India tests Prithvi based ABM-3

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 05 Dec 2006 02:43

Katare wrote:My information from my chaiwallha is that -

PAD = Prithvi Air defense (Modified Prithvi)
AAD = Akash Air defense ( Up-ranged Akash)

The project started 5 years back when we didn't even have Barak_1 so speculating that AAD is Barak-II is well oxyM.

Both missile are completely indigenous and derived from existing missile inventory of DRDO

As about name for this system, can't think of anything more suitable than the name - "Bharat-Rakshak"

AAD- Anti Air Defence

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Dec 2006 03:30

it has to be stressed eh!

The missile scientist admitted modifying the Israeli Green Pine radar suiting the Indian needs for the missile shield. But, rest of the sensors are completely indigenous, he claimed. While the crucial sensors were made at the Semiconductor Complex in Chandigarh, 300 million lines of software code were written for the project. There were 30-35 industry partners. In a cautions tone, the DRDO is describing the successful interception only as a â€˜good beginningâ€™.

green-piners should be more happier now having to support both Arrow and
our Maha-Astra!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Dec 2006 03:32

The Chengappa article stated that there was a proximity fuse. In the description of the intercept is talked about two dots coming together on the screen followed by many dots implying a collision or hit. By ensuring that there was no explosive on the PAD KV, DRDO proofed the THK system. The target off course had no explosive.

In DS it was found that time delays in fuse going off resulted in parts of the target missile still intact. Hence the HTK concept was proposed and validated as the impact is at very high speed.

pradeepe · Post by **pradeepe** » 05 Dec 2006 05:07

UPI Article

Apologies if posted already.

Rajiv Singh in an authoritative analysis published by the b-domain.com Web site Wednesday gave important details about what wa sine ffect a new Indian-developed ABM interceptor.

However, as Singh observed, "Defense analysts at home (in India) adopted a prudent posture with regard to the development. They had sufficient reasons to be prudent given DRDO's patchy track record in developing high-tech defense systems for the country's defense services."

He noted that the DRDO had previously "failed to operationalize the much touted 9-kilometer (5.4 mile) range Trishul and the 25-km (15 mile) range Akash air-defense missiles. These missiles have been undergoing 'successful' tests for as long as anyone can remember."

Prudent posture my ass. They were intent on keel hauling DRDO.

Sigh, the highlighted part has him state the dots too, numbered even, but will still not connect them.

[/url]

pradeepe · Post by **pradeepe** » 05 Dec 2006 05:15

ramana wrote:The Chengappa article stated that there was a proximity fuse. In the description of the intercept is talked about two dots coming together on the screen followed by many dots implying a collision or hit. By ensuring that there was no explosive on the PAD KV, DRDO proofed the THK system. The target off course had no explosive.

In DS it was found that time delays in fuse going off resulted in parts of the target missile still intact. Hence the HTK concept was proposed and validated as the impact is at very high speed.

Is it an "either or" case. Cant the HTK KV be augumented by an explosive warhead. Proximity fuse algorithm might be different, but am wondering if the altered weight (added small? warhead) itself makes this a heavy alteration.

I actually thought, someone suggested that it was good that it (PAD) has both a HTK and directional explosive warhead.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Dec 2006 05:32

Cant the HTK KV be augumented by an explosive warhead.

Ofcourse it can be look at PAC-3 its a HTK with warhead to supplement it

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Dec 2006 06:21

an olde link: http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publi ... _3Mian.pdf

btw of prithvi abms , prithvi killing prithvis, we can potentially make it evading the best of best radars that pakistan, china and other enemies carry for their air-defence.

ps: wasn't drdo supposed to stealthier , meaner and advanced? what is that project called? PASMA (project advanced stealth missile arrays)!

saip · Post by **saip** » 05 Dec 2006 06:24

SaiK wrote:it has to be stressed eh!

The missile scientist admitted modifying the Israeli Green Pine radar suiting the Indian needs for the missile shield. But, rest of the sensors are completely indigenous, he claimed. While the crucial sensors were made at the Semiconductor Complex in Chandigarh, 300 million lines of software code were written for the project. There were 30-35 industry partners. In a cautions tone, the DRDO is describing the successful interception only as a â€˜good beginningâ€™.
green-piners should be more happier now having to support both Arrow and
our Maha-Astra!

I thought it is 3 mil. I guess our DDMs are doing ten better than Pakis!

