INDIA : Capability to neutralise enemy satellites proved

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
I don't know sequential Monte_Carlo methods.
Thanks for the heads up. So you are no expert. So quit pretending to be one.

Here are a few links. Please visit at your leisure:
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~nando/smc/index.html
http://www.amazon.com/Sequential-Practice-Statistics-Engineering-Information/dp/0387951466 (you probably won't get a free PDF "legally", but in PRC it's a whole different story)

Also, look-up:
  • Kalman Filter
  • Particle Filter
  • Markov Chain

No need to get into the equations. Focus on the motion model portion and the descriptions. That will give you a fair idea how prediction of a trajectory is done when tracking moving targets. Once you understand the basics, you will realise that there is not much difference between exo-atmospheric and endo-atmospheric interception.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
China achieved such test in 1999, note this video is about MKV not KKV, but same in essence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBMU6l6GsdM

If you want to shoot exo-atmospheric ballistic missile follow the SAM way, then I say good luck.
It's not about luck.

It's about how fast and accurately you can process the input signals (observations, z_{1:k}) on the on board computer and how accurately you can guide the projectile towards the estimated target position x_{k+t} at time k+t, where k is the current time and t is the time required to intercept it at predicted position x_{k+t}. This is the basic principle of interception, and is same for both exo-atmospheric and endo-atmospheric interception.

The smaller the t, the higher is the hit probability and higher is the computational power required.
 

Minghegy

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
387
Likes
9
It's not about luck.

It's about how fast and accurately you can process the input signals (observations, z_{1:k}) on the on board computer and how accurately you can guide the projectile towards the estimated target position x_{k+t} at time k+t, where k is the current time and t is the time required to intercept it at predicted position x_{k+t}. This is the basic principle of interception, and is same for both exo-atmospheric and endo-atmospheric interception.

The smaller the t, the higher is the hit probability and higher is the computational power required.
Now I recall India did a test that using a ballistic missile shoot another ballistic missile.
To shoot down a flying bullet using a gun there are two ways, one is we shoot the bullet to an rough trajectory and our bullet maneuverings during the terminal, the other way is if we can predicate the trajectory of the target bullet accurately and aim it accurately then we don't need a terminal maneuvering. You are following the second way.
 
Last edited:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Now I recall India did a test that using a ballistic missile shoot another ballistic missile.
To shoot down a flying bullet using a gun there are two ways, one is we shoot the bullet to an approximate trajectory and our bullet maneuverings during the terminal, the other way is if we can predicate the trajectory of the target bullet accurately and aim it accurately then we don't need a terminal maneuvering.
I am not following any particular way. I am just mentioning how prediction in tracking is done. There are differences between Kalman and Particle Filters. There is no single way to do this. There are many ways. The basic idea is the same. Prediction. How you do it is your choice. My point is not that. My point is the basic principle of interception is same for both exo-atmospheric and endo-atmospheric interception. Hope this clarification will put an end to all this beating around the bush.

You are following the second way.
You have no idea what I am talking about. The target can change it's trajectory in-flight and the Monte Carlo methods I mentioned are capable of handling this change in trajectory. Recall I mentioned motion model.

Minghegy, seriously, in that book, Sequential Monte Carlo Methods in Practice, there is a chapter by Dr. Elena Punskaya along with other scientists (Dr. Christophe Andrieu and Dr. Arnaud Doucet). Please read that if you get the PDF of the book. It will help you understand what I am saying.
 
Last edited:

Minghegy

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
387
Likes
9
The basic ideas of artillery rocket and ballistic missile are same as well, they are both use chemical propulsion and target surface target.
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
746
well,
there are 3 kinds of anti-missle intercepting techs...
What India is doing is terminate anti-missle/satellite tech. it is the easiest one of 3 .

What USA,China and Russia are doing are more complicated and harder ones, such as mid-course exoatmosphere interception.
 

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,307
^^

Well the prophet on Indian defense matters have spoken. SOme body has just spoken in his ears that India is not working on exo atmosphere interception.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
well,
there are 3 kinds of anti-missle intercepting techs...
What India is doing is terminate anti-missle/satellite tech. it is the easiest one of 3 .

