Interceptor spot on, though without blast: DRDO

[Aarush]

India’s ambitious mission on Sunday to intercept an “enemy” ballistic missile at a altitude of 120 km seems to have achieved only partial success. While the missile technologists of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) say the interception did take place and the mission met its “important objectives,” they concede that the warhead in the interceptor missile, which took off from the Wheeler Island, did not explode.

Avinash Chander, Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister, said: “The infrared (IR) seeker in the interceptor could track the target, but we have not exploded the target. The target was not to be exploded.”

Asked if the mission was only “partially successful,” Mr. Chander, architect of India’s Agni series of missiles, said, “The mission’s main objective was to track the target missile. We wanted to see the performance of the IR seeker. The warhead in the interceptor missile was not meant to be exploded in this mission. Since we did not fire the warhead, the debris did not fall.”

Another DRDO missile technologist said: “We have recorded the interception.”

Asked whether “a hit-to-kill” took place in the mission as it did in the previous six other interceptor flights from the Wheeler Island, he said: “We have to work out the missed distance between the target missile and the interceptor. Based on that, the hit-to-kill would take place. We are not able to say right now whether the hit-to-kill took place.”

Yet another scientist said, “Whether the target missile was destroyed or not, I cannot say right now.”

The DRDO was looking forward to this mission because it was “challenging” and “complex.” Of the DRDO’s seven interceptor missions, six were successful. The interceptions had taken place either in the endo-atmosphere (below 50 km) or in the exo-atmosphere (between 50 km and 80 km). But this mission was a different ball game because the interception was to be done at 120 km, providing very little time for the interceptor to blast off and waylay the attacker. So the motors in the interceptor called the Prithvi Defence Vehicle (PDV) and the target missile were specially developed. The target missile lifted off a ship in the Bay of Bengal, off Odisha at 9.07 a.m. It was a two-stage missile, “mimicking a hostile ballistic missile approaching from more than 2,000 km away,” a DRDO press release said.

In an automated operation, radar-based systems on the Wheeler Island and in Paradip, Puri and Cuttack detected and tracked the “enemy” missile. The computer network, with the help of data from the radars, predicted its trajectory. The single-stage PDV interceptor took off two-and-a-half minutes later.

The PDV, guided by the highly accurate inertial navigation system and supported by a redundant micro-navigation system, moved towards the point of interception. Once the PDV crossed the atmosphere, its heat shield domes covering the IR and radio frequency (RF) seekers fell off. So the two seeker domes opened to look at the incoming missile’s location. With the help of inertial guidance and the IR seeker, the PDV moved for the interception. “The mission was completed and the interception parameters were achieved,” the press release said.

G. Satheesh Reddy, Director, Research Centre, Imarat , a DRDO missile facility in Hyderabad, said the mission featured several new technologies. Both the missiles had new, powerful motors. The heat shield, covering the IR and RF seekers, ejected for the first time. The seekers worked well. “This is the first time that an imaging seeker has been used for the air defence vehicle. The imaging seeker could see the incoming missile, track it and guide the interceptor towards the target.” The RCI team made the seekers and the inertial navigation and guidance system, Mr. Reddy said.

Adalat Ali was the Programme Director and Y. Sreenivasa Rao, Project Director.

Interceptor spot on, though without blast: DRDO - The Hindu

 

[saikumar]

CONGRATS DRDO

 

[qwerrty]

another 'partial success' lol

partial success is indian word for failure

 

[sms]

another 'partial success' lol

partial success is indian word for failure

We are not here to educate part of the crowed who are intellectually bankrupt. Assume whatever you like to assume.

Congrats DRDO!!

 

[sincity]

Hit and miss missile interceptor, how can you define partial success in intercepted in coming missiles? Either you fail hitting the missiles or success in blow up the missiles on it path. India missile defense system recognized the incoming missile but fail to fire the missile interceptor to blow up the incoming missiles in the airspace?

Or the missile defend system can only success intercept 1 missile for every 100 tries?

 

[Indischer]

Hit and miss missile interceptor, how can you define partial success in intercepted in coming missiles? Either you fail hitting the missiles or success in blow up the missiles on it path. India missile defense system recognized the incoming missile but fail to fire the missile interceptor to blow up the incoming missiles in the airspace?

Or the missile defend system can only success intercept 1 missile for every 100 tries?

Or how about you stop giving a demo in every thread about your massive comprehension problems?

The missile was fired at the oncoming target and achieved the proximity range necessary for the IR seeker to work, but the proximity kill-fuse has not fired(basically, the warhead hasn't exploded), rendering it a partial success.

 

[sincity]

Or how about you stop giving a demo in every thread about your massive comprehension problems?

The missile was fired at the oncoming target and achieved the proximity range necessary for the IR seeker to work, but the proximity kill-fuse has not fired(basically, the warhead hasn't exploded), rendering it a partial success.

The interceptor seek out the missiles but fail to destory the missile on it path? Then what good for the missile interceptor if it can't
destroy the incoming missiles? Interceptor was fired within range of the missile but miss by a mile?

 

[Kaalapani]

The interceptor seek out the missiles but fail to destory the missile on it path? Then what good for the missile interceptor if it can destroy the incoming missiles? Interceptor was fired within range of the missile but miss by a mile?

The test was to reach within the striking distance of the Missile not to explode it.

 

[sincity]

You suppose to test the system to kill the missile on midair by blow the missiles up, not fired close to the coming missile and call it a partial success. They fail to hit the missiles but felt better to claim a partial success because of the function of the interceptor IR seeker.

 

[The SC]

Tests like this one were experienced by the US and Russia at their prime times, and nothing came out of them, they both concluded that the only way to intercept an incoming ballistic missile was by using a huge proximity charge that has to be nuclear.

 

[Indischer]

The interceptor seek out the missiles but fail to destory the missile on it path? Then what good for the missile interceptor if it can't
destroy the incoming missiles? Interceptor was fired within range of the missile but miss by a mile?

Come back when you've learned to make sense of simple English sentences. This isn't your forte.

 

[IndoUS]

Alright, so from what the news states, that the missile intercepted the incoming BM in a heads on interception, while DRDO didn't wan't a head on interception rather wanted the proximity fuse to take out the incoming missile. Which means that the the tracking and guidance systems are working, but they need to figure out the issue with the proximity fuse.

Tests like this one war experienced by the US and Russia at their prime times, and nothing came out of them, they both concluded that the only way to intercept an incoming ballistic missile was by using a huge proximity charge that has to be nuclear.

True, but back in those days the tracking and guidance system were not as good as they are today. The US itself has invested a lot in such programs, to further improve their tracking and guidance capabilities. Another main thing is that US has its BMD system spread all over the world so if they shoot down the missile right after the take off, and before the reentry phase there is very little problem.

 

[sincity]

Alright, so from what the news states, that the missile intercepted the incoming BM in a heads on interception, while DRDO didn't wan't a head on interception rather wanted the proximity fuse to take out the incoming missile. Which means that the the tracking and guidance systems are working, but they need to figure out the issue with the proximity fuse.

The system fail, it fail to destroy the coming missile nothing more to it. Partial success is a code name for failure.

Come back when you've learned to make sense of simple English sentences. This isn't your forte.

You refuse to understand what I said because of me pointing out the failure with India missiles interceptor?

 

[Kaalapani]

The system fail, it fail to destroy the coming missile nothing more to it. Partial success is a code name for failure.





You refuse to understand what I said because of me pointing out the failure with India missiles interceptor?

Tests are dun in steps .Also this PDV will form the base for our own Iskander family type of missiles.

DO you think s-300/s-400 type of MDS have nuclear war heads?

 

[Indischer]

The system fail, it fail to destroy the coming missile nothing more to it. Partial success is a code name for failure.





You refuse to understand what I said because of me pointing out the failure with India missiles interceptor?

I don't care a rat's a$$ about whether you consider the test a failure or partial success. I'm more amused by your lack of comprehension about the events that are associated with the test. If you're not even competent enough to understand what exactly happened in the test as stated in simple English in that report, what, in your view, makes you a good judge of the test?