What's new

The First Indian attempt at ASAT failed in February 2019

amardeep mishra

FULL MEMBER
Mar 8, 2012
1,315
25
2,605
Country
India
Location
India
The 'no evidence' statement was for the exo-atmospheric maneuvering, not endo-. My bad, didn't read it carefully.

I agree that only exo-atmospheric maneuvering is possible using the current hardware in possession of both countries, and pre-calculated maneuvers will have to be executed to do so. That's precisely why I separated Shaheen-I/II/Ghauri/Ababeel from Shaheen-IA/III.
Hi!
There is an active research going on in the field of hypersonics in India at DRDL and a few folks that I know are working on the scramjet. Over here in India, design of Guidance and Control architecture for hypersonic vehicle is not as challenging as perhaps sustaining the combustion in the scramjet combustion chamber- current "demonstrated" capability is of the order of ~20seconds! This figure needs to go beyond at least 100 seconds for any meaningful long range weapon!
There is this very famous AIAA paper that deals with the design of adaptive sliding mode control for hypersonic vehicles.
"Adaptive Sliding Mode Control Design for a Hypersonic Flight Vehicle"
Read More: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/1.12596?journalCode=jgcd
It is not difficult to implement such a control strategy on the current generation hardware. There are other much easier control algorithms available, however this particular one has an online adaptation mechanism built into it and does not require perfect modelling dynamics. The only thing that will change is the Guidance scheme.

Finally coming back to the main point, even exo-atmospheric maneuvering requires pre-determined nudges to still come back to such a trajectory that will land the RV on top of the target. It should be possible to track the 'nudges' via a X-band tracking radar.
 
Last edited:

amardeep mishra

FULL MEMBER
Mar 8, 2012
1,315
25
2,605
Country
India
Location
India
Why do you think the K-4 is an overkill? If the objective is to build some for military use then whatever you see will be the production version.
K4 is actually not an overkill because of the simple reason that, K4 can potentially go upto 800-1000kms in very lofted trajectories - close to the apogee of all IRBMs and MRBMs. Hence it can facilitate interception of RV at or near itz apogee when the speed is the slowest. But for that, launch detection and tracking of Pakistani BMs is the key and I am pretty sure stuff like VC 11184 is precisely designed for that. There are reports of un named long range radar stations coming up. I'm pretty sure it is for launch detection and tracking. The whole sequence from launch detection till the interceptors are in air should be fully automated.
 

The Deterrent

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 7, 2011
3,174
39
6,377
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
It is as I said. Saraswat confirmed the nature of the test.

https://www.aninews.in/news/former-...-his-comments-on-a-sat-testing20190331211358/
"At that time, we had said that we are going to do two experiments, one with electronically simulated satellite trajectory and launching an interceptor against that to avoid debris in the environment. On the success of this, we had planned to do a test with the real satellite trajectory"; he had stated.

Anyway, I spoke to a friend of mine at ISRO. If a test fails, the bureaucratic hurdles alone take weeks to resolve cumulatively at every step of the process. Also, even in cases of minor failures, the entire rocket is checked. And something as significant as ASAT would definitely be delayed.

So the story about an electronically simulated test followed by the real test makes more sense. Also, it makes sense to end the missile's flight before it reached space in order to maintain secrecy, which gives you a 30-second flight. Which is what was likely done during the Feb test. The article has obviously given a spin on normal stuff.
The 2-step testing does make sense, its just that the time of the February test coincides with the EXACT time MicroSat-R was about to pass over Wheeler Island. If it was against an electronically simulated target, which can be generated ANY time, why was it conducted at the above mentioned time?

ISRO's flights involve expensive payloads with significant stake-holders. In this particular instance, the only stakeholder is DRDO itself.

About 'ending' the missile's flight, if you're testing to validate ALL parameters except real target, why would you not even deploy the seeker for it, which is the WHOLE point?

Please evaluate your justifications in all aspects before stating it.

Nope. As per reports, test preparations began in 2016.

DRDO claimed they had the system ready long before Modi, but the UPA did not go through with it. So Modi getting it done in his term, before the uncertainty of elections, is a huge service to the nation. If UPA came back, there was the risk of them backing out of the test again.

There is always political gain to testing strategic systems, but the political gain was obviously secondary. It's obvious the elections were not the objective, although Modi milking it is his prerogative. Blame UPA for not doing it first, which they could have done in early 2014. They could have gone nuclear in the 80s as well. If you haven't noticed, NDA gets sh!t done.
Are you seriously saying that it took more than TWO years to 'prepare' for this test, ALL components (except target satellite) for which were already available?

I don't care about who the credit should go to, I'm just making a point about the intention(s) of the test.

