ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Mar 2009 23:54

kobe wrote:wishful thinking onlee

whatever .. the khans would not allow you do that in the first place. secondly, there are unknown unknown things that neither side would share.. [defeating dummies, dodge capability, stealth, mid-course and space based destruction, etc].

the very fact, that they would wish something like this with a super power would be:

1. established that we are superior than the super power.
2. have an agenda to overshadow them
3. have resources and capability beyond them.

coming to think of it, would India and Russia would do something like that? impossible

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Mar 2009 01:02

India readies shield against Chinese ICBMs

Did Chicom write another editorial on why Obama should intervene in Kashmir - yet?

That video was great. Way to go.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 11 Mar 2009 01:05

negi wrote:Few questions :
1. What were the two EOTS perspectives in the video ? I thought EOTS was only on the interceptor .
2. Before stage separation the interceptor missile executed some violent spiral maneuvers is that customary ? i.e. lining up for injection of the final stage into the kill box at the correct time slot.

Negi: Austins post below answers it. BTW it is not as violent as it looks down the pipe view.

Austin wrote:Nice Video , Looking at the video the first stage of PAD does seem to be performing certain complicated manouvering ( trying to bleed energy to keep interception within range ? ) , Since it has a gimballed nozzel with three degrees/axis of freedom , it can very well perform such kind of manouveres using thrust vectoring in flight.

BTW I have seen a video of Agni-3 doing the same energy wasting maneuver.

The two EOTS views are from IR telescopes located near the PAD launch station and another from near the Dhanush launch ship. So one can see the other missile traveling at high angular speed. The target EOTS view is most spectacular, clearly the interceptor hits the body of target missile and also the shape charge exploding at the same time.

Sorry don't have much time to analyze it today.

kobe · Post by **kobe** » 11 Mar 2009 02:07

conclusion: the IR video should be called the dance of the kalman filter AKA shiva with its third eye open

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 11 Mar 2009 10:14

http://publication.samachar.com/pub_art ... id=3809615

Mar 11,2009

Home » Nation
Indian Ballistic Missile better than American: DRDO scientist

New Delhi, March 09: Terming the Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC) III anti-missile system as "outdated", top DRDO scientist V K Saraswat said the Indian Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) shield was better than the American system.

"PAC III is an outdated system. Our Advanced Air Defence (AAD) missile is 30 percent superior in terms of range and capability. AAD intercepts at much higher ranges and altitudes compared to PAC III as it has only 15km range for BMD," he told a press conference on the successful test of BMD system on March 6.
.......

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Mar 2009 15:38

chetak wrote:"PAC III is an outdated system. Our Advanced Air Defence (AAD) missile is 30 percent superior in terms of range and capability. AAD intercepts at much higher ranges and altitudes compared to PAC III as it has only 15km range for BMD," he told a press conference on the successful test of BMD system on March 6.
.......

Saraswat has a valid point , but it is futile to compare PAC-3 and AAD

Thats like saying my Tejas is x percent better than F-16 , sure it may be , but then how many operational Tejas do we have and how many wars has Tejas seen in its life compared to F-16 ?

May be he is making a point to DDM who must be harrassing him with questions like but America has offered Patriot how is our missile better then ?

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 11 Mar 2009 16:10

>>>Thats like saying my Tejas is x percent better than F-16 , sure it may be , but then how many operational Tejas do we have and how many wars has Tejas seen in its life compared to F-16 ?

If war and no. of planes is the criteria, then why we have to say F-35 is superior to so many other planes? SU 30 MKI is yet to be used in combat.

Israelis shot down Syrian MIGs using Sabre jets (touted as the most advanced at that time) and exactly opposite happened between India and Pakistan.

If the fellow who is in-charge of the system is confident after few tests, I am sure we have reasons to believe him.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Mar 2009 16:36

geeth wrote:If the fellow who is in-charge of the system is confident after few tests, I am sure we have reasons to believe him.

Ofcourse we all have faith in his words and the known specs prove that as well , but as I said its futile comparing two ABM systems as these are tailor made for each country needs and requirement.

Some one might just jump and say Arrow 2 is better than AAD because the specs looks better , but each systems are designed for their own national needs.

As far as PAC-3 goes its a operational and deployed system with some interesting records to brag about certainly the only system which as seen operational deployment and quite a few kills to its credit both foe and friend alike

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 11 Mar 2009 19:17

JMTC,

wasn't the Gulf war Patriot the PAC-1, and not the PAC-3?? even that PAC-1 failed miserably.