Nalla Baalu · Post by **Nalla Baalu** » 05 Dec 2006 09:41

rakall! That eej two-stage paki shaheen-II onlee which eej an undercover SLV onlee. Pleaj to vijit one 'green unmentionable website' to see a video clip of the shame.

The said missile is shown in IBN newsreport when the reporter says 'modified greenpine which is crucial to the ABM will help in detecting incoming ballistic missiles' or something to that effect. So that is that.

Can some one confirm that the red-nosed missile we saw towards doesnt look like any foreign missile.. looks like it is the endo-ABM had under-gone some test flight already !!!

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 05 Dec 2006 10:17

One more important thought strikes me is that Indian AESA may be in development as part of PAD & AAD.

Trishul has indigenization of Reporter, fly catcher, sea guard involved.

Akash had CAR, Rajendra

So I think the PAD & AAD had Indian AESA. As the hardware may still be in development therefore they used Israeli components, this would also explain the lot of work they may have done on the code. In any case AESA only for Indian AEW does not make sense, so my guess Indian AESA is also in serious works as part of BMD.

Pioneer, 5 Dec. 2006 from Hyd

Quote:

Hatf, Shaheen no threat, say's Saraswat

Omer Farooq | Hyderabad

Stressing that self-reliance is the 'mantra' of India in the field of defence technology, he said that in the missile interception programme all the components except the long range tracking radar were developed indigenously. The radar was developed with the co-operation from another country and now the Indian scientists had developed their capability to produce these radars on their own.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 05 Dec 2006 10:27

And to repeat that the very fact that the solid fueled missile is being tested after PAD shows that when this programme was launched then the solid fueled stage-Prithvi-3 would be in development so they used the off hand available liq fueled Prithvi.

Again I repeat that my coin is on the bet that this programme dates as far back as 1994-5

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 05 Dec 2006 10:34

Can somebody tell me what is the the re-entry speed or the speed at around 50km altitude of 600km SRBM?

saty · Post by **saty** » 05 Dec 2006 12:05

With the newer information now released by DRDO, what does the second stage look like, i.e. the cut aways show the second stage a little above the mid body fins. However I could not get any data (weight, burn time, motor used, range etc) from the video as lot of that information was clipped away. (Some body should have pointed a camera at the screen and left it there) much as I love Dr. Swarwast, I think even he would agree there was more to know by pointing the camera at the slides rather than on his person.

The questions I am wondering about are, can this system be "improved" to target a missile in its boost phase? Can it do so even today? If not to "improve" what modifications would be needed if the task is possible.

Will a completely new missile be needed if the above needs to be achieved?

Googling thows up surprisingly large number of article on this topic on what is needed for a the same (not so surprisingly most of them are from Israel) with different techinques. Off hand it does not seem that the same "missile" be enough to get the attacker in boost phase, but then I never know.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 05 Dec 2006 12:19

MIRV tech is sooooooo dead

I suddenly love the Israeli's and Americans. Hindi-Israeli bhai bhai

negi · Post by **negi** » 05 Dec 2006 12:24

akramas wrote:MIRV tech is sooooooo dead

What makes you say so ? Please substantiate .

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 05 Dec 2006 12:26

The Interceptor missile kills in boost phase ...

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 05 Dec 2006 12:32

Raj Malhotra wrote:Can somebody tell me what is the the re-entry speed or the speed at around 50km altitude of 600km SRBM?

It is: Mach 6.44 (2.12km/sec)

saty · Post by **saty** » 05 Dec 2006 12:45

negi wrote:
akramas wrote:The Interceptor missile kills in boost phase ... Any missile that Pakistan launches will be detected in boost phase itself.
Points taken.BTW MIRV was a consequence of desire of making optimum use of the costly delivery platform(missile) and the breakthrough achieved in miniaturisation of the warheads.

Hallo, which interceptor missile kills in boost phase? Please refer to my post above, read some simple links like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile

MIRV was primarly developed to have a low cost option against ABMs and thats what killed of ABM effort to a large degree in 70's and 80's.

Currently all boost phase interception happens through "PROPOSED" air or space based platform. No country has a demonstrated boost phase interdiction, specially against IRMB and SRBMs and tactical missiles.

You may try your own googling.

negi · Post by **negi** » 05 Dec 2006 13:04

Er. Saty I guess interception in a boost phase is not difficult (assuming one has space or aerial recon assets to track missile launch
),it is just that it would be renedered ineffective if the hostile country has launch pads located deep within its territory(something which US faced when confronting the threat from nukes scattered all over the Gigantic Russian mainland and I guess sea based ABM is a ploy to counter the same.).

