Indian Ballistic Missile Defense System

[Guest]

That's not what are we discussing, are we?

You are digressing from topic at hand,

So, putting the original question to you again, what is the minimum range of Shourya?

So, can it hit any target below 700 km with 1000 kg warhead?

We, aren't discussing whether you need to launch shourya 680 km from border to hit Lahore or 650 km inside border to hit Multan.

Btw, that above argument of yours is flawed.


For example, to make things easier for you

The operational envelope of Prahar is 60 to 170 km with stated war-head.

No, matter even if you put a tennis ball as war head, it would go any further or if you put 2000kg as war head it can't be used at ranges smaller than 60.

State that for Shaurya?

We, aren't discussing at what depth from which a missile will be launched.

I don't understand- I said If the range is being to high- lets go back and achiever the range- Shaurya being a mobile TEL missile- and also SLBM(K-15) can certainly do that If Its needed to-

You said you don't believe me, then the responsibility is on you why you don't?

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prove it, by stating any source that the missiles with IA or IAF has nuclear role. Or other wise, any missile outside SFC has nuclear role.

SFC is just a recent development- who do you think managed Nuclear missiles in 2002 ? or even until recently SFC matured ?-- and who make up the SFC ?

Again you are digressing from topic.

And I replied back Quasi ballistic trajectory aren't on tree top heights.

I gave you reason why they are detected late compared to normal BMs- going in circles will get you nowhere-

Now, you might read it any way.

What would you do, by detecting a approaching a BM, can you intercept it, if you haven't BM shield?

Also, I don't want to go into detection techniques and avoidance principle and tactics, which is off topic.

What, we are discussing is that CM can effectively for all purpose replace BM. for tactical role. ( your claim)

BMs when developed had only strategic role- right from WWII until It was miniaturized enough to be used tactically- and guess how many times it has been used tactically till now ?




not, a norm but a bilateral treaty only.

USA and Russia has a treaty on not developing IRBM. Do we follow that?

So. now a treaty between USA and Russia becomes global norm? Is that what you want to say?

So, who developed 60km nuclear capable missile?


They come up the nonsensical claim every other day doesn't mean- we waste our resources on that-


Also, you haven't provided exactly which treaty states that cruise missile can't have a nuclear war-head.

START-

What is weight of warhead of runway denial bomb.
What is the warhead weight of a bunker buster to be used against hardened targets?
What is the weight of cluster bomb.

1000kg-2000kg-- all of which can be carried by cruise missiles- with surprise factor added-

Nuclear weapons too can cause lot of civilian causality, so, govt. avoids but does it mean it's abandoned?

It is used a determinant- strategic weapon- last option- tactical missiles are to be used 1st in a war-

Also, do you want to allude that in war no civilian causality needs to take place?

I am talking about keeping it as low as possible-

Do you want to say AD of Iraq is similar to Sub-continent after two-decades?

The basics of Radar evasion still remains generally same- fly low(use of ground clutter)- fly in the coverage gaps- to avoid detection

Also, Patriot also failed to intercept many Scuds? What does that indicate? What inference do you draw?

That happened because the scud's REV disintegrated forming multiple targets on Patriots radar- and It ended up hitting dummies in certain cases-

Not, my theory, also I gave you a condition of it, which you neglected, not my fault. Go, back and read my original comments.

your condition is a remote of the remotest possibilities- not worth discussing about- Its getting extremely lucky- downing CMs using AA guns before It has reached its target-

All other is your theory, not acceptable, or is it?

Your, time to prove that when cruise missile is launched by India/ Pakistan. It will not contain a nuclear warhead?

Show me any treaty on it? If there is none, you line of argument is flawed.

Since there is no treaties It doesn't mean there's a general mute understanding- take cross border firing exchange for example- retaliation If given is done with same caliber- by either sides-

In Case of BM you never know- It is the worst situation for the commander to be in watching a BM approach his country- It can create panic and trigger nuclear response-

===============================

Though your POV isn't flawed, but, you aren't able to justify it.

