Indian Ballistic Missile Defense System

K Factor

A Concerned Indian
New Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
1,316
Likes
147
Sammy you are a genius. :D

Who would have thought of this? Using MBRL rockets to confuse an ABM system as decoys, Awesome.

Problem is the "trajectory". Radars have software that calculate the trajectory of the BM for an intercept. Your 200km rockets won't infuence it.

Why don't you suggest that the PLAAF uses sacks of mosquitoes use as decoys when a missile is launched at it??
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
New Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
No... I mean you have several batteries of 200 km artillery rockets and a few SRBM firing at the same time. Artillery rockets cannot carry a nuclear warhead (too heavy). So only the SRBM carry a nuclear warhead.

Artillery-fired tactical nuclear warheads executable from artillery projectiles have been carried by the United States in its defense armoury ever since 1953. The W79 Artillery Fired Atomic Projectile, designed to be launched from a standard 8-inch 203 mm Howitzer, was introduced in 1981. Other artillery-fired nuclear delivery systems used by the US Field Artillery include:


* The MGR-1 Honest John free flight rocket delivering the W31 nuclear weapon
* The MGM-5 Corporal missile delivering the W7 nuclear weapon
* The M65 Atomic Cannon 280 mm howitzer delivering the W19 nuclear weapon, early 1950s
* The M110 howitzer delivering the W33 nuclear weapon, deployed in 1957
* The MGM-18 Lacrosse missile with nuclear warhead, saw action in Germany from 1959-1963.
* The M109 self propelled and M114 towed 155 mm howitzers delivering the W48 nuclear weapon developed in 1963
* The MGM-29 Sergeant missile delivering the W52 nuclear weapon 1963
* The MGM-31 Pershing missile delivering the W50 nuclear weapon
* The MGM-52 Lance missile delivering the W70 nuclear weapon
* The Pershing II missile delivering the W85 nuclear weapon


Linear implosion, spherically configured nuclear weapons, such as these, which employ more than one critical mass of fissile material at normal atmospheric pressure are somewhat heavier than conventional implosion weapons, but that has not deterred defense scientists from fitting them into the smallest of projectiles (155 mm and 152 mm are known, and even 105 mm has been deemed possible) via tampered and reflected pits. Conventional weapons employing a bare critical-mass of plutonium at normal density weigh roughly 10 kilograms at their core. As opposed to this, a large explosive yield, linear implosion weapon would require an alpha-phase critical mass of approximately 13 kilograms. That works out to a plutonium density of 19.79 gms per cubic centimetre of plutonium density, or 657 cu cm, or a spherical radius of 5.4 cm. Weapons like the W79 AFAP however have been phased out under the Non Proliferation Treaty with the last one reportedly dismantled in 2003. Ergo the problem is not a technical or technological inadequacy, but a confirmation with the prevailing Gestalt of the time.

I will respond to the rest of your post when I have the time.
 

LETHALFORCE

New Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,968
Likes
48,929
Country flag
Rockets and BM missiles both fly at different trajectories and are easy to distinguish, it is a given that BM's trajectory angle will be much greater if radar's can't distinguish this then they are useless, this is why cruise missiles are deadly.,also the speed at which both fly easily separates them.
 
S

SammyCheung

Guest
swordfish lrtr has a range of greater then 400kms,artillery rockets flight path is different from a bm and is easily distinguishable
Swordfish is just a derivative of Green Pine custom designed for India.

Artillery rocket flies a ballistic path, same as SRBM. They are NOT distinguishable for a radar. Certainly not when launched in large salvos of dozens of rockets.
 

Singh

Phat Cat
New Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
Swordfish is just a derivative of Green Pine custom designed for India.
correct.

Artillery rocket flies a ballistic path, same as SRBM. They are NOT distinguishable for a radar. Certainly not when launched in large salvos of dozens of rockets.
:rofl:
You are wrong. (trajectory, speed, size all are different).
In fact a radar like WLR will not be able to detect an SRBM till it is about to land on it.

And China will never fire a salve of SRBM and Artillery but SLBMs and ICBMs which are harder to detect and intercept due to their speed and trajectory.
 
S

SammyCheung

Guest
Artillery-fired tactical nuclear warheads executable from artillery projectiles have been carried by the United States in its defense armoury ever since 1953. The W79 Artillery Fired Atomic Projectile, designed to be launched from a standard 8-inch 203 mm Howitzer, was introduced in 1981.
I'm not sure if tactical nukes can be squeezed into 120 mm artillery rockets. The tac nukes you references like W48 are for much bigger artillery shells.

In any case, for strategy nuclear deterrence, the SRBM carrying 1/2 ton payload is what's important.
 
