Austin wrote:
Where did I say that ? I just pointed that William in his book mentions that BGRV plus LLRI capability of Topol-M RV can effectively deal with US NMD.
And does Williams know of US NMD? Is he a developer of those systems? What can he know of their growth potential or what is planned as via their block upgrades. And if he does, can he even share this? Nope..
I was just pointing to the fact that US has too many overlapping Sensors grid to discriminate the targets , yet it chooses simplistic test to define success.
Sorry, the real answer is NOBODY apart from the US development team knows the level and depth of US test results. They are classified. There is a good reason however, why Russia is publicly and repeatedly confrontational about the US NMD, knowing that what is public and revealed publicly is but the tip of the iceberg for programs of this nature. Defining tests which involve high resolution sensors in real time, discriminating & identifying different bodies to engage in a variety of conditions is "simplistic" ?
In our case there is no overlapping sensor grid , too short distance , warning time and just LRTR to monitor the target.
Our ABM program is built around terminal engagement portion. The US is aiming for all three segments, boost, midcourse and terminal. As such they need a far larger sensor footprint. For our current system LRTR & MFCR are more than enough...considering the grid that is being built up which is more than just these 2 sensors, look beyond this & what the IAF & IA have purchased already..
I am not sure if there is ABM 1.0,2.0 or 3.0 in development , US ABM program is quite well known and if any thing else Obama has cancelled quite a few program including MKV.
Not even the most experienced aviation journalist would make these claims! The details revealed so far are only the outer program management and base technology details.
Well neither the US or India will ever use their own missile or specifically the RV , but would rather develop a target that suites their need to show scripted sucessful test.
PAD creating different trajectory or profile has nothing to do with its ability to discriminate decoys or its ability to track small real RV , it is primarily the capability of LRTR.
Yes they created the best possible target by modifying prithvi with its size of 10m L /1m dia and then they managed to reduce its RCS of real RV of ~ 2m/0.3 m , sure DRDO has some tricks to reduce RCS
Again, sorry , what do you/anyone non developer/non insider know of current, real world RCS reduction techniques or methods, as achieved in India to note these statements.
If it is a question of putting blind faith in DRDO , well we have seen that with Nuke test
What does the nuke test have to do with this? The so called whistle blower on the program was a DRDO guy. The Chiefs of the Services are on the other fully confident that the deterrent works and is sufficient. This tangent is irrelevant.
Atleast in US they tend to have scientist/critics who would postmortem ABM test and then point out how they were manipulated and scripted to achieve success point the pros and cons.
In India we are suppose to just put blind faith in DRDO ABM program , the rest can easily be hidden with the argument its secret and DRDO knows what it is doing.
Indian missile programs are vetted by an interdisciplinary team of experts from academia, other agencies apart from the developer. What you have posted is flawed.
Can you show me some evidence or statements from DRDO or reliable source which proves
- Indian ABM is capable of engaging manouvering warhead or has intercepted in ABM test
........ far.
First, why do we need this data? And clearly nor should it be my business to poke my nose into all this.
Second, the entire purpose of that list, was to show that your statement the Indian program is "well documented" was wrong. If it was, you wouldnt even have those questions! A strategic program of this nature has many crucial capabilities hidden so as to not give the opponent enough leeway to develop countermeasures.
Asking BMDO or Rafael/IAI to prove something is like asking like asking pope if he was catholic.
Have you read a recent independent study by MIT that shows the success rate of ABM was nearly 10 - 20 % and how they scripted the test to prove it a success
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/world ... ef=science
Yes, I & others have read those studies by MIT & others. Many other programs have been similarly savaged by open source experts at assorted think tanks, educational institutes et al. That does not stop the US from proceeding further. I can sincerely tell you that most of the stuff posted is either fairly out of date, or moonshine. And often a mix of both.