Its only Justified If you look into it- every person has his on PoV which determines his approach towards understanding a situation- It is not necessary mine matches yours-

 

[Guest]

@Guest,

When you are saying moving back inside 700 odd km into Indian territory to target Lahore using Shaurya, what not launch A-5 from Pacific Island to target Lahore? Do you support that?

For that you need to have a Pacific Island-

 

[ladder]

For that you need to have a Pacific Island-

If at all we have. Then?

 

[cobra commando]

TRISHUL: Projected Two-Tier BMD Network Architecture As Envisaged By DRDO

 

[ladder]

Its only Justified If you look into it- every person has his on PoV which determines his approach towards understanding a situation- It is not necessary mine matches yours-

Do not answer in line if you want a meaning full discussion . Or if you want to answer in line, change fonts size and color.

I don't understand- I said If the range is being to high- lets go back and achiever the range- Shaurya being a mobile TEL missile- and also SLBM(K-15) can certainly do that If Its needed to-

No you are not getting the point. So you are confused.

Mobile launchers/ TEL does give you capability of mobility, but doesn't give you the capability of launching it from any point you like, like any one's backyard. The launch sites and alternate launch sites are always pre-planned and pre designated.

Also, there is host of other factors that determine that.

===============================================================================================

Also, You need to know how ranges of missiles are stated.

700 Km that you state for Shaurya is the Maximum with a 1000 kg load.

1900 is Maximum with 180 kg load.

My question was, what is the maximum payload and minimum range

Look below.

The minimum range is about 500 km with a 1500 kg load/ warhead. No matter if you increase the load the range will not decrease beyond 500 km.

So, the next question is why did I ask you that question, in the first place?

That's because, India generally prefers overlapping ranges of BM. ( Don't have to believe me, check for yourself)

So, If Prahaar is Max range at say 200 km and Shourya minimum at 500km

There exists a chance of fielding another missile which covers this Gap.

That's where Prithvi has it's significance.

==============================================================================

Also, you have used 'tactical' term in a very liberal way.

True, Prithvi 1 will be relived of it's tactical role.

But, who will be taking it? Prahar, again it's a BM.

And Prithvi 3 with 350-500 km is not classified as Tactical missile . ( Don't believe me check the designation of missile based on ranges)

================================================================================

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, dear the burden of proof lies with you, because what all you are claiming is based on your POV. If you don't want to or are not able to, leave the point don't answer. Your silence will be well understood.

============================================================================================================

SFC is just a recent development- who do you think managed Nuclear missiles in 2002 ? or even until recently SFC matured ?-- and who make up the SFC ?

I think we are in 2014, and not 2002.

Talk in present perspective.

Where did I Insist ?- Prithvi does have a specific role of Nuclear delivery- under both Army and Air Force- perhaps Navy too- But I am not sure about that-

I think you too were, talking in present perspective. As evident from your quote.

and who make up the SFC ?

Who make up the SFC is not important, but who they report to is.

==============================================================================================================

I gave you reason why they are detected late compared to normal BMs- going in circles will get you nowhere-

Late detection of Cruise missile is not a universal phenomena. You cannot state it as a fact.

Also, late detection of cruise missile doesn't it give any specific advantage over BM.

=========================================================================================================

BMs when developed had only strategic role- right from WWII until It was miniaturized enough to be used tactically- and guess how many times it has been used tactically till now ?

You tell me?

And please tell me, How this historical context is related to what we are discussing.

Also, historically, people used to run along tank, to stick a sticky bomb on it's body to neutralize it. Is it done today?

Talk relevant things.

===============================================================================================================

They come up the nonsensical claim every other day doesn't mean- we waste our resources on that-

It's not Pakistan dear, but norms, the ones you claimed.

And you claimed it, that it has universal acceptance.

Norm generally yes- Benchmark for US and Russia due to their arms control treaties- which is followed by NATO also-

So, where is the norm, what treaty?

START-

Start doesn't say any thing about what warhead a cruise missile will have, conventional or nuclear.

==========================================================================================================

1000kg-2000kg-- all of which can be carried by cruise missiles- with surprise factor added-

Which cruise missile? Name it?

===================================================================================================================

It is used a determinant- strategic weapon- last option- tactical missiles are to be used 1st in a war-

I have never said Prithvi's will be used as first response. have I ? If yes, point out.