IIRC, the PAC-3 hasn't been combat tested at all, and the test results are not clear either. PAC-3 is more related to AAD, and that too, a downgraded version.

From what I can see, the PAD is between the THAAD and Arrow-2 and the AAD is a better version of the PAC-3, reaching Arrow-2 levels of performance.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 11 Mar 2009 19:19

ajay_ijn wrote:
Austin wrote: So to put the help received ( TOT /Co-development ) from these three countries

Israel : LRTR/MFCR AESA ( Green Pine Derivative / Advanced version of GP )
Master-A: Multi Function AESA Radar ( provides FC to AAD )
Russia : Ku band Active Seeker ( for PAD/AAD )

If you would recall , the best DRDO developed after more than a decades of inhouse research was Rajendra Passive Phased Array Radar .

The above help has leap frogged DRDO in a different league , not to mention these system form a very critical part for the ABM program to succeed.

Since ABM is a strategic project , there must have been a political decision in these countries to help India with it.
there was lot of talk, media hype sorrounding Indo-US cooperation on missile defence. MOUs, Presentations, Statemenste ctc but nothing happened on ground. instead Russian, israel and france are silently cooperating.

We'd never have got the GPs without unkil's support and authorization... so dont underestimate their role in our program. DRDO ppl also had training programs (sort of) and talks by US BMD scientists.... our own program has gone ahead with no small amount of approval from US... not that we asked, but their aye definitely did us a world of good.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Mar 2009 20:25

The reality is quite different. uncle didnt want Arrow technology to be transferred. The Green Pine was Israeli developed and transferred to India as exchange.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 11 Mar 2009 20:38

Actually one decides the true capabilities of an ABM in regarding to its interception altitude and the no.of targets it can detect and track simultaneously that too at far ranges and differentiating the dummy warheads from the real ones.As the ABM guru said once in a interview.....we need multi-seekers to distinguish different warheads.

Considering some of the facts above,PAC I/II/II is clearly an outdated system.And is really not worth fielding against strategic missiles.Instead it is worth fielding as a counter to tactical missiles where the debris remained after interception is of not a great concern.

But incase of intercepting a nuclear warheads, the debris remains a major concern.we do have to consider the EM radiation due to the interception of the radioactive target.And if interception right away takes place in the atmosphere (for e.g:pac-III at 15 km)is definitely a huge concern regarding the effects after a successful interception.

Despite of the technologies and advances in all the ABM`s known today, none of them saw a true interception of a nuclear warhead with a conventional one.It means each and every ABM that was present today has to be battle proven .As a matter of fact we are fantasying these ABM considerably.

Even the interception altitude of AAD is a matter of concern if the missile itself is to be used a primary defence system.But instead it is to be used as a secondary line of defense where it further intercepts the remained debris due to the PAD interception which is a satisfying theory.

The reality is quite different. uncle didnt want Arrow technology to be transferred. The Green Pine was Israeli developed and transferred to India as exchange.

And not to mention Arrow is a way costlier than all the ABM`s available today.Israel itself is debating to deploy the system in modest numbers.Uncle once promised Israelis to fund their deployment considering the may-go-nuclear friendly nations all around the israeli borders.

and if india is comitted to purchase arrow instead it would love to go with S-400 which is 3/4 the price of arrow itself

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 11 Mar 2009 20:46

k prasad wrote: We'd never have got the GPs without unkil's support and authorization... so dont underestimate their role in our program. DRDO ppl also had training programs (sort of) and talks by US BMD scientists.... our own program has gone ahead with no small amount of approval from US... not that we asked, but their aye definitely did us a world of good.

I actually don't expect much from them except for giving permission Israel to assist Indias programs, where sensitive US technology is not being transferred to India (like the case of Arrow-II). atleast that much is expected from current Indo-US relations. but we are struggling to signs EUMs for general military sales like P-8. ABM Systems will be altogether in different level, So strings/clauses/conditions attached would be far tougher n comprehensive.

this is offtopic but with the kind of US influence on Israel, they should have forced israel to stop arms exports to India after 1998. But Israel is said to have sold arms on emergency to India during kargil.

