LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteAlso, only two Elta radars have been purchased (yet), so another pointer that a local program probably does exist to supplant or complement them. Even apart from the several references to such a program elsewhere.Originally Posted by Archer
http://www.domain-b.com/technology/2...ballistic.html
India crosses the ballistic missile threshold
29 November 2006
The DRDO shoots down criticism of its track record with a new Prithvi interceptor missile. Rajiv Singh reports.
On Monday 27 November, 2006, with the successful interception of one Prithvi surface-to-surface ballistic missile by another modified Prithvi at high altitude over the Bay of Bengal, India announced its entry into the high technology arena of ballistic missile defence' (BMD).
Even as the country's newly anointed defence minister, A K Anthony, rushed to offer his congratulations to the Defence and Research Development Organisation (DRDO) scientists, defence analysts at home 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 defence systems for the country's defence services.
International observers expressed surprise at the development, as the successful missile interception test now allows India to stand alongside a few countries, such as the US, Russia and Israel, that posses a missile defence capability. "The technology is hard and you have to be working for years," said Robin Hughes, the deputy editor of the prestigious defence journal Janes Defense Weekly to The Guardian paper. "If they have done that in the first test, it is an exceptional advance in technology."
While the US has developed the Patriot (PAC-3 ) system, which it has also been trying to interest the Indian defence services with, Russia and Israel have developed the S-300 and Arrow systems respectively. Informed speculation over the years would suggest that India may already have deployed a few batteries of the Russian S-300 system as an interim arrangement.
The Prithvi Air Defence Exercise (PADE), as the interception exercise was termed, was conducted at the Integrated Test Range at Chandipur-on-sea and the rocket-testing base at Wheeler Island in Orissa. The exercise involved a "hostile" Prithvi ballistic missile, operating as an adversary missile, being destroyed in the skies over the Bay of Bengal by another modified interceptor Prithvi missile.
According to DRDO officials, the new missile had inertial guidance in mid-course and active-seeker guidance (ie a radar-seeking warhead) in the terminal phase. While the first stage of the interceptor was similar to the Prithvi missile, its second stage was a totally new segment. The yet to be named "high supersonic" interceptor missile has been developed by the DRDO as part of an "exo-atmospheric intercept system" designed to "hit-to-kill" incoming ballistic missiles.
The domestic media quoted DRDO officials as saying that the newly developed missile system is capable of detecting a target in less than 30 seconds and launching an interceptor missile within 50 seconds as a counter. According to the officials, many technologies, like high-manoeuvrability of the interceptor missile, were validated in the test. The flight time for nuclear capable missiles launched from Pakistan is a bare 5 to 8 minutes.
Crossing the threhold
DRDO authorities concede that any effective anti-ballistic missile system would need time to develop, but they said that the PADE is an important first step — a crossing of the threshold, as it were — with the exercise validating a combination of various systems that the organisation has developed over the years.
The Times of India quoted K Santhanam, former chief advisor at DRDO, and also a member of the core group responsible for the creation of India's nuclear arsenal, as saying, "Monday's test represents the crossing of a very significant milestone in anti-missile defence capabilities against theatre (short-range) missiles. Every long journey begins with a first few steps."
The Hindu newspaper quoted M Natarajan, scientific adviser to the defence minister, as saying, "With this, India has acquired the capability of air defence against the incoming ballistic missile threat. It is a significant milestone in the missile defence of the country."
Natarajan further clarified, "There was a lot of not only hardware but also software custom-built for this mission. They have been validated, and that is our greatest satisfaction. The credit should go to the whole team."
The project director was Dr V K Saraswat, chief controller, missile and strategic systems, DRDO.
Indian defence observers came out with a muted response to the development however; keeping in mind the fact that DRDO failed to operationalise the much touted 9km-range Trishul and the 25km-range Akash air-defence missiles. These missiles have been undergoing "successful" tests for as long as anyone can remember. The two air defence systems are part of the original Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme, along with the Prithvi series.