=====================================================================================================

The basics of Radar evasion still remains generally same- fly low(use of ground clutter)- fly in the coverage gaps- to avoid detection

That's why I said, depressed ballistic trajectory is not at tree top heights.

And we aren't taking of that. Are we?


But, still you need to study in detail about, AAD capability and it's development in sub-Continent.

What for BHARANI radar developed?

===================================================

That happened because the scud's REV disintegrated forming multiple targets on Patriots radar- and It ended up hitting dummies in certain cases-

And you think dummies will not be used in future combats?

And how many fell on Israel's cities?


======================================================================================================

your condition is a remote of the remotest possibilities- not worth discussing about- Its getting extremely lucky- downing CMs using AA guns before It has reached its target-

My original statement

Yes, because Cruise missile are so stealthy, armed forces do recommend the possible use of AA gun to bring down low flying cruise missile. Isn't it?

Oh, because you say so?

Point out where it says, it's not effective.

=====================================================================================================

Since there is no treaties It doesn't mean there's a general mute understanding- take cross border firing exchange for example- retaliation If given is done with same caliber- by either sides-

Mute understanding?

IS this the best you could come with?

Well, I am not privy to such understanding. If you are please provide me, when, where and how, such muted agreement was reached?

================================================================================================================

In Case of BM you never know- It is the worst situation for the commander to be in watching a BM approach his country- It can create panic and trigger nuclear response-

In cruise missile, the commander will be all knowing.

" Do nothing boys, that's a cruise missile, it ain't contain any nuclear warhead"

No, NFU gives confidence and not, the type of missile.

===================================================================================

ts only Justified If you look into it- every person has his on PoV which determines his approach towards understanding a situation- It is not necessary mine matches yours-

I thought, you were the first to question me, what was the merit of developing a 'new' ( Prithvi is not new) short range BM.

BTW, why retracting, present your POV, let's dissect it to find, how much is logic, how much is assumption and how much is presumption.

==================================================================================================================

Now, The question, I needed to ask you was Why do you think Prithvi-3 is a 'new' missile?

 

[Guest]

Do not answer in line if you want a meaning full discussion . Or if you want to answer in line, change fonts size and color.

I gave the changed color- I would do it with bold now-

No you are not getting the point. So you are confused.

Mobile launchers/ TEL does give you capability of mobility, but doesn't give you the capability of launching it from any point you like, like any one's backyard. The launch sites and alternate launch sites are always pre-planned and pre designated.

How do you define a pre-designated point- with a mobile TEL ? or say a Submarine in Deep sea- AFIK TELs are accompanied by mobile command posts which does the calculation and choice of point to launch the missiles- a route can be predetermined keeping it within the range a point certainly no- as It would be a give away in case of war- and whole purpose of having TELs being mobile in comparison to silos is lost-



===============================================================================================

Also, You need to know how ranges of missiles are stated.

700 Km that you state for Shaurya is the Maximum with a 1000 kg load.

1900 is Maximum with 180 kg load.

My question was, what is the maximum payload and minimum range

Look below.

The minimum range is about 500 km with a 1500 kg load/ warhead. No matter if you increase the load the range will not decrease beyond 500 km.

So, the next question is why did I ask you that question, in the first place?

That's because, India generally prefers overlapping ranges of BM. ( Don't have to believe me, check for yourself)

So, If Prahaar is Max range at say 200 km and Shourya minimum at 500km

There exists a chance of fielding another missile which covers this Gap.

That's where Prithvi has it's significance.

The poster you quoted is made by some random internet enthusiast- he also had MIRV assumptions for A3- which is assumption at best-
Increasing payload can decrease range but to what degree- can only be determined by proper calculations and a test of the missile-

==============================================================================

Also, you have used 'tactical' term in a very liberal way.

True, Prithvi 1 will be relived of it's tactical role.

But, who will be taking it? Prahar, again it's a BM.

