India tests Prithvi based ABM-2

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50641
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

India tests Prithvi based ABM-2

Postby ramana » 29 Nov 2006 01:53


Ujjal
BRFite
Posts: 110
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 11:24

Postby Ujjal » 29 Nov 2006 02:02

I read a 2005 report from somewhere where Dada said that we wouldn't be using Green Pine for our homegrown ABM. If that's true, then we must've developed a new radar specifically for this purpose.

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Postby pradeepe » 29 Nov 2006 02:03

to ensure that two things flying at several times the speed of sound actually collide with each other?


Interceptor apart, I am thinking about the positive implications this has on Prithvi's own guidance control. What percentage of the CEP # is attributable to the guidance error bars in the boost phase itself/less than 60km altitude. Or does all of the CEP accumulate after that.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 29 Nov 2006 02:03

Vijay J wrote:Kanson,

Value? What do you mean what is the value?


I want to say, we are not in pressurised position like US to prove something to their gov/pub/ etc...with a dummy test.

To my knowledge, they used the radars to search, detect, track and guide.

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 29 Nov 2006 02:14

Kanson,

The dummy test is the baseline.

Whoever comes in and says India you should buy our ABM stuff has to show his wares are atleast this good in a dummy test. If they can't we are not buying.

Radar was used to verify not to guide.

We don't have what it takes to detect. We don't have what we need to see what we need to see and after that we need a lot of integration to actually process what we do see into a form that can be used to carry out intercepts.

Was it an Akash, was it a trishul? who knows what it was. The Pioneer leader should find something better to do with his hands.

Pradeepe,

Thank you, that is exactly the point, better control over launch conditions and flight performance suggests improvements in CEP.

Our friends in Fatehjung are busy painting the latest imports but what is their CEP and how are they going to prove it?

Ofcourse they could always unilaterally withdraw from Siachen instead.

Nalla Baalu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 82
Joined: 24 Aug 2006 07:16
Location: Yerramandi, Dhoolpeta

Postby Nalla Baalu » 29 Nov 2006 02:19

This was displayed in defexpo as a launcher for Akash SAM, wasn't it?

http://armyreco.ifrance.com/asie/inde/exhibition/defexpo_2004_india/pictures/missile_vehicle_defexpo_2004_india_01.jpg


Can something be read into non-definite interceptor length of 10-12 metres being qouted widely in the press?

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 29 Nov 2006 02:23

Victor said

Even to a non-technical person, it should be clear that even if the missiles flew in previously known trajectories, it would be like trying to make two toothpicks held in ones hands hit each other head-on in a quick swipe with your eyes closed.


This exactlt what our front line batsmen cant do when McGrath and Brett Lee bowl at slow speed of 95 MPH with paddle like bat to the cherry!

But then even if we dont have good detection system to track a launch and then shoot down a missile, we atleast made the two missiles fly in a controlled collusion.

We have now two projects to work for decades make the Tejas fly with local engine and TMD system which can track a launch and destroy before it reaches the target.

Paarklam.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 29 Nov 2006 02:26

Vijay J,

Just read the interview given by DRDO chief appeared in THE HINDU.

Its say lots of software and hardware integration taken place in this effort.

Here Prithvi? is used as booster. Actual Interceptor(2nd stage) is something different which they didnt revealed.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50641
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 29 Nov 2006 02:33

Kanson While I am not buying VijayJ's take on the 'collision', that line is even more incredible for that means that India can lob pea sized nukes in Mushy's lap. So its good psy-ops.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12886
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Postby Lalmohan » 29 Nov 2006 02:39

the bigger deal actually is that mushy has lost another blustering red line option, or atleast its assurance to cause us harm has been eroded significantly - or threatens to do so.

mush can't take it for granted that he can lobb nukes willy nilly at us and hope to hit something to make the cowering yindu shiver in dhoti and back off without total escalation - in a way it will force them to go strategic and then they know we have overkill against them

now even mush must have enough brain cells left to figure out that last point

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 29 Nov 2006 02:41

I've sent an email to the Daily Pioneer pointing out just how hard hitting a missile with another missile is.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 29 Nov 2006 02:45

ramana,

:) I agree.. we need psy-ops too. But that alone is not sufficient. I believe our people wont ruffle the feathers, without knowing what is the consequences

Sudhanshu
BRFite
Posts: 307
Joined: 14 Feb 2006 22:15
Location: USA

Postby Sudhanshu » 29 Nov 2006 02:46

I remember the days when we could not write the required codes for any programming home work. We just fool our instructor just by writing something which would give us required output for some "fixed range" of input and take those output for verification of our codes.