And not to mention Arrow is a way costlier than all the ABM`s available today.Israel itself is debating to deploy the system in modest numbers.Uncle once promised Israelis to fund their deployment considering the may-go-nuclear friendly nations all around the israeli borders. and if india is comitted to purchase arrow instead it would love to go with S-400 which is 3/4 the price of arrow itself

we already have so many projects Barak-2/LR-SAM, AAD, PAD and two new HTK IIR Guided Interceptors in the class of THAAD. Thats 5 different Missiles. imagine the costs involved. would be difficult to think about any new missile let it be Arrow or S-400 or PAC-III.

still India might have had a good reason to ask for Arrow-II instead of low cost S-300/400. Barak-2/LRSAM, AAD might be even cheaper than S-300 series considering low-cost production in India.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 12 Mar 2009 00:46

SKrishna wrote:Wow!!!! Awesome video!

It does confirm that the target was a Dhanush launched from Warship (INS Rajput??).

Just one thought why does the Dhanush missile seem to be sway just a little at lift off?

It is the ship which is "swaying" along with the camera attached to it. The missile goes straight up.

Aditya_M · Post by **Aditya_M** » 12 Mar 2009 01:24

k prasad

wasn't the Gulf war Patriot the PAC-1, and not the PAC-3??

In Operation Desert Freedom it was the PAC3. They were used to intercept Iraqi SRBMs. They also shot down an RAF Tornado and USAF Hornet; and because of some problem an F-16 thought a Patriot was an SA-2 and it destroyed it with a HARM.

So yeah, not a very good record on the new one either.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Mar 2009 01:47

^^ instead of boasting our capabilities, against khan pac-3, we should rather consider each situation as above, and conduct test to check out our real abilities. perhaps, there needs to net-centric ops with IAF where it considers the ABM as a friend rather foe.

integration is tough business.. because, its all in the requirement. the reason our IA gets tough on DRDO has a meaning to it... and also just because, we are not khans, with billions of $$$, to throw away systems, once into prod.

kobe · Post by **kobe** » 12 Mar 2009 03:22

VK Saraswat is no dummy, he might have compared XYZ paramters with PAC-3 and highlighted advantages of our system. And in that context said ours is better than theirs. But its the news media that is magnifying the whole issue and making a big deal out of it all. Everyone knows that India is a poor country of snake charmers and cow urine drinking rope tricksters. There is not even a word for success in Sanskrit.

munda · Post by **munda** » 12 Mar 2009 03:39

kobe wrote:VK Saraswat is no dummy, he might have compared XYZ paramters with PAC-3 and highlighted advantages of our system. And in that context said ours is better than theirs. But its the news media that is magnifying the whole issue and making a big deal out of it all. Everyone knows that India is a poor country of snake charmers and cow urine drinking rope tricksters. There is not even a word for success in Sanskrit.

This forum is not to make racist comments! Mods please check!

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 12 Mar 2009 03:44

munda wrote:
kobe wrote:VK Saraswat is no dummy, he might have compared XYZ paramters with PAC-3 and highlighted advantages of our system. And in that context said ours is better than theirs. But its the news media that is magnifying the whole issue and making a big deal out of it all. Everyone knows that India is a poor country of snake charmers and cow urine drinking rope tricksters. There is not even a word for success in Sanskrit.

This forum is not to make racist comments! Mods please check!

seems like some people dont know sarcasm

munda · Post by **munda** » 12 Mar 2009 05:18

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Mar 2009 05:30

Sieff needs to read up on BR. Much of what he "talk"s of has been discussed. Although he has some valid points he IS behind the curve. Way behind. It is BR, where tomorrow comes today, NOT UPI.

negi · Post by **negi** » 12 Mar 2009 05:47

^ Sieff doesn't even need to BRF he needs to stop being IDM; by drawing parallels between the LCA,Arjun and the ABM programme he has only shown his logical Prilliance.

People across the globe who do this kind of thing for a living understand what does it take to intercept a missile with a missile ; as for the detractors who are whining about the liquid fueled 1st stage should infact be concerned about the future when we field more agile interceptors along with a more powerful and robust guidance system.

.

munda · Post by **munda** » 12 Mar 2009 08:01

negi wrote:^ Sieff doesn't even need to BRF he needs to stop being IDM; by drawing parallels between the LCA,Arjun and the ABM programme he has only shown his logical Prilliance.

People across the globe who do this kind of thing for a living understand what does it take to intercept a missile with a missile ; as for the detractors who are whining about the liquid fueled 1st stage should infact be concerned about the future when we field more agile interceptors along with a more powerful and robust guidance system. .

Agreed, I would also like to tell you guys that today (March 10, 2009) this video was posted on UPI homepage. Also on the homepage was a picture of snake charmer with title as "India Daily Life". So it seems they will never stop ridiculing India.

pran · Post by **pran** » 12 Mar 2009 08:15

It is reverse psy-ops and it is working. Good job DRDO. To his utter disbelief Indians did it. So he has look for a torn shirt or a open fly. After all massas make the judgement call and wants to have the last word. Any squeak from the panda pokers ?