And Prithvi 3 with 350-500 km is not classified as Tactical missile . ( Don't believe me check the designation of missile based on ranges)

Tactical or strategic is based on the role missile is applied and also what forces are using it- Prahar is better called a Battlefield missile- yes It follows a ballistic path much like rocket artillery-- It apogee being around 30km- It never leaves the atmosphere-

================================================================================



Yes, dear the burden of proof lies with you, because what all you are claiming is based on your POV. If you don't want to or are not able to, leave the point don't answer. Your silence will be well understood.

Only If you read Russel's teapot- you can not claim you anything you want- and expect others to prove-

============================================================================================================



I think we are in 2014, and not 2002.

Talk in present perspective.

In present perspective- All three branches makes up the SFC- It is not anything new but a unified command and control-

I think you too were, talking in present perspective. As evident from your quote.

Yes-

Who make up the SFC is not important, but who they report to is.

I think the talk was about who keeps the missiles-
==============================================================================================================



Late detection of Cruise missile is not a universal phenomena. You cannot state it as a fact.

Also, late detection of cruise missile doesn't it give any specific advantage over BM.

Physics doesn't change in this Universe does it ?

That can be according to you- Late detection=surprise element which any military commander wants in an operation-to take enemy out in complete shock- and before they figure out- the work is done-
=========================================================================================================



You tell me?

And please tell me, How this historical context is related to what we are discussing.

Also, historically, people used to run along tank, to stick a sticky bomb on it's body to neutralize it. Is it done today?

Talk relevant things.

I am talking the most recent wars- say the Gulf wars- war in Afghanistan- Georgia- Name a Single instance BM were used tactically- I can show you thousands where cruise missiles were used-
===============================================================================================================



It's not Pakistan dear, but norms, the ones you claimed.

And you claimed it, that it has universal acceptance.

You got all wrong here-- acceptance no understanding yes-

So, where is the norm, what treaty?

Start doesn't say any thing about what warhead a cruise missile will have, conventional or nuclear.

Russia Might Still Use Sea-Fired Nuclear Cruise Missiles | Global Security Newswire | NTI
==========================================================================================================




Which cruise missile? Name it?

I was wrong there- most cruise missile don'tr carry such heavy payload- nevertheless the even with their lighter(upto 200-500kg) HE such objectives can be achieved-
===================================================================================================================



I have never said Prithvi's will be used as first response. have I ? If yes, point out.

What is the purpose of having It in a tactical- non-conventional role then-
=====================================================================================================
That's why I said, depressed ballistic trajectory is not at tree top heights.

And we aren't taking of that. Are we?


But, still you need to study in detail about, AAD capability and it's development in sub-Continent.

What for BHARANI radar developed?

Install as many radars as you want- but the fact is the due to the nature of terrain the Gap remains- even with 1000s of Bharanis you cannot plug all gaps- then there is electronic jamming and ECM-
===================================================



And you think dummies will not be used in future combats?

And how many fell on Israel's cities?

If was not dummies but fragments- for dummies the REV should have enough space- making the missile large- I don't now the details about Isreali scud strikes- I know about Kuwait's where defragmentation caused confusion of Patriots tracing radar- It could have happened with Israel too- but I don't now about that-
======================================================================================================



My original statement



Oh, because you say so?

Point out where it says, it's not effective.

I said- hitting them with guns would be getting lucky- It can have predetermined path to evade enemy AD batteries- you can keep dragging it but It won't lead anywhere-
=====================================================================================================




Mute understanding?

IS this the best you could come with?

Well, I am not privy to such understanding. If you are please provide me, when, where and how, such muted agreement was reached?

I never said an agreement existed- may be in future not as of now-
================================================================================================================



In cruise missile, the commander will be all knowing.

" Do nothing boys, that's a cruise missile, it ain't contain any nuclear warhead"

No, NFU gives confidence and not, the type of missile.

Cruise missiles usually don't give such luxury- If its detected by AWACS in cruise flight before hugging the terrain It can be downed using a supersonic interceptor- and nuclear or non-nuclear can be then decided there-
===================================================================================

I thought, you were the first to question me, what was the merit of developing a 'new' ( Prithvi is not new) short range BM.

BTW, why retracting, present your POV, let's dissect it to find, how much is logic, how much is assumption and how much is presumption.