Prithvi-I, first tested in 1988, has a range of 150km and deploys a conventional or low-yield nuclear warhead for use against troops or armoured formations. Its two variants, Prithvi-II and Prithvi-III, with lesser payloads, have an increased range of 250 km and 350 km respectively. While the Prithvi-II was first tested in January 1996, Prithvi-III underwent its first test firing in October 2004. The Indian Army has already inducted Prithvi- I and II into service.
Prithvi and beyond
However, in the light of PADE, it may now be pertinent to observe that in October this year, the Indian government had announced that all research and development work on the Trishul would stop in December, and the focus, instead, would be on developing an advanced version of the Israeli Barak missile, a version of which has already been inducted into operational service with the Indian Navy.
Announcing the termination, official sources then had also been quoted as saying that the Trishul was intended only as a technology demonstrator, implying thereby that work expended on the programme would form the basis for developing missiles of the same category. This went counter to the impression that defence scientists had given over the years, making the induction of the Trishul appear as a near certainty.
(my note: The author is mistaken here. The Trishul is now being offered to the IAF for user trials; itas guidance issues were finally rectified; but its too late for the Army and Navy who have purchased other missiles)
Also, in October, the government decided to extend fiscal grants for another DRDO project, the Astra, which is a 'beyond visual range' air-to-air missile (BVRAAM) being developed for the Indian Air Force. The missile has a projected range of 80km in head on chase and 15km in tail-chase. Reports indicate that the missile will use an indigenously developed solid fuel propellant, though a rocket / ramjet propulsion system similar to that used in the Akash project is also under consideration.
The Astra's indigenously developed onboard radio-frequency seeker will apparently have an active homing range of 15km, and though a proximity and a radar fuse already exist for the Astra's pre-fragmented warhead, scientists would appear to be working on a laser fuse version as well.
In the light of the successful Prithvi Air Defence Exercise this week, it would now appear that a lot of DRDO technological birds, including unsighted ones such as the Trishul and the Akash, have now come home to roost.
As an aside it may also be pointed out that Monday's successful test was announced even as Indian foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee held informal talks with his Pakistani counterpart, Khursheed Kasuri, in New Delhi.
Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu
My bow is stretched for its task
Also, only two Elta radars have been purchased (yet), so another pointer that a local program probably does exist to supplant or complement them. Even apart from the several references to such a program elsewhere.
Last edited by Archer; 03 Dec 06, at 00:35.
Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu
My bow is stretched for its task
The FanJi family had 5 missile systems: FJ1 was the tech demonstrator. FJ2 was the low level ATBM type, FJ3 was the high level type (a very unrealistically ambitious one). Both FJ2 and FJ3's tests successfully hit coming missiles. FJ4 and FJ5 did not reach test stages. The nuke version was a special parallel R&D program on how to use nuke warheads on the FJ missiles.
The original target missile was an old DF SRBM. Later a dedicated family of target missiles were developed for China's ABM tests, they are TuQiang target missiles. In the third picture I posted, that white missile is a later version called TQ4. Although the FanJi family got canned in 1980, TQ target missile family actually keeps on growing. Recently, there were patchy news about TQ6.
In regards to "hit to kill", man, pure theorotically speaking, it's not "that hard" to do it, and yes it's doable even 40 years ago. But the thing is, as I said above, a real hit to kill can only be decided by ordinary service people outside producer's test environment. And that's a big difference.
Valid points.
But I am just trying to point out that for most countries, using ABM missile to shoot down nuke tipped BMs is not of much practical use. The reason why US's idea works for them is because they are trying to shoot down the nuke missiles in Asia's sky, not above or near US's land. But for India-Pakistan, you simply don't have enough reaction time (not to mention the current PAD's first stage uses liquid fueul, that's why I said if you got enough time to fill in the fueul, you might be better off sending in your commandos to do the job).