Why do you think the K-4 is an overkill? If the objective is to build some for military use then whatever you see will be the production version.
I said K-4's booster is an overkill for the BMD application. Its expensive, considering Indian would need hundreds of interceptors for Pakistan alone. Therefore a smaller motor (similar to that of Arrow-3) is needed. DRDO has yet to miniaturize the PDV seeker for practical and feasible production & subsequent deployment.

For ASAT demonstration purpose, K-4 did its job just fine.

DRDO has to increase the scope of their trials. But, AFAIK, they are simulating the same on the Prithvi alone. The current target missile has been specifically designed to be a target that's meant to simulate lower end MRBMs. The last test before Feb actually simulated the Agni I.

Shaheen III's simulation will be part of Phase 2, which is set to begin very, very soon, once the Machilipatnam facility goes online. Phase 2's expected to be a big one, going all the way to IRBMs. Getting the land allotted has been the primary reason for delay in Phase 2.
So far the BMD program is a research project. That's why despite the claims of deploying Phase-I by 2014, nothing happened on the ground. PAD was a TD, PDV improved upon it. Only AAD can be deployed, but for some reason it hasn't been.

Unless DRDO converts the Phase-I & Phase-II programs to producible and feasibly deployable systems, India will not get anything even close to a BMD. There is a reason why S-400 is being rushed in, because its a deployable system.

Finally coming back to the main point, even exo-atmospheric maneuvering requires pre-determined nudges to still come back to such a trajectory that will land the RV on top of the target. It should be possible to track the 'nudges' via a X-band tracking radar.
It should be possible to track it..not intercept it with a considerably high probability of success.

K4 is actually not an overkill because of the simple reason that, K4 can potentially go upto 800-1000kms in very lofted trajectories - close to the apogee of all IRBMs and MRBMs. Hence it can facilitate interception of RV at or near itz apogee when the speed is the slowest. But for that, launch detection and tracking of Pakistani BMs is the key and I am pretty sure stuff like VC 11184 is precisely designed for that. There are reports of un named long range radar stations coming up. I'm pretty sure it is for launch detection and tracking. The whole sequence from launch detection till the interceptors are in air should be fully automated
To clarify, its not an overkill for demonstration purposes, rather production and deployment.
 
Last edited:

God Parshuram

BANNED
Mar 28, 2019
703
-6
310
Country
India
Location
India
If such a high profile test fails and if a follow on test within 15 days can be conducted successfully, I give India 10 out of ten. No US, no Russia can do such wonder. China conducted a failed mars mission 8 years ago. They are unable to conduct even a failed or successful test in coming 8 years. Hates off to India.
 

The Deterrent

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 7, 2011
3,174
39
6,377
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
If such a high profile test fails and if a follow on test within 15 days can be conducted successfully, I give India 10 out of ten. No US, no Russia can do such wonder. China conducted a failed mars mission 8 years ago. They are unable to conduct even a failed or successful test in coming 8 years. Hates off to India.
Day 2 in class, some basic lessons for princess:
  • 12 February to 27 March = 6 weeks = 42 days
  • US, Russia, China have sent people to space and back.
  • US used SM-3 from an operational Naval vessel for ASAT (2008). It can ideally replicate that within minutes.
  • I hate to point it out, but "hates off" and "hats off" carry entirely different meanings. Unless your entire post was sarcastic.
 

amardeep mishra

FULL MEMBER
Mar 8, 2012
1,315
25
2,605
Country
India
Location
India
To clarify, its not an overkill for demonstration purposes, rather production and deployment.
Yes that I agree, producing 100s of K4 class booster, isn't really cheap. And would cost a lot. For continuous deployment a cheaper alternative need to be thought. Something more on the lines of A1 or A2. Also for interception, especially in exo atmospheric region, every nudge will result in a different trajectory altogether, the newer trajectories can be computed by the high precision tracking radar by integrating the kinematics forward in time with the velocity of RV at nudge providing the initial conditions. Itz just that radar would have to relay new coordinated to the interceptor well in advance so that interceptor can steer itself to this new point. The only bottlenecks are computing the new trajectory fast enough and relaying the same to the interceptor with as low latency as possible.

So far the BMD program is a research project. That's why despite the claims of deploying Phase-I by 2014, nothing happened on the ground. PAD was a TD, PDV improved upon it. Only AAD can be deployed, but for some reason it hasn't been.

