Indian Ballistic Missile Defence Programme - Updates and Discussions

[randomradio]

So we have no picture, no document, and no quote from a DRDO scientist or even a respected journalist...but we somehow know that TGT was all-solid?

There are only quotes from both scientists and journalists. Personally, I haven't seen a pic, if there is one.

In any case why are we discussing this? I don't recall the point. PAD is also in a solid + liquid config.

The image is the TGT...it clearly has Programme-AD written on side of it and TGT-09 written near the nozzle.

And the video shows the ship-launched TGT taking off from a Sukanya-class OPV.

I'm not sure if all TGT launches were released publicly.

 

[Chain Smoker]

The interceptor needs a lot more altitude, like the ASAT or SM-3.

No if the missile is travelling within the kill altitude of interceptor.

 

[randomradio]

No if the missile is travelling within the kill altitude of interceptor.

The interceptor will need a lot of speed, 'cause it has to catch up with the BM at apogee. We don't have early warning satellites to pick up missiles at launch, so we will detect the missile only once it's high up in the air. That's quite a big head start for the BM.

 

[Parthu]

There are only quotes from both scientists and journalists. Personally, I haven't seen a pic, if there is one.

Any link?

In any case why are we discussing this? I don't recall the point. PAD is also in a solid + liquid config.

PAD is solid + liquid cuz the KV needs that extra push for reorienting toward target.

The point is still that surrogate testing using a much lower energy missile cannot sufficiently replicate the kinematics of a much larger, higher energy missile.

The US would never have built IRBM or ICBM-class target missiles if that were the case. If all they had to do was modifying the trajectories of Lance, Pershing or ATACMS class missiles to replicate longer-range types. We're seriously low-balling the criteria here.

Which I why I can't help but see this as a knee-jerk response to the S-400 delay.

I'm not sure if all TGT launches were released publicly.

Are you saying there were two different kinds of TGT missiles?

Cuz all the TGTs we have seen so far show clear evidence of liquid fuel burning.

 

[randomradio]

Any link?

Tried looking, can't help you there, the keywords are too generic.

PAD is solid + liquid cuz the KV needs that extra push for reorienting toward target.

The point is still that surrogate testing using a much lower energy missile cannot sufficiently replicate the kinematics of a much larger, higher energy missile.

The US would never have built IRBM or ICBM-class target missiles if that were the case. If all they had to do was modifying the trajectories of Lance, Pershing or ATACMS class missiles to replicate longer-range types. We're seriously low-balling the criteria here.

Which I why I can't help but see this as a knee-jerk response to the S-400 delay.

It's the opposite, liquid gives you more oomph. We use solid in the military 'cause it's cheap and easy to store and use.

We also use liquid in the second stage in order to throttle the missile's acceleration.

ICBM rules are different.

P1 is only at the PAC-3/THAAD level.

The US also uses representative missiles for GMD tests, an IRBM modified to mimic an ICBM.

Are you saying there were two different kinds of TGT missiles?

Cuz all the TGTs we have seen so far show clear evidence of liquid fuel burning.

Yes, one single stage, another two stage. Which is why I don't think we have seen all the images of all the TGT missiles to date. Only 3 PDV tests were conducted, officially.

 

[Parthu]

It's the opposite, liquid gives you more oomph. We use solid in the military 'cause it's cheap and easy to store and use.

Pound for pound, sure. But we're not talking about that here.

We're talking about a single liquid stage supposedly replicating the kinematics of a two-stage system which has between 4-8 x times the range (depending on which variant of Shaheen) of the surrogate, and at minimum 2-3 x times the apogee AT those ranges (closer target will obviously enable much higher apogees & terminal velocities).

Undoubtedly these are much higher-energy stages - and a totally different class of missile.

The US also uses representative missiles for GMD tests, an IRBM modified to mimic an ICBM.

During earlier development, yes. But intercepting a real ICBM-class target was always a major milestone which was finally reached in 2017.

GMD Missile Defense Hits ICBM Target, Finally - Breaking Defense

WASHINGTON: Two days after North Korea’s latest missile launch, the US conducted a successful test of its homeland missile defense system for the first time in almost three years. Codenamed FTG-15, today’s event was also the system’s first test ever against an “ICBM-class” target, as opposed to...

breakingdefense.com

The target was the aforementioned ICBM-T2. It launched from the Marshall Islands while the GBI took off from Vandenberg, California - a distance of roughly 8,000 kms. The MDA could not have declared the GMD operational against ICBM-class threats with a straight face if such tests weren't completed successfully.

