Indian Ballistic Missile Defense System

Scrutator

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
345
Likes
289
I am not talking about the approach what I think is right, I am talking about the approach what BMD follows.
Since @sayareakd had already seen PAD in person, so I think he would be able to get in touch with developers and quote anyone here.

Deploying THAAD in SKorea is definitely about BALANCE OF POWER, because that way US would have the very possibility of intercepting any ICBM originating from China or Russia in its initial stage itself. Try to think about it logically. This is the very reason why US had opted for Aegis with Naval RIM-161 instead of THAAD. That too they would have to deploy it in Black sea for a effective deterrence which they are doing. It all about practical use rather then Theory of Balance.

And where from do you think Pakistan would launch there missiles in India? From Afghanistan? Even if they launch it from Gwadar, its mere 800 km from Gujrat. Now you would not deploy your BMD shield in Delhi to protect it. You would deploy it in a series, from border towards Delhi. So any SRBM or IRBM launched from Gwadar would immediately come in range of any long distance SAM like S400 even before it reaches its Apogee of 80 to 90 km.

AEGIS and GMD are expensive because of the use of next gen computation. But these are much more practical and effective then the THAAD system of 90s. This is the reason why countries like US and Japan are investing more on these systems and long range missile and integrated THAAD with Aegis system.
You started your arguments earlier with some 'alternative facts' that THAAD and PDV do mid-course interception. Now without acknowledging your earlier error you're ranting about Aegis and GMD (something you just learnt about recently).

In your world view an S-400 missile with a maximum range of 400 kms will travel (the mere) 800 kms from Gujrat to Gwadar at a lightening speed before a ballistic missile will reach even 80 kms altitude!!!!!

You had already given me a peek at your 'alternative physics' earlier with equations with Force = mass*distanceTraveled!! I am not surprised that in you mind all of the above nonsense makes sense!!!!

Could you do everyone here a favor? Perhaps you could email few of your friends your thoughts, get feedback and then post it here for the world to see??
 

Scrutator

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
345
Likes
289
I am not talking about the approach what I think is right, I am talking about the approach what BMD follows.
Since @sayareakd had already seen PAD in person, so I think he would be able to get in touch with developers and quote anyone here.

Deploying THAAD in SKorea is definitely about BALANCE OF POWER, because that way US would have the very possibility of intercepting any ICBM originating from China or Russia in its initial stage itself. Try to think about it logically. This is the very reason why US had opted for Aegis with Naval RIM-161 instead of THAAD. That too they would have to deploy it in Black sea for a effective deterrence which they are doing. It all about practical use rather then Theory of Balance.

And where from do you think Pakistan would launch there missiles in India? From Afghanistan? Even if they launch it from Gwadar, its mere 800 km from Gujrat. Now you would not deploy your BMD shield in Delhi to protect it. You would deploy it in a series, from border towards Delhi. So any SRBM or IRBM launched from Gwadar would immediately come in range of any long distance SAM like S400 even before it reaches its Apogee of 80 to 90 km.

AEGIS and GMD are expensive because of the use of next gen computation. But these are much more practical and effective then the THAAD system of 90s. This is the reason why countries like US and Japan are investing more on these systems and long range missile and integrated THAAD with Aegis system.
You started your arguments earlier with some 'alternative facts' that THAAD and PDV do mid-course interception. Now without acknowledging your earlier error you're ranting about Aegis and GMD (something you just learnt about recently).

In your world view an S-400 missile with a maximum range of 400 kms will travel (the mere) 800 kms from Gujrat to Gwadar at a lightening speed before a ballistic missile will reach even 80 kms altitude!!!!!

You had already given me a peek at your 'alternative physics' earlier with equations with Force = mass*distanceTraveled!! I am not surprised that in you mind all of the above nonsense makes sense!!!!

Could you do everyone here a favor? Perhaps you could email few of your friends your thoughts, get feedback and then post it here for the world to see??
That came off a little harsh. I am sorry for that.
 

Guest

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
924
Likes
2,951
Country flag
PDV warhead will enter into enemy RV and then explode it inside out. All the electronics and nuclear material chamber will break, material will burn out in atmospher. If any big chunk of matrial falls, then AAD will take care of it.
Sir there will not be any need for such a thing- once the missile is intercepted- even If It is proximity explosion higher range and warhead is not damaged It will be deviated a long way from target and will not land where It is supposed to land- besides any damage to the reentry skin will cause the warhead to burn itself well before-
 

Flame Thrower

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2016
Messages
1,675
Likes
2,731
Mind that DF-21 D has been tested on a static target only.



