Indian Ballistic Missile Defense System

[Prashant12]

Maiden night trial of Ballistic Missile Defence a success

After the target missile was fired in an automated operation, the radar-based system detected and tracked the ballistic missile.

BHUBANESWAR:India on Sunday scripted history by successfully conducting first night trial of its indigenously developed Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) system in salvo mode from a defence facility off Odisha coast.Defence sources said the hot standby interceptor missile capable of destroying enemy weapon system at high altitude of above 100 km was flight tested at about 8.05 pm against a target missile fired from a warship anchored in Bay of Bengal.

The made-in-India anti-ballistic missile, dubbed as Prithvi Defence Vehicle (PDV), blasted off from the launching complex-IV of Abdul Kalam Island a few minutes after the target, a modified version of Prithvi ballistic missile, took off from the warship.“It is a significant milestone achieved in the direction of developing a two-layered BMD system. Both target and interceptor were successfully flight tested. The data generated during the trial is being analysed,” said a defence official.

After the target missile was fired in an automated operation, the radar-based system detected and tracked the ballistic missile. The computer network with the help of data received from radars predicted the trajectory of the incoming ballistic missile and provided requisite command to fire the interceptor missile. Both the PDV interceptor and the two-stage target missile equipped with motors have been specially developed for the BMD mission. The target has been developed for mimicking a hostile ballistic missile approaching from more than 2000 km away.

The test of the next generation state-of-the-art interceptor missile, developed by DRDO, was aimed at engaging the target in the exo-atmosphere region. All events were monitored in real-time by telemetry and range stations at various locations.The DRDO has been focusing on high altitude interceptor missile because of its advantage. If an incoming missile is intercepted at a high altitude, the debris would not fall on the ground and there would be no collateral damage, the official informed.

It was the third test of PDV. While the interceptor missile was first tested on April 27 2014, the second trial was conducted on February 11 last year.With the anti-ballistic missile system, India has entered an exclusive club of four nations which have a robust BMD system. The other three countries are US, Russia and Israel.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/sta...listic-missile-defence-a-success-1876351.html

 

[Kshatriya87]

India successfully conducts interceptor missile test at night

India achieved a major milestone in developing a two-layer Ballistic Missile Defence system.

Representational image

India successfully conducted an interceptor missile test off the Odisha coast Sunday night, achieving a major milestone in developing a two-layer Ballistic Missile Defence system, defence sources said.

The interceptor was launched from Abdul Kalam Island, earlier known as Wheeler Island of the Integrated Test Range (ITR), at about 8.05 pm, the sources said.

This Prithvi Defence Vehicle (PDV) mission is for engaging the targets in the exo-atmosphere region at an altitude above 50 km of the earth's atmosphere, a Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) scientist said.

"Both the PDV interceptor and the target missile were successfully engaged," DRDO sources said.

In an automated operation, radar-based detection and tracking system detected and tracked the enemy's ballistic missile.

The computer network with the help of data received from radars predicted the trajectory of the incoming ballistic missile. The PDV that was kept fully ready took off once the computer system gave the command for lift-off.

The interceptor guided by high-accuracy Inertial Navigation System (INS) supported by a Redundant Micro Navigation System moved towards the estimated point of the interception, the sources said.

Once the missile crossed the atmosphere, the Heat Shield ejected and the IR Seeker dome opened to look at the target location as designated by the mission computer.

With the help of Inertial Guidance and IR Seeker the missile moved for interception.

All events were monitored in real-time by the Telemetry/Range Stations, at various other locations. Interceptor was successfully test fired last from the same base on February 11, 2017.

