Indian Ballistic Missile Defense System

[LETHALFORCE]

Why would they modify a Prithvi for an SRBM interceptor test? Its not like it is going to maneuver anywhere. Just fire it and test. The gyroscopes are bad or something. Whatever the problem, there are serious deficiencies in the quality control at India's BM production faclities.

The PAD system was tested at 75km and the test was going to be for 80km so what modifications could have been made is puzzling??

 

[Rage]

Mr.Rage you really seem to be highly enraged.
1. When you ask an organization to come up with a technology as critical as BMD whereas you provide only a few billion $$ for R&D that time you dont exonerate them rather BEG from them.

blade, you're damn right I'm "enraged".

"Beg" from the DRDO? You gotta be sh%ttin' me.

The Low Cost Ballistic Missile Defense Program That Works


Whenever you hear anyone talk about ballistic missile defense costing too much, not working, or a waste of money, they are not talking about the Navy. Leading into 2008 anyone who bashes the Navy about ballistic missile defense is woefully ignorant. Best part of all, ballistic missile defense is yet another way the Navy builds partnership with other nations. The latest success proves that statement.

Japan said Tuesday it had shot down a ballistic missile in space high above the Pacific Ocean as part of joint efforts with the United States to erect a shield against a possible North Korean attack.

Japan tested the US-developed Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) interceptor from a warship in waters off Hawaii, becoming the first US ally to intercept a target using the system.

Defence Minister Shigeru Ishiba described the successful test as "extremely significant."

"We will continue to strive to increase the system's credibility," he told reporters, insisting the missile shield was worth the high cost.

"We can't talk about how much money should be spent when human lives are at stake."

Japan plans to spend a total of 127 billion yen (11.2 billion dollars) over the four years to March 2008 on missile defence using the US-developed Aegis combat system, according to the defence ministry.​

I don't think that last part is accurate, rather Japan intends to spend 127 billion yen on ballistic missile defense, including Patriot systems and detection systems. If I'm wrong, I'd be surprised, because one of the things we are learning is AEGIS BMD is inexpensive compared to alternatives.

There are two agencies in government that need a major housecleaning with a new president, the Missile Defense Agency and the Dept. of Homeland Security. While people might want to jump in and claim other agencies, the difference is if you replaced every member of management in the two agencies above, you couldn't screw up. If you replaced everyone in the CIA or State Dept. in reality you'd have an even bigger mess than exists today.

One of the aspects of the Missile Defense Agency that really bothers me is the lack of funding priorities. They don't invest their money in what works, instead they invest their money in what doesn't work. I'm not convinced the MDA has its priorities straight when they chase pie in the sky missile defense and barely fund missile defense systems that actually already work. From insidedefense.

MDA is developing three boost- or ascent-phase systems: the Airborne Laser, the Kinetic Energy Interceptor and the Navy's Aegis ballistic missile defense system, which features the Standard Missile-3 Block IIA interceptor. All three are in various stages of development, with the Aegis system the furthest along.

The Bush administration has invested heavily in each system as part of its layered missile defense concept comprising weapon systems capable of intercepting ballistic missiles at any point in their flight. The ABL, which got its start in 1996 during the Clinton administration, could cost $5 billion from its inception to a currently scheduled 2009 target missile shoot-down attempt. If successful, the program would needs billions more for a second prototype aircraft and seven planned production systems for the Air Force.

The 2008 budget request MDA sent to Congress last February calls for spending more than $1 billion on the Aegis program between fiscal year 2008 and FY-13. That money would be spent on the entire program, not just the ascent-phase defensive system.​

The article goes on to highlight that when budget cuts hit the Missile Defense Agency, they decided to cut the KEI program and limit the scope to just the booster rocket. There may be a good reason for this, but I'm starting to wonder how the MDA justifies sinking billions into pie in the sky technologies like the ABL, but basically spends nothing on AEGIS BMD and applies budget cuts to the most promising future technology, the KEI. Priorities? Ya, it must start with the lobby, because results do not appear to be a factor, nor is there a return for cost evaluation over at the MDA.

Either way, AEGIS BMD has turned into a huge success story for ballistic missile defense and the Navy, but like most things successful programs it doesn't get the attention it deserves. Below is the you tube of the latest launch. Previous coverage of Ballistic Missile Defense here, including more detailed costing for those who want the annual details.