That's why, to me, current tech only has practical usage for anti conventional SRBMs, but then the paradox is conventional BMs don't have much impact, that's why I said an F16 can carry more TNTs than several BMs combined together.
Anyway, to me, the real benefit of ABM R&D is all the technologies and peripherals equipments.
In China's case, although nearly 4 decades efforts seem to result in vain, but heaps of knowledge have been accumulated and as a pioneer project, it keeps on pushing China's tech limitations and yields results in many other areas. For example, as part of the whole FanJi project, a 3000km long range phase array radar called Type 7010 was developed, and it was then used in China's national air defense early warning system in the 70 and 80; eventhough the FanJi project was frozen in 1976 and got officially cancelled in 1980.
So, India certainly has opened a brand new frontier for herself in the R&D area. And that's where the real significance is.
The point is that this system has been purposed designed to overcome the minimum warning time issue.But I am just trying to point out that for most countries, using ABM missile to shoot down nuke tipped BMs is not of much practical use. The reason why US's idea works for them is because they are trying to shoot down the nuke missiles in Asia's sky, not above or near US's land. But for India-Pakistan, you simply don't have enough reaction time (not to mention the current PAD's first stage uses liquid fueul, that's why I said if you got enough time to fill in the fueul, you might be better off sending in your commandos to do the job).
Coming to liquid fuel, yes thats a problem, but then again, its generally accepted that one moves up to alert status, and doesnt standby 24/7, 365 days a year. Secondly, this is an interim design, it could be replaced with a solid propellant based interceptor in the coming years. Its all about the funding and what the services point out.
Excellent point.Anyway, to me, the real benefit of ABM R&D is all the technologies and peripherals equipments.
In China's case, although nearly 4 decades efforts seem to result in vain, but heaps of knowledge have been accumulated and as a pioneer project, it keeps on pushing China's tech limitations and yields results in many other areas. For example, as part of the whole FanJi project, a 3000km long range phase array radar called Type 7010 was developed, and it was then used in China's national air defense early warning system in the 70 and 80; eventhough the FanJi project was frozen in 1976 and got officially cancelled in 1980.
So, India certainly has opened a brand new frontier for herself in the R&D area. And that's where the real significance is.
The greatest spinoff of this program is an "local Greenpine", developed over the past four years.
and..The DRDO modified the Israeli Greenpine radar to enable it detect IRBM missiles with a velocity of 5 km per second from a distance of 600 km.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/1...20622,0228.htm
There are half a dozen firms I know of in India, which can make the radars components such as the Tx/Rx modules (which are likely to be the local ones), as well as the other hardware, eg provide COTS based multiprocessing boards etc etc. This is a massive step forward for India, and with the looming modernisation of the IAF ADGEs ahead..a few LRTRs may be snapped up by the IAF.If the DRDO is to be believed, the basic elements for the BMD system have been developed indigenously. Except the LRTR, which is a modified Israeli Green Pine radar. “We have ruggedised the radar and produced most of its components. More than 30 private firms helped us in developing software and hardware for the interception systems.”
Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu
My bow is stretched for its task
When we talk of reaction time then we must consider that atleast for southern india, there will be reasonable reaction time.
also with grid of aerostat radars and AWACS, a SRBM launch may be detected in the boost stage itself and may give a reasonable chances of successful interception
In any case, india has policy of second strike therefore the aim would be to blunt the firt strike by Pak and or china to save as much as possible and then to retaliate
Thanks for so many informative posts! Just keep it up. I have been doing some reading to educate myself on these issues. Based on them some queries..
1. Will the exo atmospheric PAD have liquid propulsion for the first stage? Can we have it ready 24/7/365 in that form ready to defend our cities? (I sort of disagree with you on one aspect you mentioned that alert status is increased according to threat scenario..true however i consider ABMs should be ready all the time with IFF systems).
