Interceptor spot on, though without blast: DRDO

[sincity]

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?

How do I know if Russian missiles interceptor used nuclear warhead? US missiles interceptor tested with a very low percentage of success rate. US missile interceptor can only destroy 3 out of 10 incoming missiles with their trial tested and they call it a failure with the system not partially success of the system.

 

[Dillinger]

How do I know if Russian missiles interceptor used nuclear warhead? US missiles interceptor tested with a very low percentage of success rate. US missile interceptor can only destroy 3 out of 10 incoming missiles with their trial tested and they call it a failure with the system not partially success of the system.

Depends on which interceptor you are referring to. A SM-3 or a THAAD interceptor has a good chance of success against a ballistic inbound.

 

[Kaalapani]

How do I know if Russian missiles interceptor used nuclear warhead? US missiles interceptor tested with a very low percentage of success rate. US missile interceptor can only destroy 3 out of 10 incoming missiles with their trial tested and they call it a failure with the system not partially success of the system.

This system is for missiles of 2000-3000 km range.not for 5000+KM range.

There are no MIRV missiles with 2000km range.

 

[sincity]

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?

No one need to understand the technological of India missiles interceptor system to realize the interceptor failure to destroy the incoming missiles. Fail test because the system fail to meet the test objective, it didn't kill the incoming missiles during the trail test. System failure is a system failure, partial work mean it couldn't work properly.

 

[Dillinger]

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?

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 celebrated 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.

 

[Indischer]

No one need to understand the technological of India missiles interceptor system to realize the interceptor failure to destroy the incoming missiles. Fail test because the system fail to meet the test objective, it didn't kill the incoming missiles during the trail test. System failure is a system failure, partial work mean it couldn't work properly.

This is what you have quoted in your first post here:

India missile defense system recognized the incoming missile but fail to fire the missile interceptor to blow up the incoming missiles in the airspace?

You can read English sentences, but cannot understand the import of said sentences. I'm wondering if that makes you a failure or partial success.

 

[The SC]

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.



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.

India is not in the position of the US with global covering of space, so the tracking and guidance capabilities of India's interceptor missiles should be better than the US ones. Apart from having many different tracking complexes on the Indian soil, but even then the missile will be almost over India, not speaking about hyper speeds, ballisticmissiles are known to be very fast, so it is a matter of reaction time too.

 

[qwerrty]

partial congratulate!

 

[Dillinger]

India is not in the position of the US with global covering of space, so the tracking and guidance capabilities of India's interceptor missiles should be better than the US ones. Apart from having many different tracking complexes on the Indian soil, but even then the missile will be almost over India, not speaking about hyper speeds, ballisticmissiles are known to be very fast, so it is a matter of reaction time too.

"Over India" is not an issue. Hitting a nuclear armed missile with a directional warhead or a KKV does not lead to a nuclear explosion, in fact till the the trigger within the warhead's physics package initiates the nuke is harmless in this context, if the trigger is stopped from initiating then no mushroom cloud. The very reason that we may have to intercept inbounds "over our soil" is why we have been focusing on high altitude exo-atmospheric interception.

 

[IndoUS]

India is not in the position of the US with global covering of space, so the tracking and guidance capabilities of India's interceptor missiles should be better than the US ones. Apart from having many different tracking complexes on the Indian soil, but even then the missile will be almost over India, not speaking about hyper speeds, ballisticmissiles are known to be very fast, so it is a matter of reaction time too.

The point of the missile is to intercept the warhead while it is in space, and most of India's threat are from Pakistan and China which are just next door, unlike US. So it will be easier to track a launch and track the missile for India.

 

[sincity]

Fail test then try again
on later time, why need to mask around and call the test a partial success trial run.

 

[Aarush]

small steps + dedication = a big journey....

 

[NKVD]

Fail test then try against on later time, why need to mask around and call the test a partial success trial run.

Give a answers ti @Dillinger Post before Ranting here you have completly no Idea on this Field of the Subject

 

[sincity]

The objective here isn't about testing around the tracking, senor of the interceptor, the objective with the test for testing out the missiles interceptor kill the incoming missiles on midcourse.

 

[The SC]

The point of the missile is to intercept the warhead while it is in space, and most of India's threat are from Pakistan and China which are just next door, unlike US. So it will be easier to track a launch and track the missile for India.

What about the reaction time versus the speed of the incoming ballistic missile.