What USA,China and Russia are doing are more complicated and harder ones, such as mid-course exoatmosphere interception.
What are the 3 kinds of anti-missile intercepting techs (I guess you meant interceptor technologies)? Could you please list them with links if possible? I am guessing there are some methods of doing it that I do not know.

Thanks.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
The basic ideas of artillery rocket and ballistic missile are same as well, they are both use chemical propulsion and target surface target.
When it comes to propulsion, yes, you are right, they are same. They follow Newton's action-reaction model (3rd Law): "Lex III: Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi." Then there are laws of fluid mechanics and aerodynamics (Poiseuille's Law, Stokes' law etc.), which an expert in these subjects can comment on. (sub-classification possible on solid or liquid fuel types, but basically, they use chemical propulsion)

I am not an expert in fluid mechanics and aerodynamics, but I am guessing, there are differences between artillery rockets (BM-21 'Grad') and ballistic missiles (Prithvi) when it comes to guidance. It is my guess that MBRL are largely unguided, however, I have heard about armour detecting artillery munitions, so there could be some kind of detection and ergo, guidance there.
 
Last edited:

Minghegy

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
387
Likes
9
It's pretty similar to a man successfully tested a 50km range artillery rocket, then he claims he has the capability to attack a target 5000km away. Navigation, adaptability of space environments, middle-course correction, materials for reentry, terminal correction, they all are different, but basic ideas are same.

The gap between upgraded surface-air-missile and kinetic kill vehicle just like the gap between artillery rocket and ballistic missile. You should ask yourself if the way of SAM+ works why USA/Russia/China are developing kinetic kill vehicle as exoatmosphere interceptor? Your politicians and force certainly know it.

The photo of China's anti-missile test taken in XinJiang, amounts of kinetic energy released above the atmosphere.
 

Minghegy

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
387
Likes
9
What are the 3 kinds of anti-missile intercepting techs (I guess you meant interceptor technologies)? Could you please list them with links if possible? I am guessing there are some methods of doing it that I do not know.

Thanks.
1, SAM+: terminal interception
2, KKV: middle-course interception
3, Directed energy: ascent phase or middle-course interception, usually refer to laser weapon

Of course you can use SAM+ in all phases, but it doesn't sound decent.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
well,
What India is doing is terminate anti-missle/satellite tech. it is the easiest one of 3 .

What USA,China and Russia are doing are more complicated and harder ones, such as mid-course exoatmosphere interception.
The gap between upgraded surface-air-missile and kinetic kill vehicle just like the gap between artillery rocket and ballistic missile. You should ask yourself if the way of SAM+ works why USA/Russia/China are developing kinetic kill vehicle as exoatmosphere interceptor? Your politicians and force certainly know it.
Both of you are wrong. What India is doing is the "most" difficult of any kind of interception tests.

There are 3 stages where interception is possible. One is when the missile is in the boost phase, the second is when the missile is in the mid course stage and the third is the terminal stage.

Difficulty of missile interception is based on the speed of the missile or the warhead. So, the missile is the slowest during boost phase when the missile is only taking off slowly. This is the point where lasers like YAL-1 can be used to burn the electronics inside and is called boost phase interception. This is the easiest to achieve technologically. Even BVR missiles from aircraft can be used for this type of interception.

The next is mid course interception that China recently revealed. Aegis is also capable of mid course interception as this is the next best bet with the second highest success rate after boost phase interception.

The terminal stage interception that India has achieved is the toughest of the 3. This is because the warhead gives only a window of a few seconds in order to bring down a small target which is travelling at hypersonic speeds. It has the least success rate of the 3.

The countries with a boost phase interception capability as of today is the US with the YAL-1. The rest are trying to catch up and are far behind. The countries with capable mid course interception are US and Russia with the SM-2/3 and S-400/500 resply. China is currently testing their own missile and will take a few years to catch up. India has recently revealed technology capable of the same and will be some years away from induction as well.

