Indian Ballistic Missile Defense System

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

As of endoatmospheric interception, Apart from India, nobody else bothered to develop a dedicated endoatmospheric interceptor. HQ-9, 9M96XX, PAC-X, their primary role is interception of airbreathing targets, ABM secondary. US, Isreal, China, Russia - They all focused on high altitude interceptors

HQ-9 is SAM. PAC-3 is endo-atmospheric interceptor. So, you are damn wrong to say that none else makes endo-atmospheric interceptor. In fact, PAC-1 is one of the first BMD made and even till 2010, its upgraded PAC-3 was the only deployed BMD by USA and was endo-atmospheric. THAAD was deployed only after 2010.

You see the shape? it would present a very small radar cross-section and this is why endoatmospheric interceptors are rarely used, Onboard RF seeker has a very short range. To see the side of RV, the seeker has to be close and it can't see RV at all if the interceptor missile is flying directly toward RV tip. You may have a powerful radar, but the latency would be far too high for the command guidance to be effective in BMD role.

First, you have to understand that missile is not an asteroid. Missile has horizontal velocity ad hence the cone is having a tilted angle of about 15-45 degree. So, it is not a straight down looking cone but a tilted cone! There will be big RCS as a result. The RV picture you just posted shows how large it is! Now imagine that is tilted even by nominal 15 degree. Now, what will be RCS?

Next, don't assume that the transmitter and receiver of radars are in same place. The transmitter can be in Gurgaon while receiver is in Delhi, for example. So, the wave defelction also need not be directly straight.

 

[shiphone]

1.10 GBI(ground-based interceptor) is operational in 2006 which is exoatmosphere interceptor

2. The first Block I production SM-3 was delivered in October 2004 which is exoatmosphere interceptor

--------------
dear, less funny BS please.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

1.10 GBI(ground-based interceptor) is operational in 2006 which is exoatmosphere interceptor

2. The first Block I production SM-3 was delivered in October 2004 which is exoatmosphere interceptor

--------------
dear, less funny BS please.

GMD is not yet completed. Even as late as 2013, there were test failures. Hence these can't be considered as perfected systems. It is under development and the kill probability is not very high yet.

The SM-3 block 1 and block 1A were developmental version. Block 2 was the real version and it came in 2010.

Don't simply argue for sake of argument. If the topic is about completing the first test intercept, then it is different. I am speaking of fit and operational ones. Otherwise, even PAD was launched in 2006 itself! That does not mean it was reasonably reliable or fit by then.

Try to understand the point of being reliable rather than just having something the flies and has some scientists claiming big things. Otherwise you will end up calling that Iran has developed 5th gen plane by looking at their claim and model:

 

[Pret]

David's Sling and AAD are the only interceptors that were designed from ground-up to be ABM.
9M96XX, HQ-9 and PAC-X were originally developed as general purpose SAMs. They can never be as effective as dedicated ABM systems ( PAC-3 being an exception, it works better as an ABM).
The variant of HQ-9 i.e.HQ-19 isn't an endoatmospheric interceptor, it's a High Altitude interceptor.
Area = footprint of ABM defense.
Nike-X - High altitude ( 60km)
Nike-Zeus - very High altitude ( anti-ICBM)
PAC-1 low altitude Limited ABM capability
PAC-2 low altitude Limited ABM capability, local point defense
PAC-3 low altitude, local area defense
SM-3 - High Altitude, wide area
THAAD - High altitude, wide area
GMD - Very High Altitude ( anti-ICBM), very wide area
A-135 ( doesn't count, but still, high altitude), very wide area
40N6 - High Altitude, wide area
77N6-NX - High altitude, wide area
Arrow-1 TD only - NON-OP
Arrow-2 ( High altitude by our standard), local area
Arrow-3 - High Altitude, wide area
David's sling - Low Altitude, local point defense
HQ-9- low altitude Limited ABM capability
HQ-19, High altitude, wide area
HQ-26- High altitude, wide area
AAD - low altitude point defense
PAD - High altitude, TD
PDV - High altitude, wide area


spherical-cone RV has continuously curved surface. In most conditions, it would have sub-metric RCS, however, if the surface of RV is at 90 degrees wrt radar, then and only then, it would have very high RCS ( what are the odds of that :v ).

 

[power_monger]

Want to just add two info.

1) India is working on area missile defense where intention is to avoid missile attack on important clusters like new Delhi and Mumbai.The missile defense in development is currently limited to small area for better effectiveness.
2) For above reason endo atmospheric interception is generally effective as the probability of defending a small region against enemy missile becomes easier as it knows the target area to be defended.It becomes increasingly difficult for retry vehicle to avoid interceptors and yet stay true to its target due to extreme high speeds. Endo atmospheric interceptors uses this vulnerability to ward off missiles.

