India counters Chinese anti-missile test

[gambit]

If there is no need to distinguish between ICBM interceptors vs THAAD IRBM interceptors, then the US must be the biggest fool to deploy an mid course ICBM interceptor if it already has THAAD.

The truth is that ICBM terminal speed is too fast for terminal phase interceptor. Its only theorize that THAAD "might" catch an ICBM while its transitioning from mid course to terminal phase. But for a more reliable hit, a mid course interceptor is needed.

I never heard of an Indian brag about a mid course interceptor. I only heard Indians in here brag about coming up with THAAD. So therefore, India clearly has no mid course interceptor

read this article

Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence Systems

before doing talk more about ABMs

If all I do is hover and position myself in front of a descending warhead as it travels at double-digit Mach, I will intercept the warhead. There is no 'catch' here. The question is how good are my avionics to make it possible. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) does not 'catch' but actually intercept. THAAD is being improved to where each interceptor can go exo-atmospheric where debris will be largely destroyed upon contact with the atmosphere. Exo-atmospheric sometimes does not mean you are out of your territory so descending debris can still do some damages.

So having a dedicated mid-course defense method is complementary to an exo-atmospheric capable terminal defense method. In the graphics above, what is labeled as 'Midcourse' actually contain sub-phases called 'Ascent' then 'Midcourse'. The 'ascent' phase is before the bus assembly reach apogee, the highest altitude point of the ballistic trajectory. But for convenience sake, the entire exo-atmospheric travel path is labeled 'midcourse'.

Now...Is it possible to actually come from behind the bus assembly and destroy it, in other words, to 'catch' instead of 'intercept'? Yes. For this we may want to look at what is called the 'co-orbital' method of approaching an object...

Anti-satellite weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The IS system was "co-orbital", approaching its target over time and then exploding a shrapnel warhead close enough to kill it. The missile was launched when a target satellite's ground track rises above the launch site. Once the satellite is detected, the missile is launched into orbit close to the targeted satellite. It takes 90 to 200 minutes (or one to two orbits) for the missile interceptor to get close enough to its target. The missile is guided by an onboard radar. The interceptor, which weighs 1400 kg, may be effective up to one kilometer from a target.

Granted...The above excerpt is for anti-satellite. But the principle is the same, which is to achieve the same orbit as the target, approach it close enough where the target will be damaged or even destroyed by an explosion. So while in principle it is possible to 'catch' the bus assembly while it is very briefly a satellite, it is not practical precisely because of that too short duration spent outside Earth's atmosphere. That leave a head-on intercept, including off-angle, as the most desirable method of exo-atmospheric ABM defense.

 

[faithfulguy]

also, can some one throw light on which one can be easily detected and which scenario will have the most reaction time?

terminal phase is easier to detect because the thing is coming down on top of you at blazing speed. But if the mid course can be track, there is more time to destroy it at mid course. Its important to study the US record on midcourse missile defence vs THAAD. US by far has the most advance tech in this area and the best way to study the difficulty of both system is by studying the test results and the stage of development of both systems in the US.

 

[gambit]

can you talk about terminal velocity of ICBM warhead vs shorter range warhead?

Unnecessary.

What is most problematic for avionics is the closing speed, which is the combined speeds of both objects that are in opposite headings. Coming from outside the atmosphere, the ICBM warhead will have a greater descent speed than a shorter range warhead. But if the interceptor has a high speed then it is possible that the difficulty level for this endo-atmospheric interception is the same as an exo-atmospheric one.

Take a look at the MKV...

Video: Hovering ‘Multiple Kill Vehicle,” Straight Outta Star Wars (Updated) | Danger Room | Wired.com

Say the attacker is descending at Mach 20 but the MKV interceptor's speed is zero. This method of 'interception' will allow the MKV greater time to orient itself against the attacker than if the combined speed of attacker and interceptor is greater than Mach 20. What make the MKV very capable as an exo-atmospheric kill vehicle is its flight control avionics. As seen, even in gravity, flight attitude and maneuvers are precisely controlled in hover mode. Watch the thrusts. Now imagine this in orbit or even positioned in atmosphere facing a descending warhead. While this is still years away from actual deployment, it is still a very interesting and attractive option for ABM defense.

 

[Red Dwarf]

terminal phase is easier to detect because the thing is coming down on top of you at blazing speed. But if the mid course can be track, there is more time to destroy it at mid course. Its important to study the US record on midcourse missile defence vs THAAD. US by far has the most advance tech in this area and the best way to study the difficulty of both system is by studying the test results and the stage of development of both systems in the US.

How much time will enemy get to track the mid course path of missiles so as to have an effective collision.

 

[mjnaushad]

India has two sets of program. One is open and the other is secret. The open specs are far behind the real specs..

What makes him think that China wont have a secret missile program going on. If china's apparent program can scare american (as per writer) then just imagine what will they be making in secret program.

 

[xuxu1457]

What makes him think that China wont have a secret missile program going on. If china's apparent program can scare american (as per writer) then just imagine what will they be making in secret program.

I am confused ,India Daily:"Interestingly, according to souurces close to Indian military defense reserach institute (it is no longer DRDO at Pune, the secret advanced organization is fully classified), India is ahead of Chinese missile technologies in stealth, target precision management, and algorithmic evasion.
"
“The Indian Army's new nuclear-capable Agni II intermediate-range ballistic missile has failed to reach set standards during a scheduled night test.
Agni-II is a two-stage solid propelled ballistic missile weighing 17t with a length of 20m that can carry a payload of 1t over only a distance of 2,000km.
”

anti-missile is more difficult than missile,and the tech of ICBM is only a first base tech of the tech of anti-missile.Us and Russia had ICBM 45years ago,China had 35 years ago, but they have anti-missile tech in21century.
DRDO can't able to control his own missile,how to anti-missile of other country???

 

[Khajur]

If there is no need to distinguish between ICBM interceptors vs THAAD IRBM interceptors, then the US must be the biggest fool to deploy an mid course ICBM interceptor if it already has THAAD.

The truth is that ICBM terminal speed is too fast for terminal phase interceptor. Its only theorize that THAAD "might" catch an ICBM while its transitioning from mid course to terminal phase. But for a more reliable hit, a mid course interceptor is needed.

I never heard of an Indian brag about a mid course interceptor. I only heard Indians in here brag about coming up with THAAD. So therefore, India clearly has no mid course interceptor

read this article


wow...amazing.

Mid course interception and THAAD are just differnet layers of interception.It has nothing to do with the range of the incoming missiles .

The truth is that ICBM terminal speed is too fast for terminal phase interceptor. Its only theorize that THAAD "might" catch an ICBM while its transitioning from mid course to terminal phase. But for a more reliable hit, a mid course interceptor is needed.

countires like US and Russia have been testing terminal phase interception aganist ICBM,yes ICBM since the 60s and still they haven't perfected the art as with each advancement of ABM tech ,so is witnessted with agressor missile with the introduction of MIRV and zig zag flight path to evade the inceptor missile.so anyways,Anti ICBM acting at the terminal phase are around in the form of US Sentinel Program, Safeguard Program and Russian A-135 anti-ballistic system in the 60s.

I never heard of an Indian brag about a mid course interceptor. I only heard Indians in here brag about coming up with THAAD. So therefore, India clearly has no mid course interceptor

First of all dont jump and brag that chinese mid course test as anti ICBM test as a mid course need not be aganist an ICBM only ,its could of shorter ranges also.No where its claimed like that and since its the first test i guess its most likely aganist a shorter range version of missile .

Then coming back to missile interception,its focus is always on sure shot accuracy and rather then on the phase of flight of the missile to target ...mid course or otherwise.with all kinds of evasive techs being developed specially at the terminal phase and high stake involved at that phase ,the terminal phase interception algorithim has to extremely sophisticated to be successful .So there no question of its being technologically less challenging than the mid course exoatmospheric interceptor.

India in her part has been developing and testing its own indigenous terminal phase ABM from 2006 with successive interception in all test flight aganist IRBM missiles and perhaps targets to bulid anti icbm capability later on.But with our most of our threats coming from the immediate neighbourhood if u are wondering ,we neither need a 15000km range ICBM or an anti_ ICBM ABM capability nor we think in those directions anytime.

 

[Iggy]

I am confused ,India Daily:"Interestingly, according to souurces close to Indian military defense reserach institute (it is no longer DRDO at Pune, the secret advanced organization is fully classified), India is ahead of Chinese missile technologies in stealth, target precision management, and algorithmic evasion.
"
“The Indian Army's new nuclear-capable Agni II intermediate-range ballistic missile has failed to reach set standards during a scheduled night test.
Agni-II is a two-stage solid propelled ballistic missile weighing 17t with a length of 20m that can carry a payload of 1t over only a distance of 2,000km.
”

anti-missile is more difficult than missile,and the tech of ICBM is only a first base tech of the tech of anti-missile.Us and Russia had ICBM 45years ago,China had 35 years ago, but they have anti-missile tech in21century.
DRDO can't able to control his own missile,how to anti-missile of other contry???

The bolded part says a lot of things about you

 

[xuxu1457]

Mid course interception and THAAD are just differnet layers of interception.It has nothing to do with the range of the incoming missiles .



countires like US and Russia have been testing terminal phase interception aganist ICBM,yes ICBM since the 60s and still they haven't perfected the art as with each advancement of ABM tech ,so is witnessted with agressor missile with the introduction of MIRV and zig zag flight path to evade the inceptor missile.so anyways,Anti ICBM acting at the terminal phase are around in the form of US Sentinel Program, Safeguard Program and Russian A-135 anti-ballistic system in the 60s.




First of all dont jump and brag that chinese mid course test as anti ICBM test as a mid course need not be aganist an ICBM only ,its could of shorter ranges also.No where its claimed like that and since its the first test i guess its most likely aganist a shorter range version of missile .

Then coming back to missile interception,its focus is always on sure shot accuracy and rather then on the phase of flight of the missile to target ...mid course or otherwise.with all kinds of evasive techs being developed specially at the terminal phase and high stake involved at that phase ,the terminal phase interception algorithim has to extremely sophisticated to be successful .So there no question of its being technologically less challenging than the mid course exoatmospheric interceptor.

India in her part has been developing and testing its own indigenous terminal phase ABM from 2006 with successive interception in all test flight aganist IRBM missiles and perhaps targets to bulid anti icbm capability later on.But with our most of our threats coming from the immediate neighbourhood if u are wondering ,we neither need a 15000km range ICBM or an anti_ ICBM ABM capability nor we think in those directions anytime.

"First of all dont jump and brag that chinese mid course test as anti ICBM test as a mid course need not be aganist an ICBM only ,its could of shorter ranges also."
Using a mid course need to against the shorter ranges is more difficult than usingit to against ICBM,the time of the shorter ranges flying at exoatmosphere is shorter than the ICBM

 

[Guest]

China’s Ballistic Missile and Anti-Satellite Hard Kill Systems
The Chinese anti-satellite system was described by the Director of the United States Defense Intelligence Agency as a SE-19 KKV launched by a modified road mobile DF-21, or its civilian derivative the KT-1, from a Chinese manufactured WS-2400 Transporter-Erector-Launcher (TEL). Being road mobile means the launcher, along with communications and maintenance vehicles, could be deployed on the best axis to intercept a satellite, and making the ASAT system virtually impossible to target before launch. PLA forces deployed in another country could bring along an ASAT as part of their corps level assets to destroy foreign reconnaissance satellites looking at their forces, even if these forces were deployed well outside Chinese territory.

The anti-ballistic missile was most likely to have also been launched using a DF-21/KT-1 booster, although a mature system would benefit from a higher velocity launch vehicle, given that in real life incoming warheads will be detected in far less time than during a test range trial.

Conclusion

The announcement that the PLA intercepted a missile in the midcourse phase of its flight was not unexpected, given its ability to intercept a satellite in space. This does not mean that China has a workable operational ABM system, but all the pieces are now in place if it chose to develop such a system to protect itself from an Indian intermediate range ballistic missile. The intriguing question is why the Politburo continues to reveal China’s new strategic capabilities, reducing the powerful weapon of surprise whilst strengthening the position of the hawks in Washington, New Delhi and Taipei. It also warns India of the strategic need to include decoys and employ other measures to reduce vulnerability of its missiles.

China’s Anti-Ballistic Missile Test: Much Ado About Nothing​

China?s Anti-Ballistic Missile Test: Much Ado About Nothing

thanks for posting,Ruag. if what the artical said is true, then some detail could be revealed.

1)"using a DF-21/KT-1 booster " means that the missile can reached the 900km-1500km orbit, and this is the altitude used by most IRBMs and some ICBMs.

2) the rumored 3000-4000km long range radar seems to be ready and had been put into servirce.

 

[chinapakistan]

NTI: Global Security Newswire - China Said to Close Gap With U.S. Missile Defense in Monday Test

"China Said to Close Gap With U.S. Missile Defense in Monday Test
Thursday, Jan. 14, 2010

China's missile defense test on Monday made it the second country to destroy an incoming missile target beyond the Earth's atmosphere , the South China Morning Post reported (see GSN, Jan. 12).

The United States was the first state to demonstrate such a capability, according to the report.

Beijing's accomplishment is proof of its advanced missile defense capabilities and also shows that it now has sophisticated radar technology, the newspaper stated.

Three years ago, China took the international community by surprise when it targeted and shot down one of its old weather satellites with a missile (see GSN, Jan. 19, 2007). This led to worries that the country might seek to remove the satellites of other nations.

The 2007 event was a much simpler feat than Monday's test as the satellite's flight course was known beforehand and because it had no protective capabilities, said retired People's Liberation Army Gen. Xu Guangyu.

This week's missile interception was more complicated as the incoming target's high velocity allowed only minutes for identified and targeted and for an interceptor to be fired.

"Satellite interception is like shooting a beer bottle. Missile interception is like shooting ducks," Xu said. "Monday's announcement marked a milestone in China's active defense strategy. Midcourse missile interception requires superior technology and equipment."

Though some wondered whether the missile interception was just simulated by computers, the U.S. Defense Department said it had ascertained unusual action above the Earth's atmosphere.

China has been following and analyzing U.S. technology for more than 10 years and its navy, army and air force each possess a ballistic missile defense program, according to military research documents.

Monday's successful interception does not mean that development of China's missile defenses is finished, Xu said.

"In comparison with the U.S., we still have a lot of work to do," Xu said. "In particular, we need more better and more powerful early warning satellites. The missile defense system's base should not be on the ground, but in space" (Stephen Chen, South China Morning Post I, Jan. 13).

Kanwa Defense Review editor Andrei Chang said the test could lead nations including India, Japan and Russia to pursue defenses against ballistic missiles, the Post reported. It could also be cause for worry among some nations in the region that possess ICBMs, according to the article (Kristine Kwok, South China Morning Post II, Jan. 13)."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay your attention to the words "second country", Is india the first country in these area which you are so-called a way ahead of china??? Stop talking big.

 

[DeathGod]

blah blah blah blah blah , the South China Morning Post see GSN, Jan. 12).
.[/B]

Nuetral Unbiased UnCommunist UnPropagandist Source Phuleeej.

Till then Have A Good Time

 

[faithfulguy]

Nuetral Unbiased UnCommunist UnPropagandist Source Phuleeej.

Till then Have A Good Time

Critize the statement from the article, instead of dismiss the article just because its from within China. That is the bias mentality.

But I guess if you agree with everything the article has to say, the only thing you can criticize is the source. So you agree but just jealous of the facts.

 

[Hulk]

Critize the statement from the article, instead of dismiss the article just because its from within China. That is the bias mentality.

But I guess if you agree with everything the article has to say, the only thing you can criticize is the source. So you agree but just jealous of the facts.

Both Pakistani and Chinese do the same, they do not accept Indian media source.

And I guess now Taiwanese have become Chinese.

 

[faithfulguy]

First of all dont jump and brag that chinese mid course test as anti ICBM test as a mid course need not be aganist an ICBM only ,its could of shorter ranges also.No where its claimed like that and since its the first test i guess its most likely aganist a shorter range version of missile .

India in her part has been developing and testing its own indigenous terminal phase ABM from 2006 with successive interception in all test flight aganist IRBM missiles and perhaps targets to bulid anti icbm capability later on.But with our most of our threats coming from the immediate neighbourhood if u are wondering ,we neither need a 15000km range ICBM or an anti_ ICBM ABM capability nor we think in those directions anytime.

First of all, no information was given on the range of the missile use in the test, there were only speculations. So you are correct in saying that its unknown. However, a system like mid-course ABM needed with the powerful radar needed is generally for ICBM. You refer to this in your last paragraph when you talk about how India has terminal phase ABM and that it need no ICBM interceptor, which is in itself a response to the statement that India never talk about mid course interceptor.