S

SammyCheung

Guest
:rofl:You are wrong. (trajectory, speed, size all are different).
In fact a radar like WLR will not be able to detect an SRBM till it is about to land on it.
Size is irrelevant, to a long range radar it's all the same. You can adjust trajectory so radar cannot distinguish between rocket and SRBM. As for speed, radar cannot fix speed unless it is in tracking mode. A large salvo will overwhelm it. It can track speed for maybe a few objects, but not all. That's the point of a saturation attack.


And China will never fire a salve of SRBM and Artillery but SLBMs and ICBMs which are harder to detect and intercept due to their speed and trajectory.
We were talking about Pakistan, not China. China would be using MIRVed MRBM with decoys, penetration aids and maneuverable warheads.
 

thakur_ritesh

New Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
4,435
Likes
1,733
this thread is about BMD=ballistic missile defence, india possibly being supplied the bmd by the us and the larger plan of the us to encircle the prc. pakistan has what so ever nothing to do with this topic header and with the articles posted further on, so be with in the spirit of the topic header and carry forward the discussion. no further off topic posts will be allowed on this thread.

thanks.
 

Terminator

New Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
85
Likes
0
I would like to know whether thisBMD will protect us from Silk worm missiles or terrian touching missiles or cruise missiles?
 

Singh

Phat Cat
New Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
I would like to know whether thisBMD will protect us from Silk worm missiles or terrian touching missiles or cruise missiles?
Nope, neither is it intended to.
Comparing a BMD(ballistic missile defence shield) with a CMD(cruise missile defence shield) is like comparing a Tata Nano with a Bugatti Veyron.
 

prahladh

Respected Member
New Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
864
Likes
152
I don't understand why we wont buy BMD like Arrow or S-series until our BMD becomes operational. Is it because we are not expecting any wars in the future!
What I understand is we are still years away from making it (our BMD) operational to complete BMD cover. Do we have any BMD which can stop BM for the time being?
 

Singh

Phat Cat
New Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
I don't understand why we wont buy BMD like Arrow or S-series until our BMD becomes operational. Is it because we are not expecting any wars in the future!
What I understand is we are still years away from making it (our BMD) operational to complete BMD cover. Do we have any BMD which can stop BM for the time being?

Arrow's sale was denied by US. By S-series if you mean S-300(ABM/VM), it failed during trials conducted by India.

Under development Barak-2/8/NG-MR/LR is expected to have ABM capabilities too. BMD(upto atleast MRBM capability) is expected to be operational by 2012 and it will protect only select locations.

AFAIK, please have this confirmed , the American BMD shield cover is not complete and Israeli BMD cannot take out ICBMs.

We have S-300PMU to protect Delhi, which can perhaps take out some Scud like missiles.
 

LETHALFORCE

New Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,968
Likes
48,929
Country flag
Indian BMD and Pakistan

ComingAnarchy.com Indian BMD and Pakistan

Indian BMD and Pakistan

While the US missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic have consistently made the news, few realize that other countries are equally interested in ballistic missile defense (BMD). Unsurprisingly, those are Japan, Israel and India (Russia to some extent).

And while Russia has the experience, expertise and technology to build some countermeasures, others do not. Therefore, when I read about Indian BMD, I wonder how Islamabad will react as they have a far smaller capacity to do so with most of their technology being Chinese or North Korean.

Buoyed by the successful testing of its fledgling ballistic missile defence, India is pushing ahead with an ambitious version of the star wars project capable of shooting down incoming ICBMs in the 5,000 km range. The phase-II of the BMD systems, likely to be deployed by 2014, will be an important part of India’s defence as both China and Pakistan possess nuclear capable missiles. Once the BMD is in place it will place India in a fairly exclusive club alongside US, Russia and Israel.

Even the possibility of effective BMD presents a major threat to Pakistan’s strategic weapons. Given that their warheads will be delivered by a combination of missiles and F16s, and that the Indian Air Force would likely intercept at least some of those planes, what are Pakistan’s options for countering India’s BMD program? They have neither the money or indigenous capabilities to develop their own, nor are they likely to find a country willing to sell them the technology. Even a partially successful Indian BMD program could have a major destabilizing effect on relations with Pakistan at a time when Pakistan is fighting for its very existence from internal threats.
 

sayareakd

New Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,953
Country flag
article paint true picture of current state of affairs between the two counties, but it is equally true that China has given long term credit for HQ9 missile system to pakistan.....

how effective is that system is matter of argument.
 

bhramos

New Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
25,644
Likes
37,250
Country flag
Hi man HQ-9 is notin but Upgradiation of S-300 System.
Basically they ARE BMD system.
but i dont the capabilities of HQ-9?
 

bhramos

New Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
25,644
Likes
37,250
Country flag
Hongqi-9 (HQ-9)

Country: China
Basing: Land, Sea
Details
The Hongqi-9 (HQ-9) is a long-range, high-altitude, surface-to-air missile system developed and manufactured by China, designed to track and destroy aircraft, cruise missiles, air-to-surface missiles, and tactical ballistic missiles. It incorporates technology from the Russian S-300P (NATO: SA-10 Grumble), the U.S. Patriot missile, and preexisting Chinese systems. (1) At present, China is outfitting its Type 052C destroyers with a naval variant of the HQ-9.(2)

China’s decision to develop and manufacture its own anti-missile system is a manifestation of its twenty-first century goal of achieving what political scientists refer to as “great power status”—the buildup of political, economic, and military strength. A key ingredient of “great power status” is military modernization, in China’s case the renovation of certain outdated aspects of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).(3) In particular, China has concentrated its recent efforts on boosting its offensive and defensive missile capabilities in order to compete with the U.S. and other Western powers.

Beijing’s specific emphasis on air and missile defense has its roots in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, during which China observed the complete supremacy of U.S. and Coalition air power in Iraq. The ability of the U.S. to decimate Iraq’s ground-based military with cruise missiles and smart bombs served to highlight China’s relative inability to defend its major cities, military assets, industrial complexes, and other high-value assets against such an attack. The development of China’s HQ-9 surface-to-air missile, therefore, is rooted in its observation and understanding of U.S. military power.(4)

Ironically, Beijing has ranked among the most vociferous opponents of U.S. missile defense, having denounced various U.S. initiatives during the Clinton administration, and more recently, the Bush administration’s decision in 2002 to withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty.(5) Yet in recent years, China has followed a comprehensive two-track plan to bolster its own air and missile defenses: (1) the purchase of Russian surface-to-air missiles and (2) the development of its own missile defense systems.(6)

An example of this “redundant” acquisition and development program is China’s purchase of S-300P missiles from Russia, and the manufacturing of its own HQ-9 system.(7) The HQ-9, in particular, demonstrates China’s end goal of a comprehensive air and missile defense shield.(8) In a report to Congress on May 28, 2004, the U.S. Department of Defense emphasized this very point:

Significant developments over the past few years to improve China’s integrated air defense system include . . . [the] development of a land-based version of the long-range HQ-9, to precede a naval version, designed to be a long-range counter to high-performance aircraft, cruise missiles, ASMs, and tactical ballistic missiles.(9)


It is important to note, however, that the HQ-9 has been in development since the mid-1990s. In 1993, China purchased a large batch of S-300P missiles from Russia, and allegedly obtained a copy of the U.S. Patriot missile from Israel (although Israel denies that such a transfer took place).(10) The Chinese immediately began incorporating the S-300P and Patriot technology into their own air and missile defense system, the HQ-9. In 1997, the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence suggested that “technology from advanced Western systems may be incorporated into the HQ-9.”(11) That same year, an official at a Russian missile design bureau acknowledged that the HQ-9 would incorporate the Patriot guidance and propulsion systems, thus confirming U.S. suspicions.(12)

According to missile defense expert David A. Fulghum, “[the HQ-9] uses a seeker-aided ground guidance system. The seeker on the missile sends target data back to the ground, which then correlates the target data for an intercept.”(13) It is assumed that the HQ-9’s seeker is similar to the Patriot’s “Track-via-Missile” guidance system.(14) Such a system, if actually used by the Chinese, would allow the HQ-9 interceptor missile to fly straight toward its target and explode at the point of nearest approach, thus completely destroying the incoming ballistic missile (or aircraft) or knocking it far enough off course so that it misses its intended target. During the Persian Gulf War, the U.S. Patriot Advanced Capability-2 system, which employs “Track-via-Missile,” destroyed its targets between 40 and 70 percent of the time.

In addition to its land-based deployments, the HQ-9 has been recently modified to complement China’s burgeoning naval forces. Over the past few months, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) hasoutfitted two Type 052C destroyers with naval variants of the HQ-9, estimated to have a range of 65 nautical miles. Each Type 052C destroyer (similar to the U.S. Aegis destroyer) has six vertical launchers carrying approximately 36 missiles, as well as a phased-array radar system.(15) Initial reports indicate that the naval HQ-9 has a range of 65 nautical miles. The Type 052C destroyers will most likely be based at either Guangzhou or Zhanjiang.(16)

In October 2003, it was announced that China had sold its FT-2000 anti-radiation system, which uses HQ-9 missiles, to Pakistan as part of the latter’s military buildup against India. Many U.S. defense analysts predict that, over the next few years, the HQ-9 and its variants will be aggressively exported throughout Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.


MissileThreat :: Hongqi-9 (HQ-9)
 

Articles

Top