That is why you can see a priority given to aad testing to operationalize bmd over Delhi and Mumbai initially.Endo atmospheric interceptors are highly efficient for area defense (small regions )

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

David's Sling and AAD are the only interceptors that were designed from ground-up to be ABM.
9M96XX, HQ-9 and PAC-X were originally developed as general purpose SAMs. They can never be as effective as dedicated ABM systems ( PAC-3 being an exception, it works better as an ABM).
The variant of HQ-9 i.e.HQ-19 isn't an endoatmospheric interceptor, it's a High Altitude interceptor.
Area = footprint of ABM defense.
Nike-X - High altitude ( 60km)
Nike-Zeus - very High altitude ( anti-ICBM)
PAC-1 low altitude Limited ABM capability
PAC-2 low altitude Limited ABM capability, local point defense
PAC-3 low altitude, local area defense
SM-3 - High Altitude, wide area
THAAD - High altitude, wide area
GMD - Very High Altitude ( anti-ICBM), very wide area
A-135 ( doesn't count, but still, high altitude), very wide area
40N6 - High Altitude, wide area
77N6-NX - High altitude, wide area
Arrow-1 TD only - NON-OP
Arrow-2 ( High altitude by our standard), local area
Arrow-3 - High Altitude, wide area
David's sling - Low Altitude, local point defense
HQ-9- low altitude Limited ABM capability
HQ-19, High altitude, wide area
HQ-26- High altitude, wide area
AAD - low altitude point defense
PAD - High altitude, TD
PDV - High altitude, wide area


spherical-cone RV has continuously curved surface. In most conditions, it would have sub-metric RCS, however, if the surface of RV is at 90 degrees wrt radar, then and only then, it would have very high RCS ( what are the odds of that :v ).

Don't think that just having conical/spherical shape will make RCS low. Just try shining a torch on a cone or sphere and check if you only see a point object or do you see the shape too.

Also, the RV falls to earth with a tilt like this :

The radar gets to see the entire triangle area with height HxSin(Q) where Q is the angle of tilt. The RV does not fall straight as the horizontal velocity still exists.

Here is a video where you can see the angle at which a Minuteman MIRV warheads strike the ground. Just see the angle of incidence. So, don't look at the RV cone as straight cone:

PS: Don't mention old system like Nike-X etc as they were never successful. Also, AAD is not point defence. It is a theatre defence system with radius of protection 10km from MRBM. Point defence are those that are meant to strike low flying objects with limited reaction time like QRSAM.

 

[Arihant Roy]

Can someone here who is on Twitter ASK Hemant kumar whether Sunday's night test of the PDV resulted in a direct hit on the Prithvi target missile?

 

[steel]

Please enter a message with at least 30 characters.

 

[power_monger]

Posting a old video of DRDO intercept.this video showed the

A) beautiful maneuverability of the AAD missile
B) The interception curve in real time scenario.

 

[Vorschlaghammer]

Does DRDO have any plan to develop proof-of-concept or associated technologies for a ICBM intercepting ABM ?

Large static radar arrays like Don-2N or PAVE PAWS could draw from LRDE expertise, but high performance silo based boosters like Gorgon/Gazelle/Sprint/GBI have no precedent.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Does DRDO have any plan to develop proof-of-concept or associated technologies for a ICBM intercepting ABM ?

Large static radar arrays like Don-2N or PAVE PAWS could draw from LRDE expertise, but high performance silo based boosters like Gorgon/Gazelle/Sprint/GBI have no precedent.

Even USA does not have ICBM interceptor that works consistently. USA is trying GMD etc, but their effectiveness is suspect. THAAD works only upto IRBM.

 

[power_monger]

India is concentrating on AD 1 and AD2 which is China specific bmd system stoping missiles fired from 5000 kms. Once it is done we will go for ICBM interception.

 

[Vorschlaghammer]

Even USA does not have ICBM interceptor that works consistently. USA is trying GMD etc, but their effectiveness is suspect. THAAD works only upto IRBM.

Isn't that mostly cause US BMD focus shifted towards defending against limited strikes, and their embrace of hit-to-kill philosophy instead of keeping the enhanced radiation warheads ?

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Isn't that mostly cause US BMD focus shifted towards defending against limited strikes, and their embrace of hit-to-kill philosophy instead of keeping the enhanced radiation warheads ?

No one makes such assumptions.

The problem with non hit-to-kill is that the missile travels in open space which can be in tens of kilometers in all 3 axis. The speed of ICBM is also in orders of 7-8kms. Even a small deviation is enough to avoid the fragments from hitting due to this.

So, the only reliable way to kill is by hit to kill. The enhanced fragments or radiation warhead is useful for slower moving targets like planes

 

[Vorschlaghammer]

No one makes such assumptions.

The problem with non hit-to-kill is that the missile travels in open space which can be in tens of kilometers in all 3 axis. The speed of ICBM is also in orders of 7-8kms. Even a small deviation is enough to avoid the fragments from hitting due to this.

So, the only reliable way to kill is by hit to kill. The enhanced fragments or radiation warhead is useful for slower moving targets like planes

The US ABM program was scaled back a lot though. Ignoring the prohibitive costs, one can only imagine the effects of megaton class thermonuclear warhead tipped hypersonic interceptors, and nuclear pumped single use x-ray laser satellites which can target dozens of RVs simultaneously.

In the 1990s and early 21st century, the stated mission of NMD has changed to the more modest goal of preventing the United States from being subject to nuclear blackmail or nuclear terrorism by a so-called rogue state. The feasibility of this more limited goal remains somewhat controversial. Under President Bill Clinton some testing continued, but the project received little funding despite Clinton's supportive remarks on 5 September 2000 that "such a system, if it worked properly, could give us an extra dimension of insurance in a world where proliferation has complicated the task of preserving peace."

A potential strike by most likely threats to US like North Korea/Iran should be manageable by THAAD batteries posted at overseas bases, Aegis destroyers on patrol, and GBI interceptors in the homeland, but a saturation strike similar to what USSR would have launched in the 1980s has no defence today.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

About mid course and booster phase interception. After watching this video.


We seriously need to think about having interceptor missiles in space, that will reduce responce time, plus detection and counter action would be fast.

We have enough knowledge and experience of space, we could do this on our own, lets go after protecting our sovereign national interests. Screw all treaties.

I had opened one thread on PDF on India's AAD/PDV vs Arrow 2. That kind of discussion should happen here as well. Can Anybody explain how PDV/AAD will perform compared to Arrow II and PAC 3?

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

The US ABM program was scaled back a lot though. Ignoring the prohibitive costs, one can only imagine the effects of megaton class thermonuclear warhead tipped hypersonic interceptors, and nuclear pumped single use x-ray laser satellites which can target dozens of RVs simultaneously.

USA has too much money to scale back anything. USA runs of military industrial complex and will not scale back on anything. It is simply practically too difficult to intercept very fast missiles

 

[Vorschlaghammer]

USA has too much money to scale back anything. USA runs of military industrial complex and will not scale back on anything. It is simply practically too difficult to intercept very fast missiles

Montana Class BBs, Nuclear Iowa BBs, Peacekeeper ICBM, W89 Warhead, SRAM-II AGM, Valkyrie bomber, Cheyenne/Commanche attack helos, A-12 Avenger program, Future combat system, MBT-70 Tank, ACR/XM8 rifle, there are hundreds of examples of scalebacks and cancelled programs. Having a military industrial complex means there will be competing ideas, solutions and their implementations. But they all can't be developed all the way to a practical solution without funding. My point is very fast multiple target interception isn't impossible to solve, just infeasible as of now. With sustained research and steady funding, it can be made practical.

This is ofcourse not considering countless other variables like economy, domestic/international politics, global threat perception and profile, short/long term strategic doctrines.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Montana Class BBs, Nuclear Iowa BBs, Peacekeeper ICBM, W89 Warhead, SRAM-II AGM, Valkyrie bomber, Cheyenne/Commanche attack helos, A-12 Avenger program, Future combat system, MBT-70 Tank, ACR/XM8 rifle, there are hundreds of examples of scalebacks and cancelled programs. Having a military industrial complex means there will be competing ideas, solutions and their implementations. But they all can't be developed all the way to a practical solution without funding. My point is very fast multiple target interception isn't impossible to solve, just infeasible as of now. With sustained research and steady funding, it can be made practical.

This is ofcourse not considering countless other variables like economy, domestic/international politics, global threat perception and profile, short/long term strategic doctrines.

All of the other things are not a serious threat. However, USA has absolutely no defence against ballistic missile and is desperately opposing Iran, North Korea, Pakistan etc in getting missiles. In such cases, it is only wise that USA does not scale back its BMD system. USA has no reason to scale back the defence against the only major threat it has - Ballistic Missile. USA has also been developing systems like Arrow for Israel, THAAD, GMD etc which shows that USA is not cutting back

 

[power_monger]

All of the other things are not a serious threat. However, USA has absolutely no defence against ballistic missile and is desperately opposing Iran, North Korea, Pakistan etc in getting missiles. In such cases, it is only wise that USA does not scale back its BMD system. USA has no reason to scale back the defence against the only major threat it has - Ballistic Missile. USA has also been developing systems like Arrow for Israel, THAAD, GMD etc which shows that USA is not cutting back

Please hold back when doing such high claims. Us has absolute capability to block missiles from 3rd world countries like Korea or Iran which have limited capabilities compared to Russian or Chinese ones.