==================================================================================================================

Now, The question, I needed to ask you was Why do you think Prithvi-3 is a 'new' missile?

Where did I think Prithvi 3 was a new missile ? If ever said It forget it- no Its not new-

 

[ladder]

Where did I think Prithvi 3 was a new missile ? If ever said It forget it- no Its not new-

As I am busy right now, I will answer you in multiple posts, please bear with me.


I will keep it short.

How do you define a pre-designated point- with a mobile TEL ? or say a Submarine in Deep sea- AFIK TELs are accompanied by mobile command posts which does the calculation and choice of point to launch the missiles- a route can be predetermined keeping it within the range a point certainly no- as It would be a give away in case of war- and whole purpose of having TELs being mobile in comparison to silos is lost-

=================================================================

It is exactly the way you say 'no'. Mobile TEL are not invincible. Pre-determined spot is It certainly is a give away, it's always cat and mouse.

Tactical TM activities produce perishable intelligence information. Unless the TM analyst knows what to look
for and, can see and interpret events in near-real time, it is unlikely that a proactive response can be developed before the opportunity disappears

And TEL operator knows what the opposite analyst is looking for. So, he will prepare to evade it.

But, pre- designated spot is a compulsion he can't avoid.

One of the key vulnerabilities of mobile TMs is that they must move, bringing together elements in order to achieve launch. Finding ways to prevent the various elements of the target system from coming together and operating as a whole is the key to developing a successful attack strategy.

Should I tell you what elements, it has to bring together?

(1) TEL Operations. TELs serve as the transporter and launch platform for missiles. The most common TEL is the Soviet era MAZ-543. TELs present a small, extremely mobile target with very short dwell time. The MAZ-543 has tremendous off-road mobility and can easily hide. TELs generally travel only short distances between hide sites,launch sites, and transload sites, unless required to return to the FOB or FOL for additional maintenance. A TEL will be in launch configuration for a very short period of time and can displace to a new hide site in a matter of minutes

So, if it can travel to a short distance, isn't it prudent to have predesignated sites ( though secret ) where all element can be brought together to achieve
a launch?


Should I tell you the factors which are required to choose a site?


The excerpts are from the PDF which is a sates how to develop a MULTI SERVICE PROCEDURES FOR
JOINT THEATER MISSILE TARGET DEVELOPMENT.

Which also has points on the mobility of TEL and target designation of the same.

But, till then read the link below

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a404351.pdf

 

[ladder]

Where did I think Prithvi 3 was a new missile ? If ever said It forget it- no Its not new-

The poster you quoted is made by some random internet enthusiast- he also had MIRV assumptions for A3- which is assumption at best-
Increasing payload can decrease range but to what degree- can only be determined by proper calculations and a test of the missile-

I presented the poster for representation purpose only.

But the point is that,

I had asked you a simple question and that too multiple times, the question being what is the minimum range of Shaurya?

But, you alluded to 700 km with 1000kg, which by any sense is wrong.

Then, you digressed from topic.

Let me represent for you, our conversation on the same.

Why go for another Short range Ballistic missile- when already have Brahmos, and Shaurya- with Nirbhay and LACM(Supersonic) under development-

What is the envelope of Shaurya? Especially minimum range?

All others are cruise missile. So, not comparable with BM.

Shaurya (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For tactical operations cruise missiles are the 1st choice- use of Ballistic Missiles can create confusion and trigger a nuclear exchange-

I never said Shaurya is a cruise missile. Or air breathing missile.

Point out the minimum range of Shaurya?

Only If you learnt to read-

Operational
range
700 km[2][5] @ 1000 kg and 1900 km @ 180 kg

Shaurya (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do, yo as in the wiki article allude that the minimum range of the Shaurya with a 1000 kg load is 700 km .

Or should I say Shaurya with a 1000 kg payload cannot hit any target below 700 km?

Launch It deeper inside to achieve the shorter range-

Yes, you aren't serious aren't you?

So, when you are being hit by a barrage, travel 500 km back inside you territory, to hit the sweet spot.

