Indian Ballistic Missile Defence Programme - Updates and Discussions

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
19,304
14,035
India
I had posted that this test was to take out the real warhead from the decoys and not an anti MIRV test bcoz in case of MIRV, each warhead will be targeted by a separate missile.

I wouldn't be so sure. Even if it wasn't a true blue MIRV test, the decoys were also not physical, they were electronically simulated.

If we are to ever see an actual MIRV test, we will need to see multiple target missiles fired. But at the same time, we can simulate the interception of multiple warheads in the same way electronically.

Electronic simulations are done to prove the efficacy of the interceptor rather than anything else. If the missile could identify the warhead against decoys, then the physics is basically the same for MIRVs as well.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
19,304
14,035
India
I think you shud re-check. does it have dual seeker?

It's RF only. IIR is useless at such low altitudes since everything that's falling at high speeds is burning at extremely high temperatures, even the decoys, so all you will get is false positives. IIR is used outside the atmosphere.
 

vstol Jockey

Professional
Dec 1, 2017
6,392
12,536
New Delhi
It's RF only. IIR is useless at such low altitudes since everything that's falling at high speeds is burning at extremely high temperatures, even the decoys, so all you will get is false positives. IIR is used outside the atmosphere.
The height band in which this missile does its interception has a fixed temperature of -57*C. And the seeker is looking at the empty space beyond and behind the incoming warhead. For anykind of IIR seeker it is the temperature difference between background and target which matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shekhar Singh

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
19,304
14,035
India
The height band in which this missile does its interception has a fixed temperature of -57*C. And the seeker is looking at the empty space beyond and behind the incoming warhead. For anykind of IIR seeker it is the temperature difference between background and target which matters.

AFAIK, IIR cannot differentiate between the warhead and decoys within the atmosphere since both are burning at basically the same temperature.

Plus, you can't really simulate electronically with IIR.
 

vstol Jockey

Professional
Dec 1, 2017
6,392
12,536
New Delhi
AFAIK, IIR cannot differentiate between the warhead and decoys within the atmosphere since both are burning at basically the same temperature.

Plus, you can't really simulate electronically with IIR.
The missile guidance radar does the job of deciding which warhead is real. the missile just homes on to the target so chosen. The electronic simulation is done for the guidance radar which has the software codes in it to chose the right warhead. Please understand that you try to fool the guidance radar as the missile will always have terminal guidance capability.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Shekhar Singh

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
19,304
14,035
India
The missile guidance radar does the job of deciding which warhead is real. the missile just homes on to the target so chosen. The electronic simulation is done for the guidance radar which has the software codes in it to chose the right warhead. Please understand that you try to fool the guidance radar as the missile will always have terminal guidance capability.

Yeah, you are right there.
 

Kvasir

Well-Known member
Jul 16, 2018
137
311
Norway

I made the mistake of checking PDF and found a thread on that article... big f***ing mistake that was. It was filled with statements like "even the US and Russia don't claim this capability," which completely ignores that both countries DO claim that! Russia's current batch of interceptors are nuclear and those in development are able to discriminate between live warheads and decoys. Hell, they've had radars that are capable of distinguishing between the two for decades!

Pill_Box_ABM-system_radar.JPEG


As for the Americans, they've long had the ability to tell a decoy from a warhead. Their space-based assets measure IR signatures, how a real warhead distributes thermal energy versus a dummy-warhead that's made of a different, but dense material designed to fool radars. They measure acceleration, density, makeup, trajectory. Their land-based radars like Cobra Dane were designed to track Russian missiles and orbital objects, MIRVs included, and now HGVs as well.

150113-F-OT300-032.JPG


Cobra_Dane_radar_electrical_systems.jpg


I could go on and on about how SM-3 has already demonstrated a capability to intercept warheads versus decoys, or how it has a multi-object kill vehicle in development for destroying an entire MIRV deployment in a single shot, while leaving the decoys untouched, or about American ground sensors, but I'd probably just have an aneurysm for the stress of those fools ignorance.

Bloody idiots the lot of them.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
19,304
14,035
India
You got banned there! Lol!

No, my account's fine right now. If you are talking about previous times, I got banned for frivolous stuff. Like I once got banned for saying: We won't hold talks until terrorism stops. And another time for saying the UK is more influential than the Saudis.
 

Kvasir

Well-Known member
Jul 16, 2018
137
311
Norway
Don't be so serious on that forum. It's just a propaganda outlet.

Oh, I know. Honestly all defence forums are, few are objective. I hardly ever was serious, it wasn't worth the stress, though for some reason I am serious here where my natural inclination is to be whimsical. I blame the Swedes.

PDF really burnt me out though. Too much rubbish. Not enough quality. Anyone remember my user name on that forum:unsure:?
 

Indx

Banned
Mar 11, 2018
77
68
India
Oh, I know. Honestly all defence forums are, few are objective. I hardly ever was serious, it wasn't worth the stress, though for some reason I am serious here where my natural inclination is to be whimsical. I blame the Swedes.

PDF really burnt me out though. Too much rubbish. Not enough quality. Anyone remember my user name on that forum:unsure:?
Technogianist or either freyja
 

safriz

Well-Known member
Jan 1, 2018
1,910
693
UK, Pakistan
I made the mistake of checking PDF and found a thread on that article... big f***ing mistake that was. It was filled with statements like "even the US and Russia don't claim this capability," which completely ignores that both countries DO claim that! Russia's current batch of interceptors are nuclear and those in development are able to discriminate between live warheads and decoys. Hell, they've had radars that are capable of distinguishing between the two for decades!

Pill_Box_ABM-system_radar.JPEG


As for the Americans, they've long had the ability to tell a decoy from a warhead. Their space-based assets measure IR signatures, how a real warhead distributes thermal energy versus a dummy-warhead that's made of a different, but dense material designed to fool radars. They measure acceleration, density, makeup, trajectory. Their land-based radars like Cobra Dane were designed to track Russian missiles and orbital objects, MIRVs included, and now HGVs as well.

150113-F-OT300-032.JPG


Cobra_Dane_radar_electrical_systems.jpg


I could go on and on about how SM-3 has already demonstrated a capability to intercept warheads versus decoys, or how it has a multi-object kill vehicle in development for destroying an entire MIRV deployment in a single shot, while leaving the decoys untouched, or about American ground sensors, but I'd probably just have an aneurysm for the stress of those fools ignorance.

Bloody idiots the lot of them.
That discrimination is done in space by satellites who pick Gamma ray emissions from the real warheads.
This can only be done in the emptiness of space.
Once the warhead and decoys enter Atmosphere they are covered by Plasma and no microwave penetrates Plasma,hence no way of differentiation between real and decoy.
Later in lower atmosphere it can be done as decoys being less dense and lighter, will slow down faster, and Warhead being heavy will slow down later. So speed difference between the two will be the marker.
Then actually hitting the real warhead will depend upon how much time is left before detonation, which by then is very little.
 

advaidhya

Member
Aug 2, 2018
325
81
India
India conducts successful interceptor missile test at night

India successfully conducted an interceptor missile test off the Odisha coast Sunday night, achieving a major milestone in developing a two-layer Ballistic Missile Defence system, defence sources said.

The interceptor was launched from Abdul Kalam Island, earlier known as Wheeler Island of the Integrated Test Range (ITR), at about 8.05 pm, the sources said.

This Prithvi Defence Vehicle (PDV) mission is for engaging the targets in the exo-atmosphere region at an altitude above 50 km of the earth's atmosphere, a Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) scientist said.

"Both the PDV interceptor and the target missile were successfully engaged," DRDO sources said.

In an automated operation, radar-based detection and tracking system detected and tracked the enemy's ballistic missile.

The computer network with the help of data received from radars predicted the trajectory of the incoming ballistic missile. The PDV that was kept fully ready took off once the computer system gave the command for lift-off.

The interceptor guided by high-accuracy Inertial Navigation System (INS) supported by a Redundant Micro Navigation System moved towards the estimated point of the interception, the sources said.

Once the missile crossed the atmosphere, the Heat Shield ejected and the IR Seeker dome opened to look at the target location as designated by the mission computer. With the help of Inertial Guidance and IR Seeker the missile moved for interception.

All events were monitored in real-time by the Telemetry/Range Stations, at various other locations.

Interceptor was successfully test fired last from the same base on February 11, 2017.
 

advaidhya

Member
Aug 2, 2018
325
81
India
There are several things to note here:

  • PDV uses IIR seeker whereas AAD uses RF seeker
  • Incoming target missile simulated range is not known. Exo-atmosphere interception is really difficult as the incoming warhead will be very fast and will not slow down as it happens in endo-atmosphere due to friction with air. So, even 1500km MRBM will be too fats to intercept. This missile may be a SRBM target
  • Night testing of IIR seeker is easier than day testing. When looking up, the sun may come in the way at times and shield the incoming missile. So, night test helps in avoiding sun
It appears that PDV is not very successful as AAD is. Exo-atmospheric intercept requires hypersonic missiles with high degree of control and side-way thrusters. I am skeptical about PDV in general
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Sathya