Same way I think after so much bashing of DRDO (so many faliure in past), they have come up with a very similar idea. It wont surprise me if they have lowered the speed of the target prithvi for this particular test and might have manipulated other missile parameters which would be completely different from an incoming "enemy" missile.

It was just an image makeover, not a breakthrough.

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3037
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Postby Jagan » 29 Nov 2006 02:46

Would a proximity fuse warhead have been used (as in SAMs) rather than a direct hit (as in a 'hittile')

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50641
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 29 Nov 2006 02:51

Jagan, After Desert Storm PAC-III vs Scuds, the best option is a 'hittile' due to vagaries in fuze timing. Fuzing works for aircraft.

Sudhanshu, Whats happening?

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 29 Nov 2006 02:55

Explosive warhead has limitation. Explosion is something like a shock wave.

Based on the experience, US is planning to use Kinetic warhead even for hitting short range ballistic rockets/missiles.

carapette
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 29 Nov 2006 02:28
Location: USA

Holy crap !!!.

Postby carapette » 29 Nov 2006 02:57

This Prithvi exercise is only a technology demonstrator. To demonstrate the technology, all Companies or Agencies use controlled enviroments, implying that it is always a SUCCESS !!! So don't believe any crap anybody throws at you - THIS IS NOT AN ABM SYSTEM.

In reality, Prithvi-X is not the weapon or the platform for an ABM system. ABM's rely on a massive and complex network of radars and early warning systems - Which we do not have in place or will have in place for the next 10-20 years. ABM missiles boasts of speeds over Mach 4 - to make Prithvi that kind of missile would be like transforming an elephant into a race-horse.

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 280
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Re: Holy crap !!!.

Postby mandrake » 29 Nov 2006 03:01

crapette wrote:This Prithvi exercise is only a technology demonstrator. To demonstrate the technology, all Companies or Agencies use controlled enviroments, implying that it is always a SUCCESS !!! So don't believe any crap anybody throws at you - THIS IS NOT AN ABM SYSTEM.

In reality, Prithvi-X is not the weapon or the platform for an ABM system. ABM's rely on a massive and complex network of radars and early warning systems - Which we do not have in place or will have in place for the next 10-20 years. ABM missiles boasts of speeds over Mach 4 - to make Prithvi that kind of missile would be like transforming an elephant into a race-horse.

mods ban him right now.
not only hes wrong, but he dont have any bloody technical information.

prithvi is modified to carry a solid stage with 16 tonne thrust.
do you know that thrust if shoved in your back can fly you more than 4 mach per seconds?

what radars are you talking about?
NOOB.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 29 Nov 2006 03:03

crapette, burnout speed for Prithvi is reported to be in the range 4 mach. How much more you want ? :)
Last edited by Kanson on 29 Nov 2006 03:04, edited 1 time in total.

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 29 Nov 2006 03:03

I was under the impression that the output of all the patriot v/s scud matches was whitewashed with a pliant media. This is why PAC III had so many doubters even today.

Sudhanshu's allegation has been made against DRDO for a while now. Somehow when a foreign supplier demonstrates how his super advanced missile can hit a old Mig 15 flying subsonic on a pre laid trajectory no one finds it in their veins to say anything like what Sudhanshu is saying now. All this investigative brilliance is reserved for DRDO's work only.

Kanson,

Yes there was integration. doesn't affect anything I said.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20888
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 29 Nov 2006 03:04

pradeepe wrote:
to ensure that two things flying at several times the speed of sound actually collide with each other?


Interceptor apart, I am thinking about the positive implications this has on Prithvi's own guidance control. What percentage of the CEP # is attributable to the guidance error bars in the boost phase itself/less than 60km altitude. Or does all of the CEP accumulate after that.


Badais to all!!

Hmm, now the missile can be guided accurately to the Mussharrafs of Crore Commanders.

venkat_r
BRFite
Posts: 275
Joined: 20 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Holy crap !!!.

Postby venkat_r » 29 Nov 2006 03:07

crapette wrote:This Prithvi exercise is only a technology demonstrator. To demonstrate the technology, all Companies or Agencies use controlled enviroments, implying that it is always a SUCCESS !!! So don't believe any crap anybody throws at you - THIS IS NOT AN ABM SYSTEM.

