India counters Chinese anti-missile test

[faithfulguy]

Dude India already tested this technology 2-3 times sucessfully and ready to induct it in 2012-2013.Its only your first test.there should be more test before inducting in to the military..now the advantage is on our side..He is saying that your country can lessen the gap because of your strong Industrial and technological fields..what is there to laugh?you dont belive that China have the capability??

How many times do I have to distinguish terminal phase ABM vs mid course ABM. For example, US is in the final test phase of THAAD but its deploying a non-proven mid course ABM without even finish designed testing yet. The problem is that US faces NK ICBM and a barely working mid course ABM system is much better than a almost proven terminal phase system when its for defending against ICBM. That is why the US rush to deploy a barely working system.

China tested a mid course ABM interceptor to protest against US selling weapon to Taiwan. This sytem has no use against India as India has currently no ICBM.

 

[faithfulguy]

Are we talking about LCA?????????? you are talking about limit of stupidy ............

any way go through this link

Prithvi ABM hits target missile

stop comparing mid course interception vs terminal phase interception

 

[faithfulguy]

You dont belive my words so i will give you what Gambit send me on mail about ABM .. he is an expert ,you cant argue about it ..I hope he dont mind me posting this here ..

Technically speaking, there is no difference between ICBM or lesser distance missile defense. Ballistic missiles of all distances have the same parabollic trajectory, only their altitude differs with intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) have a suborbital component in their flights, meaning ICBM warheads momentarily became 'spacecrafts'. But all ballistic missiles have the same basic flight characteristics: vertical launch or 'boost' phase, an arc or 'mid-course' phase and a descent or 'terminal' phase.

Ballistic missile defense is about intercepting the warhead at all three points -- in theory. However, since it is improbable to know when a missile is launched, the defense is left with trying to intercept the warhead at the mid-phase and the descent points. A mid-phase interception require the interceptor to meet the warhead at the apex of its journey.


, the basics of interception are the same for lesser range missiles. So some people in the closed discussion are wrong about there is a difference between ICBM and shorter range defense. Anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defense means exactly that -- ballistic type of missiles. Cruise missiles do not have ballistic trajectories. Air combat missiles do not have ballistic trajectories. These two types exploit aerodynamics principles.

Intercontinental (ICBM) distances have the longest flight time, up to thirty minutes, but can be less than fifteen. Shorter range BM give the defense less response, making development on detection, response formulation and interception more difficult, giving some people a false impression that ABM defense is mechanically different than ICBM defense. No difference. The 'IC' is really meaningless as far as the mechanics are concerned. It is the 'BM' that matters. Shorter range BMs are still 'ballistic' in trajectories. Take the above graphics and lower it down several thousands kms in altitude and you will see there are no differences.

So since it is near improbable at this time to intercept a BM at its boost phase, that leave the defense mid- and terminal- phases to work with. If there is a suborbital component to the BM's flight, creating an exo-atmospheric interceptor can be quite technically challenging. That leave the terminal, or descent, phase available for interception. At this point, the warhead is in atmospheric environment and this is why some people are wrong about ABM defense is different than ICBM defense. To intercept an ICBM or lesser range missile during its terminal phase differs only at the altitude factor. The ICBM warhead begin its descent, or terminal phase, from orbit. The shorter range BM warhead begins its descent when it is still endo-atmospheric.

===========================================

Dont always listen to what your Chinese papers say ..

If there is no need to distinguish between ICBM interceptors vs THAAD IRBM interceptors, then the US must be the biggest fool to deploy an mid course ICBM interceptor if it already has THAAD.

The truth is that ICBM terminal speed is too fast for terminal phase interceptor. Its only theorize that THAAD "might" catch an ICBM while its transitioning from mid course to terminal phase. But for a more reliable hit, a mid course interceptor is needed.

I never heard of an Indian brag about a mid course interceptor. I only heard Indians in here brag about coming up with THAAD. So therefore, India clearly has no mid course interceptor

read this article

Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence Systems

before doing talk more about ABMs

 

[fhassan]

Unless India has successfully test fired an anti ballistic Missile defense system of it's own, and unless India can demonstrate the capability to destroy a satellite; this is nothing more than the usual Indian wet dream, or IWD for short. .

Thank you very maach.

 

[faithfulguy]

Here goes the biggest chinese braggart in the forum with Taiwan and US flag in his avatar...see the irony

Even before chinese scientist complete the full analysis of their first anti-missile test of yesterday ...he talking as if china has achieve anti ICBM ABM or as in his words its an anti-ICBM mid course (means before climax(pun intended)).

hellOOO... which chinses anti ICBM ABM ??
I mean did any official said that its an anti ICBM ABM test ,then pls show us as we would be happy to be informed or its just ur dream...probably ur gut feeling that if China does its first ABM test ,then it has to be aganist MIRV ICBM only??

mid course interceptor are for ICBM. Read the wiki articles yourself

Ground-Based Midcourse Defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

vs

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[faithfulguy]

Here goes the biggest chinese braggart in the forum with Taiwan and US flag in his avatar...see the irony

Being from Taiwan and living in the US, we know the capability of China. Its a definite threat to Taiwan and the US. Indians in here and India appears to be the only country in the world that take China lightly. I feel that Indian here believe that Indian defence capability is even more powerful than that of US because America definitely do not take China lightly because we respect its ability to

• have a the only missile that can destroy a carrier 1500KM away.
• Be able to down an orbiting satellite.
• as the 2nd country to destroy an ICBM in mid course (China has ICBM and mid-course ABM are use to destroy ICBM. Only Indians would consider destroying an short range missile in mid course as theater missile defence ABM would easily accomplish)
• Able to keep mid course missile development in secret instead of bragging.

Chinese defence capability is becoming a capability we respect. As for India's military capability, its also improving but its still not a threat to US and our capability. The US do not forsee India as a country capable of fielding weaponry that can threaten US interest. China can. Its not about it India can do it but choose not to, its about India won't have the ability.

 

[faithfulguy]

Unless India has successfully test fired an anti ballistic Missile defense system of it's own, and unless India can demonstrate the capability to destroy a satellite; this is nothing more than the usual Indian wet dream, or IWD for short. .

Thank you very maach.

So are you saying that simulation doesn't count. India plans to field an anti ICBM ABM base on ICBM parameters.

 

[faithfulguy]

But we got to give India media credit though. Only its media can counter a missile defence with a "secret" project that is made public by its media

 

[SABRE]

I just wanted to say few things:

The news article in question is a self satisfactory article designed to satisfy like minded people with not-so-factual reporting. At the most it would give some kids something to boost about on the internet.

Having said that; I think if DRDO had such a project it would not go to "India Daily" to reveal the secret for signaling. Nor do I think India Daily has any powerful or influential journalist with access to DRDO. True or False, if DRDO wanted to reveal something then there are other credible media sources. Remember nuclear or anti-nuclear signaling requires credibility. This guy is making up things.

What ever the DRDO's rate of success or failure is, I know one thing for sure that they don't bullshit and this article appears to be BS - at least for now (since the source is known for making up news).

Interesting Fact: Whether the news article is true or false I think the world (not just India) missed out on the facts of the test. I missed out as well until a Chinese friend informed me. The Chinese ABM test was not of HQ-9/FT-2000 which is endo-thermic and based on Russian S-300. The ABM in question was Exo-Thermic - something the Chinese have not revealed before. This means that China "HAS" come a long way. They have been working on ABM System and Network since 1955 with formal research starting in 1960s. I doubt that they are amateur in this technology.

 

[gambit]

What Gambit says is mostly correct, however he misses an essential difference. It is like saying a semi-truck and a Tata nano is basically the same because both are used for transport.

Essentially...They are.

However, in practical reality both are used for different purposes as the capacity of a semi greatly exceeds that of a nano.

Function is independent of purpose. The function, or role, of a passenger automobile and a semi-truck is to transport cargo. Humans, foodstuff and household appliances are cargo TYPES. Cargo type may dictate the design but does not negate the function of the design. Can a semi-truck transport humans? Yes, may be not in comfort but can transport them nevertheless. That mean essentially the Tata Nano share the same function as the semi-truck.

Take for example the Prithvi which intercepted a BM at an attitude of 75 km. Contrast that to the recent 2010.01.11 test in which an ICBM was intercepted (and destroyed) at a altitude of thousands of km. So if your ABM has such a handicaped altitude range, that basically relegates its role to the terminal entry phase of the ICBM. Hope you can fathom this important distinction.

Here is what you and most fail to understand...The best indicator of a weapon system is this chart...

Unlike dropping bombs where the target is usually fixed, aircrafts do maneuver, and yes...a warhead does qualify as an aircraft. A dirigible is an aircraft. A child's toy kite is an aircraft. Anything that goes beyond being influenced and actually exploit aerodynamic forces qualify as an aircraft. The descending warhead's motion is a maneuver. What people should worry is about is not the altitude capability of the interceptor but chart one: High accuracy. High precision. This is not about one interceptor but about the entire program where each interceptor contributed to the program's reputation of having 'High accuracy. High precision'. This indicate consistency and technological sophistication in everything, from design to material to manufacturing to usability.

If an anti-ballistic missile defense SYSTEM, or program, is capable of having its interceptorS (plural) hitting descending warheads at 10km altitude consistently over time, including environmental conditions such as weather and ECM, then it does not matter if the descending warhead came from a medium range ballistic missile or from the other side of the world. The attacker will be destroyed. If the system is of the 'High accuracy. Low precision' sophistication, then the defense will most likely launch multiple interceptors against the attacking warhead in the hope that at least one of them will hit the warhead. The other two charts will have the ABM defense worthless.

Of course, terminal defense mean you are fighting the battle over home territory, an undesirable condition. But 100km altitude is better than having the warhead actually hitting home. So criticizing this supposedly 'altitude handicap' is being shortsighted. If the system is capable of terminal defense CONSISTENTLY, then increasing altitude is technically simpler than achieving the 'no miss' criteria. Remember...In ABM defense, especially terminal defense, there is no second chance for the interceptor. The more capable EACH interceptor, the less are required per deployment site, therefore more can be deployed overall. So if India can wield an ABM system that can intercept a warhead at as low as 1000 meters altitude, assuming non-nuclear, consistently over time and environment, any ballistic missile attack, be it from over the mountain or from the other side of the world, is effectively nullified. Remember...The goal is to destroy the warhead before it impact the ground at the first pass, so who cares if the missile was launch from over the mountain or from the other side of the world?

This is why there is a misconception that there are some forms of inherent differences between an ICBM defense and an IRBM defense. There are none as far as the laws of physics are concerned. For an ABM defense, short range or intercontinental, the most immediate goal is to create a 'High accuracy. High precision' system. That mean sophistication in sensor, guidance and flight controls -- avionics. Worry about altitude later.

Now...If we include nuclear warheads, then we should look at the American Nike-Zeus program back in the 1960s. Because the attacker is nuclear, altitude became a higher priority and the interceptor itself became nuclear. This is a different issue for a different discussion. Still...The US came very close to achieving a kinetic kill capability with Nike-Zeus, supporting the argument that a 'High accuracy. High precision' ABM defense system should be at a higher priority than altitude.

 

[faithfulguy]

I just wanted to say few things:

The news article in question is a self satisfactory article designed to satisfy like minded people with not-so-factual reporting. At the most it would give some kids something to boost about on the internet.

Having said that; I think if DRDO had such a project it would not go to "India Daily" to reveal the secret for signaling. Nor do I think India Daily has any powerful or influential journalist with access to DRDO. True or False, if DRDO wanted to reveal something then there are other credible media sources. Remember nuclear or anti-nuclear signaling requires credibility. This guy is making up things.

What ever the DRDO's rate of success or failure is, I know one thing for sure that they don't bullshit and this article appears to be BS - at least for now (since the source is known for making up news).

Interesting Fact: Whether the news article is true or false I think the world (not just India) missed out on the facts of the test. I missed out as well until a Chinese friend informed me. The Chinese ABM test was not of HQ-9/FT-2000 which is endo-thermic and based on Russian S-300. The ABM in question was Exo-Thermic - something the Chinese have not revealed before. This means that China "HAS" come a long way. They have been working on ABM System and Network since 1955 with formal research starting in 1960s. I doubt that they are amateur in this technology.

Exothermic? Its a mid course ABM test. Which means the collision occured at the highest altitute of the missile flight. Also, mid course ABM are generally use against ICBMs only.

 

[karan.1970]

mastur... you *******...

Both of your posts have been reported.

btw .. MM is very different from just M

Urban Dictionary: mental masturbation

So dude, understand the context before replying. Or do you report posts just like you say thanks i.e. without reading. I am saying this as you yourself admitted to this in some other post..

 

[faithfulguy]

This is why there is a misconception that there are some forms of inherent differences between an ICBM defense and an IRBM defense. There are none as far as the laws of physics are concerned. For an ABM defense, short range or intercontinental, the most immediate goal is to create a 'High accuracy. High precision' system. That mean sophistication in sensor, guidance and flight controls -- avionics. Worry about altitude later.

can you talk about terminal velocity of ICBM warhead vs shorter range warhead?

 

[Trisonics]

can you talk about terminal velocity of ICBM warhead vs shorter range warhead?

also, can some one throw light on which one can be easily detected and which scenario will have the most reaction time?

 

[SABRE]

Exothermic? Its a mid course ABM test. Which means the collision occured at the highest altitute of the missile flight. Also, mid course ABM are generally use against ICBMs only.

Exothermic means that missile counters the Ballistic missile while its outside the Earth's atmosphere. Ballistic Missile midcourse occurs outside the earth's atmosphere (in space).