BMD tested successfully

[MULUBJA]

Any BMD capability is a good achievement looking at the technical difficulties.
But should Pakistan worry? Not yet.
May be the system is dangerous for our SRBM such as Abdali and Ghaznavi , but not for anything else.


But Re-entry speed is proportional to Launch speed

Those missile can be intercepted by LR SAM and nothing beyond that is required. AAD, PAD and PDV is good for anyting frired withing 2500 KM.

 

[Safriz]

Those missile can be intercepted by LR SAM and nothing beyond that is required. AAD, PAD and PDV is good for anyting frired withing 2500 KM.

No you have no ideas what you are talking about. Read the thread.

 

[MULUBJA]

Slowly but surely, India is piecing together what seems to be a 2-tier missile defense network, but a 3-tier system may not be far away.

The PDV (which I will assume will eventually replace the PAD) seems to be a very close comparator to the THAAD, able to intercept satellites and warheads up to 150 km in altitude (I suspect the actual apogee is higher, but the official figure will do for now). The implications being, of course, that India would have a shield against MRBMs and IRBMs for terminal interception, but most importantly it would be able to intercept SRBMs and TBMs at their midcourse stage, allowing for very high probability of intercept (keep in mind that SRBMs and TBMs rarely have decoys). Satellites, especially those in very low LEO, would fall prey to the PDV as well. For now, until the advent of high-altitude ICBM-specific interceptors (which I will outline below), the PDV will form the first layer of defense for India's BMD network.

The AAD (Ashwin) seems to be an endoatmospheric interceptor, straddling between the S-400 and PDV in terms of ABM capability. I expect that it would eventually complement the S-400 to deal with SRBMs, TBMs, and occasionally IRBMs (i.e. anything that manages to bypass the PDV). This is more or less comparable to the PAC-3 ERINT/MSE but without a KKV.

India has not overtly embarked on a project to develop very-high-altitude midcourse interceptors (i.e. ones similar to the US GBI or the Chinese SC-19 & DN-1/2/3), but I believe existing technologies brought about by its space program would allow it to do so. To intercept ICBMs at their midcourse stage, an ABM must reach altitudes of 1000-2000 km (before the RV separates from their bus). Two rocket boosters are candidates for such a missile: Satellite Launch Vehicle (SLV) and Augmented Satellite Launch Vehicle (ASLV). Their respective masses (17 & 41 tons, respectively) are roughly comparable to the US GBI and the Chinese SC/DN series. Their launch history also demonstrates their ability to place 40-50 kg satellites (roughly the same weight as a kinetic kill vehicle) into high altitudes (800-1000 km). The final piece of the puzzle is the seeker to distinguish the RV & missile from other objects in space; this should not be a problem since the PDV has already demonstrated this.

On a final note, India needs to develop a high-altitude midcourse interceptor similar to the US GBI if it wants a decent chance of intercepting MIRVed ICBMs & IRBMs. On a positive note, almost all of its major subcomponents are in place for DRDO to develop them (granted, with Israeli radars, of course).

SLV and ASLV are very old rockets and now we have moved to very high thrust low weight composite technology. So altitude and range is absolutely no problem for us. Our main constrain was seeker and defining algorithm. We seem to have overcome both now. Our AD1 and AD2 test of THAAD category are not too far.

 

[Akasa]

SLV and ASLV are very old rockets and now we have moved to very high thrust low weight composite technology. So altitude and range is absolutely no problem for us. Our main constrain was seeker and defining algorithm. We seem to have overcome both now. Our AD1 and AD2 test of THAAD category are not too far.

Yes, like I said, ASLV + SLV are merely potential options, off which newer solid motors could be based. The seeker and software could be adapted from the PDV program; the real challenge lies in the sensors (both ground- and space-based) and the integration thereof with the other components of the system.

 

[MULUBJA]

Yes, like I said, ASLV + SLV are merely potential options, off which newer solid motors could be based. The seeker and software could be adapted from the PDV program; the real challenge lies in the sensors (both ground- and space-based) and the integration thereof with the other components of the system.

That shall simply be an extention of what we have already done.