2. Do you think a solid propellent will be used for this missile in the future?
3. Does India have any problems in powering solid propellent rockets? Or m is it that the team developing AXO was only wanting to test the last stage seeker?
4. I saw the drawing and saw the 1st stage liquid propelled, then the 2nd and last the seeker..does that make it a 3 stage interceptor rocket? Was it wrongly reported?
5. Do you think we are far ahead in the program for DRDO to have publicized this test? In my opinion i think this is singly the most strategic event in the region after the nuke tests.
6. Why is this not being reported actively in the media both in India and the West? The West i can understand, they don't want to acknowledge the feat..yet i cannot fathom why in India it's not a big deal???I think the standards of reporters and big paper editors is very very poor. Thats tragic.
7. In a conflict scenario AWACs are literally the command and control center for fighter jets, an AF would possibly afford only a few of them. Could ABMs be used to eliminate them considering that Pakistan would operate them within it's territory?
8. In a conflict scenario, considering the very short response time for the missile activation and the fact that India will have radars to detect anything that takes off from Pakistan, is it possible we can shoot down the missiles over Pakistan territory?
9. The endo missile looks solid propelled, is it ready? I saw a pic of it. If it is not is it a mistake by DRDO/ Govt to have made this test public?
10. And is that archer with his bow stretched on your logo, some medal?
And once again thanks for educating me on a lot of this. Your posts make excellent sense!
Few of them? LOL bro just wait some years!!it'll be DEFINITELY NOT FEW OF THEM.7. In a conflict scenario AWACs are literally the command and control center for fighter jets, an AF would possibly afford only a few of them. Could ABMs be used to eliminate them considering that Pakistan would operate them within it's territory?
Besides them we are planning Rotary wing UAV's to have AEW on naval assets.
with pvt players inside defence is kickin big time.
anyways, rest will be answered by archer me too tires.. :P
Glad to be of help!
Yes, currently the Exo uses liquid propulsion from the Prithvi. I believe they used it because its gimballed engines allow more precise control,1. Will the exo atmospheric PAD have liquid propulsion for the first stage? Can we have it ready 24/7/365 in that form ready to defend our cities? (I sort of disagree with you on one aspect you mentioned that alert status is increased according to threat scenario..true however i consider ABMs should be ready all the time with IFF systems).
..and the cost factor. The Prithvi is currently the cheapest BM manufactured by India.The regeneratively cooled engines are gimbaled to operate independently, making it possible to steer the missile in all three axes using thrust vector control during flight.
As well as the risk factor.
I agree with you that solid fuel is the way to go, but every country has to start from somewhere, and given the short timelines, I think that DRDO chose to stick with this approach, since it cut down on development time, and more importantly -risk. Most of the delays in DRDOs first programs, from the technology point of view, came from their choice of bleeding edge technology when the programs were started, intensifying the risk and development issues, several times over.
Now coming to alert status, I believe the general consensus is that war between Indo and Pak, will be a calibrated affair- that means Pak wont suddenly launch a nuke attack or the like, though there will be some amount of redundancy in our C3I to compensate for the same. During peacetime for eg, whether it be the IAF or IA, many AD assets are not operated 24/7- the cost and wear and tear is enormous.
Yes, I believe so. They can make do with liquid propellant, but its a pain to handle, and takes time. Also, there are only x number of times, you can load up the tanks and empty them. It is all about funding and technological ability.2. Do you think a solid propellent will be used for this missile in the future?
I repeat- DRDO programs are run on a shoestring, vis a vis international standards- the Prithvi for instance has been superceded by funding for the solid fuel Agni series. If DRDO can demonstrate a reasonable prototype for an AXO/PAD combo, given the Indian economys growth, they might be able to secure funding for a solid fuel replacement.
I believe the services will raise this issue, and DRDO might change the PAD. But its early days yet, so lets see.