Attacking a moving ship shall require high level of intelligence,evading counter measures and very accurate maneuvering of missile at very high speeds which is very tough

But if the missile still reaches the sea and misses by medium distance it's nuclear blast can wash the fleet.

I rather doubt direct hitting the ship capability as on today.It seems to be a bluff and China is very good at that.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk
I am layman in terms of BM... By reading this post I got a doubt, hope you'll clarify it...

Imagine a US CBG in SCS and PLAN want to take it down, they have tracked it's accurate location....

Range of DF 21D is somewhere around 1500 to 2000km and speed it Mach 10.

Flight time of DF 21D is 450 to 600 secs

I think Chinese can predict the location of CBG aft 10 min and target the exact location with DF 21 and hit the Carrier in the CBG....

Cherry on top is the mid course guidance... Even if China doesn't had this tech it may soon learn

Can anyone please explain why it is not possible to hit a moving target
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,871
Likes
48,532
Country flag
Brain Fart of small people with small brain. China is 20 years behind US and PDV test was similar to chinese technologies of 90. This mean India is 27+20=47 years behind US and US had similar technology in 70. These samll people can find excuses to hide their incompetence and their lagging behind India in technologies. In next few days you are going to witness similar rant when we will launch 104 satellites in one go. They will say that they have more powerful rocket.
China boxed in like a yellow rat between THAAD in South Korea and BMD in India


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,952
Country flag
Sir there will not be any need for such a thing- once the missile is intercepted- even If It is proximity explosion higher range and warhead is not damaged It will be deviated a long way from target and will not land where It is supposed to land- besides any damage to the reentry skin will cause the warhead to burn itself well before-
We are not taking chances since lives of our countrymen are dependent on it. Actually it has three systems against enemy RV.
1. HTK it would destroy the warhead with its own physical force.
2. Then explosive warhead.
3. Then explosive reaching inside RV and taking it inside out.

If somehow it get pass in one piece or major debri, then AAD will take care of it.
 

Flame Thrower

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2016
Messages
1,675
Likes
2,731
We are not taking chances since lives of our countrymen are dependent on it. Actually it has three systems against enemy RV.
1. HTK it would destroy the warhead with its own physical force.
2. Then explosive warhead.
3. Then explosive reaching inside RV and taking it inside out.

If somehow it get pass in one piece or major debri, then AAD will take care of it.
Sir, correct me if I am wrong as most of what I say now is just my assumption.

When we talk ballistic missile and in damaged warhead, it is related to destroying Scud missiles in Operation Iraqi Freedom. where PAC was able to hit scuds, but unable to destroy warheads...

But when it comes to IRBMs, ICBMs warheads follow a pridictable path unless it is MARV...

When warheads are at 80 to 50 km high and re entering atmosphere, manufacturing defect(or damaged tile assuming it is similar to Columbia space shuttle) of a heat tile would cause the warhead to burn into ashes....

So world scientists decided that Kinetic kill is the best way to destroy a re entering warhead

So chances of derbie can be nullified, but if we fail to hit the warhead at 80 to 50 km
AAD will act as insurance policy to destroy it at 15 to 20km height

It means that we have to launch both PDV and AAD at the same time...

I've gained little knowledge by reading stuff from here and there, so please explain if I've assumed anything wrong
 

PD_Solo

The only one
Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2016
Messages
502
Likes
620
Country flag
I am layman in terms of BM... By reading this post I got a doubt, hope you'll clarify it...

Imagine a US CBG in SCS and PLAN want to take it down, they have tracked it's accurate location....

Range of DF 21D is somewhere around 1500 to 2000km and speed it Mach 10.

Flight time of DF 21D is 450 to 600 secs

I think Chinese can predict the location of CBG aft 10 min and target the exact location with DF 21 and hit the Carrier in the CBG....

Cherry on top is the mid course guidance... Even if China doesn't had this tech it may soon learn

Can anyone please explain why it is not possible to hit a moving target
You should read this then....

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-carrier-killer-really-threat-the-us-navy-13765

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,952
Country flag
Sir, correct me if I am wrong as most of what I say now is just my assumption.

When we talk ballistic missile and in damaged warhead, it is related to destroying Scud missiles in Operation Iraqi Freedom. where PAC was able to hit scuds, but unable to destroy warheads...

But when it comes to IRBMs, ICBMs warheads follow a pridictable path unless it is MARV...

When warheads are at 80 to 50 km high and re entering atmosphere, manufacturing defect(or damaged tile assuming it is similar to Columbia space shuttle) of a heat tile would cause the warhead to burn into ashes....