However, it remains your implied claim that "no ABM system can tackle MARV etc" and that such a possibility could not even occur, is incorrect. Test targets for the MARV scenario have been around for a while. And that these were in specific developed for a real world program namely the Green Pine. Bottomline, the reality is that multiple ABM programs across the world are well aware of the MARV threat and have taken it into account during development. Nor did you consider the purpose of THAAD and why the US is pursuing a layered umbrella.
Since you are so interested in Russia, consider why they have been protesting so vociferously about the US NMD program, when current public plans pose little threat to their overwhelming arsenal. They know the difference about whats revealed and whats vetted and noted to the press for think tanks to analyse. Stop arguing for a second, and dont look at the obvious about this treaty, that treaty & you'll have the answer.
Well isnt that a fact that Indian BMD has critical components from Israel , French and Russia ?
So? Whats the point? Does the rest of the world operate in a vacuum? Clearly not..open up a Litening pod and see Carl Zeiss optics..open up a Thales jammer and see US microelectronics made in a fab in Taiwan..
And I can agree with you on that , our industry/DRDO really has no capability to make those stuff , so they import it or TOT it from countries who have it or co-develop it , just pay and get it and I see nothing wrong with that
How do you know they have no capability? Again, are you working in the domain or do you have insider knowledge?
There are many reasons why imports/JVs are done. The simplest reason is often the most crucial, which is time! These procurement methods are often resorted from third party nations both for benchmarking and validating prototype systems, while series production systems end up using something different.
Which is fine , every country does that for their own strategic project
Yes. Which is why they are taken seriously.
How does Phase 1 take care of Pak specific threat , Can you show some document which can shows Phase 1 BMD can take care of Ghauri and MRV Shaheen ?
You can search for it using specific keywords released at the time - in particular try for the second series of tests, if you have a web archive tool. If I find it I will post it. However, to be clear, Phase 1 takes care of all missiles in the 2K Km class, which comprise the bulk of threats from Pak.
If a simple intercept a target on a ballistic path solution was sought, they would have taken their earlier solutions, moved on to TVM solutions, not even bothered with seekers or gimbal warheads and called it a day, let alone develop datalinks, high speed computing and other systems (why even discuss?) that have no requirement for a middle of the road "engage x target only" ABM.
Having a seeker improves end game accuracy and gimbal warhead improves performance of warhead in general . it has nothing to do with intercepting a MRV or BM. Even newer Anti-aircraft missile like 9M96E and 9M96E2 have seeker and gimballed warhead , does not mean they can intercept a IRBM or MRV
Taking only two points out of all 4 mentioned in parallel, leads to something out of context.
The point that you missed, is that an ARH seeker was not necessarily required for achieving the desired accuracy, for a standard ballistic merge as you implied. We could have managed with simpler seekers and datalinked the info back to the radar for correction. Nor was there a need to mirror the Israeli program and set up an expensive real time computation engine far more than your scenario would call for, nor would they be attention paid to all sorts of features such as multiple communication links. To anyone, who investigates, this is far more complex than the scenario you claim the ABM is for. It is a scalable system designed for far more than a simple(r) ballistic merge, considering multiple options in parallel and not just missile attacks! Just look at the Israeli scenario, and the kind of options they consider, and note the fact that we actually scaled up the system before them, which they followed with their own Super Green Pine et al for a similar threat. Development does not take place in an ideological vacuum where we are unaware of what certain country/s in similar programs are doing and vice versa.
Apart from this why discuss all this on an open board.
If you can prove it other wise based on inside information or some evidence you have , I will accept your argument.
How can anyone post anything of this sort? All this talk of what an ABM system can and cannot do itself is worth avoided, given the fact that India's opponents too would be interested in the exact same discussion.
If I go just by appearance a 10m/1m target with huge clipped Wings has an RCS far bigger then a real conical RV with ~ 2-3 m in length
Yes, the critical point being if we just go by appearance and assume that the LRTR/MFCR have not been used on any other test elsewhere for any other target even if it was not part of the ABM system.
Can you prove that the target we choose is representative of Paki missile ? Or provide some DRDO document that says so ? Or are these test just validating some basic concept without actually looking into actual RV right now ?
Again, how can one possess any internal DRDO document or otherwise...
Lets just say that from what has been noted so far, publicly and not in press releases alone, the system can handle targets representative of what we face. And the tests that established the performance of the ABM system have been rigorous & assume far more than what is released to the media & via sanitized press releases and there is a well planned and in progress roadmap to keep the system relevant. Please look at a certain journalists story on a system that was recently denied as being in existence & then correlate. Things are not "as is" and are always in a state of flux, with development kept apace.
Which makes easier for DRDO to script the result and prove it success or vulnerable to such charges , unless they can release some non classified information.
DRDO cannot script the result because there are several people, non DRDO & otherwise involved in the program. Its keenly vetted and watched.
Unless they release those information , there is no evidence to believe that it is not a simple ABM but a very sophisticated ones which were intercepted.
First rule - please always consider this "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Second, I have already posted what details one can theoretically discuss/speculate on above - these are more than sufficient to understand (even in a speculative manner etc) of whats going on.
They simply cannot and will not release ANY such data as you want in an explicit manner above till they are working on something far ahead. They have and will however, release a lot of data that clearly indicates where they are going, but these things are not worth talking about.
Equally misleading will be claims from DRDO unless they can come with non classified info on the test.
Hardly! They have released enough info that all the squawkers from the non prolif institutes who were claiming a simple ABM merge test etc have now gone silent. And that info is vetted. Everyone who has domain expertise amongst the squawkers, understands the scale of India's ambitions and what has been achieved so far. The rest, we really dont care about so far.
Both are quite challenging , since higher altitude intercept can also be accompained by Decoys which makes discriminating the real RV amongst decoys very challenging , at lower altitudes all but the most sophisticated decoys exist ,which leaves only the RV , which makes target discrimination easier but interception becomes challenging as the time to target gets shrinked.
Again - missed the point. You mentioned interception in space etc vis a vis sensors and KV. For that, space is easier than endo thermic conditions.
Much of what DRDO has shown in the test can be summarised as below ( i.e. IMHO )
- ABM test proves that a target with velocity corresponding to MRBM/IRBM may/can be intercepted in low to medium altitudes which is a commendable effort by us as only few selected countries have attained such capability
Its more than just that..
What still needs some answer
- Does ....
..... present ABM even assuming its intercepting conventional BM favourable one ?
These things should not be discussed on any open board.
Considering that it is those nations which are developing the ABMs are possesing BM and as per you understanding they are not revealing the tricks employed in their BM, how diffifcult it is to understand that there could be tricks that are not revealed for their ABM too ?
They wont be using the Agni missile becoz when they infact test it as target, they are telling the nation and armed forces and enemies that it can be defeated and it creates psychological effect. Even US uses the retired missles as targets. Have they ever used Trident in service for the ABM test. If you watched the news items at least there is one instance where it was reported the use of PAD as target. PAD is a 2 stage missile as you know and it can create different trajectories and profiles. And the Prithvi that was used as target was a modified one, they didnt reveal what the modifications were about. Secondly, the physical size is unrelated to the RCS as you know RCS can be altered. Taking the precedence of Sagarika missile testing which was done without any annoucement and fanfare, there is reasonble doubt to believe that apart from official tests for ABM there could be some more unofficial tests too. So going by one offical test doesnt tell you what they are doing is simple or complex. As you very well know, critical defence rests on these tests and drdo is not a PR organization or it has any compulsion to do simple tricks to say we have enough defence against Pak type missiles and dont have to mislead the nation in the vital defence. Why i say drdo can do it ? One of the reason i feel it is due to computing. Why they say, Python-5 is the deadliest missle in that class. Becoz, along with hardware, it has the power of supercomputer as missile brain. Actually it is adaptive computing. And there are some improvements in the hardware too. Apart from the information about the kill vehicle as solid fueled/vernier thrusters do we have any other information like performance characteristics, speed, range, Gs, etc? So what we know is very little. Next time, you are going to see the same target but what is under the hood we may not know. 