India has considerable experience in solid fuel rockets via DRDO and ISRO, but at the same time... Problems? The Akash had major propulsion problems, (we upgraded the basic ramjet design as used on Russian missiles in a few critical parameters) and it took many years of tests before the missile could finally make it in flight trials..bottomline, its all about funding.3. Does India have any problems in powering solid propellent rockets? Or m is it that the team developing AXO was only wanting to test the last stage seeker?
Coming to tests:
The team that tested the AXO was euphoric because of the complexity of the task. For the missile trial- they also tested the:
Local LRTR derived from the Greenpine, purpose developed MCC, LCC, RF links, and these were fully integrated missiles. Basically they tested a working prototype of the entire system, which is a collosal achievement for India and testifies to the impact of the Akash program. For a comparison, in the case of the Akash, it was but in 2003, when we integrated the Battery control center with the Rajendra and launchers.
The IT image is wrong; its basically two stage- first is Prithvi, second is the kill vehicle, which has a solid fuel second stage with it.4. I saw the drawing and saw the 1st stage liquid propelled, then the 2nd and last the seeker..does that make it a 3 stage interceptor rocket? Was it wrongly reported?
Acc. to the released data, they have most of the subsystem prototypes ready- this is an incredible task for India (given the pain we have had in other SAM programs, year 1 would see one gizmo, year 2 would see gizmo 2 and so on- in this case they have fielded an integrated system, partly thanks to the prior programs). Having said that, you are very correct that this program could have remained under wraps for some more time. If they had done so, we would have even more strategic space and the element of surprise. Remember, every year we work on it in secrecy- and then unveil it, thats one year less for the opponent. Having said that, its also possible that GOI wanted to negotiate with the US for Arrow/PAC-3 tech. and that would be a very public affair (Phalcon deal for eg). Given that, it was better to show what we had developed locally when we could. Lastly, the media campaign against the DRDO (like against the IAF in the past decade) has meant that they decided to be open about their achievements, over things that they previously would never have talked about. Unfortunately, that has negative connotations too. India is nowhere near the US's full spectrum dominance, to be open about all the programs under its belt.5. Do you think we are far ahead in the program for DRDO to have publicized this test? In my opinion i think this is singly the most strategic event in the region after the nuke tests.
Its better that way..6. Why is this not being reported actively in the media both in India and the West? The West i can understand, they don't want to acknowledge the feat..yet i cannot fathom why in India it's not a big deal???
SAMs could be used as SAM traps etc and long range SAMs could pose a threat to aircraft, but thats not what this system is for. Its basically meant as a system to protect our economic engines, the cities, so I believe thats what this will be used for to begin with. The logistical issues involved in loading up the PAD mean that its role is envisaged as such too. AWACs will be handled by the IAF..7. In a conflict scenario AWACs are literally the command and control center for fighter jets, an AF would possibly afford only a few of them. Could ABMs be used to eliminate them considering that Pakistan would operate them within it's territory?
I dont think we can go for boost phase intercept or the like yet. Many of the Indian cities to be defended are deep in India, that means over Indian territory..8. In a conflict scenario, considering the very short response time for the missile activation and the fact that India will have radars to detect anything that takes off from Pakistan, is it possible we can shoot down the missiles over Pakistan territory?
The endo missile is the AAD (whose launcher I had linked before). Regarding the test, see before.9. The endo missile looks solid propelled, is it ready? I saw a pic of it. If it is not is it a mistake by DRDO/ Govt to have made this test public?
Its the logo of a squadron, No.47 Black Archers, of the Indian Air Force. My signature line has their motto.10. And is that archer with his bow stretched on your logo, some medal?
I chose their logo as my avatar out of respect & a pilot I met a long time back.
Thank you.And once again thanks for educating me on a lot of this. Your posts make excellent sense!
Last edited by Archer; 03 Dec 06, at 22:01.
Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu
My bow is stretched for its task
Many thanks for your explanations Archer! That pretty much sums it well, unless there's more that's not out in the open.
Joey..don't forget to collect 50 bucks from highseas..