 

[sayareakd]

There are several things to note here:

• PDV uses IIR seeker whereas AAD uses RF seeker
• Incoming target missile simulated range is not known. Exo-atmosphere interception is really difficult as the incoming warhead will be very fast and will not slow down as it happens in endo-atmosphere due to friction with air. So, even 1500km MRBM will be too fats to intercept. This missile may be a SRBM target
• Night testing of IIR seeker is easier than day testing. When looking up, the sun may come in the way at times and shield the incoming missile. So, night test helps in avoiding sun

It appears that PDV is not very successful as AAD is. Exo-atmospheric intercept requires hypersonic missiles with high degree of control and side-way thrusters. I am skeptical about PDV in general

PDV is natural progression of PAD, which was more of tech demo, then actual operational BMD missile, because of big fins, one TEL per missile etc. Plus we are hitting far and with improved accuracy. Regarding thermal sensor on PDV, in space outside the atmosphere, which is black, enemy RV is visible clearly. Plus IIR seeker will come out in Exo-atmosphere, till such time it will guided by land based radar.

Now we are moving to discrimination of target, which is much complicated stuff.

This IIR sensor which is on PDV, they should keep more advance version and put those in satellites. Network centric it into already existed system for missile interceptor to reach midcourse before it reaches its target. Once if the screen shot from Youtube vido of missile defence agency officer explaining it.

Since we dont have much video or discussion here.
Here is the video


We are also doing some things on shoe string budget.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

PDV is natural progression of PAD, which was more of tech demo, then actual operational BMD missile, because of big fins, one TEL per missile etc. Plus we are hitting far and with improved accuracy. Regarding thermal sensor on PDV, in space outside the atmosphere, which is black, enemy RV is visible clearly. Plus IIR seeker will come out in Exo-atmosphere, till such time it will guided by land based radar.

Now we are moving to discrimination of target, which is much complicated stuff.

This IIR sensor which is on PDV, they should keep more advance version and put those in satellites. Network centric it into already existed system for missile interceptor to reach midcourse before it reaches its target. Once if the screen shot from Youtube vido of missile defence agency officer explaining it.

View attachment 28220

Since we dont have much video or discussion here.
Here is the video


We are also doing some things on shoe string budget.

PDV is definitely better than liquid fuel PAD.

I am not sure how enemy RV will be visible if the sun is directly behind it while seeing in IIR seeker. IIR seeker seeks heat and sun will appear extremely hot ball of fire which will block the view.

Discrimination of target becomes easier once it enters atmosphere at 80-90km mesopause. After that, the decoys acceleration will be changed. But this is applicable only for AAD which intercepts at 10-15km altitude.

Getting satellite based IIR detectors are not easy. It will need lot of satellite as polar satellites rotate earth at shifting longitudes. Also, accuracy of satellite guidance and detection of incoming warhead is questionable. So, discrimination is quite difficult.

I am only saying that PDV or any exo-atmospheric interceptor BMD must be considered as unreliable and only AAD or endo-atmospheric interceptors be considered reliable interceptor.

Let me give an example of MRBM intercept to explain:

A 1500km missile, for example, will reach speeds of 4km/s at mesopause (80-90km). At 80km, Mesosphere begins and the warhead speed starts to slow and becomes 3-3.3 km/s at stratopause (60-50km). By 50km, stratosphere begins and the speed declines rapidly due to denser air and warhead speed reduces to 2-2.2 km/s at stratopause (20-15km). At 15km, we have troposphere where air becomes densest and warhead slows even faster to hit the ground at 1.2km/s speed

AAD intercepts in the altitude of about 10-15km (theoretical limit is 30km but practical is 10-15km) by which time, lot of energy would ave been dissipated by air friction and 1500km missile warhead is at about 1.5-2 km/s speed.

In case of PDV, the intercept is above stratosphere where the speeds of MRBM is 3km/s and hence is very difficult. The point I am making is that even in this point defence area, AAD is accurate and PDV is just in infancy. The physics of chemicals and atmosphere does not allow the easy intercept of missiles in exo-atmosphere due to extreme speeds of missiles.

 

[Enquirer]

PDV is definitely better than liquid fuel PAD.

I am not sure how enemy RV will be visible if the sun is directly behind it while seeing in IIR seeker. IIR seeker seeks heat and sun will appear extremely hot ball of fire which will block the view.

Discrimination of target becomes easier once it enters atmosphere at 80-90km mesopause. After that, the decoys acceleration will be changed. But this is applicable only for AAD which intercepts at 10-15km altitude.

Getting satellite based IIR detectors are not easy. It will need lot of satellite as polar satellites rotate earth at shifting longitudes. Also, accuracy of satellite guidance and detection of incoming warhead is questionable. So, discrimination is quite difficult.

I am only saying that PDV or any exo-atmospheric interceptor BMD must be considered as unreliable and only AAD or endo-atmospheric interceptors be considered reliable interceptor.

Let me give an example of MRBM intercept to explain:

A 1500km missile, for example, will reach speeds of 4km/s at mesopause (80-90km). At 80km, Mesosphere begins and the warhead speed starts to slow and becomes 3-3.3 km/s at stratopause (60-50km). By 50km, stratosphere begins and the speed declines rapidly due to denser air and warhead speed reduces to 2-2.2 km/s at stratopause (20-15km). At 15km, we have troposphere where air becomes densest and warhead slows even faster to hit the ground at 1.2km/s speed

AAD intercepts in the altitude of about 10-15km (theoretical limit is 30km but practical is 10-15km) by which time, lot of energy would ave been dissipated by air friction and 1500km missile warhead is at about 1.5-2 km/s speed.

In case of PDV, the intercept is above stratosphere where the speeds of MRBM is 3km/s and hence is very difficult. The point I am making is that even in this point defence area, AAD is accurate and PDV is just in infancy. The physics of chemicals and atmosphere does not allow the easy intercept of missiles in exo-atmosphere due to extreme speeds of missiles.

Buddy, you never cease to make far reaching and assertive postulations based on incomplete/inaccurate information.

For the untrained eye all HEAT is the same! But the heat emanating from the sun, the missile body & the missile exhaust are all DIFFERENT - because the IR frequencies depend on the actual temperature of the emitting body (not how much heat the observer feels). Sun's IR waves are much shorter than the missile's (because Sun's surface temperature is 1000s of times hotter!)

Missile seekers are 'band-limited' to detect LWIR; and the presence of sun in the background is not a big deal!!

Also, it's completely bogus that endo-atmospheric interception is more reliable!! (what happens to your own theory of 'sun in the background' when missile enters atmosphere??).
Endo atmospheric reaction time is so short, and the risk of radiation fallout on the target area itself is so high that exo-atmospheric interception is far more reliable!

Also, it's better to splinter the missile outside the atmosphere so that its remnants burn out on re-entry than have the missile survive re-entry and then splinter them!!

 

[Arihant Roy]

What is the result of Sundays PDV intercept test?

Did the PDV score a direct hit on the incoming ship launched Prithvi missile which was following a 2000 km+ missile trajectory ?
Besides the PTI report and New Indian Express report which says that both the interceptor and target missile were engaged successfully, we know nothing more about the outcome of the test.

There hasnt been tweet by RM congratulating Drdo and the Armed forces on the successful intercept.

No updates from Livefist and Mr Hemant Kumar Rout.

 

[Enquirer]

What is the result of Sundays PDV intercept test?

Did the PDV score a direct hit on the incoming ship launched Prithvi missile which was following a 2000 km+ missile trajectory ?
Besides the PTI report and New Indian Express report which says that both the interceptor and target missile were engaged successfully, we know nothing more about the outcome of the test.

There hasnt been tweet by RM congratulating Drdo and the Armed forces on the successful intercept.

No updates from Livefist and Mr Hemant Kumar Rout.

Not sure about the exact outcome, but the fact that they conducted this at night means that their previous tests had given them significant amount of assurance on its capability.

Night time tests are pretty much a 'end user mode' testing - not merely technology validation anymore.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Not sure about the exact outcome, but the fact that they conducted this at night means that their previous tests had given them significant amount of assurance on its capability.

Night time tests are pretty much a 'end user mode' testing - not merely technology validation anymore.

What is difficulty for a radar and IIR seeker to work in night vs day? The difficulty is for human eyes only, not for radars or IIR

Endo atmospheric reaction time is so short, and the risk of radiation fallout on the target area itself is so high that exo-atmospheric interception is far more reliable!

Missiles that have been splintered may fall on the surface but will not explode. The items will just be some plutonium and uranium, none of which are dangerously radioactive unless they undergo fission or one ingests it.

Also, it's completely bogus that endo-atmospheric interception is more reliable!! (what happens to your own theory of 'sun in the background' when missile enters atmosphere??).

AAD uses RF seeker, not IIR. So, sun does not matter here. Also, AAD can detect decoy from real warhead due to acceleration difference in the atmospheric drag region after it enters 80km altitude into mesosphere.

I am only syaing that the kill probability is much higher for AAD than PDV and hence AAD is more reliable

 

[Enquirer]

What is difficulty for a radar and IIR seeker to work in night vs day? The difficulty is for human eyes only, not for radars or IIR

As I mentioned earlier it's not the technical efficacy that's tested at night, but operational!!
They need to make sure that the deployment checklist that's obvious during the day time can also happen at night!
Tejas was flown in at night probably after about 1000 day time sorties!

Missiles that have been splintered may fall on the surface but will not explode. The items will just be some plutonium and uranium, none of which are dangerously radioactive unless they undergo fission or one ingests it.

Plutonium devices are harder to detonate but Uranium bombs can get accidentally detonated - as the detonation is nothing but a small Uranium blob (at one end) shot into a bigger Uranium blob at the other end (homework for you: What type of nuclear device does Pakistan have?)!!!
Any electronics that incinerates on reentry is a more desirable destruction than otherwise.

AAD uses RF seeker, not IIR. So, sun does not matter here. Also, AAD can detect decoy from real warhead due to acceleration difference in the atmospheric drag region after it enters 80km altitude into mesosphere.

I've read that AAD has an IIR seeker. I've only read your posts touting AAD as bearing an RF seeker!

I am only syaing that the kill probability is much higher for AAD than PDV and hence AAD is more reliable

That's just your imagination.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

I've read that AAD has an IIR seeker. I've only read your posts touting AAD as bearing an RF seeker!

Here is news article to say that AAD has RF seeker:

http://www.delhidefencereview.com/2...heric-interceptors-against-multiple-incoming/

India’s Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) successfully executed an intercept test mission earlier today at 1130 hrs from Abdul Kalam Island off the Odisha coast. This test involved the use of the DRDO developed AAD endo-atmospheric interceptor against multiple simulated incoming targets which mimicked the trajectory of a medium range ballistic missile (MRBM) launched from 1500 km away. The AAD configuration for this test was similar to what would be offered for production and deployment.

The Test

Today’s intercept mission involved the selection of one of the multiple incoming targets on a ‘real-time’ basis for interception by an AAD test-vehicle and this was executed successfully by the launched interceptor as confirmed by electro-optical tracking, radar and telemetry.

AAD is a single-stage missile powered by solid propellants delivering high specific impulse values. The missile has a length of 7.32 metres, diameter of 420 mm and a weight of 1275 kg. Its guidance package has a fibre optic gyroscope (FOG) at the heart of an INS which receives updates from ground based radars such as the Long Range Tracking Radar (LRTR) and the Multi-function Fire Control Radar (MFCR). Both of these radars were initially developed by DRDO’s Electronics and Radar Development Establishment (LRDE), Bengaluru with foreign collaboration. For the end-game, AAD uses a RF seeker with considerable tracking range. AAD can intercept targets at altitudes between 15 to 25 km. In the course of flight, AAD achieves high supersonic speeds and the efficacy of its thermal protection systems as well that of its actuation system has been demonstrated repeatedly.

The version of the LRTR used in today’s AAD mission is an L-band array that can track a ballistic target with a radar cross section (RCS) of 0.1 sqm from over 1500 km away. MFCR, which is a S-band array has a tracking range of over 370 km for a target with a RCS of 0.3 sqm. Both radars are capable of variable track rates.

The ground based launch control elements for AAD are the same as that for PDV.

The Mobile Launcher

Today’s test was conducted from a mobile launcher that can house a total of 6 AAD interceptors in canisterized configuration (see the video below). The launcher has been built by Tata Power SED and can also be used to launch the Prahar short range surface to surface missile which has air frame commonality with AAD. Overall, today’s AAD was tested in what is essentially going to be its deployed system configuration. (Although, only one canister was loaded onto the launcher frame for today’s test.)

 

[Enquirer]

Here is news article to say that AAD has RF seeker:

http://www.delhidefencereview.com/2...heric-interceptors-against-multiple-incoming/

Initially both AAD & PAD used RF seekers (DRDO's newsletter from 2012 confirms that)
Then when PAD changed to PDV the seeker was changed to IIR (reported by Saurav Jha himself).
Then some folks continued reporting AAD as continuing to have an RF seeker; while several others started reporting that AAD has IIR seeker.
Haven't seen DRDO's official confirmation on seeker type in the latest version of AAD - might need to do more digging!

 

[Pret]

Sun used to matter when IR homing seekers were used. IIR is totally different, the seeker can be programmed to look for certain signature or frequency band. In 60-70s infrared homing seekers would lock on the hottest thing around (sun, clouds, ground), that doesn't happen anymore. In space, nothing gives better discrimination than IIR.
IIR sensors SBIRS can detect asteroids 100 million kilometers away.

In BMD interception, the higher you go the better the chances of interception. Gravitational acceleration is far-far-far more powerful than air friction. AND, there is another limitation, Our existing radars can't track RVs clocking faster than Mach 12. AAD is a last-ditch measure.

Why would a high supersonic missile (mach 4.5+) use an IIR seeker? It would go blind by the heat and imagine the drag due to "not-so-aerodynamic" nose.

 

[Arihant Roy]

Sun used to matter when IR homing seekers were used. IIR is totally different, the seeker can be programmed to look for certain signature or frequency band. In 60-70s infrared homing seekers would lock on the hottest thing around (sun, clouds, ground), that doesn't happen anymore. In space, nothing gives better discrimination than IIR.
IIR sensors SBIRS can detect asteroids 100 million kilometers away.

In BMD interception, the higher you go the better the chances of interception. Gravitational acceleration is far-far-far more powerful than air friction. AND, there is another limitation, Our existing radars can't track RVs clocking faster than Mach 12. AAD is a last-ditch measure.

Why would a high supersonic missile (mach 4.5+) use an IIR seeker? It would go blind by the heat and imagine the drag due to "not-so-aerodynamic" nose.

Our existing radars can detect, track and discriminate between incoming RV and decoys at much higher than M 12.

Amd PDV is a high end supersonic missile. It used to be. Maybe now they use better composite motors and different propellants to give it hypersonic speeds.

There is a heat shield protecting the IIR seeker. Once it crosses a certain altitude the heat shield is ejected and the seeker is revealed.This way the seeker is protected against the effects of high temp.

Even the Thaad uses this system of heat shield and Thaad missile is a hypersonic missile. There are materials that can withstand such high heat levels and still retain adequate optical properties.


I assume this time they tested a more sensitive higher resolution 640*512 FPA seeker on the PDV.


Although there isn't any info about the outcome of the test, rest assured it was a failure. Had it been so there would have been articles from different journos speaking about the failure to intercept the target missile.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

In BMD interception, the higher you go the better the chances of interception. Gravitational acceleration is far-far-far more powerful than air friction. AND, there is another limitation, Our existing radars can't track RVs clocking faster than Mach 12. AAD is a last-ditch measure.

Gravitation gives acceleration of about 9.8m/s^2 which means every second, the speed is increased by 10m/s roughly. The speed of warhead is 13Mach for 1500-2000km MRBM and that translates to 4km/s speed. Even if the gravity acts on for 100 seconds, the speed would only increase by 25% or 1km/s. But the amount of air it travels through in just 25 seconds from 90km altitude to 10-15km altitude will reduce the speed drastically. The increase of 250m/s is fully compensated by drag of air and eventually comes to as low as 1.5-1.6km/s (5Mach) at 10km altitude from original 4km/s (13Mach) speed despite the gravity. The impact speed is 1.1-1.2km/s (3mach)

About interception in exo-atmosphere, there are several disadvantages:

• interceptor missile can't maneuver aerodynamically due to lack of air and have to use thrusters which is less accurate
• warhead speed is too high
• Hard to discriminate between decoy and warhead. In endo-atmosphere, the decoy and warhead decelerates differently due to different mass density and hence can be detected by RF seekers

Indian radar can track warheads above 4km/s speed. The RVs are generally big items with RCS of 0.5m^2 and not small ball like items.There are no RAM coating to reduce RCS as these RVs have to withstand high temperatures and coatings don't work out. So, there is no problem in tracking these warheads by radars. For example, below is the picture of a nuclear bomb without re-entry vehicle of W80 bomb, one of the latest ones. With RV, the size will increase significantly.

 

[Enquirer]

About interception in exo-atmosphere, there are several disadvantages: interceptor missile can't maneuver aerodynamically due to lack of air and have to use thrusters which is less accurate

Eh? Where do you come up with these 'inferences'? Side-thrusters are more accurate than fins!
Also, even AAD uses thrust vectoring of its rocket nozzle for maneuvering!!

warhead speed is too high

That high speed is used to the advantage of the Kinetic-kill-vehicle of the interceptor!! The interceptor missile doesn't need a heavy explosive to completely destroy the incoming missile!!!

Hard to discriminate between decoy and warhead. In endo-atmosphere, the decoy and warhead decelerates differently due to different mass density and hence can be detected by RF seekers

That's the first valid point you made!


Overall you're missing the WHOLE POINT of the terminal interception!!! It's NEVER an either-or option between exo-atmospheric and endo-atmospheric interceptors! It's always BOTH!!!
One needs to take as many shots at the incoming missile as possible!!
Is there any BMD that has only one type and not another? THAAD,S-400 or AAD/PDV??

 

[Pret]

Reentry speed of RV depends on the type of heat shield it has. You have a less sophisticated heatshield, you go for blunt-nose RV which will slow down the missile enough to protect the warhead inside. On the other hand, if you have a good shield you make low drag RV- as a result, RV is faster and more accurate.
The level of reduction is directly related to the quality of heat shield.
1. Thrust vectoring control is faster than aerodynamic control
2. Reaction time available is greater and this reaction time translate into greater kill probability because it gives computers enough time to calculate optimum interception point.
3. Most MaRV usually maneuver at lower altitudes, kill it before it enters the glide phase, after that, good luck trying to intercept it.
Existing version of Swordfish can track RVs up to 4 km/s and the MFCR ( used for AAD) is limited to 3.5 km/s ( info available in public domain, look it up). Super-Swordfish might be able to track faster targets. ( http://mark20x.blogspot.com/2018/06/why-do-we-need-super-swordfish-radar.html)

No, that's not a reentry vehicle, that's what goes inside an RV.