What can you say about mobile TELs- or SSBN for that matter-

What about missiles like Agni-1 which has a range of 700km similar to shaurya) and used to target Lahore/Rawalpindi for example- or even Multan Lets say-

So, putting the original question to you again, what is the minimum range of Shourya?

So, can it hit any target below 700 km with 1000 kg warhead?

=========================================================================================================

This the conversation, we had.

So, you are objecting to a person who has done a Load vs Range as a fan boy, but you took so many posts to admit that Sahurya can strike below 700 km with same ( 1000) or higher payload.

Increasing payload can decrease range but to what degree- can only be determined by proper calculations and a test of the missile-

To what extend was not my question. But I wanted you to know that between Prahaar and Shaurya a gap in range exists.

But, you wanted to say that, launching a longer range missile from deeper is the solution.

Which among other reason, is flawed due to the reason that even if from mobile TEL launch takes place from pre-desinated sites, and large scale moving around of the TEL in quick time is not possible.

There are other reasons too. Like who holds the missiles. Shaurya will be with SFC, so Corps Commander has to relay that to SFC for launch.

But, Conventional Prithvi's might be the discretionary power of Army commander to USE which will achieve it's opportunity in the small window that appears.

===========================================

 

[Sea Eagle]

India interceptor missile test for strategic deterrence:China

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 targetmissilewas fired from a ship located nearly 70 km off the Paradip coast.
India is developing a two-tiermissiledefence 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 targetmissile, 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 USD 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 theinterceptorto 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.

India interceptor missile test for strategic deterrence: China - The Economic Times

 

[LalTopi]

India interceptor missile test for strategic deterrence:China

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 targetmissilewas fired from a ship located nearly 70 km off the Paradip coast.
India is developing a two-tiermissiledefence 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 targetmissile, 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 USD 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 theinterceptorto 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.

India interceptor missile test for strategic deterrence: China - The Economic Times

Its almost laughable that the so called chinese 'experts' can come out with such arrogant inane comments! (highlighted in bold)
India is way ahead of China in ABM technology but the 'experts' are too scared to admit it to their CCP masters.

Anyway PDV and phase 1 is primarily for Pakistani consumption. CCP will get their meal ticket with phase 2 AD1 and AD2.

 

[LalTopi]

any thoughts on how many more tests will be required to make PDV and hence phase 1 fully operational? PDV is a new missile, but on the other hand many of the other technologies (seekers etc) have already been tested.

 

[Bheeshma]

LoL Chinese comments are a joke. China has zero BMD capability. The HQ-9 is a cheap low quality knock off of S-300 which itself can only engage ballistic missiles at less than 30 km altitude. They are still clamoring for S-400 which can increase that to 60 Km. They are basically still stuck with something inferior to AAD.

 

[laughingbuddha]

S-400 = hq-10

 

[SRIJAN SRIVASTAVA]

india has developed the missile system but as i know it has a limitation. it can shoot a missile launchedfrom 2000 kms away ehich is not enough.

 

[LalTopi]

india has developed the missile system but as i know it has a limitation. it can shoot a missile launchedfrom 2000 kms away ehich is not enough.

Its enough for Pakistan!

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

atlast so called chinese expert agreed that america is 20 years ahead of them in sam technology while indian akash sam is atleast equal to their patriot, DOES THOSE CHINESE EXPERTS INDIRECTLY HAVE TO SAY THAT INDIA IS AHEAD OF CHINA BY 20 IN SAM TECHNOLOGY

 

[Eastman]

The Russian 53T6 Gazelle anti ballastic missile, impressive speed

 

[laughingbuddha]

Impressive

 

[Shaitan]

Also coming up shortly is the test launch of the containerised version of the Agni-4 Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile. The 4000-kms range missile would be road-mobile and launched from a contained, from which it would be shot in the air and its engines would ignite in mid air. The conventional version of the missile was test fired by the Strategic Forces Command in its road-mobile configuration in January this year, paving its way for serial production and service induction.

Arihant N-sub gets ready to fire ballistic missiles | idrw.org

 

[ladder]

Prithvi Defence Vehicle Fails to Intercept

Prithvi Defence Vehicle Fails to Intercept - The New Indian Express


=======================

Do we have a smiley for triple face palm??? ( for the article)