So world scientists decided that Kinetic kill is the best way to destroy a re entering warhead

So chances of derbie can be nullified, but if we fail to hit the warhead at 80 to 50 km
AAD will act as insurance policy to destroy it at 15 to 20km height
already posted here

We are not taking chances since lives of our countrymen are dependent on it. Actually it has three systems against enemy RV.
1. HTK it would destroy the warhead with its own physical force.
2. Then explosive warhead.
3. Then explosive reaching inside RV and taking it inside out.

If somehow it get pass in one piece or major debri, then AAD will take care of it.
So we are not taking chances, once hit, then explode and then further inside out.


It means that we have to launch both PDV and AAD at the same time...

I've gained little knowledge by reading stuff from here and there, so please explain if I've assumed anything wrong
US and others, since they have luxury of time, therefore they intercept in "look, shoot, look shoot".

We because of lack of time, say about 3minutes, from Launch to target by Pak missile, has less time, lets say one minute.

Therefore we use. "Look, shoot shoot" in PAD and AAD mode.

Hope this PDV and AAD will change that to Look, shoot and Look shoot mode.

Lets wait and watch.

Yes earlier we planned to shoot enemy missile, with PAD and after some time AAD in continuation.
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
8,719
Likes
22,676
Country flag
You started your arguments earlier with some 'alternative facts' that THAAD and PDV do mid-course interception. Now without acknowledging your earlier error you're ranting about Aegis and GMD (something you just learnt about recently).

In your world view an S-400 missile with a maximum range of 400 kms will travel (the mere) 800 kms from Gujrat to Gwadar at a lightening speed before a ballistic missile will reach even 80 kms altitude!!!!!

You had already given me a peek at your 'alternative physics' earlier with equations with Force = mass*distanceTraveled!! I am not surprised that in you mind all of the above nonsense makes sense!!!!

Could you do everyone here a favor? Perhaps you could email few of your friends your thoughts, get feedback and then post it here for the world to see??
No need to feel sorry for your harsh words, I already know that your knowledge in this field is minimum.

Just one question......... Why you think we are creating a whole new AAD1 for 5K range missile? We are designing a longer range exo-atmospheric PAD1 which is understandable, but with what you are suggesting, why do we need to increase the range of endo-atmospheric interceptor?
I mean at 40km altitude for a reentry vehicle the current AAD would suffice. Why you need a extended range AAD for that? Its not like that for an IRBM RV you would post your AAD in Delhi and for an ICBM RV you are going to post it in Lucknow. What difference you think a longer range AAD would make against the current one?

@sayareakd could may be of some help to you.
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,952
Country flag
Guys please act like gentleman and we all on same side.

If you want to disagree, please do so in civilised way. Thanks.
 

Scrutator

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
345
Likes
289
No need to feel sorry for your harsh words, I already know that your knowledge in this field is minimum.

Just one question......... Why you think we are creating a whole new AAD1 for 5K range missile? We are designing a longer range exo-atmospheric PAD1 which is understandable, but with what you are suggesting, why do we need to increase the range of endo-atmospheric interceptor?
I mean at 40km altitude for a reentry vehicle the current AAD would suffice. Why you need a extended range AAD for that? Its not like that for an IRBM RV you would post your AAD in Delhi and for an ICBM RV you are going to post it in Lucknow. What difference you think a longer range AAD would make against the current one?
.
If you're so confident in your own ignorance then good luck to you. I'll not be engaging in any back-n-forth with you. Feel sorry for the other hapless folks who may unwittingly believe in your erroneous posts.

This forum is to help people exchange information and engage in productive discussions. Your unending and uninformative rants are quite a distraction and unhelpful.
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
8,719
Likes
22,676
Country flag
If you're so confident in your own ignorance then good luck to you. I'll not be engaging in any back-n-forth with you. Feel sorry for the other hapless folks who may unwittingly believe in your erroneous posts.

This forum is to help people exchange information and engage in productive discussions. Your unending and uninformative rants are quite a distraction and unhelpful.
Wish you the same................... You have already shown how much knowledge you do possess in this matter.

BTW I would still ask you to kindly think on what is the need of an longer range endo atmospheric missile and enlighten me.
 

Scrutator

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
345
Likes
289
Wish you the same................... You have already shown how much knowledge you do possess in this matter.

BTW I would still ask you to kindly think on what is the need of an longer range endo atmospheric missile and enlighten me.
If you're so sure that I lack knowledge in this area then why are you begging me to enlighten you? Isn't that a waste of your time and mine?
Or perhaps you know the hollowness in your arguments but are hesitant to admit??

But gosh!! It's my weakness to never let a question go unanswered (irrespective of how insincere or unreceptive the questioner is!!)

