AKASH SAM:India's BMD???

[rajupaki]

The max altitude of akash is 15km.
Its range is 27-30km.
But DRDO is trying to increase the range of akash to 60km and integrate it with S-300PMU to provide ATBM capability.

15 Km Intersept Height!!(to low), and you are talking about intersepting a Missile Traveling Outside the Atmosphare. Do you Know that if you destroy a Missile(with Nuke) at 15000 Meter then it will be more lethal than the missile which will hit the ground because it will produce Electromegnetic Pulses which can burn all the Electronic devices from Inside which use Electromegnetic Rays(such as precious RADARS, command and control systems etc). This is the principle to make E-Bombs!. So please explain me how can it intersept a missile. It can hardly intersept a High altitude Aircraft.

 

[Rolex]

They are talking about the ICBMs.... Those bulky Strategic missiles with bigger payloads and propellants... A tactical missile on the other hand is smaller and with higher speed at the boost phase when compared to ICBM but a very low velocity at the terminal phase(1.5-4.5)
India's threat comes from these tactical missiles from pak and china... And moreover detection at launch needs sophisticated satellite survillence system... which ofcourse we dont possess.. we will develop them in future...

 

[Rolex]

Hi raju,
DRDO is happy about the guidance system not on the range and altitude..
Developments are on to improve akash's ATMD capability.... Range will be improved to minimise the damage to the maximum extent

 

[ajay_ijn]

Do you Know that if you destroy a Missile(with Nuke) at 15000 Meter then it will be more lethal than the missile which will hit the ground because it will produce Electromegnetic Pulses which can burn all the Electronic devices from Inside which use Electromegnetic Rays(such as precious RADARS, command and control systems etc

This happens if the nuclear detonation happen before the ABM intercepts the warhead.
Does Pakistan Ballistic Missile have such capability?I mean are they
Fused to explode when they are hit also called as salvage fusing.
Even if they have such capability,there is no problem,no great loss of human life will be there i think.
That is why I said Akash has Limited or has no ATBM capability.
FAS says that Akash has max altitude of 18km.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/akash.htm

It is to be upgraded to standards of Arrow or S-300 or PAC-3 (Which ever India buys)


[/quote]It can hardly intersept a High altitude Aircraft

So how many Pakistan Fighters have maximum Ceiling greater than 18km ?
It is not designed to intercept SR-71 or Mig-25 :

 

[ajay_ijn]

They are talking about the ICBMs....

They did mention about US defence against ICBM's but that doesn't mean that whole topic is on ICBM.
The topic is Ballistic Missile Overview.
http://www.missilethreat.com/overview/

A tactical missile on the other hand is smaller and with higher speed at the boost phase when compared to ICBM but a very low velocity at the terminal phase(1.5-4.5)

Every ballistic Missile goes to outer Space regardless of its range.
So all Missiles will have to travel same distance.
All have to face same air-resistance and gravitational force.
Can u provide me a source saying that SRBM's are faster in boost phase than ICBM.
http://www.missilethreat.com/overview/destroyphasebyphase.html

In general, killing missiles in boost phase requires less sophisticated sensors, less complex calculations, and less energy delivered onto the missile than does killing them in any other stage. That is because in boost phase, missiles are obvious, slow, and vulnerable.

India's threat comes from these tactical missiles from pak and china... And moreover detection at launch needs sophisticated satellite survillence system... which ofcourse we dont possess.. we will develop them in future...

India is having a geographical advantage with pakistan.
http://www.missilethreat.com/overview/destroyphasebyphase.html

In other words, the moment that a missile perhaps 1,500 miles away rises above about 300 miles and thus above the horizon, it becomes visible. But seeing a rising missile with a radar from so far away is not very useful for killing it. By the time a missile rises above the atmosphere, it is going so fast that no interceptor launched at it from the ground could possibly catch up with it. Besides, by the time a tail chasing interceptor catches up with the missile, boost phase is over or nearly over, and the missile is releasing its warheads.That is why radar detection of boost phase missiles is useful only if it happens very close to the places where the missiles are launched, and if the interceptors are located nearby as well.

India is close to pakistan which means Greenpine or Phalcon can track if Pak launches a ballistic Missile.
And if Interceptors are Long range,Quicker reaction and deployed in border,then it can intercept Pak ballistic Missiles in boost phase.
But This is very ambitious Plan and also very costly and as u said Satellite based Sensors and LASER's can provide Full capability of Intercepting the Ballistic Missile in boost Phase.
Better to be intercepted in Terminal Phase.
I think both S-300 and Arrow-2 are capable defending against Ballistic Missiles of ranges 2500-3000km.