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2007/12/low-cost-ballistic-missile-defense.html

2. A ballistic missile is not suppose to have any onboard seeker or maneuvering ability. So when you are modifying a ballistic missile to artificially simulate some perticular trajectory with some sort of maneuvering

Ballistic missiles always use inertial guidance. Ballistic missiles are always powered during the initial, relatively brief, powered phase of flight, before subsequently making use of the laws of orbital mechanics and ballistics. To date, ballistic missiles have mostly been propelled during that initial stage of powered flight by chemical engines of various types. But increasingly, other types of inertial navigation, including stellar-guidance are being applied. You might want to read up on what Inertial Navigation actually is, before popping out those brain sharts:

Inertial Guidance - The Theoretical Basis For Inertial Navigation, Inertial Navigation And Flight

Inertial guidance is a navigation technology that monitors changes in location by measuring cumulative acceleration. In inertial guidance, the motion of the object in three-dimensional space is measured continuously. This enables a special computer to provide related real-time information about velocity (speed) and location.

An inertial-navigation system (INS) does not use information from an external reference once it has been placed in operation, in contrast to less-sophisticated navigation techniques. Gyrocompasses, older navigation aids that are dependent on the position of the stars or sun for guidance, are internally self sufficient, relying on precision gyroscopes for direction reference. However, gyrocompasses will drift with time as a result of slow, friction-induced gyrations and must be readjusted occasionally. Radiolocation navigation systems use precisely timed radio signals from distant transmitters or satellites. Radar mapping and optical terrain matching navigation require interaction with the earth's surface.

In contrast to these navigation tools, inertial navigation systems need only sense the inertial force that results from changing velocity. These forces are not dependent upon external references, but can be measured by accelerometers in a sealed, shielded container.

Inertial navigation was first applied for military uses—guiding deeply submerged submarines, ballistic missiles, and airplanes. Inertial navigation gave results that were more accurate than could be obtained with conventional navigation. An inertial-navigation system is effectively immune to deliberate interference, an obvious advantage in wartime.

In addition, inertial navigation functions as well near the earth's poles as it does at the equator. This feature is in marked contrast to the limitations imposed by a magnetic compass's unreliable performance in the Arctic or Antarctic regions of the earth. Magnetic compasses are also undependable in the earth's polar regions because of day-to-day variations in the earth's magnetic field strength and direction. Magnetic storms caused by solar disturbances that affect the earth are particularly troublesome near the magnetic poles.


http://science.jrank.org/pages/3582/Inertial-Guidance.html#ixzz0iHgNhq5d

Please also read the following, if you got the time: An Introduction to Inertial Guidance Concepts for Ballistic Missiles

it poses a completely new challenge . Ballistic science finally boils down to solving a set of differential equations which involves " inverse problems in dynamics ". When such onboard maneuvers are made available
to a ballistic missile which it is not made for the whole scenario changes and it hardly resembles to the original missile. So basics are absolutely alright and absolutely nothing is MESSED UP HERE.The equation of motion of a ballistic missile is more or less same as a falling stone but when you are trying to suppress or hike up the trajectory the equation of motion completely changes so are the engineering requirements. After modification PRITHVI -II becomes a missile comparable to shourya but with a reverse feature.

Ain't you the DRDO drumma buoy.

The Prithvi-II has a very capable inertial navigation/guidance system, and the missile tested in 2009 was equipped with 'added inertial' navigation systems. So don't give me that lame garbage about the simulated hostile "posing a completely new challenge". The 'added inertial' navigation systems make the Pruthvi-II capable of variable flightpaths to deceive enemy missile air defenses. This was set and done in 2004, and is being inducted into the Army right now. So don't give me that croc about the "technological challenges posed" and "Shourya-like differential equations". Because, if we could test the Shourya successfully, and have the Prithvi-II deemed ready for operation, there is no scope for failures of simulated hostiles now.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Rage many people share your sentiments, I am definetly puzzled how the Dhanush test in dec 2009 was succesfully that being a modified prithvi and how todays's test went wrong? But as with many things success comes from failure.

 

[Armand2REP]

Rage many people share your sentiments, I am definetly puzzled how the Dhanush test in dec 2009 was succesfully that being a modified prithvi and how todays's test went wrong? But as with many things success comes from failure.

I would speculate that the problem isn't in the launch mechanism, ie modifications, but the guidance. If the gyros aren't coming with a consistent quality, you will get inconsistent results.

 

[ajtr]

who said missile defence failed???The target prithvi missile was simulating as incoming pakistani missile that will veer off the target and thus to see the response of the interceptor missile. >>>>>>

 

[Sabir]

I think this picture is close to how Prithvy mimic an incoming Ballistic Missile-

A prithvy with a range of few hundre KMs mimic the final stage of trajectory of an incoming Ballistic Missile with a range say 2000KMs +. Mission Control System decides whether the trajectory of incoming missile is posing a thread and whether it needs to launch the interceptor.