 

[Nilgiri]

22226 km/h was stated by SPD official at latest IDEAS defence exhibition in Karachi.
Read a bit more about radars. Every radar has limitations be it mechanical or solid state.
Main limiting factor are wavelength, transmission power and sweep speed.
A radar making 100 sweeps per minute will track faster objects than another making 50 sweeps a minute.
Solid state radars have much higher sweep rates but have a limit and that decides upto what speed moving object a radar can track.....in addition to algorithm and computation limits.
Detection is a different thing. For example I could detect a low flying plane or helicopter on my naval radar but the algorithm or the sweep speed of antenna wasn't designed to track such fast moving object. So the helicopter would just appear as a dotted line on my screen.

Hmm maybe its a lower range trajectory (with higher apogee). Approaching 7 km/s re-entry is the threshold for materials given the heating experienced. Max re-entry velocity is thus dependent on what level of material technology you got.


As for sweep limitation, I worked with radar technology so I know the limitations for electronic sweep of large solid state radars (they are magnitudes higher than the SAR radars I worked with given the power they dissipate).

When they have been optimised for tracking multiple dozens of bogies at 3km/s (like greenpine), they dont suddenly lose all capability at say double that velocity....its just a multiple of 2 for velocity after all, and signal loss and thus tracking capability (holding everything the same) deteriorates significantly proportionally less than proportional increase in speed of object (resolution cell) given the high bandwidth of such BM radars. Any loss is thus more than made up by processing power and algorithms optimised for each speed range of incoming bogie....which are pretty standard in any radar these days. The limits would thus lie at significant multiples of the highly optimised pick up speed, in this case velocities where anything would simply burn up in an instant at re-entry.

The L-Band resolution/sweep rate of Greenpine is already very high to begin with (given antenna size, frequency and available processing power and radar beam power) given it is a BM radar in the first place...I don't see an issue at all.

 

[amardeep mishra]

Main limiting factor are wavelength, transmission power and sweep speed.
A radar making 100 sweeps per minute will track faster objects than another making 50 sweeps a minute.

The main limiting factor here is PRF(pulse repetation frequency). And modern AESA radars including those designed by India(LRDE Bangalore) can complete one scan in azimuth and elevation in micro seconds or 1 million scans in one second(however this figure is lesser due to processing constraints)--but still it is much much more than conventional radars. To track fast moving targets like RV we'd need very high PRF. And to have very good range resolution we'd need higher frequency too, but the problem here is higher frequency suffers from higher degree of attenuation and hence to by pass that you'd need to operate at much higher power rating

 

[Safriz]

The main limiting factor here is PRF(pulse repetation frequency). And modern AESA radars including those designed by India(LRDE Bangalore) can complete one scan in azimuth and elevation in micro seconds or 1 million scans in one second(however this figure is lesser due to processing constraints)--but still it is much much more than conventional radars. To track fast moving targets like RV we'd need very high PRF. And to have very good range resolution we'd need higher frequency too, but the problem here is higher frequency suffers from higher degree of attenuation and hence to by pass that you'd need to operate at much higher power rating

So there are limits to speed of target a radar can track?

 

[Safriz]

The main limiting factor here is PRF(pulse repetation frequency). And modern AESA radars including those designed by India(LRDE Bangalore) can complete one scan in azimuth and elevation in micro seconds or 1 million scans in one second(however this figure is lesser due to processing constraints)--but still it is much much more than conventional radars. To track fast moving targets like RV we'd need very high PRF. And to have very good range resolution we'd need higher frequency too, but the problem here is higher frequency suffers from higher degree of attenuation and hence to by pass that you'd need to operate at much higher power rating

Although it's another thing that manufacturers brochure only says tactical ballistic missiles. No mention of SRBM or IRBM
http://www.iai.co.il/Sip_Storage//FILES/1/41551.pdf

 

[amardeep mishra]

So there are limits to speed of target a radar can track?

Hi shaheen!
I am not into radars anymore but let me give it a shot!Well, Yes of course there are limits to the max speed of the target tracked. But it is more to do with processing constraints and UN-ambigous range. Remember a low PRF is needed to cover a large range but a high PRF is needed to find velocities of high speed targets. Normally a doppler processor can process velocities upto +/-0.5PRF of the radar.
One can use various ambiguity resolving algorithms like PRF jittering to better strike a balance between range requirement and velocity detection. But these come at a cost of processing. At the end you'd only be able to track a target with certain velocity limits and max unambiguous range!

Reentry speed of Shaheen-3 is 22226 km h, as stated at IDEAS exhibition by SPD official. Shaheen-3 has apogee of 692 Km as per the NOTAM issued before test.

I highly doubt this figure as it doesnt conform well with the projectile model of the RV. The velocity of american RVs just before re-entry is close to 20M. I dont think any IRBM of either shaheen-2,3 or ababeel or even Agni-1,2 would be able to generate such higher re-entry velocities.

And yes greenpine is a very capable radar. Believe it or not,Israelis are just behind US in AESA tech--they have in fact surpassed Europeans in many aspects of radar engineering!

 

[The Deterrent]

When a poster does not understand that Indian BMD capability is in all three points of a flight aka Boost, mid-course and terminal, why are you wasting time?

Hold your horses there. Both AAD and PDV are for terminal interceptions only. The lateral range of these systems (or any ABM) is too low to be practically feasible in boost-phase defense (since MRBMs have shorter boost phase durations in comparison to ICBMs) and the apogees of Pakistan's strategic nuclear weapons (G/S1/S1A/S2/S3/A1) are much much higher than PDV's maximum engagement altitude (150km).

However of course India has the technology to develop mid-course interceptors (which still don't counter MIRVs). As I said earlier, among all the BMD technologies, the most practically feasible counter against Pakistani ballistic missiles in the Indo/Pak region is airborne lasers (which still is too costly). A simpler solution could involve mounting an AAD-derived AAM on patrolling Su-30s. Others are simply not effective in intercepting a massive authorized launch.

 

[proud_indian]

A simpler solution could involve mounting an AAD-derived AAM on patrolling Su-30s. Others are simply not effective in intercepting a massive authorized launch.

Is there any AAM available having this capability? Just asking!

 

[The Deterrent]

Is there any AAM available having this capability? Just asking!

I don't know about any specific example (probably none were developed because it is too impractical for US/Russia/China scenarios), however DRDO pitched an idea a couple years ago:

For it to work effectively,

1. Detection
2. Tracking
3. Relaying data to airborne asset
4. Launch
5. Interceptor's flight duration

...combined should take less time than the boost phase of the target. It is theoretically feasible, but given the very short boost phase durations of Pakistani missiles & the requirement to have an airborne asset in the vicinity of launch area, it is quite ineffective and impractical.

 

[Srinivas]

Hold your horses there. Both AAD and PDV are for terminal interceptions only. The lateral range of these systems (or any ABM) is too low to be practically feasible in boost-phase defense (since MRBMs have shorter boost phase durations in comparison to ICBMs) and the apogees of Pakistan's strategic nuclear weapons (G/S1/S1A/S2/S3/A1) are much much higher than PDV's maximum engagement altitude (150km).

However of course India has the technology to develop mid-course interceptors (which still don't counter MIRVs). As I said earlier, among all the BMD technologies, the most practically feasible counter against Pakistani ballistic missiles in the Indo/Pak region is airborne lasers (which still is too costly). A simpler solution could involve mounting an AAD-derived AAM on patrolling Su-30s. Others are simply not effective in intercepting a massive authorized launch.

India can track the missile immediately after launch and can intercept. Pakistan is right next to India and is within the range of Green pine radars.

India no need to go for exo atmospheric interceptors vis-a-vis pakistan. Exo atmospheric and mid course interceptions are for chinese missiles.

The moment Pakistan develops nuclear triad that is when India needs exo atmosperic interceptors. As of now India can track the launches from pakistani territory and can immediately launch counter measures, also can track the missile with pin point accuracy.

The missile is very vulnerable during its boost phase and at that time it cannot deploy its MIRVs.

 

[The Deterrent]

India can track the missile immediately after launch and can intercept. Pakistan is right next to India and is within the range of Green pine radars.

India no need to go for exo atmospheric interceptors vis-a-vis pakistan. Exo atmospheric and mid course interceptions are for chinese missiles.

The moment Pakistan develops nuclear triad that is when India needs exo atmosperic interceptors. As of now India can track the launches from pakistani territory and can immediately launch counter measures, also can track the missile with pin point accuracy.

The missile is very vulnerable during its boost phase and at that time it cannot deploy its MIRVs.

Um, are you sure you have enough knowledge to have a technical debate on this matter?

LRTR/Green Pine may be able track the entire bird species in Pakistani airspace, but that is not what matters. The interceptor needs to be placed at a very uncomfortably close distance to the target to achieve any of what you claimed above.

This is how the real world works, its not a G.I.Joe movie.