But the thing is, as I said above, a real hit to kill can only be decided by ordinary service people outside producer's test environment. And that's a big difference.>>>>>>
True it will be the end user ultimately that will define product quality.
To further add why the Chinese forgo the nuke option. Soviet nukes aimed at China are MRBMs stationed in Siberia, some 400 warheads if I remembered correctly. That means a relatively short flight time. To maximize reaction time, Chinese ABMs had to be stationed relatively close to their intended targets.
Well, just like the ABM system over Moscow, 3 or 4 nuclear interceptions above your city, what's the point of stopping those incoming nukes in the 1st place?
Chimo
India expects to use missile interception system as a weapon, top scientist says
HYDERABAD, India: India's newly tested missile interception system will likely be turned into a weapon and deployed within four years, the head of the country's missiles development program said.
India is also working toward testing a newer and faster missile, Vijay Kumar Saraswat said at a news conference late Sunday.
His comments came a week after India's defense ministry said it had conducted its first successful test interception of a ballistic missile, using a rocket to shoot down an incoming missile. The missile was intercepted at an altitude of 50 kilometers (30 miles).
Saraswat said the Defense Research and Development Organization of India plans to add an improved homing device and faster maneuverability to the interceptor missile to shoot down an "enemy" missile at an altitude below 30 kilometers (20 miles).
The upgraded version, which will also be able to target aircraft, will be tested within four months.
"This is being done to increase the killing probability of our intercepting missile and to leave no leakage in the air defense system," Saraswat said.
Six to seven more tests are needed over the next four years before the interception system could be made into a weapon, he added.
The tests will involve firing five intercepting missiles two seconds apart to guarantee that an incoming missile is destroyed. Saraswat expected the success rate in intercepting a missile would be 99.8 percent.
India could produce 200 interceptor missiles a year, at a cost of 60 million rupees (US$1.3 million) each, Saraswat said.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/...ile_System.php
If he turns upMany thanks for your explanations Archer! That pretty much sums it well, unless there's more that's not out in the open.
Joey..don't forget to collect 50 bucks from highseas.., surely
Northface what do ya want kingfisher or an hour with Laetitia castaDam how i wish that girl owned me
Last edited by joey2; 04 Dec 06, at 18:26.
Do you really think I am intimidated by a 14 year old kid, Joey?If he turns up
I REPEAT
Send your money to TH or another Mod, I will do the same. We will let someone independent and objective be the arbiter, not a bunch of Indian Internet Warriors.
I will send my evidence directly to TH, if he will accept the role of arbiter.
1. The missile pictured in the IT article is the target, not the interceptor. In Prithvi, the fuel tank is above the wing bay and the oxidizer tank is below. E.G. it is not a multi-stage rocket. The diagram is totally bogus. If the stage separation was where Archer speculated, the burn time would be about 5 seconds. If it was above the tanks, the second stage would be totally unstabilized.
You guys claim "the artist just made a mistake". Lol. Where did he get his info? Did he just invent it? Is this customary in Indian media? Does it still qualify as "proof" for you?
You guys are not capable of looking at this with a critical eye, admit it.
2. BTW, The IBN video shows a missile that looks remarkably like a Patriot-2 or S-300 at 1:10 seconds into the vid. It is definitely not a Prithvi or Agni. I didn't listen to the audio, so I don't know what the commentator was saying. Unfortunately the IBN clip doesn't show the launcher.
3. A clip of the interception will tell more- what were the relative speeds of the missiles? Were they both traveling the same speed, or was the interceptor going much faster? Was there an exhaust plume from the interceptor? Someone please post a link to the vid of the interception.
I have spoken to several people outside this forum regarding this, and so far no one has disagreed with my assessment. Like me, they base their view on known facts- track record, the number of technological hurdles to get past, etc. And these are people who are knowledgable wrt the topic, and do not have a dog in this hunt, so to speak.
"We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: