AAD/PDV had capability against 2000km BMs (Threats from Pakistan)
AD-1/AD-2 against 5000km BMs (Threats from China)
AD-1/AD-2 against 5000km BMs (Threats from China)
Development to be completed by 2025 including Exo-Atmospheric Interceptor.
I like Dr Kamat more than previous Dr S Reddy, very clear on any info about projects he gives in simple language. Previously Dr Satheesh Reddy I don't know why always gave a political character sort of vibe to me.
Anyway offtopic again, the project D I was talking about in previous page, I think its not related to this nor MAK Vympel involvement with DRDO. Might be a bit related with the Sula radar we are buying from Russia though, to track space debris.
Mods please remove this to appropriate thread if needed.
telegram link :
t.me
t.me
Anyway offtopic again, the project D I was talking about in previous page, I think its not related to this nor MAK Vympel involvement with DRDO. Might be a bit related with the Sula radar we are buying from Russia though, to track space debris.
Mods please remove this to appropriate thread if needed.
telegram link :
Военно-болтовой
Одна из ключевых целей и задач стратегии развития ПАО «МАК «Вымпел» на период до 2023 года, взято из годовых отчетов общества за 2019-2020гг: Проведение разработок средств моделирования сложных систем в интересах Заказчика 818 (Египет - прим. канала), 156 (Китай - прим. канала) и 356 (Индия -...
t.me
Военно-болтовой
ПАО «Радиофизика» создает радиолокационный комплекс для защиты Индии. Эту информацию опубликовал подрядчик ПАО «Радиофизика» по противопожарным системам — АО «Центр пожарной безопасности объектов военной инфраструктуры». Подробности о поставляемом РЛК не известны, возможно, комплекс...
t.me
Last edited:
I would describe the AD-1 as roughly equivalent to the Aster-30 Block-1NT and SM-6. It would form the lower rung of the BMD Phase-II program with regard to range & altitude, and will primarily be aimed at intercepting missile threats inside the atmosphere. The higher rung would be formed by the AD-2, which is still in development and is in the league of SM-3 with theatre-level BMD capabilities i.e. interceptions outside the atmosphere.
The two systems (along with supporting next-gen radars) form Phase-2 BMD and will likely see both land & ship-based use. The vessel INS Anvesh is already outfitted to carry out tests of theses BMD missiles in combination with new radars & combat management systems. If you recall, Phase-I was a technology demonstration phase under which several ABM platforms like AAD, PAD & PDV together with their support systems were developed & tested over the last decade. Phase-II represents the development of fully operationalized capabilities based on the lessons learnt from Phase-I tech demo.
The BMD-II is an indication of further progress in the following fields:
The two systems (along with supporting next-gen radars) form Phase-2 BMD and will likely see both land & ship-based use. The vessel INS Anvesh is already outfitted to carry out tests of theses BMD missiles in combination with new radars & combat management systems. If you recall, Phase-I was a technology demonstration phase under which several ABM platforms like AAD, PAD & PDV together with their support systems were developed & tested over the last decade. Phase-II represents the development of fully operationalized capabilities based on the lessons learnt from Phase-I tech demo.
The BMD-II is an indication of further progress in the following fields:
- High Energy Solid Propellents
- Next gen Divert & Attitude Control System (DACS)
- Next gen Imaging Infrared (IIR) and Ka-band RF seekers (including AESA)
Sir ji, it was mentioned that Programme LRSAM is meant for both IAF and IN. So the naval version means for the capital warships like DDGs or for INS Anvesh?
For DDGs obviously, eventually.
INS Anvesh is just a Test & Evaluation vessel meant to serve as a platform for testing new weapon & system complexes during their development phases, prior to installing those systems on surface combatants.
It's purpose is broadly similar to what was served by the USS Norton Sound (originally a non-combatant support ship) during the 70s and 80s, wherein it served as the platform to integrate and test the first iterations of both the AEGIS combat management system, the AN/SPY-1 radar, as well as the first prototype of the Mk.41 VLS. All these elements were integrated & tested together on this ship first, before being installed on Ticonderoga (and eventually Arleigh Burke) class warships.
INS Anvesh will serve a very similar purpose...with the exception of being a purpose-built vessel as opposed to Norton Sound which was originally a seaplane-tender.
USS Norton Sound - Wikipedia
The test version of AN/SPY-1 radar can be seen mounted on top
Nope. Phase 1 is now fully deployed and operational. BDL annual report of 2021-22 has already confirmed production orders for both AAD/PDV. Check this out(first paragraph):
These are likely orders to build further test articles.
If you are referring to class, then maybe yes, we don't know enough though, at least we know it's endo-atmospheric. But in terms of capabilities, the AAD alone surpasses the other two. Both 1NT and SM-6 can intercept low end MRBMs, similar to AAD. But AD-1 is designed to intercept IRBMs. So in terms of roles it's on a whole different level. Outside Russia, I don't believe there is an equivalent.
P1 based on AAD/PDV has already become operational and is being expanded. It's meant to mainly stop Pak and Chinese SRBMs/MRBMs. It's our Patriot/THAAD equivalent. I think you're confused about PAD, because that was a TD for the PDV.
P2 based on AD-1/AD-2 is meant to stop Chinese IRBMs.
Both sit in their own niche areas of engagement.
We don't have an immediate need for ICBM interception, the Chinese need to further evolve their SSBN fleet for that to happen, ie, the JL-3 ICBM. The ASAT design could play a part by then.
I'm going on the basis of both AD-1 and Block-1NT being supposedly rated for 1,500-km class threats.
The 'operationalization' of AAD/PDV is at best a knee-jerk reaction to get a limited capability set pending the delayed arrival & deployment of S-400. The systems, much like LCH in Ladakh, were rushed into a semi-official role due to incidents of 2019-20.
Only the AD-1/2 are meant to be definitive systems.
Only part of the Phase-1 program which was always meant to serve operational purposes was the deployment of Long-range tracking radars.
Not at all. It is a proper program meant for operational use. It's been deployed operationally. At least the widespread deployment of TELs is starting this year (2022!!!
). Until now it was all stuff developed for testing purposes. P1 even has its own MFCR.That infographic is misleading. It says AD-1 is more than 1500Km and AD-2 is more than 3000Km because AAD and PDV are below 1500Km and 3000Km respectively.
Also, BMD missiles are specific to the BM type. For example, AAD and PDV are more effective in countering SRBMs and MRBMs than AD-1 and AD-2, because the latter have been developed to operate against a different type. Now, while AD-1 might get away with shooting down an SRBM/MRBM because it's within the atmosphere, although it may struggle, AD-2 will be completely useless against SRBMs and MRBMs because its trajectory is meant for a whole different target.
For example, if you are trying to throw a ball from the ground to a friend on the third floor versus another friend on the first floor, you would need different amounts of force and throwing actions for both floors. Missiles are the same. But the difference between your throwing arm and the missile is you can make the adjustment necessary to use the right amount of force, but a missile using a solid rocket motor cannot do the same. It cannot throttle up or down, so you need a whole new missile to deal with a different target coming in at a different angle and speed.
Point being, P1 and P2 are complementary and both are necessary to protect a target. One protects a target from SRBMs and MRBMs and the other deals with IRBMs.
The S-400 has little to do with the BMD program, it's meant for a specific IAF requirement driven by the lack of fighter squadrons, Operation Copium-400. I'd say its BMD capability is complementary to the DRDO's as it features far greater tactical mobility and survivability, not necessarily capability. Plus it's proven. I guess the faster induction helps too. The S-400 is still the IAF's coping mechanism. It's primarily about transferring the small number of fighters left to offensive missions and employing a high-risk method of defence instead. If the USAF openly says they have lost conventional deterrence against China, then you can imagine how bad it is for us.
The LRTR meant for P1 was less capable. Due to delays, the LRTR meant for P2 became the main version for both phases.
Not at all. It is a proper program meant for operational use. It's been deployed operationally. At least the widespread deployment of TELs is starting this year (2022!!!
Please do share the reports as this is news to me.
AD-1 and AD-2 together are designed to counter the entire range of theatre-level ballistic missile threats, all the way from SRBMs to IRBMs, with the AD-1 taking care of the lower-range threats and AD-2 being reserved for higher range ones.
The technologies of P1 are simply not sufficient enough to deliver operational capabilities. We only ever tested either of the AAD or PDV against liquid-fueled Prithvi-based SRBM targets. This type of missile (kinematic equivalent of early SCUDs) has already been phased out by the Chinese and replaced with higher-energy Solid-fuel types (equivalents of Iskander or our Pralay) and the only Pakistani liquid-fuel missile in service is the Ghauri, which anyway is a different class of missile (MRBM). The ascent or terminal characteristics of any of these missiles are vastly different to that of any Prithvi.
We simply never tested the P1 against the type of BM threats we actually face today. We cannot say on the basis of anything we tested that any BMD based on P1 has 'operational' capabilities. The only things we really tested were proofs-of-concept that we can actually track incoming target and guide the interceptor onto said target. Nothing else of operational consequence was really demonstrated,. And without any actual test data, P1 is basically useless against the types of BMs we will actually face.
In fact we will only gain the capability to test against full-range BM threats (all the way from Solid-fuel SRBMs to IRBMs) once we operationalize the DRDO Open Sea Test Range comprising the INS Anvesh with its on-board LRMFR radar (aka ship-based version of IAF's upcoming HPR) + missile launchers for both AD-1 & AD-2, alongside the INS Dhruv performing telemetry tracking to validate the results.
Without such tests being conducted, any claim of a BMD shield being 'operational' is a joke. Imagine if the US were to only test AEGIS/AEGIS Ashore BMD against something the likes of the old liquid-fueled MGM-52 Lance, but declaring it operational against likes of Iskander. Just doesn't work.
P1 'deployment' is the coping mechanism. S-400 wasn't meant to deliver BMD capabilities, but the capabilities it does deliver are roughly equivalent if not superior to the AAD i.e. a similar stand-in for the lack of a dedicated system such as PAC-3/THAAD. It's little more than a "better than nothing" situation, not very different to the P1 in that regard.
China has already tested the S-400 in a simulated BMD application, which means more than likely it will be used against the likes of our Pralay SRBM.
China successfully tests Russia's S-400 missile air defence system
China's People's Liberation Army Rocket Force last month tested the S-400 Triumf air defence system successfully shooting down a "simulated ballistic target" almost 250 kilometre away and moving at the supersonic speed of 3 kilometre per second, Hong-Kong based South China Morning Post reported.
In your post you accept that AAD is equivalent to S-400 in BMD role. And then you showed how Chinese S-400Please do share the reports as this is news to me.
AD-1 and AD-2 together are designed to counter the entire range of theatre-level ballistic missile threats, all the way from SRBMs to IRBMs, with the AD-1 taking care of the lower-range threats and AD-2 being reserved for higher range ones.
The technologies of P1 are simply not sufficient enough to deliver operational capabilities. We only ever tested either of the AAD or PDV against liquid-fueled Prithvi-based SRBM targets. This type of missile (kinematic equivalent of early SCUDs) has already been phased out by the Chinese and replaced with higher-energy Solid-fuel types (equivalents of Iskander or our Pralay) and the only Pakistani liquid-fuel missile in service is the Ghauri, which anyway is a different class of missile (MRBM). The ascent or terminal characteristics of any of these missiles are vastly different to that of any Prithvi.
We simply never tested the P1 against the type of BM threats we actually face today. We cannot say on the basis of anything we tested that any BMD based on P1 has 'operational' capabilities. The only things we really tested were proofs-of-concept that we can actually track incoming target and guide the interceptor onto said target. Nothing else of operational consequence was really demonstrated,. And without any actual test data, P1 is basically useless against the types of BMs we will actually face.
In fact we will only gain the capability to test against full-range BM threats (all the way from Solid-fuel SRBMs to IRBMs) once we operationalize the DRDO Open Sea Test Range comprising the INS Anvesh with its on-board LRMFR radar (aka ship-based version of IAF's upcoming HPR) + missile launchers for both AD-1 & AD-2, alongside the INS Dhruv performing telemetry tracking to validate the results.
Without such tests being conducted, any claim of a BMD shield being 'operational' is a joke. Imagine if the US were to only test AEGIS/AEGIS Ashore BMD against something the likes of the old liquid-fueled MGM-52 Lance, but declaring it operational against likes of Iskander. Just doesn't work.
P1 'deployment' is the coping mechanism. S-400 wasn't meant to deliver BMD capabilities, but the capabilities it does deliver are roughly equivalent if not superior to the AAD i.e. a similar stand-in for the lack of a dedicated system such as PAC-3/THAAD. It's little more than a "better than nothing" situation, not very different to the P1 in that regard.
China has already tested the S-400 in a simulated BMD application, which means more than likely it will be used against the likes of our Pralay SRBM.
China successfully tests Russia's S-400 missile air defence system
China's People's Liberation Army Rocket Force last month tested the S-400 Triumf air defence system successfully shooting down a "simulated ballistic target" almost 250 kilometre away and moving at the supersonic speed of 3 kilometre per second, Hong-Kong based South China Morning Post reported.economictimes.indiatimes.com
intercepted SRBM moving at almost mach 10. So if AAD= S400, as per you, then PDV is much better than S400 in dedicated BMD role.
Secondly, why would Indian government give orders to BDL worth 358 crores if Phase 1 was never meant to be opetational? Hence, in my opinion, BMD phase I of India is fully operational now and highly effective against Pak missile threat. Phase 2 would deal with China and ICBM thread.
PS: PDV MK2(ASAT) can also intercept an ICBM and it's fully operational as well. If you don't agree then lets just agree to disagree
BMD phase 1 is stepping stone towards real capabilities according to our requirements which is phase 2.Not at all. It is a proper program meant for operational use. It's been deployed operationally. At least the widespread deployment of TELs is starting this year (2022!!!
Phase 1 will be operational but in limited capacity. Like LCA mk1 order while it misses ASQR. AMCA and mk2 will be the real deal with each way significant orders.
The Chinese BMD test was simulated, not real (at least as of yet).
When I say equivalent I mean in terms of kinematic capabilities i.e. range & altitude. The real juice of BMD lies in the software.
Secondly, why would Indian government give orders to BDL worth 358 crores if Phase 1 was never meant to be opetational? Hence, in my opinion, BMD phase I of India is fully operational now and highly effective against Pak missile threat. Phase 2 would deal with China and ICBM thread.
PS: PDV MK2(ASAT) can also intercept an ICBM and it's fully operational as well. If you don't agree then lets just agree to disagree
In the pic you posted of orders, the specific cost of AAD/PDV is not mentioned.
A single round of PAC-3 costs roughly $8 million, even if ours are only half that price per unit, with Rs. 358 Cr (~$40 million) you're talking about enough funds to buy about 10 of these missiles, let's say 5 AAD and 5 PDV rounds.
Do those numbers sound like something an operational BMD shield would be equipped with? Or do they sound like orders for additional rounds for continuing test launch programs?
For comparison, the Patriot system deployed in Saudi Arabia has an inventory of roughly 650 rounds of PAC-2.
There's nothing in print. Right now, the best clue is missile tests were not conducted from test rigs, but from actual tactical vehicles painted in geography-specific camo.
It doesn't get any more obvious than this, mate, they are obviously user tests. In fact, the second truck is used to carry Prahar too.
Another clue is BDL getting the serial production orders for the missiles.
The target missile was highly modified to mimic a plethora of missiles with different trajectories. For example, the standard altitude of Prithvi is just 50Km, but the target missile has been intercepted at a height of 120Km.
As per DRDO, AAD/PDV can defeat not just existing missiles but even future missiles within the designed flight envelope.
P1 is expected to be fully operational in 2023 for the Western component. North and Northeast infrastructure will be built under P2.
Btw, I gotta clear a misconception people have. P1 and P2 are geography specific and not technology specific. P1 is meant to have radars and other capabilities facing Pakistan, whereas the Northern and Northeastern components are part of P2, meant to deal with China, yet to be built. So AAD/PDV are Pak-specific to the point that the threat faced from Pakistan can be dealt with these two missiles alone, which will allow us to make it operational faster, and it began this year. Otoh, the threats faced from China needs AAD/PDV and AD-1/AD-2, and we also needed to build new test sites for the P2 missiles.
P1 'deployment' is the coping mechanism. S-400 wasn't meant to deliver BMD capabilities, but the capabilities it does deliver are roughly equivalent if not superior to the AAD i.e. a similar stand-in for the lack of a dedicated system such as PAC-3/THAAD. It's little more than a "better than nothing" situation, not very different to the P1 in that regard.
China has already tested the S-400 in a simulated BMD application, which means more than likely it will be used against the likes of our Pralay SRBM.
China successfully tests Russia's S-400 missile air defence system
China's People's Liberation Army Rocket Force last month tested the S-400 Triumf air defence system successfully shooting down a "simulated ballistic target" almost 250 kilometre away and moving at the supersonic speed of 3 kilometre per second, Hong-Kong based South China Morning Post reported.
The S-400's new 40N6 gives us superior capability to the AAD. But that's about the limit of its capabilities. If the S-400 gets exo-atmospheric interception capability, that's great, but I don't believe India has that yet or will get that. Even if it happens, it will still not replace P1 because of our need for volumes and also control over the production.
More importantly, we need full control over our BMD systems in order to deal with new threats. We can't go running to the Russians every time we need to change something. This is less of a problem with SAMs dealing with air threats 'cause air threats see constant use and a database is eventually created over time.
LCA Mk1 was effectively a pseudo-failure, hence Mk2. AMCA Mk1 and Mk2 are the same aircraft, it's more comparable to PAK FA's Stage 1 and 2 programs. Let's not get into this topic, it's no way related. I hope my post to Parthu will clear your misconception.
P1 will be fully operational next year. So, in a sense, it is only under limited operation today, as crews are trained and new SOPs are created. Like an IOC.