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 12 Mar 2009 09:11

Hello, Disha. It was my understanding that PAD was a two stage missile with the first stage being liquid and the second stage being solid. The videos of PAD taking off certainly look like the first stage is liquid to me. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 12 Mar 2009 09:31

Arun_S wrote:
negi wrote:Few questions :
1. What were the two EOTS perspectives in the video ? I thought EOTS was only on the interceptor .
2. Before stage separation the interceptor missile executed some violent spiral maneuvers is that customary ? i.e. lining up for injection of the final stage into the kill box at the correct time slot.
Negi: Austins post below answers it. BTW it is not as violent as it looks down the pipe view.
Austin wrote:Nice Video , Looking at the video the first stage of PAD does seem to be performing certain complicated manouvering ( trying to bleed energy to keep interception within range ? ) , Since it has a gimballed nozzel with three degrees/axis of freedom , it can very well perform such kind of manouveres using thrust vectoring in flight.
BTW I have seen a video of Agni-3 doing the same energy wasting maneuver.

The two EOTS views are from IR telescopes located near the PAD launch station and another from near the Dhanush launch ship. So one can see the other missile traveling at high angular speed. The target EOTS view is most spectacular, clearly the interceptor hits the body of target missile and also the shape charge exploding at the same time.

Sorry don't have much time to analyze it today.

PAD's exhaust is almost invisible at lower altitudes and the exhaust/smoke can be seen few seconds before first stage separation. The exhaust trail shows that the missile is almost flying straight (ignoring little gyrations). The thick contrail spirals (visible in the video) are formed after some time and they keep on growing with time. IMHO the spirals are more related to contrail formation than energy wasting maneuvers. Such spirals can easily be seen in Buk launches (youtube) at upper altitudes.

THAAD Energy Management Steering maneuver, used to burn excess propellant.

Cheers....

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 12 Mar 2009 09:48

From Missile thread:

tejas wrote:Perhaps Arun garu can clarify this for me but I am at a loss to see the advantage of having a liquid fuel interceptor ( PAD) rather than a solid fuel one (AAD, PAC-3, THAAD, S300, Arrow2). With the Prithvi production line being shut down what gives?

Grasshopper awaits enlightenment from the master BTW Arun garu, I usually read each of your posts three times to make sure I didn't miss anything the first two times.

I am onlee a blind man of Hindoostan, pls don't bank on me too much;)

IMHO PAD is a development platform (because other platform was not ready back in 2002 when the program took off. But adequate to prove out the system. ABM system is a big system of which the interceptor missile is only a small component, one that can be easily enhanced or changed out. Now that AAD and Shourya have taken to the sky, the real motors that will take interceptor to sky will soon be brought in. For lower altitude interception AAD is already solid fueled and is in the final missile configuration.

For High altitude interception of all classes of missile (including ICBM) one will need solid fulled first stage, and as press reports are already out, the REAL ONE is called PDV. PDV will sport a solid fulled booster and the upper stage will remain the same as what it is today on PAD.

DRDO readies shield against Chinese ICBMs : India today

For Phase 2, Dr Saraswat said that the organisation had already begun development of a two-stage hypersonic missile interceptor called the PDV and it would be ready in two years. It had also put in place the building blocks for developing extended range radars of over 1500 km.

Unlike the exo-atmospheric interceptor, which was test-fired on Friday, the PDV has two stages, a liquid and a solid. The PDV is a longer missile with two solid stages. It is in the class of the THAAD or Terminal High Altitude Area Defence missiles deployed by the United States as part of its missile shield beginning this year. THAAD boasts of missiles which can intercept ballistic missiles over 200 km away and tracking radars with ranges of over 1000 km.

Don't expect a new solid booster for this PDV, it will be .... . . . you can guess it ... same as the Shourya's second stage (main motor) 0.74m diameter, 6 meter long, weighs about 3.6 tonne.

From my Shourya/Sagarika missile article in IDR:
Second Stage: This 6 meter long stage weighs about 3.6 tonne and generates 16 tonne thrust. Case-bonded HTPB-based composite propellant with low burn rate is ignited by a small pyrogen ignition motor. The case is made of 250 grade maraging steel to maximize fuel mass fraction that is critical for scalable payload versus range flexibility. Its nozzle is made of composite material with metallic backup and carbon phenolic liners. The interstage coupling uses a soft-stage separation mechanism and retro rockets for reliable and safe stage separation.

Your article on Shourya was, as usual, oustanding. I only hope a laser inertial confinement facility can be built to confirm functioning of our TN weapons as outright testing, I fear, will be politically/economically impossible for quite some time.

Dhanyavaad.

As for laser inertial confinement facility for TN bum, .... Jai Maataa Di.
Onlee Maa Bhagwati can save India from the raak-shucks that (mis)rule the apex.

disha · Post by **disha** » 12 Mar 2009 10:02

tejas wrote:Hello, Disha. It was my understanding that PAD was a two stage missile with the first stage being liquid and the second stage being solid. The videos of PAD taking off certainly look like the first stage is liquid to me. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Yes it is indeed the case that the first stage is liquid. If you noticed in the video, PAD does some cork screw maneuvers to bleed of excess energy. This is to ensure that the second stage is injected into the appropriate kill box where it coasts till it can hunt down the incoming missile. Note that it is the two gimballed engines of the first stage that gives effective control of injecting the second stage into the kill box. Note that AAD is a single stage missile.

There are several reasons I would use liquid first stage for PAD, chief among them is that the engine is proven and has almost two decades of field experience. Gives me better control for intercepting at higher altitude. Note that compared to AAD, time is less of a premium but precision is. There is more variables in the incoming BM trajectory to take care of the higher you intercept. At a lower interception point, there is more confidence in trajectory however time is a premium and you require quick reaction missiles.

Further retiring the existing Prithvis from the current inventory will provide a ready made inventory for the AAD missiles. Yes, liquid fuel is corrossive, but two decades of experience have thought us on how to handle it. Somewhere I read that we can store the liquid fuel for some six months. That is a long time. Assuming AAD is deployed today, only some missiles or none are kept on hot alert and rest are on standby. As the threat level changes missiles are fueled and kept in readiness. So all in all there is nothing wrong in using liquid fuel first stage for PAD.

Again those are my opinions. Would sure like to see it discussed/validated/rejected.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 12 Mar 2009 10:12

jaladipc wrote:But incase of intercepting a nuclear warheads, the debris remains a major concern.we do have to consider the EM radiation due to the interception of the radioactive target.And if interception right away takes place in the atmosphere (for e.g:pac-III at 15 km)is definitely a huge concern regarding the effects after a successful interception.

It has been discussed earlier in "Indian Missile Technology Discussion" forum and Arun has given an excellent description pertaining to your question. Tried to locate the post but couldn't. Just providing some points mentioned by him:

- Natural occurring/enriched Uranium/Plutonium is not too much radioactive, so doesn't pose much radiation hazard (if warhead intercepted) and the radiation contamination can be easily contained after interception of warhead.

- Plutonium oxidizes easily (that's why the pit is plated with Gallium to prevent it's oxidation). So after interception at high altitude, most of the plutonium will be oxidized.

Cheers....

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 12 Mar 2009 10:24

Disha, please see Arun's post above.

Arun garu, as usual a few of your keystrokes are enough to clear the murkiness within my dimwitted mind

So the two stage (both solid fuel) PDV is to be the final exoatomospheric interceptor? Is there to be only one exoatomospheric interceptor for both IRBMs and ICBMs? BTW did you notice the DDM typo stating the PDV has solid and liquid engines and then in the next sentence that it has two solid fuelled engines?

P.S. I have to bank on you as I live in the U.S and most of the banks are going under

K_Reddy · Post by **K_Reddy** » 12 Mar 2009 10:35

I don’t believe the PAD was performing energy bleeding maneuvers. For one it’s a liquid fueled missile, there is no need to bleed energy, just turn the engine off at the right moment. Initially, I thought the reason they went in for a liquid first stage, is it gives them the freedom to ignite the second stage solid rocket at the optimal distance from the target after shutting off the thrust from 1st stage engine when needed. Is it possible to have a 2nd stage separation while the first is still blazing?
But it’s obvious a liquid fueled AAM is impractical. And there was news a few days back that the production of the Prithvi was caped, why would they do that if it was to be the base for the PAD program? The PAD is an intermediate program to perfect the interceptor technology. A new booster is coming. But I still beg the question, how do you achieve optimal release of the interceptor with a solid booster? Arun sir?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 12 Mar 2009 11:12

K_Reddy wrote:A new booster is coming. But I still beg the question, how do you achieve optimal release of the interceptor with a solid booster? Arun sir?