India as such does not face a similar problem at least from TSP , and hence boost phase interception of Paki missiles is both desirable and possible.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 05 Dec 2006 13:09

saty don't change the topic .... by talking about air or space based detection platforms. Let us now confine ourselves to a land based radar. Just for simplicity sake. Its also realistic.

The Prithvi interceptor i think demonstrated a boost phase intercept. I know its ambiguous .... but I think an intercept 50km elevation from ground is a boost phase intercept. I think the radar device used is very curious indeed if it evolved from the GreenPine. Gurus ... JCage, Dileep, Harry .... anyone can clarify my suspicions that the intercept was done at a very early stage. I was hoping for a technical

confirmation sice we know 2 things: distance between Prithvi BM and Prithvi Interceptor ABM launch sites. We also know the time delay before the Interceptor was launched. So we can extrapolate from that

negi · Post by **negi** » 05 Dec 2006 13:27

akramas wrote:
The Prithvi interceptor i think demonstrated a boost phase intercept. I know its ambiguous .... but I think an intercept 50km elevation from ground is a boost phase intercept.

I beg to differ 50Km elevation does not mean a boost phase interception
(that can be a case during re-entry phase too).I have not yet seen the clip and hence cannot comment on the type of kill executed by Prithvi interceptor.Having said that in laymans terms a boost phase interception means shooting the missile anywhere between its launch and the time before it attains hypersonic speed(i.e that is, while the rocket motor is still burning moving more slowly as compared to a mid/terminal course vehicle).

The recent test might have been a boost phase intercept but again the launch sites were just some 70 Km apart this besides the fact that KV might have had prior knowledge of the target missiles trajectory.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 05 Dec 2006 13:34

akramas wrote:saty don't change the topic .... by talking about air or space based detection platforms. Let us now confine ourselves to a land based radar. Just for simplicity sake. Its also realistic.

The Prithvi interceptor i think demonstrated a boost phase intercept. I know its ambiguous .... but I think an intercept 50km elevation from ground is a boost phase intercept. I think the radar device used is very curious indeed if it evolved from the GreenPine. Gurus ... JCage, Dileep, Harry .... anyone can clarify my suspicions that the intercept was done at a very early stage. I was hoping for a technical confirmation sice we know 2 things: distance between Prithvi BM and Prithvi Interceptor ABM launch sites. We also know the time delay before the Interceptor was launched. So we can extrapolate from that

i dont think we are looking at boost phase interception -- even though PAD test might have looked like one.. i think both PAD & AAD are for the post-boost interception only...

recall Dr. Saraswat talking about "two batteries can protect a city like Delhi from ballisitc missile attack".

saty · Post by **saty** » 05 Dec 2006 13:37

Negi, your query is sensible but since it comes with other clutter let me be a little caustic in reply (not directed to you)

1. Boost phase interception in BHERY BHERY DIFFICULT. Primarily a question of response time etc. Please READ the above article, also another one at
http://www.acpr.org.il/publications/pol ... 35-xs.html
Arun_S is also on record (being very caustic to another ill informed but completely sure poster) early on in this very thread clearly stating that ALL current ABM work in interception when enter phase barring the US mid course interception for the next generation system (on paper currently) If you can provide one concrete counterexample it would be good to discuss.

2. PADS is NOT a boost phase interception, please refer to the other mails in the past and the drubbing Arun_S gave to folks who insisted that PADS has to be boost phase.

Boost phase interception means that you have to detect + respond + get the ABM to the target withing the boost time of the target please do your own maths of the boost phase time of Ghauri and tell me how far you think this is possible. Also factor in the China equation (longer ranges) to make things worse in the worse case scenario.

