Israel helped India with Prithvi

[TomCat111]

nobody has any information... battling out on somethin nobody knows about...nice

Should we seek your permission next time we decide to laugh at the most stupendous concept of LF interceptors?

 

[Neo]

nobody has any information, we have crazy indian posters and pakistani posters battling out on somethin nobody knows about...nice

Its a action-reaction thing, quite common for international fora.
Indians go hype with new 'indegeniously' developped toys, other come to counter it.
It can be highly entertaining.

 

[Cheetah786]

India seeks Israeli help for surveillance system


Israeli expertise being sought for completion of system set to give India capability to detect targets in space

IEICI Published: 11.28.06, 20:45

Hit by heavy time over-runs and technical hitches in the production of a key surveillance system designed to give early warning on incoming missiles, India has sought Israeli expertise.
Launched three years ago, Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) surveillance project christened 'Divya
Drishti' was to become operational this year, but is running heavily behind schedule and now Israeli expertise is being sought for its completion.
Billed to cost Rs 570 crores, the ground-based over- horizon surveillance system will give the country capability to detect targets in space and close to ground in two angles almost 800 kilometers (about 500 miles) away and in another angle almost 450 kilometers (280 miles) away.
Elbit system of Israel has now joined forces with the DRDO's Hyderabad-based Defense Electronics Research Laboratory (DRDL), Electronic Corporation of India and Tata Power Company Limited to develop the futuristic system.
Another Israeli firm IAI has also been made a co-collaborator in the DRDO's revived prestigious project to develop an indigenous mini airborne early warning and control system.

IAI Elta system is supplying ground based and airborne active phased array radars for the system aimed at undertaking detection of ballistic and cruise missiles.
Reprinted by permission of Israel Export and International Cooperation Institute
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3333804,00.html


Israel and India Develop Early Warning System
December 1, 2006: India wants Israeli help in building a missile attack warning system. Three years ago, India allocated $125 million to develop and build an over-the-horizon radar system. But, as is usually the case with military high-tech R&D in India, the project is behind schedule and over budget. The government has become increasingly frustrated with this sort of thing, as a number of disastrous development efforts have come to light recently. Israeli electronics firm Elbit has been brought in to help work on the early warning system. India has bought several high-tech systems from Israel over the past few years, and has been satisfied with the equipment and manufacturer support. India and Israel are natural allies these days, as both nations are seen as primary targets by Islamic terrorists

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hticbm/articles/20061201.aspx

 

[TomCat111]

India seeks Israeli help for surveillance system


Israeli expertise being sought for completion of system set to give India capability to detect targets in space ....

Hook it up with a poorly maneuverable LF missile preconfigured to detonate its warhead at a predetermined point to give an illusion of interception and walla you have the most successful and wondrous 'indigenously developed' DODO’s Unimaginable Missile Intertception System (DUMIS).:lol1:

 

[Bull]

Well should we be really bothered abt the origin of this intreceptior.As far as an Indian in concerned he should feel happy that he would be having a ABM up in another 3-4 years.

As far as pakistan is considered they shud be worried abt what kind of a threat will their ballistic missiles pose after this new development and what they have in hand to protect themselves from indian BMs.

 

[Cheetah786]

Well should we be really bothered abt the origin of this intreceptior.As far as an Indian in concerned he should feel happy that he would be having a ABM up in another 3-4 years.

As far as pakistan is considered they shud be worried abt what kind of a threat will their ballistic missiles pose after this new development and what they have in hand to protect themselves from indian BMs.

citing the Pentagon's own plan, critics of the proposed antimissile defense and even some military experts say all flight tests of the $60 billion weapon have been rigged to hide a fundamental flaw: The system cannot distinguish between enemy warheads and decoys. In interviews, they said that after the system failed to achieve this crucial discrimination goal against mock targets in its first two flight tests, the Pentagon substituted simpler and fewer decoys that would be easier for the antimissile weapon to recognize.
The Pentagon's plan was obtained by Theodore A. Postol, an arms expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who opposes the weapon. It covers the four tests that have taken place as well as future tests up to the system's projected deployment in 2005.


Other technical experts who have seen it, including both antimissile and decoy designers, concurred with his criticism, as did a senior government official who has examined the Pentagon's testing plan.

"It is clear to me," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, "that none of the tests address the reasonable range of countermeasures," or decoys that an enemy would use to try to outwit an antimissile weapon.

While acknowledging the plan Dr. Postal obtained as authentic, Pentagon officials strongly defended the testing program. Lt. Gen. Ronald T. Kadish of the Air Force, director of the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, denied that his program had engaged in any deception or dumbing down. General Kadish said the testing program would be extremely useful and the resulting weapon would defeat crude warheads launched by inexperienced nuclear powers that might emerge in the future, like Iran, Iraq or North Korea.


Though unclassified, the plan is considered sensitive. Dr. Postol said he obtained it from a Pentagon source he would not identify.

Dr. Postol, who is preparing a report for the White House on what he sees as the plan's flaws, made his argument on Monday at a meeting of the State Department's advisory board on arms control, along with another antimissile critic, Nira Schwartz. Dr. Schwartz, a former senior engineer at the military contractor TRW, lost her job after after challenging the claims the company made about the weapon's ability to distinguish warheads from decoys.

Dr. Postol, who worked in the Reagan Administration on such issues as antimissile defense, says that the Pentagon has ignored earlier criticism like Dr. Schwartz's and instead put flawed testing methods at the heart of all its plans to develop and build a weapon. The upshot, he says, is that any real attacker -- no matter how inexperienced -- would be able to easily outwit the weapon.

Pentagon officials "are systematically lying about the performance of a weapon system that is supposed to defend the people of the United States from nuclear attack," Dr. Postol said in an interview.

General Kadish conceded that "this technology is difficult." As a result, he said, his organization's approach "is to walk before we run, with increasingly stressful decoys to match what we expect" by way of enemy threats. "When we get to that end point," he said, "we'll have the confidence to put this on alert."

But far from increasing the complexity of future tests, the Pentagon has made them easier, military experts who examined the testing plan agreed.

Two rigorous experiments, in 1997 and 1998, to have the weapon simply observe the targets, they said, have been followed by interception tests designed to make discriminating between decoys and mock warheads as easy as possible.

"They did a good fox trot for the first couple of tests and then slowed down to a crawl," said Bob Dietz, a retired former designer of warhead decoys for American missiles. "You have to ask why they don't build better decoys. They've always said they'd get better with time."

Michael W. Munn, a retired scientist for the military contractor Lockheed and a pioneer in designing and testing antimissile weapons, said: "The only way to make it work is to **** it down. There's no other way to do it. Discrimination has always been the No. 1 problem, and it will always remain that way."

He said manipulation of antimissile flight tests was nothing new.

"It's always been a wicked game," Mr. Munn said.

The Pentagon itself is sharply divided on the testing issue. In February, Philip E. Coyle III, the Defense Department's director of testing and evaluation, faulted the antimissile tests as insufficiently realistic to make decisions about moving from research to building the weapon.

The 16 interception test flights called for in the development program would cost at least $1.6 billion, Pentagon experts say. So far, the two observation tests have been followed by two interception attempts, the first successful, the second a failure. Another test is scheduled in July.

The Clinton administration plans to make a decision later this year on whether to start building the antimissile system, which is to shield the United States from limited missile attacks by so-called rogue states.

Dr. Postol, a professor of science and national security studies at M.I.T. and the author of many private and federal weapon reports, was a top Navy science adviser in the Reagan Administration and for decades has studied enemy countermeasures to antimissile weapons.

After the 1991 Persian Gulf war, he challenged the Army's claims of success for its Patriot antimissile system, saying it had, in fact, destroyed no Iraqi missiles at all. Though the Pentagon at first denied his assertion, it later conceded that initial reports of the Patriot success had been exaggerated.

The current scientific fray centers on the interceptor's 120-pound homing device, known as a kill vehicle. Fired on a rocket, it is designed to use a telescopic sensor, a computer and jet thrusters to steer itself through space toward a warhead, destroying it by force of impact.

Dr. Postol's critique involves its hardest job, distinguishing between actual enemy warheads and the cloud of decoys considered sure to be launched to disguise them. If unable to tell decoys from warheads, a defender would be forced to fire interceptors at every threatening object, quickly exhausting a defensive force.

Dr. Postol began digging into the first antimissile flight test, in June 1997, after reviewing Pentagon data gathered by Dr. Schwartz.

The sensors at issue are cooled to more than 300 degrees below zero and work in the icy void of space to track faint heat emissions from warm targets, just as ordinary telescopes track light. They see warheads and decoys as twinkling points of light, like stars.

The June 1997 flight test, Dr. Postol asserted, showed that the infrared twinkles were random and insufficiently different from one another to let the interceptor distinguish among them, and that the Pentagon had conspired to hide this surprising discovery.

The Pentagon, he said, has altered future tests to artificially heighten any differences that could be detected between warheads and decoys.

His accusation is based mainly on a detailed chart from the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization that gives an overview of its program for Integrated Flight Tests of the kill vehicle. Entitled "I.F.T. Targets Selections," the chart is dated May 5, 2000, and at the top is labeled "For Planning Purposes." The chart's bottom warns, "Configuration controlled by N.M.D. J.P.O.," or the National Missile Defense Joint Program Office. "Do not alter this document."

The chart starts with the June 1997 test, lists another sensor flight and then goes through the 16 intercept tests scheduled for the kill vehicle's entire development. The last flight is listed as June 2004, right before the antimissile weapon is to begin operating in 2005. In each case, the chart spells out the exact type and number of test decoys and warheads and depicts them in small pictures.

Dr. Postol said the chart shows how the initial suite of challenging decoys, the ones that twinkled a lot, making them hard to distinguish from a warhead, had been replaced by fewer and simpler decoys that twinkled as little as possible, accentuating their differences from warheads that fluctuate a lot in infrared intensity.

Long and conelike, pointy at one end, flat at the other, the warheads can wobble and shift in complex ways while moving through space, presenting differing heat emissions to a distant sensor. By contrast, the spherical decoy balloons have more uniform signatures.

The removed decoys, Dr. Postol said in his report, all had infrared signatures similar to the warheads. Abandoned were spherical balloons whose stripes made their infrared emissions fluctuate, rigid decoys that looked like warheads and balloons that inflated to conelike shapes.

"These decoys," he wrote, "have brightness and time-dependent oscillating signals that can be quite similar to the signals from either warheads that are spinning around their axis of symmetry, or tumbling end over end."

The only retained decoys, he said, were spherical, uniform in materials and substantially brighter or dimmer than warheads. Their signatures, he said, "will have very uniform and controlled intensities."

All the program's interception tests, Dr. Postol said in the draft report to the White House, "have been carefully orchestrated to avoid encountering the discrimination problems." In an interview, he said he hoped to get the report, a draft of which runs to 20 pages, to the White House next week.

General Kadish, while saying the planning chart was authentic, if tentative, strongly denied that the testing program had been structured to become increasingly easy. To the contrary, he said, the decoys were selected to make the evolving tests increasingly hard.

"Complexity is increasing," he said.

Asked how a smooth balloon could be more difficult to track than a rigid decoy shaped to look like a warhead, he replied, "That's a valid technical argument," but he added that just because a decoy seemed effective "doesn't mean it's credible."

The test program, he said, was structured to make the weapon flexible and robust. Testing it against decoy shapes that were too specific might allow an enemy to fool the weapon by changing them "a little bit," General Kadish said. "What we're after is a basic physics approach."

Previously, Pentagon officials have said they reduced the complexity of some antimissile testing when the government cut the program's goal from trying to knock out advanced warheads from countries like Russia and China to more primitive ones from rogue states.

Lt. Col. Richard Lehner of the Air Force, an antimissile spokesman, said the current testing diagram depicts provisional goals rather than a hard-and-fast plan. The only decoy configuration set in concrete, he added, was the next test flight, which has been delayed repeatedly and is now scheduled for the first week of July.

Yesterday, Dr. Postol belittled the Pentagon's retorts, saying they were misrepresenting the program's logic. "They've been caught in one outright lie after another," he said.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/060900sci-missile-defense.html

 

[TomCat111]

As far as pakistan is considered they shud be worried abt what kind of a threat will their ballistic missiles pose after this new development and what they have in hand to protect themselves from indian BMs.

Indeed, Pakistanis should worry about Indian DUMIS.......

Maybe Pakistanis will increase the warning time to 60 minutes so the Indian DUMIS could be fueled. After all, who would like DUMIS fireworks?:lol1:

 

[Neo]

Well should we be really bothered abt the origin of this intreceptior.As far as an Indian in concerned he should feel happy that he would be having a ABM up in another 3-4 years.

You're right about that, origin only becomes an issue if Pakistan develops something.

As far as pakistan is considered they shud be worried abt what kind of a threat will their ballistic missiles pose after this new development and what they have in hand to protect themselves from indian BMs.

We'll be looking for PAC-3 of compareable defence system to defend our airospace.
Btw, how effective is this ABM against Babur or other cruisemissiles?

 

[Adux]

Neo,

I dont think ABM, will be used against cruise missiles, There are lot of factors such as trajectory, value of target, size of target etc, There are other systems which are in place to do the job,

I hope it is not repainted Arrow-2(it doesnt seem so), honestly it will take the sting out of out pakistan bashing on weapons.

 

[Bull]

You're right about that, origin only becomes an issue if Pakistan develops something.

Well if we werent bothered we wouldnt be running for a ABM now.You got it.

Origin is a more theoretical issue.

You shoot and i will die,i cant complain that the gun didnt belong to you.

We'll be looking for PAC-3 of compareable defence system to defend our airospace.
Btw, how effective is this ABM against Babur or other cruisemissiles?

US is wooing India for the PAC,i dont think they would givbe the same to you too.
Why dont you ask China? They might be developing something on the same lines.

Cruise missiles are more smarter tracking and shooting it would be very very difficult task.

 

[Cheetah786]

Well if we werent bothered we wouldnt be running for a ABM now.You got it.

Origin is a more theoretical issue.

You shoot and i will die,i cant complain that the gun didnt belong to you.



US is wooing India for the PAC,i dont think they would givbe the same to you too.
Why dont you ask China? They might be developing something on the same lines.

Cruise missiles are more smarter tracking and shooting it would be very very difficult task.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 (UPI) -- India's successful test of its own anti-ballistic Prithvi missile Monday still leaves the country a long way from fielding its own, home-produced short- and intermediate- range BMD systems. But it wasn't chickenfeed either.

In the test, as the Times of India reported, an upgraded version of the Prithvi shot down a conventional Prithvi at high altitude over the Bay of Bengal. The interceptor was launched from India's Integrated Test Range at Chandipur-on-sea and the test rocket from Wheeler Island in Orissa.

The success came as an enormous relief to India's long-embattled and much criticized Defense and Research Development Organization, or DRDO. As we have noted in these columns before, over the past three decades, DRDO has invested billions of dollars into high prestige, ambitious long-range ballistic missile, high-tech light combat aircraft, a new main battle tank and even a touted nuclear submarine with almost nothing to show for it:army: .
(THEY COULDNT GET A MISSILE OF GROUND BUT THE CAN PRODUCE ONE TO SHOOT ONE DOWN HMMMMMMM YEAH )
We also monitored earlier this year the embarrassing failure of a test of India's ambitious Agni III intercontinental ballistic missile which, if successfully developed and deployed, would give New Delhi the deterrent capability to fire nuclear warheads at any city in China including Beijing.

Rajiv Singh in an authoritative analysis published by the b-domain.com Web site Wednesday gave important details about what wa sine ffect a new Indian-developed ABM interceptor.

"According to DRDO officials, the new missile had inertial guidance in mid-course and active-seeker guidance (i.e. a radar-seeking warhead) in the terminal phase," Singh wrote. "While the first stage of the interceptor was similar to the Prithvi missile, its second stage was a totally new segment. The yet to be named "high supersonic" interceptor missile has been developed by the DRDO as part of an 'exo-atmospheric intercept system' designed to 'hit-to-kill' incoming ballistic missiles."

Singh noted that DRDO officials told reporters the new ABM could detect a target in less than 30 seconds and launching an interceptor at it within 50 seconds. "According to the officials, many technologies, like high-maneuverability of the interceptor missile, were validated in the test. The flight time for nuclear capable missiles launched from Pakistan is a bare 5 to 8 minutes," he wrote.

Monday's successful test was also an excellent omen for A. K. Anthony, India recently appointed defense minister.

However, as Singh observed, "Defense analysts at home (in India) adopted a prudent posture with regard to the development. They had sufficient reasons to be prudent given DRDO's patchy track record in developing high-tech defense systems for the country's defense services."

He noted that the DRDO had previously "failed to operationalize the much touted 9-kilometer (5.4 mile) range Trishul and the 25-km (15 mile) range Akash air-defense missiles. These missiles have been undergoing 'successful' tests for as long as anyone can remember."

Nevertheless, as Singh acknowledged, "The successful missile interception test now allows India to stand alongside a few countries, such as the U.S., Russia and Israel, that possess a missile defense capability."

The upgraded Prithvi ABM interceptor appears to rank with the U.S. Patriot PAC-3 system, Russia's S-300 and Israel's Arrow in its intended ability to intercept short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. However, the Patriot, the S-300 and the Arrow are all deployed, much tested systems. Even after the extremely positive results of Monday's test, the upgraded Prithvi ABM still clearly as a long way to go to achieve that status.

Indeed, the United States has been trying to sell the Patriot to India as part of the increasingly close strategic weapons cooperation between the two nations. However, so far the Indians have balked at that. Also Singh noted what he called "informed speculation over the years ... that India may already have deployed a few batteries of the Russian S-300 system as an interim arrangement."

Given the continuing warm ties between India and Russia, the huge high-tech weapons orders that the current Congress-UPA dominated government and the previous Baharataya Janata Party-led one have both given to Russia and the exceptional enthusiasm for Russian aerospace technology shown for so many years by long-time Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes, that "informed speculation" seems extremely likely.

Singh noted that the Prithvi-I, "first tested in 1988, has a range of 150 km (90 miles) and deploys a conventional or low-yield nuclear warhead for use against troops or armored formations. Its two variants, Prithvi-II and Prithvi-III, with lesser payloads, have an increased range of 250 km (150 miles) and 350 km (210 miles) respectively. While the Prithvi-II was first tested in January 1996, Prithvi-III underwent its first test firing in October 2004. The Indian Army has already inducted Prithvi- I and II into service."

At the end of the day, when all the cautions, caveats and qualifiers have been made, a crucial underlying fact remains: India has now shown its capability to home produce an effective anti-ballistic missile prototype. France, Britain, Germany, China and Japan have not yet developed the capability to make one of these by themselves, though Japan will certainly is on a crash program to do so with extensive U.S. cooperation and China is already lavishly supplied with S-300 systems, and possibly others, bought from Russia.

The strategic balance of the world therefore shifted on Monday. India took a very large step indeed and served notice that it has much to give, as well as to receive, in its strategic weapons and BMD cooperation with the United States.

U MIGHT WANNA SEND THEM EMAIL.

 

[Contrarian]

(THEY COULDNT GET A MISSILE OF GROUND BUT THE CAN PRODUCE ONE TO SHOOT ONE DOWN HMMMMMMM YEAH )

Which missile did we not get off the ground? The Agni III had its test, it is being developed indigenously, and it failed in its test, it will continue to get developed further and further till we finally have it in a perfect condition like everything else that is developed on its own. R&D is a continuous and time consuming process in which there are many failures. And the projects are contantly improving.

Atleast the missiles are not bought from another country and test fired in the nation and claimed as indigenious successes, like Pakistan.

 

[Cheetah786]

Which missile did we not get off the ground? The Agni III had its test, it is being developed indigenously, and it failed in its test, it will continue to get developed further and further till we finally have it in a perfect condition like everything else that is developed on its own. R&D is a continuous and time consuming process in which there are many failures. And the projects are contantly improving.

Atleast the missiles are not bought from another country and test fired in the nation and claimed as indigenious successes, like Pakistan.

Well if we werent bothered we wouldnt be running for a ABM now.You got it.

Origin is a more theoretical issue.

You shoot and i will die,i cant complain that the gun didnt belong to you.

now which one am is uppose to listen to here bull or u make up your mind.and yes dont forget to thank the israelies for the missile while u at it.

 

[TomCat111]

India claims successful missile interception test

....In July, India reported a successful test firing of the longer-range Agni II nuclear missile for a full day before acknowledging the test failed, with the missile plunging into the sea short of its target.... The test caught observers by surprise, particularly the use of the Prithvi, which until now had been used only as surface-to-surface missile.... However, the true capabilities could only be known once India revealed further details about the system, he said.... India has also been in talks with the Israel, the U.S. and Russia to buy a proven anti-missile defense system, and the Press Trust of India news agency quoted an unnamed defense officials as saying India would still pursue such options.

As they, the proof is in the pudding. So how about India releases the parameters of the test for fair and objective evaluations? Till such time for all we know, India might have fired a firecracker and labeled it as “successful missile interception test”.

 

[Contrarian]

Well if we werent bothered we wouldnt be running for a ABM now.You got it.

Origin is a more theoretical issue.

You shoot and i will die,i cant complain that the gun didnt belong to you.

now which one am is uppose to listen to here bull or u make up your mind.and yes dont forget to thank the israelies for the missile while u at it.

It means that India is developing the capability to make its own missiles which Pakistan still cannot do. It buys chinese or NK missiles and renames them. So if the Indian missile fails its development test, Pakistan is certainly the ONE country which cannot comment as it has never even tried to make its own missile.