Ballistic missiles are not aimed at the anti-ballistic missiles, but cities/assets that sprawl several thousands kms2. There'll be a battery of (terminal) anti-ballistic missiles somewhere on the outskirts of the city. The ballistic missile may not be on a trajectory to make impact right on the AAD launcher but could be on a trajectory to make an impact 50-100 kms (or farther) away (which could still be another populated suburb). So, even if AAD has a height ceiling of only 30 kms, it would need to travel 100+ kms to intercept the ballistic missile!! Think of the area/dome of AAD defense to be an inverted flat-bottomed bowl (whose max height is 30 kms but the sides are as far as 200 kms.

This is the last time I'll respond to your snarky remarks. Next time try asking nicely!!!
 
Last edited:

Flame Thrower

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2016
Messages
1,675
Likes
2,731
Ballistic missiles are not aimed at the anti-ballistic missiles, but cities/assets that sprawl several thousands kms2. There'll be a battery of (terminal) anti-ballistic missiles somewhere on the outskirts of the city. The ballistic missile may not be on a trajectory to make impact right on the AAD launcher but could be on a trajectory to make an impact 50-100 kms (or farther) away (which could still be another populated suburb). So, even if AAD has a height ceiling of only 30 kms, it would need to travel 100+ kms to intercept the ballistic missile.
Sir, Please clarify if I've missed understood any.

1. Ballistic Missles in these days have sep ranging from 50 mts to 10mts. If they are supposed hit targets 50 km away, the'll adjust their path in endo atmosphere through terminal guidance. This is applicable for all kinds of RVs i.e., MIRV and MaRV

2. Even a ballistic missle alters its path just to hit 50 km away target, then I am sure that it will not escape the range of PDV.

3. Lets assume, the warhead has escaped PDV and AAD is supposed to take care of it.

3a)Let's assume a city in the form of circle radius of 50km for our convenience, 4 AAD batteries on 4 corners to cover 100% of the city with max protection.

3b)Assume an IRBM is fired, PDV missed the warhead, warhead is coming at mack 10 speed, AAD to intercept this warhead at 10 km height. We need to fire multiple PDVs and AADs to destroy incoming warhead

3c) Mack 4 Ashwin AAD missile will take 21secs(20 secs, but for my convenience I've taken 21) to reach the point(which is 25 km from the AAD battery)to hit the warhead.

3d)During this 21 secs warhead(IRBM travelling at mack 10 would go 70 km, ICBM travelling at mack 25 would go175km)our IRBM warhead will travel 70 km. It means at 80km altitude, just after PDV misses its target AAD Missles should be launched.

4. My point is even if we have an AAD missle with 100 km range, there is no point because we may not use it to full range of AAD, in my view if we could use it to the full extent of 25 to 30 km that would be great.

Contradiction with your (@Scrutator) statement

1. AAD can only be used with range of 25 to 30km at max, even if AAD has more range it will not serve the purpose.

2. If warhead changes its target just by 50 km, it will be in PDV's range, and PDV's range is higer(read somewhere that it could be close to 200 km radius) and terminal guidance and re targeting a BM is no joke

Conclusion:
1. AAD is only for IRBMs not for ICBMs.
2. AAD is only at max range of 25 km.
3. For 1 warhead, we need multiple PDVs and AADs.
4. If 10 or more warheads fired at single target, atleast one will hit.
 
Last edited:

Scrutator

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
345
Likes
289
1. AAD is only for IRBMs not for ICBMs.
Yes
2. AAD is only at max range of 25 km.
Not really
3. For 1 warhead, we need multiple PDVs and AADs.
Most probably
4. If 10 or more warheads fired at single target, atleast one will hit
Very likely


Sir, Please clarify if I've missed understood any.

1. Ballistic Missles in these days have sep ranging from 50 mts to 10mts. If they are supposed hit targets 50 km away, the'll adjust their path in exo atmosphere through terminal guidance. This is applicable for all kinds of RVs i.e., MIRV and MaRV
Sure.

2. Even a ballistic missle alters its path just to hit 50 km away target, then I am sure that it will not escape the range of PDV.
Yes.

3. Lets assume, the warhead has escaped PDV and AAD is supposed to take care.

3a)Let's assume a city in the form of circle for our convenience, 4 AAD batteries on 4 corners to cover 100% of city with max protection.

3b)Assume an IRBM is fired, PDV missed the warhead, warhead is coming at mack 10 speed, AAD to intercept this warhead at 10 km height. We need to fire multiple PDVs and AADs to destroy incoming warhead

3c) Mack 4 Ashwin AAD missile will take 21secs(20 secs, but for my convenience I've taken 21) to reach the point(which is 25 km from the AAD battery)to hit the warhead.