During last test the Prithvy, while imitating trajectory of a longer range Ballistic missile went wayward enough to be considered a threat by the control system. So quite logically the interceptor was not launch. So there is no failure of the interceptor. Rather I should say it was a unintentional test for the mission control system and it passed by not launching the interceptor to chase a wayward enemy missile. Even in reality it can happen.

Yes, it is unfortunate that the target missile Prithvy could not imitate the trajectory of an longer range enemy missile properly but we do not need to run for head of DRDO. Because it is a critical job and problems do occur. No need to panic about efficiency of Prithvy.In last test it was supposed to follow a trajectory which was not its own.

And dont forget that it was the fourth test, while earlier tests were successful thus making India only third country after US and Russia (Israel got it from US) to intercept a ballistic missile successfully.

 

[Singh]

^^Israeli Arrow system uses US parts but the BMD is organic to Israel. Even China has tested ABMs recently. So we are in the exclusive group of 4 nations.

However, there is difference in terminal speed of Prithvi/Srbm and Agni/Irbm. How is that compensated ?

 

[lodaxstax]

I am speculating that a new type of ballistic missile was being tested with the test today, there is only one modified prithvi missile and that is Dhanush the naval version of prithvi, no mention of that.

Second that. i believe Prithvi system is way too evolved to feature such deviations. there's more to it than one reads in the papers.And DRDO has history of such solid fueled Prithvis being tested and suddenly we hear of Shaurya.

The interceptor, a hypersonic ballistic missile.

what are we talking about here?

 

[Sridhar]

Please correct me if i am wrong. PAD interceptor is also a modified Prithvi . If modifed Prithvi Target veers of Target how reliable the PAD is?

 

[gogbot]

Please correct me if i am wrong. PAD interceptor is also a modified Prithvi . If modifed Prithvi Target veers of Target how reliable the PAD is?

Different modifcations

 

[Sridhar]

Different modifcations

Intercepter modification should be more complex than a Ballistic Target modification.if a relatively simpler Ballistic Target is not working consistently how an Interceptor going to be ?

 

[badguy2000]

^^Israeli Arrow system uses US parts but the BMD is organic to Israel. Even China has tested ABMs recently. So we are in the exclusive group of 4 nations.

However, there is difference in terminal speed of Prithvi/Srbm and Agni/Irbm. How is that compensated ?

what China did recently is "exoatmosphere midcourse missle-intercepting test"
what India failed yesterday is "endoatmosphere terminal-course missle-intercepting test".

two are compeltely different.

"exoatmosphere midcourse missle-intercepting test" is much advanced and harder than "endoatmosphere terminal missle-intercepting test".

Until now, only G2, USA and CHina , has succeeded in "exoatmosphere midcourse missle-intercepting test" . Even Russia has no proven such capacity yet.


http://www.defenceforum.in/forum/showthread.php?7941-China-Tests-Midcourse-Missile-Interception

 

[Armand2REP]

"exoatmosphere midcourse missle-intercepting test" is much advanced and harder than "endoatmosphere terminal missle-intercepting test".

Until now, only G2, USA and CHina , has succeeded in "exoatmosphere midcourse missle-intercepting test" . Even Russia has no proven such capacity yet.

Wow, what conciet when none is deserved. China collided a ballistic missile with a preplanned ballistic missile that was months to years in the making. Any two bit country with a missile programme can do that. What countries with REAL ABM programmes do is actual test with actual conditions... not staged collisions.

 

[Sabir]

what China did recently is "exoatmosphere midcourse missle-intercepting test"
what India failed yesterday is "endoatmosphere terminal-course missle-intercepting test".

two are compeltely different.

"exoatmosphere midcourse missle-intercepting test" is much advanced and harder than "endoatmosphere terminal missle-intercepting test".

Until now, only G2, USA and CHina , has succeeded in "exoatmosphere midcourse missle-intercepting test" . Even Russia has no proven such capacity yet.


http://www.defenceforum.in/forum/showthread.php?7941-China-Tests-Midcourse-Missile-Interception

You need to update your information. Before China USA, Israel and Russia and India successfully tested the capability to 'exoatmosphere missile interception. Here many of us are confused about AAD and PAD.

Prithvi Air Defence (PAD) is an anti-ballistic missile developed to intercept incoming ballistic missiles outside atmosphere (Exoatmosphere). Based on the Prithvi missile, PAD is a two stage missile with a maximum interception altitude of 80 km.

