian officials blame on growing pressure on Moscow from Washington and Iran's arch-foe Israel.

..................

Like they made a torpedo faster than Shkval???

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 13 Feb 2010 01:38

U.S. successfully tests airborne laser on missile

"The Missile Defense Agency demonstrated the potential use of directed energy to defend against ballistic missiles when the Airborne Laser Testbed (ALTB) successfully destroyed a boosting ballistic missile" the agency said.

"This was the first directed energy lethal intercept demonstration against a liquid-fuel boosting ballistic missile target from an airborne platform," the agency added.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 13 Feb 2010 02:13

Big technological breakthrough this , even though the concept of Lasers has been around for years. I wish we are working on it because exploding a Nuke Armed Pakistani missile over their soil in Boost phase is the stuff of Dreams.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 13 Feb 2010 02:41

^^^
not really.

Yanks are just re-inventing the wheel which was done by soviets decades back.
Soviets even tried to put a CO2 laser in space to take on yankee sats and missiles.Thanks to gorbachev, the polyus sat program was turned upside down and finally scrapped.

Typical Dis-advantages of an ABL

Ineffective against solid fuelled missiles.
Ineffective against missiles with hardened skin and reflective coatings
Ineffective against manoeuvrable targets(current day IRBM/ICBM`s like a typical A-III can evade defences)
Insecurity flying near/over hostile territory given the range of ABL.
Power constraints,......................

In fact, countermeasures and dis-advantages over-weigh the minute advantages( may be not even minute,apart from showing some tech superiority of flying an ABL and making the taxpayers sick

)

In general,ABL might be worth flying against a 3 rd country who recently got their BM`s.

Quick reference: Russian A-60
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/other/a60.html

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 13 Feb 2010 04:59

If pakis can make JF-17 that is better than F-16

, why can't Iranians make S-300

They might be thinking of getting the Chinese copy and paint it green.

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 13 Feb 2010 22:21

jaladipc wrote:^^^
not really.

Yanks are just re-inventing the wheel which was done by soviets decades back.
Soviets even tried to put a CO2 laser in space to take on yankee sats and missiles.Thanks to gorbachev, the polyus sat program was turned upside down and finally scrapped.

Typical Dis-advantages of an ABL

Ineffective against solid fuelled missiles.

It's the first time the laser has knocked down a liquid-fueled missile. The Air Force says it destroyed a solid-fuel missile during a test on Feb. 3.

Laser knocks down test missile off Calif. coast

It really hepls if people pause for a minute to read what is posted before rushing to post!

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 13 Feb 2010 22:28

^^^
I am not out of sense.
I was involved in a similar program a way back.
You can destroy your own solid fuelled missiles which is to get more funds for R&D and for publicity.

You cant bet that the enemy will use the same type of missile.
I would be helpful to you,if you can do a bit more research on high energy laser and their disadvantages.

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 13 Feb 2010 22:36

jaladipc wrote:^^^
I am not out of sense.
I was involved in a similar program a way back.
You can destroy your own solid fuelled missiles which is to get more funds for R&D and for publicity.

You cant bet that the enemy will use the same type of missile.
I would be helpful to you,if you can do a bit more research on high energy laser and their disadvantages.

Yawn..first you claim you can't use AML on solid fuel missiles, when real fact is pointed out you claim it is useful only to shoot down your own missile..

Sure have it your way.

I didn't claim ABL doesn't have any disadvantage, merely pointed out that what you have claimed is proven to be wrong and one only had to read the news report to find that fact.

By the way which Ballistic missile maneuvers during boost phase. As person involved with programs similar to ABL you should surely know that ABL was intended to shoot down missiles in boost phase not during re-entry.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 13 Feb 2010 22:50

sunilUpa wrote:
Yawn..first you claim you can't use AML on solid fuel missiles, when real fact is pointed out you claim it is useful only to shoot down your own missile..
Sure have it your way.
I didn't claim ABL doesn't have any disadvantage, merely pointed out that what you have claimed is proven to be wrong and one only had to read the news report to find that fact.
By the way which Ballistic missile maneuvers during boost phase. As person involved with programs similar to ABL you should surely know that ABL was intended to shoot down missiles in boost phase not during re-entry.

I Still claim that ABL is ineffective against solid fuelled missiles.
May be it time for you to know the proper meaning of INEffective.
Ineffective != Cant use.

those BM manuevers during boost phase are known as evasive manuevers if you dont know.
A manuever is not about pulling G`s all the time.It is about taking critical decision to evade a threat.
Since the day those ABM people started working on interceptors to take on BM during boost phase,the BM developers developed counters to evade boost phase interceptors.
If you dont know= its not there/possible??

May be you should also need to know why many others stopped building similar ABL`s when nations with BM`s jumped into solid fuels and started possessing other counter-measures.