In reality, Prithvi-X is not the weapon or the platform for an ABM system. ABM's rely on a massive and complex network of radars and early warning systems - Which we do not have in place or will have in place for the next 10-20 years. ABM missiles boasts of speeds over Mach 4 - to make Prithvi that kind of missile would be like transforming an elephant into a race-horse.


How come there has been deluge of such posts in the recent times on BR. crapette, your name going to be changed soon - why do not you read what the experiment was and let us know what it is rather than posting your expert opinion of what it is not? If you know what India has or does not have for the next 20 years please post some proof and get some BR methai. :D

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 29 Nov 2006 03:08

Just because you passed the exams by cheating doesn't make every Indian a fraud, but this is something that no Indian seems to grasp easily.

We are seeing the same kind of responses appear that we saw after Shakti 1998 except now BJP is where Congress was.

Yes ABM system is much more than just one test like a deployed nuclear arsenal is much more than a few blasts at Pokharan.

So what?

How is that relevant?

DRDO has done what no one would give it credit for.

It is time to rejoice.

carapette
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 29 Nov 2006 02:28
Location: USA

Postby carapette » 29 Nov 2006 03:10

Kanson wrote:crapette, burnout speed for Prithvi is reported to be in the range 4 mach. How much more you want ? :)


Kanson, where did you get this incorrect information? :twisted:

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3037
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Postby Jagan » 29 Nov 2006 03:12

carapette wrote:
Kanson wrote:crapette, burnout speed for Prithvi is reported to be in the range 4 mach. How much more you want ? :)


Kanson, where did you get this incorrect information? :twisted:


crapette, you are now carapette . ( Forum Guidelines

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 29 Nov 2006 03:13

carapette wrote:
Kanson wrote:crapette, burnout speed for Prithvi is reported to be in the range 4 mach. How much more you want ? :)


Kanson, where did you get this incorrect information? :twisted:


So, pls tell us what is the correct information ?

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 280
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 29 Nov 2006 03:14

carapette wrote:
Kanson wrote:crapette, burnout speed for Prithvi is reported to be in the range 4 mach. How much more you want ? :)


Kanson, where did you get this incorrect information? :twisted:


Dude you didnt explained what i said, you know if your from other nation i dont have a problem but talk with facts in hand.

I can prove you this time completely wrong and i normally dont curse around.

so dont try to waste the discussion, if you have something to contribute do so.
read the whole reports you'll have entire idea.

carapette
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 29 Nov 2006 02:28
Location: USA

Postby carapette » 29 Nov 2006 03:14

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/Prithvi.html
Prithvi-II missile typically reaches a maximum altitude of approximately 80 km (Mach 4), thus spending most of the flight time in the upper reaches of the atmosphere. The large delta wings and body lift is used to generate additional lift during ascent and descent, allowing it to overcome the range restriction associated with pure ballistic flight. During descent, the large delta-wings in the mid-section generates lift allowing the missile to glide and fly (Mach 5) on a trajectory different from the predictable trajectory of a pure ballistic missile and ends in a steep descent at nearly 80° for superior CEP (see Prithvi trajectory diagram above). Prithvi-I ascends to peak speed of 900m/sec when the thrust is cutoff and it raises to an altitude of 30Km before it glides to the target it. Prithvi-II does not limit the peak velocity and it also has larger fuel load.


a] Does not imply speed of mach 4; mach numbers are different for different altitudes; the Mach 4 statement is very vague.

b] The mach 5 reference is descent. As a ABM there is no trajectory associated with descent.
[/quote]

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 29 Nov 2006 03:17

Wht is your point..you only said ABM needs min 4 Mach.(you too didnt mentioned what alt it is for)

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 280
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 29 Nov 2006 03:17

carapette wrote:http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/Prithvi.html
Prithvi-II missile typically reaches a maximum altitude of approximately 80 km (Mach 4), thus spending most of the flight time in the upper reaches of the atmosphere. The large delta wings and body lift is used to generate additional lift during ascent and descent, allowing it to overcome the range restriction associated with pure ballistic flight. During descent, the large delta-wings in the mid-section generates lift allowing the missile to glide and fly (Mach 5) on a trajectory different from the predictable trajectory of a pure ballistic missile and ends in a steep descent at nearly 80° for superior CEP (see Prithvi trajectory diagram above). Prithvi-I ascends to peak speed of 900m/sec when the thrust is cutoff and it raises to an altitude of 30Km before it glides to the target it. Prithvi-II does not limit the peak velocity and it also has larger fuel load.


a] Does not imply speed of mach 4; mach numbers are different for different altitudes; the Mach 4 statement is very vague.

b] The mach 5 reference is descent. As a ABM there is no trajectory associated with descent.
[/quote]
I clearly answered your dumb question,
Second stage was used which is new,
please please go behind and read the things.
The second stage DRDO developed it can give it a thrust of 16 tonnes.

that explains your answer.
ABM has no trajectory associated with descent? what do you mean by this the trajectory is calculated by the radar and the ABM is scrambled into that way.

carapette
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 29 Nov 2006 02:28
Location: USA

Postby carapette » 29 Nov 2006 03:18

joey wrote:Dude you didnt explained what i said, you know if your from other nation i dont have a problem but talk with facts in hand.

I can prove you this time completely wrong and i normally dont curse around.

so dont try to waste the discussion, if you have something to contribute do so.
read the whole reports you'll have entire idea.


Joey,

take to the woods...

If you don't want to read my postings you don't have to; Honestly.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 29 Nov 2006 03:20

Sudhanshu wrote:I remember the days when we could not write the required codes for any programming home work. We just fool our instructor just by writing something which would give us required output for some "fixed range" of input and take those output for verification of our codes.

Same way I think after so much bashing of DRDO (so many faliure in past), they have come up with a very similar idea. It wont surprise me if they have lowered the speed of the target prithvi for this particular test and might have manipulated other missile parameters which would be completely different from an incoming "enemy" missile.

It was just an image makeover, not a breakthrough.


Nothing will satisfy you chaps. If you think the likes of Saraswat and co would commit fraud, it speaks more about what you dont know about the BM program, then about them.
Last edited by JCage on 29 Nov 2006 03:22, edited 1 time in total.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 29 Nov 2006 03:23

Vijay J,

I thought i can give some inputs. Thats fine. :)

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 29 Nov 2006 03:27

DRDO and its scientists have far too much to lose by either claiming a foreign product as homegrown or falsifying tests.
The foreign arms lobbies have delivered their liafas and all the media knives are out for the DRDO. Problem the critics face is that this ABM interception is a big deal.. really hard technology... makes it difficult to adopt the paki "dodo" moniker when they've done something this difficult

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 29 Nov 2006 03:32

Yes Gerard..Its very hard for them to digest. Its like they got hit by 440V.

They thought that DRDO is a sinking boat. Now it is flying at supersonic speed. If they didnt react then what happens to naysayers belief,ego and prestige ?

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 280
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 29 Nov 2006 03:32

Gerard wrote:DRDO and its scientists have far too much to lose by either claiming a foreign product as homegrown or falsifying tests.
The foreign arms lobbies have delivered their liafas and all the media knives are out for the DRDO. Problem the critics face is that this ABM interception is a big deal.. really hard technology... makes it difficult to adopt the paki "dodo" moniker when they've done something this difficult

Gerard just lok at fannes post.

Secret notes - Scientist 1 - The ABM has worked. It was the 5th test of interception. The individual system tests have been challenging. The seeker had to be mounted many times on Trishul and Akash. The target towing according to press release was done by Lakshya (we know better) Many ‘Prithvi’ testes had verified the design success of the first stage of the n stage masala. The radar has been a great fusion of many Indian and other technologies. We acquired the Green pine and Antey radars many years ago and we have fused that technology with many home grown ones. I am myself confused by many names that we gave them to hide this. We have been perfecting the interceptor radr for a long time. Every TSP no-dung have been successfully tracked. Rest of the details as agreed upon will not even be committed to paper.

That explains everything.
Akash is a success for sure.
and this is not a short project.


mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 280
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 29 Nov 2006 03:42

John why are you giving those links? are you also among those who thinks this is Arrow 2?[which has been proven wrong]
just asking, but those links are pretty informative.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 29 Nov 2006 03:54

joey wrote:John why are you giving those links? are you also among those who thinks this is Arrow 2?[which has been proven wrong]
just asking, but those links are pretty informative.


No not at all. Just the complexity and the amount of work that needs to be done to make it from crucible to users.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 29 Nov 2006 03:56

How many nations have ABM programs?
How many have achieved a successful interception?


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest