Interceptor spot on, though without blast: DRDO

[acetophenol]

As an aeroplane as big as boeing 777 had vanished in front of all major powers, any attempt to intercept unpredictable coming ballistic missiles is a joke, at least right now and near future.

Wasting money is a criminal.

Its the same man who put a man on the moon,who send crafts to mars and pluto.
Its all about preparedness man,in case of the Boeing 370,it was operating under the civilian radar network,and military had no role in it until it disappeared. And also no one is big enough to mess with mother nature. But intercepting a ballistic missiles are different,military radar networks are different and in the event of a war or a threat, radars and all other resources (richter scales to spies) will have their eyes open to pick up anything ugly. I am not saying BMD is fully effective,but its not a waste of money.

 

[The SC]

The change in the desired/projected interceptor altitude is accompanied by a change in the interceptor vehicle itself, the interceptor used for the previous tests and the one used for the current test are different. Therefore the success of the previous interceptor vehicle (AAD/PAD) cannot be used to gauge the efficacy of the current vehicle (PDV).




NO! Those are NOT interchangeable words. This the very reason I asked that fellow to look up the testimony given before the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations (April 7, 1992).
They are different terms pertaining to different parameters.

Simply put if a 100 scuds were launched and all 100 scuds intercepted then the "success rate" of the interceptor system is VERY high BUT if for each scud intercepted it took 4 interceptor vehicles to make the kill then the "accuracy" is around 25%. I can't make it simpler than this.

I do understand your claims and figures, but some political motivations might make them interchangible, you should read between the lines.

I was not comparing the success of the two tests just the range. So it takes a whole new system for an increased range of 40 km.

 

[Dillinger]

I do understand your claims and figures, but some political motivations might make them interchangible, you should read between the lines.

I was not comparing the success of the two tests just the range. So it takes a whole new system for an increased range of 40 km.

There is no "reading between the lines" here. Unless you're insinuating that every fellow on The Legislation and National Security Subcommittee in the US is/was a dunce or a dishonest person with a political bias and that folks like Peter Zimmerman (Nuclear physicist) and Charles A. Zraket (a fellow who's been all over the place, from the Center for Naval Analyses to the Defense Science Board, and has been awarded the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service) are liars.

Yes it does (its not the "range" which is increasing here, its the interception altitude, the slant range of the previous interceptor in question itself is in excess of 180 km making it comparable to the SM-2 missile in terms of pure slant range), of course it requires a different interceptor vehicle, is there a problem in that?

 

[The SC]

There is no "reading between the lines" here. Unless you're insinuating that every fellow on The Legislation and National Security Subcommittee in the US is/was a dunce or a dishonest person with a political bias and that folks like Peter Zimmerman (Nuclear physicist) and Charles A. Zraket (a fellow who's been all over the place, from the Center for Naval Analyses to the Defense Science Board, and has been awarded the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service) are liars.

Yes it does (its not the "range" which is increasing here, its the interception altitude, the slant range of the previous interceptor in question itself is in excess of 180 km making it comparable to the SM-2 missile in terms of pure slant range), of course it requires a different interceptor vehicle, is there a problem in that?

Who was talking about the US.
So the altitude has nothing to do with range? is there a horizontal and vertical range?

 

[GR!FF!N]

Indian Defence Journalism...

the mission was not to test warhead,mainly was to test the flight and other parameters as well as interception,but not to detonate the warhead.Defence Journo translated it into "Partial Success"..

 

[Dillinger]

Who was talking about the US.
So the altitude has nothing to do with range? is there a horizontal and vertical range?

The altitude of interception is dependent upon flight ceiling. The slant range is what people refer to when they use the term "range" colloquially. The new interceptor improves upon the engagement altitude. There are two terms here, flight ceiling or maximum engagement altitude and slant range ("horizontal range", which is an inapt super simplification).

The subcommittee report clearly delineating the meaning of the terms "success rate" and "accuracy" was an American one. It delved in to the technical aspects and parameters wrt the two terms and thus is the most apt source for educating oneself regarding the matter. Furthermore the delineation applies to all such systems the world over while of course the specific technical aspects of the system being dealt with in the hearing don't.

That is to say that the different meanings of the terms "success rate" and "accuracy" in the context of interceptor systems apply to all such systems in various countries. But of course the exact percentile figures under these sub-heads for the specific system (Patriot) do not apply to other systems. The point was to establish that the meaning of the two terms is different, ab initio the two terms posit two different things, and thus they cannot be used interchangeably.

 

[Dillinger]

@The SC If by, "So the altitude has nothing to do with range?", you're asking me as to whether the altitude achieved by a projectile can affect its range (the term "range" here refers to how far the hypothetical projectile travels from say point A to point B on a hypothetically 2D plane), that's a different matter altogether. Specifically for A2A missiles, a larger range is achieved by operating at a higher launch altitude and climbing- wherein the altitude gained by the climb can then be traded for kinematic and range performance. But as I said, that's a different matter altogether.


In this context, the performance parameter we are concerned with is the altitude at which the interceptor vehicle can perform the interception. The new vehicle will obviously also have an improved slant range. BUT THE NEW INTERCEPTOR WAS NOT DESIGNED WITH THE GOAL TO ACHIEVE A MARGINAL INCREASE IN SAID SLANT RANGE BUT RATHER TO ACHIEVE A HIGHER ALTITUDE OF ENAGEMENT.


In this context, two different vehicles are required for interceptions at two different altitudes (broadly speaking two different ranges of altitude- the term "range" here does not refer to how far the vehicle travels, it refers to the estimated engagement altitude- for eg. between 120-150km altitude- its the "between" part which the term is dealing with. Illustrated by the following sentence- "The price of a good shaver ranges from 500 bucks to 700 bucks"- the term "range" here referring to a probable standard deviation in price).

 

[Omega007]

It's actually a decent enough reporting (of course by Indian journalism standard).The reporter managed to extract relevant infos from the authorities and put those in the article.But sadly,his conclusion was way off the mark,seems like he couldn't comprehend the remarks made by the scientists.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Most initial missile tests, at least for A2A missiles or G2A missiles, have defined parameters for success- passing within the lethal range of the intended target. In fact even the much celebrates AMRAAMs were tested that way, when the missile achieved the desired kinematic performance and passed within lethal range/distance of the target it was considered a success.

We would have to be crazy to use a live warhead on the first test of an experimental missile. Surely you can understand that. A hitherto untested article, we're not going to lob it into the air with a live warhead in its very first test.

Similarly for a KKV, it would be highly inadvisable to attempt a hit to kill in the very first go. Ergo the parameters for success are confined to achieving defined kinematic performance, acquiring target and following it through by the IIR seeker, performance of the integrated ground sensor/targeting and interceptor vehicle system and then finally passing within lethal range of the intended target. All of which were achieved. Now comes the hard part, the directional warhead or the KKV's exact performance will have to be gauged in the following tests.

DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, READ UP ON LITERATURE BY FOLKS LIKE MIKE SPICK ON THE TOPIC.

Oh no, not simple logic!

 

[somnath]

India interceptor missile test for strategic deterrence: China

India's successful test to intercept an incoming missile at high altitude has evoked mixed reactions among Chinese military and strategic experts who believe that advances made by India in anti-ballistic missile technology are aimed at strategic deterrence.

India's anti-missile test on Sunday intercepting targets outside the atmosphere is more aimed at "strategic deterrence", as this technology will make its enemies feel the strike power of their missiles is diminished, Wang Ya'nan, a senior editor at Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told state-run Global Times.

The Indian interceptor missile was test-fired from the launch complex-IV on Wheeler Island, just over a minute after the target missile was fired from a ship located nearly 70 km off the Paradip coast.



India is developing a two-tier missile defence system, which will destroy an incoming missile outside the earth's atmosphere, and if that fails, go on to intercept it within the atmosphere.

The missile is capable of destroying an incoming missile with a strike range of around 2,000 km outside the atmosphere.

While some Chinese military experts agreed that India has made progress in missile interception technology, others cast doubt over the significance of the latest launch.

"It's hard to conclude whether India's anti-missile technology has reached a certain level, as they also launched the target missile, so the launch time and ballistic data are all readily available," the daily quoted an unidentified Chinese missile expert.

He said China has developed relatively mature anti-ballistic missile capabilities based on Russia's S300 system which are ready for combat, but India is still experimenting with it.

China bid to sell its Red Flag-9 anti-missile system to Turkey last year in a potential USD 3.44 billion deal, although NATO then exerted pressure on Ankara to abandon the deal, which still hangs in the balance.

Song Zhongping, a former lecturer on missile technology and now military affairs commentator in Beijing, said India's new interceptor missile "could only be similar to the level of Chinese missiles in the 1990s".

He said that the target missile was not advanced and lacks effective evasive techniques which had made it easier for the interceptor to strike the target.

In real combat, however, it is hard for even the most advanced interceptors produced by the US, such as the Patriot missile, to hit Chinese missile targets, another missile expert said.

India has tested seven interceptor missiles in recent years of which six were successful.

The expert admitted China's anti-missile technology is at least 15-20 years away from the US, in terms of the response time,target accuracy and comprehensive information technology.

India interceptor missile test for strategic deterrence: China

 

[Indo-guy]

India interceptor missile test for strategic deterrence: China

India's successful test to intercept an incoming missile at high altitude has evoked mixed reactions among Chinese military and strategic experts who believe that advances made by India in anti-ballistic missile technology are aimed at strategic deterrence.

India's anti-missile test on Sunday intercepting targets outside the atmosphere is more aimed at "strategic deterrence", as this technology will make its enemies feel the strike power of their missiles is diminished, Wang Ya'nan, a senior editor at Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told state-run Global Times.

The Indian interceptor missile was test-fired from the launch complex-IV on Wheeler Island, just over a minute after the target missile was fired from a ship located nearly 70 km off the Paradip coast.



India is developing a two-tier missile defence system, which will destroy an incoming missile outside the earth's atmosphere, and if that fails, go on to intercept it within the atmosphere.

The missile is capable of destroying an incoming missile with a strike range of around 2,000 km outside the atmosphere.

While some Chinese military experts agreed that India has made progress in missile interception technology, others cast doubt over the significance of the latest launch.

"It's hard to conclude whether India's anti-missile technology has reached a certain level, as they also launched the target missile, so the launch time and ballistic data are all readily available," the daily quoted an unidentified Chinese missile expert.

He said China has developed relatively mature anti-ballistic missile capabilities based on Russia's S300 system which are ready for combat, but India is still experimenting with it.

China bid to sell its Red Flag-9 anti-missile system to Turkey last year in a potential USD 3.44 billion deal, although NATO then exerted pressure on Ankara to abandon the deal, which still hangs in the balance.

Song Zhongping, a former lecturer on missile technology and now military affairs commentator in Beijing, said India's new interceptor missile "could only be similar to the level of Chinese missiles in the 1990s".

He said that the target missile was not advanced and lacks effective evasive techniques which had made it easier for the interceptor to strike the target.

In real combat, however, it is hard for even the most advanced interceptors produced by the US, such as the Patriot missile, to hit Chinese missile targets, another missile expert said.

India has tested seven interceptor missiles in recent years of which six were successful.

The expert admitted China's anti-missile technology is at least 15-20 years away from the US, in terms of the response time,target accuracy and comprehensive information technology.

India interceptor missile test for strategic deterrence: China

thanks for posting.

always good to have other's perspective about what we are doing ....

The article just tells me that India is on right track and doing well .

Keep it up ....

Now we need to move to Phase II of BMD ...

 

[qwerrty]

what year is this? liquid fuel interceptor and needs big explosion to kill another vehicle and still fail..

 

[Water Car Engineer]

what year is this? liquid fuel interceptor and needs big explosion to kill another vehicle and still fail..

It's solid fuel and the first test for this missile wasn't supposed to kill the target. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

AAD was tested several times successfully. Here's a video of the interception.

This is a whole new missile design they're testing.

 

[qwerrty]

prithvi is liquid fuel missile that the interceptor is based on. from article, that missile needs explosion to kill, not kkv.

 

[gslv mk3]

[/quote]

prithvi is liquid fuel missile that the interceptor is based on. from article, that missile needs explosion to kill, not kkv.

Google PDV genius!!!