As important as speed is required to break through for interception, the size of the target is also very important. The target is biggest during boost and smallest during terminal stage for obvious reasons. Small target size = greater difficulty in targeting.

The countries which have capable terminal interception are the US, Russia, Israel, France and India. The interception happens at an altitude of 200km and lesser and some examples are the US Patriot, the Russian S-300, the Israeli Arrow, French Aster-30 and Indian AAD/PAD.

India has 3 types of missiles for terminal stage interception. AAD which is tested against targets at an altitude of 30 to 70Km which is just above regular SAMs. AAD's equivalent is the Patriot, Arrow and Aster systems. PAD is meant for interception between 80 to 150Km high which is exo atmospehric. Then we have PDV which is a 2 stage SAM is a highly advanced variant of both AAD and PAD. It will handle all targets in the entire envelop of the BMD system and it's equivalent is the THAAD system of the US.

The reason why PDV is compared to THAAD is because of the radar system. While both AAD and PAD require a 600Km Swordfish radar, the PDV like THAAD will use a 1500Km Swordfish-2 radar system which will be highly mobile and highly robust system compared to AAD and PAD. Of course, both PAD and PDV can be used for mid course interception as well.

Lastly and most importantly is interception against ICBMs. As of today there is no technology that can intercept long range ICBMs in the terminal stage. It is actually impossible as of today because of processing and missile limitations. We have to have our interception missiles achieve speeds of Mach 10 to Mach 12 compared to Mach 4 to 6 that we have achieved today in order to target ICBMs and that's the biggest problem. We are still a few years away from achieving high speed SAMs.

The only countries facing an immediate ICBM threat are US, Russia, Europe, China and North Korea. So, they are currently trying to develop technology that can take out ICBMs during boost or mid course stage only because it is easier than taking out the high speed terminal stage warhead. That's why you see the above countries focus more on boost and mid course interception compared to terminal stage. On the other hand India does not face ICBM threats. So, we are more interested in terminal stage interception with the technology available today and slowly develop technology to intercept ICBMs in the long run. Similarly, even Israel is more interested in terminal stage interception because their enemies only have SR and IRBMs in their inventory. China has more reason to beat ICBMs than IRBMs. Also, Russia has already provided China with the S-300 system for terminal stage interception and denied the S-400 required for mid course interception and are therefore developing a S-400 system of their own.

Since now you know the differences between each stage and it's repurcussions on interception capability based on requirement, now you can make a better and more informed guess on which is harder to achieve. What China's done has not been particularly impressive like ours. But it is still a technology that has been tested before and is feared.
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
/\/\ Excellent post. I wish I had some reputations left with me to give it to you. :D
 

Neil

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
2,818
Likes
3,546
Country flag
if we have technology of mach 4 why cant we develop a brahmos on are own...??why do we need russians for it...??
 

plugwater

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Messages
4,154
Likes
1,081
P2P,
AAD range is 15 to 30 km and PAD is less than 80 km.

DRDO is developing another interceptor with flight ceiling 150 km which they have not yet revealed the name. But i guess that is PDV which is rated in the same class as THAAD.
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
if we have technology of mach 4 why cant we develop a brahmos on are own...??why do we need russians for it...??
Brother ballistsic missiles go upto mach 10+ . speed isnt everything. Its about design, internal engine and navigation system along with material being used to make them.
 

plugwater

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Messages
4,154
Likes
1,081
if we have technology of mach 4 why cant we develop a brahmos on are own...??why do we need russians for it...??
Brahmos is a cruise missile. We know nothing about cruise missile when we started that program with Russia.
 

Neil

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
2,818
Likes
3,546
Country flag
Brother ballistsic missiles go upto mach 10+ . speed isnt everything. Its about design, internal engine and navigation system along with material being used to make them.
sir....i was talking about cruise missile[sorry forgot to mention it]
we use Prithvi missile for AAD right....?it goes to near mach 4....so i was just comparing Prithvi and brahmos then y do we need russians to help us in brahmos block 2....we have necessary tech for near mach 4-5 and that too with unlimited range[as far as we want] so....
 
Last edited:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top