PADE (Prithvi Air Defence Exercise) was conducted on November 2006 in which PAD Missile successfully intercepted a modified Prithvi-II Missile at an altitude of 50 km. The Prithvi-II Ballistic Missile was modified successfully to mimic the trajectory of M-11 missiles.

On March 6, 2009 DRDO carried out a second successful test of PAD interceptor missile. The target used was ship launched Dhanush missile which followed the trajectory of a missile with range of 1500 km. The target was tracked by swordfish (LRTR) Radar and destroyed by PAD missile at 75 km altitude.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/A_Giant_Leap_Forward_For_Indian_Missile_Defense_999.html

Advanced Air Defence (AAD) is an anti-ballistic missile designed to intercept incoming ballistic missiles in endoatmosphere at an altitude of 30 km. AAD is single stage, solid fuelled missile.


On 6 December 2007, AAD successfully intercepted a modified Prithvi-II missile acting as an incoming ballistic missile enemy target. The endo-atmospheric interception was carried out at an altitude of 15 km.

On 15th March 2010, AAD interceptor missile test from the Orissa coast on Monday failed to materialize as the target missile deviated from its path.

You can just check wiki and other sources mentioned there if are not tracking India's missile test notification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_Program#cite_note-4

 

[venkat]

My dumb question ! An enemy missile made to fly 2500km with nukes prematurely ends its journey at 1000km!!! what our BMD will do then?

 

[Sabir]

Intercepter modification should be more complex than a Ballistic Target modification.if a relatively simpler Ballistic Target is not working consistently how an Interceptor going to be ?

That is why it is said 'no missile defence system is fullproof'

 

[Sabir]

My dumb question ! An enemy missile made to fly 2500km with nukes prematurely ends its journey at 1000km!!! what our BMD will do then?

LOL...Mission control system generally doesnt ask the enemy what is the range of their missile. The trajectory of the enemy missile is tracked by the radar which tells where the missile will land...at a distance of 2000km or 1000km and interceptor is launched accordingly to prevent it from doing so.

 

[gogbot]

Intercepter modification should be more complex than a Ballistic Target modification.if a relatively simpler Ballistic Target is not working consistently how an Interceptor going to be ?

Murphy's law.

who knows what happened.

Why are you automatically assuming its the missiles fault.

May be the Missile path was incorrectly entered.

Maybe this particular missile had a slightly worn parts.

You have no reason to disprove me on any of those accounts.

Nor do you have a reason to believe at this point that the missile it self is at fault.


If you want a impluasible explanation.
Well the Prithvi was modified to simulate the final phase of a fully fledged Ballistic missile. as it enters the atmosphere

The flight path of the pritvi had to tinkered with to make that happened.
Altitude adjustments angle of decent, etc

Its not unreasonable to assume given that the tests were already delayed.
The tinkering was not as good as it should have been.

There is absolute no reason to speculate at this point, your don't even know what they meant when they said the Pritvi veered off course. which direction did it go, at what point of the flight path did this happen.

But since you were so eager for speculation there you go.



There's mp reaspn to speculate

 

[gogbot]

My dumb question ! An enemy missile made to fly 2500km with nukes prematurely ends its journey at 1000km!!! what our BMD will do then?

We track all our enemy missiles from the moment we detect them.



Central command and automated units, will determine the threat posed by the missile.
And formulate an intercept trajectory. Based on our tracking of the missile.

Then the goal of the missile is to take out the target long before it reaches India.

The interceptor is launched and its course is constantly updated. Based on the movements of the Enemy missile.

If the missile falls out of the sky on its won accord, before it is deemed a threat and the interceptor is launched.
Then good for us. Simple as that.

If the Missile falls out of the sky after its deemed a threat and the interceptor is launched.
It will still be outside our territory, our interceptor is designed to engage the enemy missile out side our territory.
If it crashed before interception, then the enemy missile is even further away from us then the interception point.
Our interceptor will most likely be either terminated. Or if applicable( i don't know) be re-targeted to intercept another missile on a similar flight path

 

[venkat]

We track all our enemy missiles from the moment we detect them.


h

which "moment we detect them"? As soon as it is launched? or as it gains altitude or as it enters space ? can the LRTR detect missile at low altitirudes and very high altitudes? it can only detect up to certain altitude and range, once the missile enters space @100km altitude above , we certainly need the help of satellite based sensors with a data link to LRTR!!!
very complex indeed!!! we need to detect endo as well as exo atmospheric missiles!!!A missile carrying a nuke , even if it falls in our territory at any range will definitely cause immense damage based on kiloton rating of the war head!!!