PS. Terminal interceptor isn't a replacement of high altitude one, they complement each other

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Reentry speed of RV depends on the type of heat shield it has. You have a less sophisticated heatshield, you go for blunt-nose RV which will slow down the missile enough to protect the warhead inside. On the other hand, if you have a good shield you make low drag RV- as a result, RV is faster and more accurate.
The level of reduction is directly related to the quality of heat shield.
1. Thrust vectoring control is faster than aerodynamic control
2. Reaction time available is greater and this reaction time translate into greater kill probability because it gives computers enough time to calculate optimum interception point.
3. Most MaRV usually maneuver at lower altitudes, kill it before it enters the glide phase, after that, good luck trying to intercept it.
Existing version of Swordfish can track RVs up to 4 km/s and the MFCR ( used for AAD) is limited to 3.5 km/s ( info available in public domain, look it up). Super-Swordfish might be able to track faster targets. ( http://mark20x.blogspot.com/2018/06/why-do-we-need-super-swordfish-radar.html)

No, that's not a reentry vehicle, that's what goes inside an RV.

PS. Terminal interceptor isn't a replacement of high altitude one, they complement each other

I never claimed that the warhead in the piicture as a RV. The RV is bigger tahn the warhead. I only gave a scale to show that RVis not a small target to track.

About drag of RV, it can't be reduced beyond a limit. I am not speaking of blunt shaped RV. The simple rule is that the more drag RV faces, more difficult it is to avoid mid-air burnout. So, all RVs are expected to be as aerodynamic as possible to reduce drag. If heat shield is poor quality, you just make it multi layer or thicker, not blunt nose.

The radar sees entire base of the cone, not just the tip. What is the maximum obstructing area of radar waves, that will be visible, not just the tip! So, radar does see RCS of 0.5m^2 even in front of it.

Swordfish radar has been upgraded to become better in detection and can now detect much more than 4km/s. This was already in the news long time back. You can call it super-swordfish or anything else. But it is already there and hence no problem in tracking 4+ km/s speed

That high speed is used to the advantage of the Kinetic-kill-vehicle of the interceptor!! The interceptor missile doesn't need a heavy explosive to completely destroy the incoming missile!!!

The high speed also makes reaction time lesser. It is easier to track the missile as it comes down the atmosphere and hence detect the exact location where it will be to as precise as 0.00005 second

 

[sayareakd]

.

In BMD interception, the higher you go the better the chances of interception. Gravitational acceleration is far-far-far more powerful than air friction. AND, there is another limitation, Our existing radars can't track RVs clocking faster than Mach 12. AAD is a last-ditch measure.

Why would a high supersonic missile (mach 4.5+) use an IIR seeker? It would go blind by the heat and imagine the drag due to "not-so-aerodynamic" nose.

Just for record A5 is about 15 to 24 Mach in speed and we were able to track it.

Rest agree with you.

 

[Pret]

Blunt nose pushes heat away from the RV body, thicker heat shield? don't be thick.
Size has little do with RCS, it's the shape, we are talking about a round-conical object, a very small amount of RF energy would be reflected toward the radar. Why would seeker see the base? it's not coming from behind the RV.
RVs aren't as large as you think.
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.

Only IIR seekers can provide reliable terminal guidance and they are no good inside the atmosphere.

Apples and oranges
Those are single target tracking/Range instrumentation radars that operate in C-X band and missile itself carries telemetry module. ISRO use MOTR to track launch vehicles and it can track 10 targets only, not suitable for BMD.
Here in BMD, we are using a combination of L/S band radars. Phase-1' is capable of intercepting the missile launched from 2000km tops. This top limit is due to tracking limitation. To intercept IRBM class BMs DRDO is developing completely new radars and interceptors.

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.

 

[shiphone]

1. obviously PAC-3/3MSE are the typical 'endoatmospheric interceptor' against Tactical ballistic missle, it also can handle the CM and aircrafts.

2. 9M96 is a typical medium range SAM without anti TBM request

3. PAC-2, S-300/400's missils(5V55,48N6,40N6 serial, not S-300V/VM missiles),HQ-9 are those as you claimed 'primary role is interception of airbreathing targets, ABM secondary'...

4. Isreal has the endoatmospheric interceptor- Stunner missile of David's Sling system ,a joint project with USA, which is integrated to Patriot system as the cheap replacement of PAC-3 as PAAC-4.

5. and China has the same project of PAC-3 equivalent which the first test happend months ago.