Oh of course, terminal interception with multiple interceptors or even mid-course interception with MOKVs can always be an alternate solution.
I was replying to the boost-phase interception scenario.
News Pakistan Has Just Tested the Ultimate Nuclear Missile
- Thread starter Shashank
- Start date
I was replying to the boost-phase interception scenario.
Hey nice to see @The Deterrent here. One of the posters that makes hating the other side difficult. Hope you stay here for long and don't go about sandbagging pakistani missile performance as you do in peedee ef 
Terminal based interception would have to employ 1:n interceptor viz a viz a single missile. Moreover it would be helpful only if the area targeted is secured.
Just thinking high, what if interceptors placed very very close to LoC/IB supported by real time satellite feed and radars . Lets consider they are very well concealed for now. How much this scenario helpful in boost/post boost phase interception?
Yes or no, please be specific, whether Pakistan has any Ship based radar tracking system or not ? Its better to avoid speculation.
I merely state the truth, which unfortunately hurts both sides.Hey nice to see @The Deterrent here. One of the posters that makes hating the other side difficult. Hope you stay here for long and don't go about sandbagging pakistani missile performance as you do in peedee ef
You would have to dive deeper into the scenario to weigh the success probability, and there are simply too many variables. Let's assume that India has deployed a network of SBIRS-equivalent infrared early-warning satellites over Pakistan. Also assume that LRTRs are deployed somewhere in central India, watching Pakistani airspace 24x7.
As soon as a ballistic missile is launched from Pakistani soil, the satellite network would alert the BMD response system. However it cannot classify the threat beyond solid/liquid fueled system classification. Also, trajectory prediction is nearly impossible at that stage.
Its not until the missile rises above the horizon and comes in the sweep zone of the LRTR, that the missile can be tracked and classified, and trajectory can be estimated. Only after this a firing solution can be computed, information can be relayed to the launch control and an interceptor can be launched. By that time, anywhere from 30-40 seconds would have passed (out of the 120 total for the boost-phase).
On the other hand, a Pakistani MRBM would probably be launched from 100-300km inside Pakistani territory. Taking an average assumption of 200km lateral distance, assuming a 200km equivalent distance (since the missile pitches and travels towards the airspace of interceptor) and assuming a THAAD-equivalent interceptor with a top (not constant) speed of 3 km/s, this would give the interceptor around 90-100 seconds to reach the calculated point of interception. Keep in mind that everything here is being assumed as the best-case scenario for the interceptor.
So theoretically, a system like that can work (on paper). As soon as you start throwing in the realities of the real world, the success probability drops exponentially. A marginally better alternative, also pitched by DRDO, is a Su-30MKI launched AAD interceptor. It would have the altitude advantage so more available reaction time, however would require constant patrolling and established air-superiority in the region.
I hope you can read.
Strictly speaking, not even a radar is required for acquisition of telemetry data from ballistic missiles. All thats needed is a receiver aimed in the general direction of the missile, as the missile transmits telemetry data over secured comms channel. Radars obviously help diagnose anomalies and provide more accurate independent trajectory data.
Yea. With radar horizon h=d*d/(2*radius of earth). Our ground radars will be able to see the missile over the circumference of the earth after a height of 7km at 300km distance. 12.5 km at 400km distance.
The launch vehicle would have picked up a lot of velocity by the time it breaches 12 km and our radars will see them. Boost Phase interception is a small window and very difficult.
The interesting part is, the CSIR link says Ababeel goes to a max height of 500km. But our highest missile defence altitude is 100km. So mid course interception doesnt seem likely. The warheads would gain a lot of velocity at their final 100km stretch. This time will be far lesser than the earlier boost phase. And Interception has to be done here. Even THAAD has a max altitude of 150km.
https://www.strategicfront.org/forums/goto/post?id=23726
Yes, I can, as hope you can understand simple English also, there is no need to quote insider of any 'xyz chat forums' disregard of any country , since I do not bother about whether it is MRBM / IRBM or SRBM , with out series of MRIS placed you can not test MIRVed Missle, as all the league of four countries do the same, i.e. the USA, Russia, PRC and France. So, if any body including almighty himself claims that a country without that infrastructure tested MIRV, then its obvious that those technology is off the shelf plain, clear and simple logic.
I would say that China has never fielded any MIRV-bus like that on Ababeel (which is an extremely crude design), but you are most welcome to bury your head in the sand.
Right now, only terminal phase BMD. We will have to use more assets if the missile has been MIRVed.
hey, good to see you here, hope everything is going well,There's quite a bit of confusion and make-believe theories among Indian folks regarding possession of MIRV-capability by Pakistan. I'll try to explain why its not a big deal for any modern missile power.
Assuming that a nation or an agency has already developed MRBM-class (or larger) ballistic missiles, capable of course-correction to achieve <500m CEP, the following building blocks are needed to attain MIRV-capability:
1. Miniaturized Re-entry Vehicles, and therefore, miniaturized nuclear devices
2. An MRBM/IRBM/ICBM class ballistic missile, capable of housing AND delivering those miniaturized RVs.
3. A MIRV "bus", essentially a post-boost vehicle with a restartable engine, to insert the RVs in their independent suborbital trajectories
Now, lets break it down in case of Pakistan:
1. Pakistan was already using a miniaturized RV aboard Shaheen-IA since 2011. The same RV (visually identical) was observed on a Shaheen-III in 2015. The dimensions were estimated to be approx 1.9m tall & 0.7m wide.
2. Pakistan had demonstrated a near-IRBM class missile (2750km), Shaheen-III, in 2015. Photo comparisons show Ababeel to be using Shaheen-III's first & second stages. A reduced range of 2200km would allow for more useful payload on the missile. That, combined with probable usage of composites and higher energy & better geometry fuel, allowed for addition of multiple RVs and a third stage. Furthermore, the diameter of the payload area was increased to an estimated 1.8m from 1.4m to accommodate a larger MIRV "bus".
3. Pakistan already has demonstrated post-separation attitude-control systems in the Shaheen series. Whats missing is a verified presence of a restartable engine, which is speculated to be the third stage itself (by US experts on twitter).
(^Some crude photo comparison by me)
(Analysis & Animation Credit: JamD from PDF)
A misunderstood point thats widely circulated is that since Pakistan hasn't demonstrated multiple satellite launch capability, MIRVs are out of its league. Both MIRVs and Multiple Sats are the two sides of nearly the same coin. Both require large payloads, a payload bus, and a precise restartable injection mechanism. If a nation or an agency achieves one capability, the second is automatically achieved. The difference however is that an MIRVed system requires the payload (RVs) to re-enter the atmosphere, whereas satellites aren't usually built for this purpose
Another point that was raised (even by a DRDO official) was the inability to successfully deploy MIRVs because of lesser range. Since no other MIRVed MRBMs are currently deployed today, people assume that this isn't possible because of some physical constraints. They only need to look at the glorious history of the RSD-10 Pioneer, or even the upcoming RS-26 Rubezh.
Lastly, many claim that Pakistan didn't actually demonstrate the MIRV capability in the first test, emphasizing the "Independent" part. The Naval navigational warning suggests the same. However, this does not means that the missile did not carry multiple RVs in the test flight. This also does not means that they weren't successfully deployed. In all likelihood, since this was a first test flight, more focus would have been on the success of the third stage, payload fairing deployment, MIRV-bus maneuverability and deployment of the RVs. Naturally the RVs would have been deployed around the same target area as MRVs in this specific test flight. That being said, in the future test flights, fully functional MIRV deployments are expected accompanied by relevant navigational warnings.
P.S. Applying the same 3 building-blocks-stuff to India, we can observe that India hasn't demonstrated a miniaturized RV design yet (its in the making for A-6 & K-5), the only missile capable of MIRV delivery at present is Agni-III (having enough payload and volume) although new platforms are in development (A-6 & K-5). Lastly the restartable bus has already been demonstrated by ISRO so no big deal there. All in all, India is following a long-term, stable & robust route for the MIRVs, whereas Pakistan is making-do with whatever resources it has, as fast as it can to ensure the restoration of the balance potentially to be disrupted in the future by an Indian BMD deployment.
Nonsense. China did not test ANY nuclear weapon in 1985. And all of their nuclear weapon tests around that period were of deliverable devices.
The 'first' generation design I referred to was the CHIC-4 (as confirmed by Brig. Feroz H. Khan, ex-SPD), a ~1000kg device, detonated in late 1966 via a DF-2 missile. This was supposed to be a secret till the Libyans emptied their closets for IAEA and the Americans. Pakistan improved on this design in several iterations, verified by hydrodynamic testing, till missile-deliverable device designs were ready by the early 90s.
By the way, I'd still like to know how Ababeel is a 'lie'.
This is another widely circulated, but uninformed idea that somehow the lack of a dedicated missile-tracking ship with a long range radar hampers Pakistan's capability to test MRBMs. The advantage of such ships is that only one vessel can perform almost all the required tracking and telemetry acquisition. Pakistan does it the old-fashion way (according to some insiders at PakDef, an extinct forum), a couple of PN vessels with relatively shorter range radars & telemetry equipment are sent prior to a test flight along the planned trajectory of the missile anda are displaced equally. They do the job quite fine.
Quite a bit of theories here...India is bringing up Agni-VI ICBM and K-5 SLBM as MIRVed ballistic missiles. There's no big 'cover-up' going on here.