3. akramas I am not changing the topic, I cant help it if you are too smart to see the dumb connection between PADS and other ABMs I am making. I just put it down to my low IQ.

mandrake · Post by **mandrake** » 05 Dec 2006 13:44

3. Joey I am not changing the topic, I cant help it if you are too smart to see the dumb connection between PADS and other ABMs I am making. I just put it down to my low IQ.

err wtf? lol when did i even say anything.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Dec 2006 13:55

This snippet of info is extremely crucial,the cost and production rate of our Prithvi ABM missiles."India could produce 200 interceptor missiles a year, at a cost of 60 million rupees (US$1.3 million) each, Saraswat said."
China had the capability of producing 500+ tactical strike missiles a year,according to some intel reports a couple of years ago.That figure may have gone up.India now has the capability of producing three major families of missiles,Prithvi,Agni and Brahmos.Assuming that Brahmos production is/will be about the same as for Prithvi,perhaps even more,as it is required in significant numbers for all three services,then we would have at leastt 500 missiles of these three types (plus any other complementary missile for the same task) being produced a year.The annual cost of these missiles including strategic missiles like Agni will be in the region of about $1billion.Given the number of cities and strategic assets like nuclear plants,etc.,that need a defensive shield,we will ultimately require about 1000 missiles for the future.Later on,even sea based ABM capabilities may be required.

What is hinted at is that more advanced versions of these missiles are being developed.Hypersonic versions of Brahmos,etc.etc..The IN alone will need several hundred Brahmos missiles to equip about 15+ warships and subs in the future.We need to build more missile manufacturing plants in the country,not laying all our eggs in one basket.The Chandigarh semi-conductor plant one must remember was badly hit by suspected sabotage some years ago.

saty · Post by **saty** » 05 Dec 2006 14:14

joey wrote:
3. Joey I am not changing the topic, I cant help it if you are too smart to see the dumb connection between PADS and other ABMs I am making. I just put it down to my low IQ.
err wtf? lol when did i even say anything.

Ah wrong shot, I have corrected my statement now

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 05 Dec 2006 14:32

>>>It is: Mach 6.44 (2.12km/sec)

Did you consider the local velocity of sound at 50 KM?

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 05 Dec 2006 14:38

saty apologies ... not getting personal here. I just wanted to keep the discussion more focussed on the PAD missile ... if i have inadverently offended you in the process apologies. And you have an above average IQ okay.

Also I was under the preconceived notion that boost phase is all the way until re-entry.

Is that mac figure of 6.44 just before re-entry i.e just before course correction some where just before the trajectory reaches maximum ht.

akutcher · Post by **akutcher** » 05 Dec 2006 14:43

geeth wrote:>>>It is: Mach 6.44 (2.12km/sec)

Did you consider the local velocity of sound at 50 KM?

Dude he dint consider anything
the speed of sound is 330m/sec or 0.33km/sec(in air).... there is nothing to assume

saty · Post by **saty** » 05 Dec 2006 14:48

akramas wrote:saty apologies ... not getting personal here. I just wanted to keep the discussion more focussed on the PAD missile ... if i have inadverently offended you in the process apologies. And you have an above average IQ okay.

No probs, just putting the record straight here, unfortunately this also means that MIRV threat is real and is a possiblity that ABMs have to counter. PAD or otherwise. This also means that we (DRDO) should look for ways to achieve boost phase interception. While we (BRF) yak about it

We should expect a MRV/MIRV attack from China should things end up worsening so.

akutcher · Post by **akutcher** » 05 Dec 2006 15:26

saty wrote:
akramas wrote:saty apologies ... not getting personal here. I just wanted to keep the discussion more focussed on the PAD missile ... if i have inadverently offended you in the process apologies. And you have an above average IQ okay.
No probs, just putting the record straight here, unfortunately this also means that MIRV threat is real and is a possiblity that ABMs have to counter. PAD or otherwise. This also means that we (DRDO) should look for ways to achieve boost phase interception. While we (BRF) yak about it

We should expect a MRV/MIRV attack from China should things end up worsening so.

supposing that you have all the satellite and masala in place which can report the launch of a missile within a couple of seconds how will you intercept it in boost phase? your interceptor must know the trajectory of the missile and should travel the distance and altitude to the target before it goes in the mid-course

for that you require an interceptor which is atleast 5-6 times faster (assuming zero response time) than the attacker considering you plan to intercept missiles located 500km deep inside enemy territory at an altitude of roughly 100km...... this is the case of pakistan, bring china in and it becomes even more impossible....... boost phase intercept is possible only by some space-based/Air-borne Laser which even unkil wont get before 15-20 years, so my suggestion forget about it and focus on a Terminal high altitude interceptor which can handle targets travelling at about 4km/sec

mandrake · Post by **mandrake** » 05 Dec 2006 15:31

IMO akutcher in case of pakistan the border isnt to sdep, if deployed right way in indian borders and afganistan boost phase interception is best.

and we dont face a nuke threat from china............right now.

saty · Post by **saty** » 05 Dec 2006 15:41

akutcher wrote: so my suggestion forget about it and focus on a Terminal high altitude interceptor which can handle targets travelling at about 4km/sec

Indeed, but I wasnt the one tomtomming that MIRV is so dead!! From the pattern of some posts it is clear that they are started with zero information and stance changes as each of the fantasies is countered. Which is fine provided something is learnt through the zig zag journey.

For example even through careful reading of your post I can not fathom how you have deduced that I am saying MIRVs are dead, or we should focus on space based systems, or the need for space based detection is obviated.

Oh yes I agree, neither boost phase interditction not space based early warning etc. are a reality today and neither of them are easy, but that was my point to begin with. However I also say that these tech are tough but needed if you want to increase your protection umbrella.

My points were not the one that you are ascribing to me, it was "I was wondering how to increase ABM to boost phase interception capability"

So I really dont get what exactly are you saying in response. I would also encourage both you and Joey to READ the links I posted. You will learn somethings.

PS> Why is it so tough to get some of the posters to read and learn before they yammer away?

PPS> I have modified my post, please dont respond to the original I was confused between akuther and akramas. (Why dont you guys get more meaningful handles BTW)

akutcher · Post by **akutcher** » 05 Dec 2006 15:42

joey wrote:IMO akutcher in case of pakistan the border isnt to sdep.

Wrong..... the shortest distance from western balochistan to indian border is more than 600km

joey wrote:if deployed right way in indian borders and afganistan boost phase interception is best.

Wrong.... no one will let you put missiles in Afghanistan

joey wrote: and we dont face a nuke threat from china............right now.

Wrong again

thats not even the point....in order to intercept targets 500km away you will need a booster the size of agni, which is way too expensive and vulnerable besides being technically challenging

akutcher · Post by **akutcher** » 05 Dec 2006 15:49

saty wrote:
akutcher wrote: so my suggestion forget about it and focus on a Terminal high altitude interceptor which can handle targets travelling at about 4km/sec
Indeed, but I wasnt the one tomtomming that MIRV is so dead? From the pattern of some posts it is clear that you start with zero information and keep changing your stance as each of the fantasies is countered. Which is fine provided something is learnt through you zig zag journey.

For example even through careful reading of your post I can not fathom how you have deduced that MIRVs are dead, or the need for space based detection is obviated.

Oh yes I agree, neither boost phase interditction not space based early warning etc. are a reality today and neither of them are easy, but that was my point to begin with. However I also say that these tech are tough but needed if you want to increase your protection umbrella.

So I really dont get what exactly are you saying in response. I would also encourage both you and Joey to READ the links I posted. You will learn somethings.

PS> Why is it so tough to get some of the posters to read and learn before they yammer away?

PPS> I have modified my post, please dont respond to the original I was confused between akuther and akramas. (Why dont you guys get more meaningful handles BTW)

what...... i dint say MIRV is dead..... it was akrams

edited>please check the facts before you say something

saty · Post by **saty** » 05 Dec 2006 15:51

akutcher wrote: what...... i dint say MIRV is dead..... it was akrams
please check the facts before you say something

1) Please dont quote the entire post.

2) Please check my post I already modified mine, your response on top of mine really confused me. You are countering statements that I never made.

mandrake · Post by **mandrake** » 05 Dec 2006 15:52

How does Arrow 2 works then [range being 10 to 50 kms] isnt it a boost phase interceptor?

one more thing, how will arrow 2 if deployed as Boost phase interceptor in india-pak border?

I guess if Arrow 2 is not a Boost phase interceptor we need SM3

like something?

How far is Tajikisthan from pakistan? we do have a air force base there.

saty · Post by **saty** » 05 Dec 2006 15:55

akutcher wrote:thats not even the point....in order to intercept targets 500km away you will need a booster the size of agni, which is way too expensive and vulnerable besides being technically challenging

Execpt If the ABM is air launched? Fact? Fantasay? I dont know!! Wont hurt to speculate though.

saty · Post by **saty** » 05 Dec 2006 16:00

joey wrote: I guess if Arrow 2 is not a Boost phase interceptor we need SM3 like something?
.

Currently no known ABMs in service have this capability.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Dec 2006 16:05

akutcher wrote:

Dude he dint consider anything
the speed of sound is 330m/sec or 0.33km/sec(in air).... there is nothing to assume

really???

heard of the word density??