3d)During this 21 secs warhead(IRBM travelling at mack 10 would go 70 km, ICBM travelling at mack 25 would go175km)our IRBM warhead will travel 70 km. It means at 80km altitude, just after PDV misses its target AAD Missles should fly.

4. My point is even if we have an AAD missle which travels 100 km, there is no point because we may not use it to full range of AAD, in my view if we could use it to the full extent of 25 km that would be great.
I think you might be mixing up a lot of things there. Let's take high speed ICBMs out of the picture; as PDV/AAD are not designed to intercept those. There is always value in providing coverage for larger area than a smaller area.
 

Scrutator

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
345
Likes
289
Sir, A scenario would help me understand more.

I thought PDV can takeout ICBM warheads too,

Thanks for clarification
AAD is highly maneuverable. It's altitude ceiling is 30 kms, but laterally it can move longer distances. I can see AAD intercept missiles at say 80kms away and 20 kms altitude. It should be able to maneuver itself into the ballistic missile's path.
 

Scrutator

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
345
Likes
289
Hey Everyone, I have decided to quit this forum. I have consistently noticed the overbearing attitude of the folks running this forum. They encourage folks who subscribe to their very narrow worldview - even if it comes with falsehoods, intimidation and insults; while at the same time they suppress facts, science and any view that maybe even narrowly different from their own. I am not very comfortable with authoritarian regimes.
It was fun interacting with several of you on very interesting topics. Most of you have a healthy curiosity and a thirst for learning - glad to be part of that mix!
 

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
9,598
Likes
21,066
Country flag
first test article

http://www.livemint.com/Politics/P0...issile-test-for-strategic-deterrence-Chi.html


Last Modified: Tue, Apr 29 2014. 09 58 PM IST
India interceptor missile test for strategic deterrence: China

The missile is capable of destroying an incoming missile with a strike range of around 2,000 km outside the atmosphere



K.J.M Varma

A file photo of Prithvi Defence Vehicle (PDV) test-fired from Balasore, Odisha on Sunday. Photo: PTI
Beijing: India’s successful test to intercept an incoming missile at high altitude has evoked mixed reactions among Chinese military and strategic experts who believe that advances made by India in anti-ballistic missile technology are aimed at strategic deterrence.

India’s anti-missile test on Sunday intercepting targets outside the atmosphere is more aimed at “strategic deterrence”, as this technology will make its enemies feel the strike power of their missiles is diminished, Wang Ya’nan, a senior editor at Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told state-run Global Times.

The Indian interceptor missile was test-fired from the launch complex-IV on Wheeler Island, just over a minute after the target missile was fired from a ship located nearly 70 km off the Paradip coast.

India is developing a two-tier missile defence system, which will destroy an incoming missile outside the earth’s atmosphere, and if that fails, go on to intercept it within the atmosphere.

The missile is capable of destroying an incoming missile with a strike range of around 2,000 km outside the atmosphere.

While some Chinese military experts agreed that India has made progress in missile interception technology, others cast doubt over the significance of the latest launch.

“It’s hard to conclude whether India’s anti-missile technology has reached a certain level, as they also launched the target missile, so the launch time and ballistic data are all readily available,” the daily quoted an unidentified Chinese missile expert.

He said China has developed relatively mature anti-ballistic missile capabilities based on Russia’s S300 system which are ready for combat, but India is still experimenting with it.

China bid to sell its Red Flag-9 anti-missile system to Turkey last year in a potential $3.44 billion deal, although NATO then exerted pressure on Ankara to abandon the deal, which still hangs in the balance.

Song Zhongping, a former lecturer on missile technology and now military affairs commentator in Beijing, said India’s new interceptor missile “could only be similar to the level of Chinese missiles in the 1990s”.

He said that the target missile was not advanced and lacks effective evasive techniques which had made it easier for the interceptor to strike the target.

In real combat, however, it is hard for even the most advanced interceptors produced by the US, such as the Patriot missile, to hit Chinese missile targets, another missile expert said.

India has tested seven interceptor missiles in recent years of which six were successful.

The expert admitted China’s anti-missile technology is at least 15-20 years away from the US, in terms of the response time,target accuracy and comprehensive information technology. PTI
Third rate butt hurt Chinese. When they can not match, they say they are 20 and 30 years ahead. Fact of the matter is that China does not have this capability even today. Even after stealing Russian technology , they could not make decent air defense system and they have to buy S400 from Russia.They talk big mouth when we launched 104 satellites. They said that China is ahead. In next two days they accepted the reality tat China is lagging behind in space race.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top