Nope, this has absolutely nothing to do with China. If that was the case, you would've seen DF-21 in Pakistani service by now.
on topic.
Has Pakistan tested any RV's , what type of thrust cartridges?
Hi, good to see you here as well.
Of course Pakistan has tested Unitary Re-entry Vehicles, since the late 90s, starting with Shaheen-I. If you mean Multiple RVs, of course Pakistan did because otherwise we are really good at fooling the Americans.
Thrust cartridges? Do you mean the spin thrusters aboard an RV or the larger thrusters for Post-boost Vehicle maneuvering?
I should mention beforehand that I won't be able to answer this question in detail. (otherwise I wouldn't be here, duh)
You are most welcome to bury your head in the sand of premise of testing Ababeels' MIRV being an indegenious one of your country by your country, without having an effective MRIS, and be happy with that.I would say that China has never fielded any MIRV-bus like that on Ababeel (which is an extremely crude design), but you are most welcome to bury your head in the sand.
Ooh, an ostrich AND a parrot! That too with the inability to comprehend technical information...lethal combo IMO.You are most welcome to bury your head in the sand of premise of testing Ababeels' MIRV being an indegenious one of your country by your country, without having an effective MRIS, and be happy with that.
For poor countries with relatively little funding, it's a very big deal to go from primitive A-bombs to MIRV-equipped ICBMs.
Pakistan's whole nuclear program used foreign-derived expertise in the first place.You are most welcome to bury your head in the sand of premise of testing Ababeels' MIRV being an indegenious one of your country by your country, without having an effective MRIS, and be happy with that.
What is a MRIS : Missile Range Instrumentation Ship:
As per Wikipedia :
One link I am giving :
Now retired
French Navy: Monge
Source: Military - Today.com
Above is Henri Poincare, Missile range instrumentation ship of the French Navy, built to
also, for the US Navy :
USNS Range Sentinel
PLAN's Yuan Wang Class below imaged:
Source: Wikipedia
USNS Howard O. Lorenzen (T-AGM-25)
Source: Wikipedia
Russia : Marshal Krylov
Source: www.navyrecognition.com
In the process of building :
Indian Navy's Ocean Surveillance Ship (MRIS) : VC 11184 being built by HSL and designed by Vik Sandvik Design India
ready to be handed over to IN in this year, the long range tracking radar of which is derivative of ISRO's MOTR (Multiple Object Tracking Radar)
Source: Nasa Spaceflight member: Steven Pietrobon
as per Trishul Blog, which is used by ISRO to track 10 different objects simultaneously with a range up to 1000 km. This is the first of the Two MRIS (s), the second one for tracking of long range subsonic and super sonic LACMs is being built by CSL, for more (sputniknews,com, janes.com)
In a nutshell, they are building blocks for development of effective MIRVed Missile. While the USN, USSR / Russia, France have them in early 1960's, while PLAN have them from late 1970s, after the development programme authorised by Chairman Mao ZeDong, as proposed by premier Zhou Enlai in 1965. India now catching up. Therefore, no news of India for carrying the test of MIRVed Missile yet. So, if any Indian keyboard warrior would come up with same theory like yours, my reaction would have been the same.
In accordance to your logic all the policy makers of those states include also India now , have been collectively bitten by Mad dogs, to have an idea to built series of MRIS first, before going through testing phase of MIRV.
I had therefore at first requested you for categorical answer to simple specific question, if Pakistan acquired a MRIS like these one or have access to, which you have dodged and air your own theory and nitpicking, now in response to your above quoted certificate to user handle Sumanta, if I reply in kind your aspired thread will go to dustbin. Therefore, try to keep sanctity and save your dignity, also I have reported your post concerned, and its up to Mods to act upon this thread and posts for both of us.
The very reason , I have decided
MOTR(Multiple Object Tracking Radar) Console Screen Shot from Lockheed Martin:
What is a MRIS : Missile Range Instrumentation Ship:
As per Wikipedia :
One link I am giving :
Now retired
French Navy: Monge
Source: Military - Today.com
Above is Henri Poincare, Missile range instrumentation ship of the French Navy, built to
also, for the US Navy :
USNS Range Sentinel
PLAN's Yuan Wang Class below imaged:
Source: Wikipedia
USNS Howard O. Lorenzen (T-AGM-25)
Source: Wikipedia
Russia : Marshal Krylov
Source: www.navyrecognition.com
In the process of building :
Indian Navy's Ocean Surveillance Ship (MRIS) : VC 11184 being built by HSL and designed by Vik Sandvik Design India
ready to be handed over to IN in this year, the long range tracking radar of which is derivative of ISRO's MOTR (Multiple Object Tracking Radar)
Source: Nasa Spaceflight member: Steven Pietrobon
as per Trishul Blog, which is used by ISRO to track 10 different objects simultaneously with a range up to 1000 km. This is the first of the Two MRIS (s), the second one for tracking of long range subsonic and super sonic LACMs is being built by CSL, for more (sputniknews,com, janes.com)
In a nutshell, they are building blocks for development of effective MIRVed Missile. While the USN, USSR / Russia, France have them in early 1960's, while PLAN have them from late 1970s, after the development programme authorised by Chairman Mao ZeDong, as proposed by premier Zhou Enlai in 1965. India now catching up. Therefore, no news of India for carrying the test of MIRVed Missile yet. So, if any Indian keyboard warrior would come up with same theory like yours, my reaction would have been the same.
In accordance to your logic all the policy makers of those states include also India now , have been collectively bitten by Mad dogs, to have an idea to built series of MRIS first, before going through testing phase of MIRV.
I had therefore at first requested you for categorical answer to simple specific question, if Pakistan acquired a MRIS like these one or have access to, which you have dodged and air your own theory and nitpicking, now in response to your above quoted certificate to user handle Sumanta, if I reply in kind your aspired thread will go to dustbin. Therefore, try to keep sanctity and save your dignity, also I have reported your post concerned, and its up to Mods to act upon this thread and posts for both of us.
The very reason , I have decided
You really didn't have to spend so much time assimilating this information in hope of one-upping me. Sadly, instead of deconstructing the problem vis-a-vis a specific subject, you decided to go along with sweeping generalizations. In a nutshell, according to you, since the G-5 built dedicated missile tracking ships before testing MIRVs, EVERY nation absolutely HAS to do this. I see two problems: lack of comprehension of technical knowledge, and frequent visits of PK Sengupta's blog (the source of MRIS nonsense for Indians, according to whom Pakistan will be "denuclearized" this year). If my sarcasm, after detailed explanations, bothers you...be my guest. You can reciprocate in any way you like to, however I'd advise to read more on the subject instead.
Argument 1: G-5 developed MRIS because MIRVs simply couldn't be tracked without them
Nonsense. In simple words, RVs (of any kind) from a single ballistic missile can be tracked either with (in addition to ground-based tracking stations)
-Multiple ships (having smaller radars and associated telemetry antennas aboard) OR
-A single dedicated long-range radar & telemetry-antennas equipped MRIS.
However G-5 first developed them because they needed to track unitary RVs of ICBMs travelling across several thousands of kilometers laterally and more than a thousand kilometers high. The multiple ships solution was too costly (and absurd) for that (more ships needed and the requirement to sail them out frequently). US commissioned its first MRIS (T-AGM-13 Sword Knot, in 1957) 12 years before conducting any MIRV test (1968-9) and retired it in 1964. China did so in 1977, more than 35 years before any MIRV test(~2015). With the introduction of MIRVs, the problem only got worse. At a few instances, multiple MRISs were needed for a single MIRV missile trial, because the RVs covered an area of several thousand by several hundred kilometers.
Pakistan (AND India) still use the multiple ships solution for their unitary RV ballistic missiles because it does the job for our specific needs (<5000km range for India, <3000km for Pakistan). With Pakistan introducing 3x (analytical estimate) MIRVs on Ababeel, the problem space is still relatively small. A space of two thousand kilometers by a few hundred kilometers (estimated), with an apogee of <500km is still small enough to be easily tracked with the existing multiple ships setup, although a few more ships might be needed for when the actual M"I"RV test is conducted. Pakistan intends to keep its nuclear deterrence focused on India, so no ICBMs should be expected, therefore no need for an improved setup. Its all about how much resources are required for the problem space. So 2-3 existing ships (with added telemetry/tracking equipment) is a much more financially better choice than building/buying dedicated MRIS.
Argument 2: Since no dedicated MRIS is present, Pakistan is using Chinese RVs and Chinese MIRV-bus aboard its own missiles
As explained earlier, the size of an estimated RV deployed aboard Ababeel matches the dimensions of the one introduced in 2011 on Shaheen-IA. Furthermore, NO Chinese ballistic missile has been observed to deploy the same RV. Similarly, NO Chinese missile has been observed to use such a crude MIRV-bus. If the RVs are not chinese, the bus is not chinese, what exactly did China has to do with this? I've already explained how and why developing an MIRV-bus is not difficult for Pakistan. The most critical (and arguable) component for an MIRV is a restartable rocket engine, which strangely no Indian ever brings up as its the most favorable argument on your side regarding proliferation.
Even if the Chinese theory is true, the MIRVs STILL need to be tracked! It doesn't works like "Sir, we saw splash for one RV, but we don't know where the other two RVs go, they never reliably reach the designated address, we don't know why but it keeps everyone fooled".