How else? Energy bleeding.

BTW I should have noted that PDV's booster will be flex nozzle, onlee just like AAD and Agni-3

negi · Post by **negi** » 12 Mar 2009 11:17

K_Reddy wrote: Is it possible to have a 2nd stage separation while the first is still blazing?

Yes that is what the 'vented inter-stage' facilitates in AGNI series and even the ISRO launch vehicles.

But I still beg the question, how do you achieve optimal release of the interceptor with a solid booster? Arun sir?

Imo by buying more time for the interceptor ; i.e. intercepting at longer range and higher altitudes (specially when the target is yet to reenter the earth's atmosphere ) which will be only possible when the tracking and FC Radar capabilities are enhanced upto requisite levels.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Mar 2009 19:55

disha wrote:
tejas wrote:... I am at a loss to see the advantage of having a liquid fuel interceptor ( PAD) rather than a solid fuel one (AAD, PAC-3, THAAD, S300, Arrow2).
Tejas, which part of the PAD interceptor is liquid fuel? We can carry out the rest of the conversations in ABM thread.

The PAD takeoff certainly gives the telltale brown smoke N02 - which suggests that whatchamacallit liquid fuel - is it Hydrazine?

But it becomes smokeless after the initial puff and later the trail is white.

But I am an anpadh in these matters.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 12 Mar 2009 21:55

Shiv saar, that is a successor of Hydrazine.
The initial brown puff is due to flow in initial half second when the pumps fire up.
The engine then burn the fuel most efficiently at teh right ratio, thus one sees smokeless flight for the first 20,000 ft or so. There the local temperature drops very significantly and one starts to see vapor condensation, it becomes even more visible as the missile flys through -55 deg C rarified air.

One board member asserts it is contrail, but I am very sure it is not contrail, but condensation of H2O from burnt fuel.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 12 Mar 2009 23:22

Isnt there a propellant which is neither solid not liquid and works entirely like a liquid propellant to stop firing the engine at any point of time and works like a solid propellant in terms of life can be stored for a min of 5-8 years once the missile is filled up.
It actuallly looks like a hand sanitizer kinda solution and to enhance the performance, they are using a small pressurizer kinda place at the top point of the container to keep the paste going down into the combustion chamber and is relatively controlled by a small micro processor.I witnessed this in a lab in university of waterloo when a jingo of mine introduced to his prof and who detailed me rest.

Even if a education institution is working on it means, definetly DRDO might be working on it or already mastered the propulsion tech.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 13 Mar 2009 00:45

Compared to other ABM missiles (SM3/Aster) our PAD is just too big and cumbersome for production/deployment at strategic level i.e. ship-launched system.

If DRDO is thinking about shifting to other missile model for high altitude interception, why invest so much in current Prithvi model? Or current PAD is just a proof of concept

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 13 Mar 2009 01:37

jaladipc wrote:Even if a education institution is working on it means, definetly DRDO might be working on it or already mastered the propulsion tech.

Your confidence in DRDO in indeed commendable, just that they dont get budget to sustain it

Sid wrote:If DRDO is thinking about shifting to other missile model for high altitude interception, why invest so much in current Prithvi model? Or current PAD is just a proof of concept

Saar, the Yindoo does not have money, nor enough time, or a benefactor to gift a horse. So the Yindo improvises and comes up with a poor man's hawaii ghodaa.

PAD may just be a little warm up exercise helps before joining the lead group in big boys race with the real stuff (PDV).

Step by step is better, as IIRC Vina said learn and validate the control laws on a platform that easily lends itself to it, before moving to a platform that has tighter control loop compliance.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Mar 2009 04:00

munda wrote:.. on the homepage was a picture of snake charmer with title as "India Daily Life". So it seems they will never stop ridiculing India.

Our next really long range BM or ABM could be named:

Sarpa~dark!

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 13 Mar 2009 04:10

Austin wrote:
geeth wrote:If the fellow who is in-charge of the system is confident after few tests, I am sure we have reasons to believe him.
Ofcourse we all have faith in his words and the known specs prove that as well , but as I said its futile comparing two ABM systems as these are tailor made for each country needs and requirement.

Some one might just jump and say Arrow 2 is better than AAD because the specs looks better , but each systems are designed for their own national needs.

As far as PAC-3 goes its a operational and deployed system with some interesting records to brag about certainly the only system which as seen operational deployment and quite a few kills to its credit both foe and friend alike

Austin
Those kills include shooting down your own fighter jets or your COW Jets. Ask British they know.