Yes, one single stage, another two stage. Which is why I don't think we have seen all the images of all the TGT missiles to date. Only 3 PDV tests were conducted, officially.

Well I've never seen this, or even heard of it.

You sure you aren't confusing a report about the PAD with a TGT?

 

[randomradio]

During earlier development, yes. But intercepting a real ICBM-class target was always a major milestone which was finally reached in 2017.

GMD Missile Defense Hits ICBM Target, Finally - Breaking Defense

WASHINGTON: Two days after North Korea’s latest missile launch, the US conducted a successful test of its homeland missile defense system for the first time in almost three years. Codenamed FTG-15, today’s event was also the system’s first test ever against an “ICBM-class” target, as opposed to...

breakingdefense.com

The target was the aforementioned ICBM-T2. It launched from the Marshall Islands while the GBI took off from Vandenberg, California - a distance of roughly 8,000 kms. The MDA could not have declared the GMD operational against ICBM-class threats with a straight face if such tests weren't completed successfully.

Exactly. An IRBM with a small payload could act as an ICBM. So something like the Agni III without a 1000-2000Kg payload should be able to function like an ICBM. Your argument was DRDO needs to use an Agni II itself. So by extension, your argument really is that the GMD should be tested with a Minuteman III or Trident, and not some modified IRBM class missile, for it to actually become operational.

Similarly, we have a target missile that's originally an SRBM pretending to be an MRBM. Replace the 1000Kg explosive with a 100Kg warhead and you get what you want out of it.

Well I've never seen this, or even heard of it.

You sure you aren't confusing a report about the PAD with a TGT?

Then are you trying to say a Prithvi was launched into space with just a single stage? Come on...

 

[Lolwa]

We really need to mimic this performance.

 

[Parthu]

Exactly. An IRBM with a small payload could act as an ICBM. So something like the Agni III without a 1000-2000Kg payload should be able to function like an ICBM. Your argument was DRDO needs to use an Agni II itself. So by extension, your argument really is that the GMD should be tested with a Minuteman III or Trident, and not some modified IRBM class missile, for it to actually become operational.

Did you read the article? It was tested against ICBM-T1/T2 i.e. the only ICBM-class target missile in US MDA service. The ICBM-T literally uses a Trident-I C4 boost stage, that's a proper ICBM class missile.

https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/Barrow,%20F%20-%20TC%20Msn%20Presentation%20v2%2020210406.pdf

They were comfortable using IRBM-class targets for a while, when the GMD program was still largely in a technology development phase (remember, it had a very poor success rate at one point) but once that was sorted, testing against a full-range ICBM target was mandatory for achieving the full capability required of the system.

In other words, there are limits to surrogate testing. The US has developed target missiles that represent every range class of BM employed by potential enemies, no SRBMs trying to pass off as MRBMs or IRBMs trying to pass off as ICBMs. They developed a specific tool for everything.

If we want our BMD shield to be as comprehensive a solution, so should we. Unless of course if we are comfortable with setting up a "naam ke vaaste" BMD shield...which would only be the case if it were a knee-jerk decision. Which was my point all along.

Similarly, we have a target missile that's originally an SRBM pretending to be an MRBM. Replace the 1000Kg explosive with a 100Kg warhead and you get what you want out of it.

Reduction of payload would help increase performance a bit...but certainly not by as much as 8 x times which is what is required (in range terms), or about 3 x times which is needed in apogee terms to mimic a Shaheen-II.

Then are you trying to say a Prithvi was launched into space with just a single stage? Come on...

Why not? Single-stage V2s crossed Von Karman line back during WW2.

 

[randomradio]

Did you read the article? It was tested against ICBM-T1/T2 i.e. the only ICBM-class target missile in US MDA service. The ICBM-T literally uses a Trident-I C4 boost stage, that's a proper ICBM class missile.

https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/Barrow,%20F%20-%20TC%20Msn%20Presentation%20v2%2020210406.pdf

View attachment 25174

View attachment 25175

They were comfortable using IRBM-class targets for a while, when the GMD program was still largely in a technology development phase (remember, it had a very poor success rate at one point) but once that was sorted, testing against a full-range ICBM target was mandatory for achieving the full capability required of the system.

In other words, there are limits to surrogate testing. The US has developed target missiles that represent every range class of BM employed by potential enemies, no SRBMs trying to pass off as MRBMs or IRBMs trying to pass off as ICBMs. They developed a specific tool for everything.

If we want our BMD shield to be as comprehensive a solution, so should we. Unless of course if we are comfortable with setting up a "naam ke vaaste" BMD shield...which would only be the case if it were a knee-jerk decision. Which was my point all along.

I'd argue the ICBM T1 was representative of the Satan and Sarmat. 'Cause once you hit the ICBM range, there's no upper limit today. Maybe the next one would be a Global BM.

So a Trident 1 pretending to be a Satan/Sarmat here. It's the same argument. The Trident 1 is a 7500Km missile mimicking a 16000+Km missile.

The next step would be to use a Minuteman III to mimick a missile that can orbit around the planet, a GBM(?), thereby capable of choosing more altitude options that a regular ICBM.

You always use a threat-representative missile simply because it's more effective that way.

Reduction of payload would help increase performance a bit...but certainly not by as much as 8 x times which is what is required (in range terms), or about 3 x times which is needed in apogee terms to mimic a Shaheen-II.

As long as the final stage is modified for the purpose. Look at the SM-3 family as an example.

Why not? Single-stage V2s crossed Von Karman line back during WW2.

Great, then it can also mimic an MRBM. So I stand corrected, but you just ended up supporting my argument, so you proved yourself wrong too.

So, then forget about both stages being solid, let's just assume it's the usual solid and liquid combo. Then, it's good enough to mimic an MRBM.

India’s ballistic missile shield ready, IAF & DRDO to seek govt nod to protect Delhi

BMD programme envisaged for Delhi. This, along with the Russian S-400 Triumf air defence system, aims to secure India from all kinds of incoming missiles.

theprint.in

“The BMD programme has been completed. All tests carried so far have been successful, including the radars and missiles. The IAF, which is responsible for the country’s air defence, and the DRDO, which has developed the system, will now move a joint proposal for the government’s clearance,” a top government official told ThePrint.

While you believe P1 is a TD, the DRDO and IAF don't.

Ever since 2021, particularly after the S-400 was deployed, including a limited deployment of P1, India's tone has changed a lot with respect to Pakistan. I don't think it would be incorrect if we link what Rajnath Singh said about taking back PoK recently to our new BMD achievements.

Rajnath Singh: India’s goal is to take back PoK turf: Rajnath Singh | Srinagar News - Times of India

It was the first military operation of independent India, a move that changed the course of the India-Pakistan war in 1947-48 in which Indian troops r

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

 

[Parthu]

I'd argue the ICBM T1 was representative of the Satan and Sarmat. 'Cause once you hit the ICBM range, there's no upper limit today. Maybe the next one would be a Global BM.

So a Trident 1 pretending to be a Satan/Sarmat here. It's the same argument. The Trident 1 is a 7500Km missile mimicking a 16000+Km missile.

It's not the same as Prithvi mimicking an MRBM though.

Once your missile can cross that 5500 km ICBM mark, you don't need to gain more altitude to increase your range - you are already in the area of least atmospheric resistance. Hence pretty much all ICBMs, the 7000km ones or 16000km ones, all have roughly the same typical mission profile apogee of about 1000-1200 kms. There's no point in going much higher than that because after a point you can just orbit the RV/MIRV bus and gain range that way.

Great, then it can also mimic an MRBM. So I stand corrected, but you just ended up supporting my argument, so you proved yourself wrong too.

So, then forget about both stages being solid, let's just assume it's the usual solid and liquid combo. Then, it's good enough to mimic an MRBM.

India’s ballistic missile shield ready, IAF & DRDO to seek govt nod to protect Delhi

BMD programme envisaged for Delhi. This, along with the Russian S-400 Triumf air defence system, aims to secure India from all kinds of incoming missiles.

theprint.in

“The BMD programme has been completed. All tests carried so far have been successful, including the radars and missiles. The IAF, which is responsible for the country’s air defence, and the DRDO, which has developed the system, will now move a joint proposal for the government’s clearance,” a top government official told ThePrint.

While you believe P1 is a TD, the DRDO and IAF don't.

Ever since 2021, particularly after the S-400 was deployed, including a limited deployment of P1, India's tone has changed a lot with respect to Pakistan. I don't think it would be incorrect if we link what Rajnath Singh said about taking back PoK recently to our new BMD achievements.

Rajnath Singh: India’s goal is to take back PoK turf: Rajnath Singh | Srinagar News - Times of India

It was the first military operation of independent India, a move that changed the course of the India-Pakistan war in 1947-48 in which Indian troops r

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

One of the TGTs was reportedly intercepted at an altitude of 70-80 kms by the PDV. That's the highest we've known the TGT to travel, understandably to enable exo-atmospheric interception. What we don't know is how high it went for the endo-atmospheric tests which is where velocities come into play for the AAD.

So the only thing we can fall back on is the knowledge that the missile is question, on average possesses about 1/5th (and that's being generous) of the kinematic capabilities (range) of the missile its supposedly mimicking. So if that 70-80 km in PDV test was close to the TGT's apogee, it would be nowhere near its terminal velocity. Whereas a Shaheen-II with an apogee of say 150km would have already achieved a significant portion of its terminal velocity by the time it got to 70-80 km. You see why they may not be representative after all?

I'm aware of the proposal to deploy - I just remain unconvinced that it isn't something that was proposed as knee-jerk reaction to the S-400 delay that happened around the same time (they must've been internally aware of it for a few months in advance).

Russia to delay delivery of S–400 air defence missile systems to India by 2 years

www.sps-aviation.com

As I said, even the S-400 isn't a dedicated BMD system a-la THAAD or even PAC-3, but its better than nothing. I reckon the proposal to deploy the tech already developed under P1 was along the same lines i.e. better than nothing.

Either way, its been nearly 3 years since that article you posted. Where is the BMD shield? Did they roll the plan back now that S-400s have finally arrived?

If due to the recent sanctions S-400 deliveries get affected again, could the proposal be revived? Remains to be seen.

 

[South block]

We really need to mimic this performance.

Peak acceleration for Sprint was around 100 G , while it average around 65 G achieving 0 to mach 10 ( 3,403 mt/s ) in around 5 seconds & was a great achievement back than...it could hit a Warhead moving 8 km/s.
Russian A-235 Nudol has a 200 G peak acceleration rate & average around 80 G better than Sprint, speed is around 7 km/s & range around 1500 Km.


Funny thing is there was a program called HIBEX ( High boost experiment ) based on same platform ( Sprint ) but with different propellant which accelerated 4 times as fast accelerating at 400 G....only 7 tests were conducted & all videos are classified to this day. It isn't even known if they manage to record it as it reached 0 to mach 8 in just a second ( 2.7 Km/s )
The Russian ABM test in the video is closest to it , if video has not been doctored

 

[Amarante]

edit:
see thread Missile Test Watch

 

[randomradio]

It's not the same as Prithvi mimicking an MRBM though.

Once your missile can cross that 5500 km ICBM mark, you don't need to gain more altitude to increase your range - you are already in the area of least atmospheric resistance. Hence pretty much all ICBMs, the 7000km ones or 16000km ones, all have roughly the same typical mission profile apogee of about 1000-1200 kms. There's no point in going much higher than that because after a point you can just orbit the RV/MIRV bus and gain range that way.

Depends on the trajectory.

North Korea fires new type of ICBM in large-scale test

North Korea has fired a new type of intercontinental ballistic missile, Japan's Defense Ministry says, with the full-scale launch coming at a time when international attention is focused on Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

english.kyodonews.net

The new ICBM was fired from the Sunan area in Pyongyang at 2:33 p.m. and fell at 3:44 p.m. in the waters after flying about 1,100 km in range and reaching an altitude of 6,200 km during its 71-minute flight, according to the Japanese and South Korean governments.

An ICBM launched by Pyongyang in November 2017 flew 53 minutes and reached an altitude of over 4,000 km.

1000-1200Km is merely the most optimum trajectory for an ICBM to achieve the longest range. But it's not necessary to use that trajectory. NoKo was just making a different point by using higher altitudes, but if a target is 8000Km away and you have a 16000Km missile, you're not necessarily gonna be using a regular trajectory.

One of the TGTs was reportedly intercepted at an altitude of 70-80 kms by the PDV. That's the highest we've known the TGT to travel, understandably to enable exo-atmospheric interception. What we don't know is how high it went for the endo-atmospheric tests which is where velocities come into play for the AAD.

So the only thing we can fall back on is the knowledge that the missile is question, on average possesses about 1/5th (and that's being generous) of the kinematic capabilities (range) of the missile its supposedly mimicking. So if that 70-80 km in PDV test was close to the TGT's apogee, it would be nowhere near its terminal velocity. Whereas a Shaheen-II with an apogee of say 150km would have already achieved a significant portion of its terminal velocity by the time it got to 70-80 km. You see why they may not be representative after all?

I'm aware of the proposal to deploy - I just remain unconvinced that it isn't something that was proposed as knee-jerk reaction to the S-400 delay that happened around the same time (they must've been internally aware of it for a few months in advance).

Russia to delay delivery of S–400 air defence missile systems to India by 2 years

www.sps-aviation.com

As I said, even the S-400 isn't a dedicated BMD system a-la THAAD or even PAC-3, but its better than nothing. I reckon the proposal to deploy the tech already developed under P1 was along the same lines i.e. better than nothing.

Either way, its been nearly 3 years since that article you posted. Where is the BMD shield? Did they roll the plan back now that S-400s have finally arrived?

If due to the recent sanctions S-400 deliveries get affected again, could the proposal be revived? Remains to be seen.

Hit-to-Kill Successfully Demonstrated By DRDO’s PDV Interceptor | Delhi Defence Review

delhidefencereview.com

The exo-atmospheric intercept achieved at an altitude of 97 km...

Which means the TGT achieved an altitude of well above 100Km.

Furthermore:
...validated among other things, the improved guidance algorithm used for this test-mission, since the incoming missile target had deviated significantly from what would have allowed an intercept along a typical minimum energy trajectory (MET) for an ABM interceptor. Instead, the PDV test-vehicle had to slam into the target at the far end of its engagement boundary and at a lower altitude than what a ‘standard’ MET intercept would have entailed.

Which implies the intercept was actually planned for well above 100Km, but the TGT deviated.

Another test:

Some notes on DRDO's PDV ballistic missile defence interceptor - News18

www.news18.com

Indeed, the late April test involved a 'near miss' at an altitude of 120 km.

We are talking about an apogee of 150Km at least, if not more.

Anyway, you're on Twitter, just shoot a message to Jha and it will be solved.

The S-400 news there is fake news. Delivery is delayed, but not by years.

 

[Parthu]

Depends on the trajectory.

North Korea fires new type of ICBM in large-scale test

North Korea has fired a new type of intercontinental ballistic missile, Japan's Defense Ministry says, with the full-scale launch coming at a time when international attention is focused on Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

english.kyodonews.net

The new ICBM was fired from the Sunan area in Pyongyang at 2:33 p.m. and fell at 3:44 p.m. in the waters after flying about 1,100 km in range and reaching an altitude of 6,200 km during its 71-minute flight, according to the Japanese and South Korean governments.

An ICBM launched by Pyongyang in November 2017 flew 53 minutes and reached an altitude of over 4,000 km.

1000-1200Km is merely the most optimum trajectory for an ICBM to achieve the longest range. But it's not necessary to use that trajectory. NoKo was just making a different point by using higher altitudes, but if a target is 8000Km away and you have a 16000Km missile, you're not necessarily gonna be using a regular trajectory.

What they tested for should cover for most possible applications though. Russian silos or mobile launch pads are typically far enough away that they rely on orbiting the RV bus to achieve range. Newer Chinese ICBMs are more of a problem but there are more than enough assets between PRC and US in the Pacific to take them out at Boost/Ascent phase anyway.

The currently-deployed Chinese deterrent (JL-2 and DF-31) are almost perfectly represented by the ICBM-T2.

Hit-to-Kill Successfully Demonstrated By DRDO’s PDV Interceptor | Delhi Defence Review

delhidefencereview.com

The exo-atmospheric intercept achieved at an altitude of 97 km...

Which means the TGT achieved an altitude of well above 100Km.

Furthermore:
...validated among other things, the improved guidance algorithm used for this test-mission, since the incoming missile target had deviated significantly from what would have allowed an intercept along a typical minimum energy trajectory (MET) for an ABM interceptor. Instead, the PDV test-vehicle had to slam into the target at the far end of its engagement boundary and at a lower altitude than what a ‘standard’ MET intercept would have entailed.

Which implies the intercept was actually planned for well above 100Km, but the TGT deviated.

Another test:

Some notes on DRDO's PDV ballistic missile defence interceptor - News18

www.news18.com

Indeed, the late April test involved a 'near miss' at an altitude of 120 km.

We are talking about an apogee of 150Km at least, if not more.

Anyway, you're on Twitter, just shoot a message to Jha and it will be solved.

The S-400 news there is fake news. Delivery is delayed, but not by years.

Interesting, never read these altitude reports before. Thanks for the links.

Yes, these altitudes should represent a Shaheen-I pretty well. The larger ones (Shaheen-II and above) are still a problem though as their longer range + relative proximity to Indian targets will mean they will have to boost to much higher apogees, and they'd have already achieved a good chunk of terminal velocity by the time they get to ~100km altitude.

 

[randomradio]

What they tested for should cover for most possible applications though. Russian silos or mobile launch pads are typically far enough away that they rely on orbiting the RV bus to achieve range. Newer Chinese ICBMs are more of a problem but there are more than enough assets between PRC and US in the Pacific to take them out at Boost/Ascent phase anyway.

The currently-deployed Chinese deterrent (JL-2 and DF-31) are almost perfectly represented by the ICBM-T2.

Sure. I'll give you that. Current GMD capability seems to be focused on countering China, and the Chinese responded by building all those silos to saturate the GMD. I guess countering Russia is still some ways away.

Interesting, never read these altitude reports before. Thanks for the links.

Cheers.

Yes, these altitudes should represent a Shaheen-I pretty well. The larger ones (Shaheen-II and above) are still a problem though as their longer range + relative proximity to Indian targets will mean they will have to boost to much higher apogees, and they'd have already achieved a good chunk of terminal velocity by the time they get to ~100km altitude.

The PDV will obviously see new iterations, Mk1A, 1B etc. Last I heard, the PDV can approach altitudes of 200Km, which should be more than enough to defeat Shaheen II and III. Since THAAD could counter an IRBM with a similar altitude specification, I think PDV will also be a match.

 

[Parthu]

The PDV will obviously see new iterations, Mk1A, 1B etc. Last I heard, the PDV can approach altitudes of 200Km, which should be more than enough to defeat Shaheen II and III. Since THAAD could counter an IRBM with a similar altitude specification, I think PDV will also be a match.

Could that be what they're waiting for? Cuz like I said its been nearly 3 years since that proposal to deploy P1 and nothing came of it, except an order for a small quantity of rounds which seems more in line as a replenishment of test articles.

Once you place a large enough production order, it would take a minimum of 2 years, perhaps more, to deliver a large portion of it at least.

But around the 2025 period, we'd already be testing AD-1 & AD-2 against the full range of BM threats, and more than likely an early form of ERADS (indigenous S-400 alternative) would have at least initial tests undergoing.

 

[marich01]

ship based AD1 AD2 would be very useful given its two front as well.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1596579497993981952

 

[marich01]

BMD ship

https://twitter.com/x/status/1601153080099160064

https://twitter.com/x/status/1601177195355189248

 

[randomradio]

Could that be what they're waiting for? Cuz like I said its been nearly 3 years since that proposal to deploy P1 and nothing came of it, except an order for a small quantity of rounds which seems more in line as a replenishment of test articles.

Once you place a large enough production order, it would take a minimum of 2 years, perhaps more, to deliver a large portion of it at least.

But around the 2025 period, we'd already be testing AD-1 & AD-2 against the full range of BM threats, and more than likely an early form of ERADS (indigenous S-400 alternative) would have at least initial tests undergoing.

P1 has already been deployed. P2 is now about to enter the construction stage, it will face China.

P1 is everything facing Pakistan. It's all there sitting on Google Maps for everybody to see.