False claims on the BMD programme are detrimental to India’s security

[Laughing_soldier]

lol``u put words into others mouth, where the hell did i mentioned anythin that was DRDO bashing?
i stated very clear that the ABM test carried out in india earlier didnt hv any real combat value, thats all i was saying,

what do you mean by real combat value? how can be it achieved?

and that proved very well by the article abt DRDO boasts and tall claims``the exaggeration made by indian media was way beyond the value of the test`

i still did not get what type of tall claims it was. there was a test and it was successful. one can easily understand the main aim of the article is bashing DRDO and its chief.

videos of early tests also available. what more needs?

at some point DRDO put Indian alone with U.S and Rus in terms of ABM capability``which was also far from the acknowledgement of the nature of its lastest missile test conducted by india.

Force magazine has no value. you can see that from the posts. Force's tall claims about arjjun mk2 rejected by us here ,

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/102664-arjun-mk2-will-use-leclerc-merkava-components.html


the article says nothing against BMD except some bashing like DRDO 'boasts' , 'tall claims' blah blah

the heading tells false claim but what false claim, he do not knows! the aim was DRDO is bad really bad, how can they claim BMD was successful. can not they see pakistan boosting nuke arsenal! blah blah

 

[GORKHALI]

what it says about BMD? all its DRDO bashing.

be practical you did not read the article. there is nothing said in the article against BMD. the sole purpose was DRDO bashing. that also after successful mission.

buddy!!! why you wasting time ,when someone is so hellbent ???? Let them dream in their wet land

 

[tallboy123]

FORCE INDIA Magazine

 

[GORKHALI]

FORCE INDIA Magazine

what else you can expect from these bunch of guys ............

 

[rcrmj]

what do you mean by real combat value? how can be it achieved?
blah blah

the reason last years india missile text didnt have much real combat value. reasons:

1. the best BM re-entering defence method is to destroy it during the boosting phase. becuase latest BMs (china, us, russ etc``) have terminal phase manuverbility, not like indians 40 years backward Agni BMs which is easy to track and the enter phase is as liner as boosting stage.. it is even difficult for US to intercept maneuver warheads. so they focusing on boosting and mid stage interceptions, and relying on future laser weapons to deal with maneuverble terminal stage warheads!

and the termination phase interception technology isnt much different from long range air defence as demonstrated so many times during the gulf war (patriot shooting down scuds) and russians S-300 PMU tests.

so any coutry who is capable of long range air defence capability woundnt allocate significant time and resources to just develop this tech. hence the notion of the test is high questionable (mostly to satisfy their ego rather than real value)

2.mid phase interception is very different from re-entry stage whereas the warhead is in space, which means cannot be tracked by radar, so it requires a constellation of sats and other observation equipments to track the warhead in the space, there are no signs or even speculations about india is capable of developing these systems indigenously. if anything russia is a viable candidates to supply these equips to india, but again, the only sucessfull russian mid phase ABM test were carried out by an nuclear warhead which required no pinpoint accuracy which needed for 'direct-hit' warhead like US and china tested.

3.and also in real combat situation, the enemy BM launch platforms are not fixed, so will not be like that 'orchestrated' india missile test last year. if u cant track warhead in space that will leave u very limited time react to re-entry warheads. becuase during the test they know where was the missile coming from and so pointed all radars or sensors to that designated area so to reduce responding time dramatically.

4.the radar india used for the test was the isreali Green Pine derivatives Swordfish AESA, the maximun range of 600mk can only be achieved by concentrating the transmistion of the signal to very narrowed area (normally less than 10 degrees)! but in the real combat situation the radar has to scan vast area of possible BM incoming direction so the range detection will reduce dramatically sometimes up to 50%, so thats why major defence powers they rely on upgrading long range air-to-air missile to deal with endo-atmospheric interception, like HQ-9, S-300/400. Patriot, Standard (are all in service for decades)```etc

thats why the DRDO claim of India's BMD capability is in pair with U.S and Rus was tall talks and exaggeration!

 

[SR 71 Blackbird]

the reason last years india missile text didnt have much real combat value. reasons:

1. the best BM re-entering defence method is to destroy it during the boosting phase. becuase latest BMs (china, us, russ etc``) have terminal phase manuverbility, not like indians 40 years backward Agni BMs which is easy to track and the enter phase is as liner as boosting stage.. it is even difficult for US to intercept maneuver warheads. so they focusing on boosting and mid stage interceptions, and relying on future laser weapons to deal with maneuverble terminal stage warheads!

and the termination phase interception technology isnt much different from long range air defence as demonstrated so many times during the gulf war (patriot shooting down scuds) and russians S-300 PMU tests.

so any coutry who is capable of long range air defence capability woundnt allocate significant time and resources to just develop this tech. hence the notion of the test is high questionable (mostly to satisfy their ego rather than real value)

2.mid phase interception is very different from re-entry stage whereas the warhead is in space, which means cannot be tracked by radar, so it requires a constellation of sats and other observation equipments to track the warhead in the space, there are no signs or even speculations about india is capable of developing these systems indigenously. if anything russia is a viable candidates to supply these equips to india, but again, the only sucessfull russian mid phase ABM test were carried out by an nuclear warhead which required no pinpoint accuracy which needed for 'direct-hit' warhead like US and china tested.

3.and also in real combat situation, the enemy BM launch platforms are not fixed, so will not be like that 'orchestrated' india missile test last year. if u cant track warhead in space that will leave u very limited time react to re-entry warheads. becuase during the test they know where was the missile coming from and so pointed all radars or sensors to that designated area so to reduce responding time dramatically.

4.the radar india used for the test was the isreali Green Pine derivatives Swordfish AESA, the maximun range of 600mk can only be achieved by concentrating the transmistion of the signal to very narrowed area (normally less than 10 degrees)! but in the real combat situation the radar has to scan vast area of possible BM incoming direction so the range detection will reduce dramatically sometimes up to 50%, so thats why major defence powers they rely on upgrading long range air-to-air missile to deal with endo-atmospheric interception, like HQ-9, S-300/400. Patriot, Standard (are all in service for decades)

thats why the DRDO claim of India's BMD capability is in pair with U.S and Rus was tall talks and exaggeration!

Well until Phase 2 of IND BMD matures in 2014-2015,India can rely on it's S-300PMU2

 

[rcrmj]

Well until Phase 2 of IND BMD matures in 2014-2015,India can rely on it's S-300PMU2

lets wait and see whether india deserves the title``

 

[desimorty]

Well until Phase 2 of IND BMD matures in 2014-2015,India can rely on it's S-300PMU2

s-300 is in the the atmosphere.

thats why the DRDO claim of India's BMD capability is in pair with U.S and Rus was tall talks and exaggeration!

maybe so.
But it was a bigger surprise than the nuclear tests of 1998.

 

[ganimi kawa]

the reason last years india missile text didnt have much real combat value. reasons:

1. the best BM re-entering defence method is to destroy it during the boosting phase. .............

............and russians S-300 PMU tests.

so any coutry who is capable of long range air defence capability woundnt allocate significant time and resources to just develop this tech. hence the notion of the test is high questionable (mostly to satisfy their ego rather than real value)

2.mid phase interception is very different ........like US and china tested.

3.and also in real combat situation, .........................responding time dramatically.

4.the radar india ................ and exaggeration!

Nice of you to put your argument in a point wise manner.


Here is the reply in same fashion.

1.

the best BM re-entering defence method is to destroy it during the boosting phase.

Right! And apart from US nobody is even close to achieving it. So the point is void!

becuase latest BMs (china, us, russ etc``) have terminal phase manuverbility, not like indians 40 years backward Agni BMs which is easy to track and the enter phase is as liner as boosting stage..

Wrong! Check this out.....

"Agni-II, has appropriate on-board thrusters fitted on the second stage of the missile. These on-board thrusters are driven by liquid-fuel and provide small increments in the appropriate directions to shape the trajectory depending upon the target of the mission.

It is these thrusters that give the manoeuvrability during the missile’s re-entry phase. In effect this is a hot gas active velocity correction system."


"The re-entry vehicle uses its manoeuvring fins to porpoise the warhead, to avoid missile defenses while manoeuvring to its target, employing a terminal guidance radar operating in the C- and S-bands."

" For manoeuvrability and thrust control, the second stage has a flex nozzle which enables small changes in the thrust vector direction in flight. The flex nozzle can be exploited with the help of an on-board closed-loop guidance & control system."

Hope this suffices to increase your awareness about Indian missiles.

and the termination phase interception technology isnt much different from long range air defence as demonstrated so many times during the gulf war (patriot shooting down scuds) and russians S-300 PMU tests.

You cannot be any more wrong than this! Intercepting BMs is much more than just long range. It is about tracking, forecasting, faster response, more violent maneuvers, and a much faster target.

About the Patriot intercepting the skud.......

"In response to the testimonies and other evidence, the staff of the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security reported, "The Patriot missile system was not the spectacular success in the Persian Gulf War that the American public was led to believe. There is little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scud missiles launched by Iraq during the Gulf War, and there are some doubts about even these engagements."


So, the AAD and PAD with techs like P charge gimballed directional warhead and combined hit probability of 99.8% is just like patriot, isn't it?


Also, according to this

"Dr Saraswat said that the new seeker in the Interceptor enabled the missile to match the maneuvers of a hostile missile – like the zig zag movement of the Russian Topol missile."

so any coutry who is capable of long range air defence capability woundnt allocate significant time and resources to just develop this tech. hence the notion of the test is high questionable (mostly to satisfy their ego rather than real value)

Why did US develop PAC 3 after the GW1 experience with Patriot? Think about it, mate!


P.S. I'll answer the rest of your points in forthcoming posts.

 

[desimorty]

1. the best BM re-entering defence method is to destroy it during the boosting phase. becuase latest BMs (china, us, russ etc``) have terminal phase manuverbility, not like indians 40 years backward Agni BMs which is easy to track and the enter phase is as liner as boosting stage.. it is even difficult for US to intercept maneuver warheads. so they focusing on boosting and mid stage interceptions, and relying on future laser weapons to deal with maneuverble terminal stage warheads!

false, while the don't have MIRVs as of yet, those re-entry vehicles do have countermeasures.
And the agni is not 40yrs backwords. Do some research before you make bold claims.

and the termination phase interception technology isnt much different from long range air defence as demonstrated so many times during the gulf war (patriot shooting down scuds) and russians S-300 PMU tests.

so any coutry who is capable of long range air defence capability woundnt allocate significant time and resources to just develop this tech. hence the notion of the test is high questionable (mostly to satisfy their ego rather than real value)

Who's ego? Indias??
perhaps you should ask the question of your ASAT tests.
Wouldn't allocate large resources for tests? say how?
The s-300 and patriot can intercept terminal BMs to some degree,
the PAC 3 even more so. however the are limited to terminal phase. hence the problem.

whereas the warhead is in space, which means cannot be tracked by radar, so it requires a constellation of sats and other observation equipments to track the warhead in the space, there are no signs or even speculations about india is capable of developing these systems indigenously. if anything russia is a viable candidates to supply these equips to india, but again, the only sucessfull russian mid phase ABM test were carried out by an nuclear warhead which required no pinpoint accuracy which needed for 'direct-hit' warhead like US and china tested.

and so the chinese mid phase interception was what then? The PLA some how managed to track a missile in space from space?
no.
Ground based radars can track targets in space. That is proven. You don't need sats to monitor missiles in space...just on the ground.

and also in real combat situation, the enemy BM launch platforms are not fixed, so will not be like that 'orchestrated' india missile test last year. if u cant track warhead in space that will leave u very limited time react to re-entry warheads. becuase during the test they know where was the missile coming from and so pointed all radars or sensors to that designated area so to reduce responding time dramatically.

orchestrated. nice. shows little you know
the tests were carried out by a ground based radar that tracked and guided the ABM to its target. Everynation uses the same method and hasn't changed for decades!
Even those missiles are mobile on ground.
ABM umbrella. doesn't matter where the missiles were laucnhed from in midcourse interception.
mobility of BM is to prevent initial lose from first strikes and in the case of short range, to get close to the target.

4.the radar india used for the test was the isreali Green Pine derivatives Swordfish AESA, the maximun range of 600mk can only be achieved by concentrating the transmistion of the signal to very narrowed area (normally less than 10 degrees)! but in the real combat situation the radar has to scan vast area of possible BM incoming direction so the range detection will reduce dramatically sometimes up to 50%, so thats why major defence powers they rely on upgrading long range air-to-air missile to deal with endo-atmospheric interception, like HQ-9, S-300/400. Patriot, Standard (are all in service for decades)```etc

what you mention is exagerated.
Ground based radars will be able to scan space, tracking requires concentration of radar waves.
and you mean't upgrading SAMs not AAMs.
And these nations, do not relay on SAMs alone.
If what you mentioned was true.
Then THAAD would have been dead decades ago.

 

[ganimi kawa]

2.mid phase interception is very different from re-entry stage

Right!

whereas the warhead is in space, which means cannot be tracked by radar, so it requires a constellation of sats and other observation equipments to track the warhead in the space,

Wrong! A warhead in space can be tracked by radar. Just quoting one example...

European Midcourse Radar (EMR)

Provides ground-based midcourse defense radar with range to approximately 2,000 km

there are no signs or even speculations about india is capable of developing these systems indigenously.

Which systems? Satellites for detection and tracking of a BM or HTK tech? I'll post about the Indian progress about both of them.

 

[damiendehorn]

OK a silly question, while reading through this thread, i was just wondering what ways are there to detect and track a incoming warhead? If its only possible using powerful radars, is it possible to design a stealthier warhead or release lots of small metal cubes in different trajectories to confuse the BMD tracking system?

 

[damiendehorn]

nevermind found a answer after aquick search, here and here.

 

[desimorty]

Even the Chinese themselves can not disclose if they are ahead of Indias ABM systems. Rather they do know one thing. The PLA has more ground based tracking radars. Indians do not. That was the real test.