Indian Ballistic Missile Defense System

[AnantS]

No it is not same. Your PDV is positioned at point X. enemy missile is targeting point Y 100 KM away. You need to travel a lot more and interception angle will also change. In case of BMD protecting ship, Scenario shall be much less complicated.

You forget Ships are constantly moving. And Ship based BMD could be used to provide cover to coastal cities also. Recent example being Syria. I dont see much difference. I would rather say ship based launch system would be bit more complicated because it has to handle all the rock and roll motions as well.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

You forget Ships are constantly moving. And Ship based BMD could be used to provide cover to coastal cities also. Recent example being Syria. I dont see much difference. I would rather say ship based launch system would be bit more complicated because it has to handle all the rock and roll motions as well.

You are right. I am just talking about protection of ship against missile. If the role extends, obviously it will become more complicated.

 

[Scrutator]

Seems like there's much confusion on the missile interceptions:

Ballistic missiles travel in a parabolic trajectory. In there mid course the missile is several hundreds (maybe even about a thousand) kms away from the earth's surface.

Essentially a ballistic missile can be intercepted at the Terminal, Mid-Course or at Boost phase! Irrespective of where the interception missiles are launched from.

Terminal phase interception requires shorter range and shorter altitude (100-200 kms) missiles. These are normally placed close to the cities/assets that you want to protect.

Mid-course interception requires long range, high altitude missiles (1000+ kms). These can be land based or ship based.

Boost phase interception is extremely difficult!! Even though there are attempts to use lasers etc. Right now PDV/AAD is Terminal phase interception missile!

Mounting a Terminal phase interception missile on a ship is not very fruitful - at best it'll protect the ship or the city where the ship is anchored!

 

[PD_Solo]

DF - 21 D .

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

 

[sayareakd]

Ĺ

Precisely since DF 21 has range of +- 1500. PDV makes sense. Barak 8 vs PDV? I think PDV has range advantage over Barak 8: 150 vs (70-90 km). Scenarios could be many: SCS or even our own backyard - Indian ocean

Barak 8 has flight ceiling of 16 kms against 150 of PDV.

 

[Chinmoy]

I think you're getting confused between the apogee of the Prithvi missile that was made to ''BEHAVE' like a 2000 kms range ballistic missile and the ACTUAL apogee of a 2000 km range ballistic missile. For test purposes Prithvi missile reaches it's highest point (about 100kms) and then it's trajectory is changed and made to descend in the way (angle and speed) that a real 2000 km ballistic missile would descend.

You keep saying again and again that THAAD does mid-course interception. THAAD stands for "Terminal High Altitude Area Defense" - don't need any more explanation on that.

There're other programs for mid-course interception missiles (but not part of THAAD) - they're really big missiles. I don't know of any that have been deployed!!!

Lets have a quick snippet of THAAD. It has an operational altitude of 150 km and range of 200 km. Now it is as same as PDV in some respect although its seeker is much more active then what PDV is carrying. Now it is said to be a potent system against IRBM, but do you think China would be crying foul due to this fact? Let alone China, why is Russia objecting to its deployment? Russia is also objecting the BMD deployment in Europe. Why you think this is so?

Ask any expert or developer who has worked on or is working on any BMD. They would in uniform voice would say that engaging a Missile in terminal phase is the worst case scenario. If we divide BMD shield effectiveness in good bad and worse, it would be something like this:
Best: Destroy the launching platform even before it launches the missile
Very Good: Destroy the Missile immediately after launch in its boost or mid course flight stage.
Good: Engage the missile in its free flight stage.
Bad: Engage the missile in its reentry phase
Worse: Engage it in its terminal phase.

This engaging the missile just after launch in its boost phase could also be achieved by S-400 with its 400 or 300 km range and hypersonic speed. Remember that flight altitude of S-400 is also 40 km just like AAD. That's the very reason why it is much advertised like having BMD capability.

 

[Chinmoy]

is PAD different from PDV ? Wiki says PDV was developed after PAD with better systems .

In simple words, PAD is the whole system whereas PDV is the modified Prithvi missile for exoatmospheric interception. Other being AAD.

 

[Chinmoy]

what is difference b/w BMD and S400?

BMD is all about Anti Ballistic Missile whereas S-400 is SAM which means it could intercept highly maneuvering targets like CM and planes.

 

[Chinmoy]

What happens when there is a live nuclear warhead in the RV?

Direct hit doesn't make the nuclear warhead go bang. It would infact melt it. But any proximity blast could trigger the nuclear warhead. So direct hit is the best option when Nuclear RV is concerned and thats the very reason why India tested for Hit to Kill instead of proximity blast.

 

[Scrutator]

Lets have a quick snippet of THAAD. It has an operational altitude of 150 km and range of 200 km. Now it is as same as PDV in some respect although its seeker is much more active then what PDV is carrying. Now it is said to be a potent system against IRBM, but do you think China would be crying foul due to this fact? Let alone China, why is Russia objecting to its deployment? Russia is also objecting the BMD deployment in Europe. Why you think this is so?

Ask any expert or developer who has worked on or is working on any BMD. They would in uniform voice would say that engaging a Missile in terminal phase is the worst case scenario. If we divide BMD shield effectiveness in good bad and worse, it would be something like this:
Best: Destroy the launching platform even before it launches the missile
Very Good: Destroy the Missile immediately after launch in its boost or mid course flight stage.
Good: Engage the missile in its free flight stage.
Bad: Engage the missile in its reentry phase
Worse: Engage it in its terminal phase.

This engaging the missile just after launch in its boost phase could also be achieved by S-400 with its 400 or 300 km range and hypersonic speed. Remember that flight altitude of S-400 is also 40 km just like AAD. That's the very reason why it is much advertised like having BMD capability.

You're again mixing several disparate things and arriving at weird conclusions!!

I agree with what you're saying about what the best APPROACH should be; but your assumption that whatever one has already DOES that best thing is weird!!! Just because mid-course interception is good doesn't mean that THAAD and PDV will automatically do that! Both those systems are designed for TERMINAL interception (which still includes multiple layers - endo and exo atmospheric).

Regarding your issue with China and Russia clamoring about THAAD deployment. There's concept called BALANCE OF POWER. When a party can cause damage to the other while also being vulnerable to counter attack, then there's a BALANCE and EQUILIBRIUM (also delved in Game theory); and there's peace. If one party can inflict damage to the other but can protect itself against a counter attack then the other party becomes very nervous because they're completely vulnerable to attack (presumably at any time)! And hence the clamor!!! The same is happening with Pakistan. Every time India tests its missile defense system, Pakistan yells that the BALANCE is lost!!! Pakistan thinks that all its missiles are useless and India will destroy Pakistan with no fear of counter attack!!!! It's weird but Mutually ASSURED destruction is peaceful when both parties are crazy!!

Also, how would S-400 with its range of 400 kms attack a ballistic missile launched 2000 kms away in its boost phase??

There're other mid-course interception systems (Aegis, GMD),...there're pretty expensive!!!!

 

[Scrutator]

is PAD different from PDV ? Wiki says PDV was developed after PAD with better systems .

Yes, PDV is the new version of PAD. PAD is obsolete now.

 

[Scrutator]

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

Even if the chinese anti-ship missile comes in the form of a ballistic missile, it is highly unlikely that it is nulcear armed.

It was way back in the 60s, that anti-ship missiles and anti-submarine torpedos had a nuclear warhead. In today's world no major country (with the possible exception of the brain dead Pakistan) has nuclear warhead on tactical missiles.

 

[sayareakd]

In simple words, PAD is the whole system whereas PDV is the modified Prithvi missile for exoatmospheric interception. Other being AAD.

Its other way around...................................

PDV is almost mid next generation...................

 

[sayareakd]

Yes, PDV is the new version of PAD. PAD is obsolete now.

Not obsolete, its big wings make it difficult to containerised and put more that one per TEL.

 

[Scrutator]

Not obsolete, its big wings make it difficult to containerised and put more that one per TEL.

I didn't mean it as an insult to PAD
By obsolete I meant that it would not be pursued, it won't be deployed. PDV has replaced PAD.

 

[sayareakd]

I didn't mean it as an insult to PAD
By obsolete I meant that it would not be pursued, it won't be deployed. PDV has replaced PAD.

If you look at its upgreaded seeker it great. So we need to continue investing in it, specially high speed interceptor ans spacebased capabilities.

I still fail to understand why ISRO has not put real time space base satellite with IIR sensor.

With all that we know we can put such satellites in GEO and LEO orbits.

We need real time tracking and fast assessment to target location, which is not that difficult. Also all human free system with over lapping sensor fusion and management, as time gap is few minutes.

 

[sayareakd]

A birdy just told me that PDV test for 15th is postponed.............

 

[Chinmoy]

You're again mixing several disparate things and arriving at weird conclusions!!

I agree with what you're saying about what the best APPROACH should be; but your assumption that whatever one has already DOES that best thing is weird!!! Just because mid-course interception is good doesn't mean that THAAD and PDV will automatically do that! Both those systems are designed for TERMINAL interception (which still includes multiple layers - endo and exo atmospheric).

Regarding your issue with China and Russia clamoring about THAAD deployment. There's concept called BALANCE OF POWER. When a party can cause damage to the other while also being vulnerable to counter attack, then there's a BALANCE and EQUILIBRIUM (also delved in Game theory); and there's peace. If one party can inflict damage to the other but can protect itself against a counter attack then the other party becomes very nervous because they're completely vulnerable to attack (presumably at any time)! And hence the clamor!!! The same is happening with Pakistan. Every time India tests its missile defense system, Pakistan yells that the BALANCE is lost!!! Pakistan thinks that all its missiles are useless and India will destroy Pakistan with no fear of counter attack!!!! It's weird but Mutually ASSURED destruction is peaceful when both parties are crazy!!

Also, how would S-400 with its range of 400 kms attack a ballistic missile launched 2000 kms away in its boost phase??

There're other mid-course interception systems (Aegis, GMD),...there're pretty expensive!!!!

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.

 

[AnantS]

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

they have tested against an abandoned ship target too if we are to believe chini bots. But I assume it will be armed with nuke. So it need not land precisely at the target. Chini idea is not unique. Soviets toyed with same idea too.

 

[AnantS]

Ĺ

Barak 8 has flight ceiling of 16 kms against 150 of PDV.

Well all the more case for PDV's deployment on . I think I confused range with ceiling height.