Unless DRDO converts the Phase-I & Phase-II programs to producible and feasibly deployable systems, India will not get anything even close to a BMD. There is a reason why S-400 is being rushed in, because its a deployable system.
I agree, S400 is a fully deployable system where BMD isn't(at least for long range BMs).
BMD program has crossed the threshold of being a mere research project. I believe it crossed that threshold when they tested an IIR seeker and replaced PAD with PDV. It still needs to intercept a real A1 or A2 in order to validate its performance against Shaheen series of missiles (except Shaheen-3).
I believe PDV and AAD can both be deployed. PDV is a significant improvement over PAD in almost all the areas ranging from propulsion, composites, external control surfaces etc. However what is needed is something like PDV MK2 that was tested in the form of ASAT. Unfortunately that too is too expensive to produce in required numbers as it uses much more complex K4 as its baseline booster etc. Also I feel Indian bureaucracy isn't fast enough that they can rectify the fault in matter of just one month and make the BM fly - - unless and until the fault was really very minor. Also the trajectory of MICROSAT R is very suspicious.
 
Last edited:

God Parshuram

BANNED
Mar 28, 2019
703
-6
310
Country
India
Location
India
12 February to 27 March = 6 weeks = 42 days
All right. It was a mistake.

Now on the point. If our mission failed one and half month ago and we succeeded in 42 days, how do you rate it.

Don't bring that who sends people to space and back. It's not a big deal. Had had this on our priority list, we had done it a long ago. Address the main issue.

12 February to 27 March = 6 weeks = 42 days
All right. It was a mistake. 26 and 27th February was still in my mind.

Now on the point. If our mission failed one and half month ago and we succeeded in 42 days, how do you rate it.

Don't bring that who sends people to space and back. It's not a big deal. Had had this on our priority list, we had done it a long ago. Address the main issue.
 

randomradio

BANNED
Feb 14, 2016
6,990
-17
4,818
Country
India
Location
India
The 2-step testing does make sense, its just that the time of the February test coincides with the EXACT time MicroSat-R was about to pass over Wheeler Island. If it was against an electronically simulated target, which can be generated ANY time, why was it conducted at the above mentioned time?
I think performing a test with an electronically simulated target while the real target was around would give much more data. Kinda like a visible checkpoint in the sky that you can correlate with your simulated target.

ISRO's flights involve expensive payloads with significant stake-holders. In this particular instance, the only stakeholder is DRDO itself.
Apparently, it's all the same. Asked the same question about less sophisticated missiles compared to ISRO's rocket. Was told even an MBRL rocket has to go through the whole shebang after failure. The time it takes depends on the complexity of the missile itself.

About 'ending' the missile's flight, if you're testing to validate ALL parameters except real target, why would you not even deploy the seeker for it, which is the WHOLE point?
No point speculating the more nuanced aspects of the test. Perhaps the second stage was a dummy stage and simply fell back to the earth. Perhaps it was real and it did perform what it was supposed to do before falling back. We can't be sure of any of this.

Are you seriously saying that it took more than TWO years to 'prepare' for this test, ALL components (except target satellite) for which were already available?
They would have taken a minimum of 18 months, ISRO's standard satellite build time, to build the target satellite alone, not counting the design phase. Let's also not forget that the K-4 was also still undergoing tests as far back as 2017.

I don't care about who the credit should go to, I'm just making a point about the intention(s) of the test.
The intentions of the test is obviously more strategic and comes with international ramifications. The same with the nuclear tests under Vajpayee or the first test under Indira Gandhi. It's obvious India's global status becomes more important than the few brownie points Modi would earn at home. So you shouldn't begrudge Modi's ability to kill two birds with one stone.

As an Indian, I am more concerned with having done it than not having done at all. The problem with our establishment is, the UPA is too much of a sissy. Their so-called "mature" attitude is working against them now. What Modi is doing is what any normal country with great power aspirations would do, and should do. And any citizen of such a country would like to see a strong govt in power. So one should be more concerned with UPA's abnormal ineptness than NDA's normalcy. The problem comes when people are dumb enough to believe UPA is normal and NDA is extreme. It was the same systemic lethargy that led to us being singled out of the nuclear-haves in the NPT.

I said K-4's booster is an overkill for the BMD application. Its expensive, considering Indian would need hundreds of interceptors for Pakistan alone. Therefore a smaller motor (similar to that of Arrow-3) is needed. DRDO has yet to miniaturize the PDV seeker for practical and feasible production & subsequent deployment.

For ASAT demonstration purpose, K-4 did its job just fine.
Okay, I get what you mean now.

There is a plan to develop mid-course BMD for multiple altitudes. For example, a spinoff of the AD-2 will be able to perform mid-course interception for MRBM class targets at lower altitudes, as an AEGIS SM-3 equivalent. So you will see different classes of BMD developed for different types of targets.

Also it appears you are overestimating the cost of the missiles way too much. Last year, the govt approved the production of 30 PSLVs for less than $30M per rocket.
http://www.spacetechasia.com/india-approves-us1-574-billion-funding-for-30-pslv-10-gslv-flights/

So the K4-ASAT is going to be a whole lot cheaper than the PSLV. It's not like we will need more than a few dozen to deal with the higher end MRBMs of Pakistan. While the lower end will be dealt with by whatever comes out of Phase 2. Even if we assume $15M a pop, $1.5B is a cheap price to pay for 100 missiles with a much higher shot at stopping nukes than terminal BMD.

Also it's more prudent to stick with what's already been tested rather than go for something new and untested, if only in order to save a million bucks or two a pop for doing the same thing.

So far the BMD program is a research project. That's why despite the claims of deploying Phase-I by 2014, nothing happened on the ground. PAD was a TD, PDV improved upon it. Only AAD can be deployed, but for some reason it hasn't been.
The BMD sites are still being built. It's not merely a mobile SAM unit. These are some massive facilities.

Unless DRDO converts the Phase-I & Phase-II programs to producible and feasibly deployable systems, India will not get anything even close to a BMD. There is a reason why S-400 is being rushed in, because its a deployable system.
The BMD is far too big a program to be compared to the S-400. It in no way conflicts with the BMD program. S-400's primary mandate is air defence. It merely has the added bonus of being able to protect itself from BMs. Also, since the BMD does not have air defence as part of its mandate, a system like the S-400 is necessary to protect it, hence it has a complementary effect.
 

randomradio

BANNED
Feb 14, 2016
6,990
-17
4,818
Country
India
Location
India
Yes that I agree, producing 100s of K4 class booster, isn't really cheap.
Why?

Unfortunately that too is too expensive to produce in required numbers as it uses much more complex K4 as its baseline booster etc.
Why?

The first stage of any missile is peanuts compared to the actual cost of the entire missile.

And we plan to produce and deploy hundreds of PDV, if not thousands. So the second stage is going to see economies of scale.

What number do you think is considered expensive? And what is this "expensive" missile protecting, if we are to justify costs.

Would you say $100M per missile is expensive and that Delhi and Mumbai can be paid in exchange for saving a few $100M missiles? Or would you say the ASAT would cost us $10M instead, which is only a little over twice that of Brahmos, which we plan to operate in the thousands.
 

The Deterrent

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 7, 2011
3,174
39
6,377
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
I think performing a test with an electronically simulated target while the real target was around would give much more data. Kinda like a visible checkpoint in the sky that you can correlate with your simulated target.
Oh God. :tsk:
Sure, whatever you say.


They would have taken a minimum of 18 months, ISRO's standard satellite build time, to build the target satellite alone, not counting the design phase. Let's also not forget that the K-4 was also still undergoing tests as far back as 2017.
Standard satellite build time for a TARGET satellite must be significantly less.


There is a plan to develop mid-course BMD for multiple altitudes. For example, a spinoff of the AD-2 will be able to perform mid-course interception for MRBM class targets at lower altitudes, as an AEGIS SM-3 equivalent. So you will see different classes of BMD developed for different types of targets.

Also it appears you are overestimating the cost of the missiles way too much. Last year, the govt approved the production of 30 PSLVs for less than $30M per rocket.
http://www.spacetechasia.com/india-approves-us1-574-billion-funding-for-30-pslv-10-gslv-flights/

So the K4-ASAT is going to be a whole lot cheaper than the PSLV. It's not like we will need more than a few dozen to deal with the higher end MRBMs of Pakistan. While the lower end will be dealt with by whatever comes out of Phase 2. Even if we assume $15M a pop, $1.5B is a cheap price to pay for 100 missiles with a much higher shot at stopping nukes than terminal BMD.

Also it's more prudent to stick with what's already been tested rather than go for something new and untested, if only in order to save a million bucks or two a pop for doing the same thing.
Ah, optimism, you nasty drug...why don't you ever work on me?


The BMD is far too big a program to be compared to the S-400. It in no way conflicts with the BMD program. S-400's primary mandate is air defence. It merely has the added bonus of being able to protect itself from BMs. Also, since the BMD does not have air defence as part of its mandate, a system like the S-400 is necessary to protect it, hence it has a complementary effect.
Alright :enjoy:
 
Feb 24, 2019
335
-22
164
Country
India
Location
India
SO the Indian govt didnt notify the muricans thus the test can be considered s failure? hilarious even by pakistani standards. The gullible pakistanis need to watch this, amecian general thompson admitting in front of their senator that the missile destroyed the satellite that released 270 pieces of debris as tracked by the american systems

 

The Deterrent

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 7, 2011
3,174
39
6,377
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
SO the Indian govt didnt notify the muricans thus the test can be considered s failure? hilarious even by pakistani standards. The gullible pakistanis need to watch this, amecian general thompson admitting in front of their senator that the missile destroyed the satellite that released 270 pieces of debris as tracked by the american systems

Read slowly.

The First Indian attempt at ASAT failed in February 2019

 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom