Interceptor spot on, though without blast: DRDO

[Indischer]

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

Who says brainfarts are any less funny.

 

[sincity]

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

India still haven't got a working missiles interceptor, they can't seriously answer your question.

 

[Kloitra]

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?

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.

The main objective was achieved while some other failed to be, this is called partial success. It is ongoing development, with first test at this altitude (>80 km).

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

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

The Chinese maths never fail to amuse!

 

[NKVD]

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.

Stop your rant you not even read the article if you had you must have seen the anwerss of your quention in first para last line itself "IT WAS NOT TO BE EXPLODED" this was also an objective in this test

 

[Dillinger]

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 objectives of the test have already been listed. An "intercept" is defined by the KKV or the vehicle carrying the gimballed directional warhead acquiring the target and then achieving a "kill pass". This is a standard for many preliminary tests.

 

[The SC]

India still haven't got a working missiles interceptor, they can't seriously answer your question.

What about the six previous successfull tests.

 

[Dillinger]

What about the six previous successfull tests.

Different interceptor vehicle, so obviously those successes cannot be used as a benchmark to gauge the efficacy of the system in question here. The problem occurs when folks with a dilettantish fascination for defense affairs and weapon **** are unable to understand exactly how parameters are defined and tests conducted the world over.

 

[sincity]

What about the six previous successfull tests.

I don't know how many time India successful intercept the missiles but I do know US worked on the missiles system for a long time and still have a very low successful rate in intercepting the incoming missiles.

 

[Dillinger]

I don't know how many time India successful intercept the missiles but I do know US worked on the missiles system for a long time and still have a very low successful rate in intercepting the incoming missiles.

AGAIN, that depends on the interceptor system in question. Something like a MIM-104F has a VERY good chance of intercepting its targets.

Secondly you need to differentiate between "success rate" and "accuracy", yes there is a difference, look up Zimmerman's take on it and the Charles A. Zraket testimony.

 

[Bratva]

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.

So for last 7 tests Indian haven't simulated headon collision? bw missile and anti missile?

 

[longlong]

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.

 

[Dillinger]

So for last 7 tests Indian haven't simulated headon collision? bw missile and anti missile?

No those were actual hit to kill interceptions, videos of the same have been provided over and over again- taken by an IR cam.

That doesn't mean though that the very first time we tested that interceptor we went in for validating the KKV itself.

The point is that no initial test, where even the kinematic and control parameters of the test vehicle in question are untested, will see the fielding of an "armed" system.

 

[The SC]

Different interceptor vehicle, so obviously those successes cannot be used as a benchmark to gauge the efficacy of the system in question here. The problem occurs when folks with a dilettantish fascination for defense affairs and weapon **** are unable to understand exactly how parameters are defined and tests conducted the world over.

What i do understand is that the latest test was a 120 km altitude test in exoathmosphere, and the farthest the previous ones went was 80 km in the same exoatmpsphere, so the difference is in the range of the interceptors.

AGAIN, that depends on the interceptor system in question. Something like a MIM-104F has a VERY good chance of intercepting its targets.

Secondly you need to differentiate between "success rate" and "accuracy", yes there is a difference, look up Zimmerman's take on it and the Charles A. Zraket testimony.

Those are interchangeable words for most countries; when accuracy is not there, it is called success rate, but you are right, they have different meanings while they are related, since the success rate of accuracy can also be measured, but the accuracy of the successful rate is most of the time hidden.

 

[Dillinger]

What i do understand is that the latest test was a 120 km altituse test in exo athmosphere , and the farthest the previous ones went was 80 km in the same exoatmpsphere, so the difference is in the range of the interceptors.

Those are interchangeable words for most countries; when accuracy is not there, it is called success rate, but you are right the have different meanings while they are related, since the success rate of accuracy can also be measured, but the accuracy of the successful rate is most of the time hidden.

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.

 

[ares]

The facts are being misinterpreted by the journalist, there was no partial success..there was no explosion as warhead was not intentionally fired.These are directs quotes from Avinash Chander..

“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.”

“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.”