And about the Greenpine radar., I doubt the defense people will put them at the borders... Coz they are more useful in shielding important cities like Delhi and mumbai... May be even BANGLORE... Moreover the first target in case of a war would be these ones...

Rolex,GreenPine is a Early Warning RADAR,It is to provide early detection so that BMD systems can be alerted quickly.So its its full capability can be exploited if it is deployed in nearest possible distance to the enemy Launch sites which is Border between India and Pakistan.
But ABM Needs to be deployed near Cities becoz Ballistic Missiles are targeted to such cities.

 

[Rolex]

As I said before we lack the satellite surviellence sys to detect the missile at launch.
Moreover about the Geographical advantage, the Pakistanis are not mad to put their missiles at the indian border. The Shaheen and the Gauri missiles have enough range to be launched at any of the indian city from the iranian border... And the SRBM and IRBM boost is gonna be faster and shorter, detection at launch will be not possible forground based radar. And about the source for faster boost phase, dont you think a smaller missile with lighter payload will project up faster? The missile threat website is about missile threats faced by the US by other countries... So They talk about the ICBMs that come through the north pole route.. You know the gravity effect is ever higher that route giving the re entry shell to get speeds as much as 25 machs.. It is no way possible to stop them at the terminal phase. Thats why they put Anti-ballistic missile sys in the Russian borders... The latest being in Poland.

 

[Rolex]

Every ballistic Missile goes to outer Space regardless of its range.
So all Missiles will have to travel same distance.
All have to face same air-resistance and gravitational force.
Can u provide me a source saying that SRBM's are faster in boost phase than ICBM.

If all the missiles will have to travel to same heights(distance as you said), being a ballistic projectile why would you need many diff missiles with diff propellant weights etc., Why would it take india 3 yrs to develop agni after very sucessfully developing pritvi??
Pritvis dont have to go the heights the Agnis will have to go... Their range differs...
Infact range differs with height and re-entry velocity differs with height. And Structural load(inclusive of propellant and the engine) depends on the height. This decides and boost phase time and speed. You can count on me for these details coz i'm an aerospace engineer...

 

[ajay_ijn]

the Pakistanis are not mad to put their missiles at the indian border. The Shaheen and the Gauri missiles have enough range to be launched at any of the indian city from the iranian border...

GreenPine has detection range of 500km that can detect most of pakistan Air Space but if they launch from Iranian Border India needs Still longer range RADAR.
But i said that this is a very ambitious plan and too costly for India to afford.

And the SRBM and IRBM boost is gonna be faster and shorter, detection at launch will be not possible forground based radar. And about the source for faster boost phase, dont you think a smaller missile with lighter payload will project up faster?

No I don't think like that becoz its also depends on Engine and weight to thrust ratio.Inside Atmosphere they will go slow but they will pick up speed as soon as they enter into Space as there is no air resistance.
Why don't u provide me a source?

The missile threat website is about missile threats faced by the US by other countries... So They talk about the ICBMs that come through the north pole route..

The website also Discusses about the SRBM and IRBM becoz US Military bases and Soldiers in overseas are threatened by Ballistic Missiles like Scud.

You know the gravity effect is ever higher that route giving the re entry shell to get speeds as much as 25 machs.. It is no way possible to stop them at the terminal phase.

Are u talking about ICBM.
If u are talking about ICBM then it will be easy to intercept them in boost phase rather than in Terminal Phase.
If u are talking about IRBM's,Then they can be intercepted in Terminal Phase.

Thats why they put Anti-ballistic missile sys in the Russian borders... The latest being in Poland

Are u joking? ABM systems are deployed near cities to protect from Ballistic Missiles which target them.
Can u provide source for that.

 

[gf0012-aust]

You can count on me for these details coz i'm an aerospace engineer...

From my perspective, based on what I know and have been involved in, a lot of what you have said is just plain incorrect. In future you will need to provide sources about your premises.

I really question whether an aerospace engineer would have made such comments when they are so badly constructed as responses - and certainly without supporting evidence that is available and is not classified.

 

[highsea]

... So They talk about the ICBMs that come through the north pole route.. You know the gravity effect is ever higher that route giving the re entry shell to get speeds as much as 25 machs..

Why would you say that gravity is stronger at the poles? The advantage of polar launches (or routes) is that it is often the shortest distance to the target for an ICBM (especially in the cold war scenario of USSR vs. USA). Which is why SSBN's like to hide under the icecap.

The terminal speed is as much a factor of the time the missile travels in space (it can accelerate with no atmospheric friction), as the altitude from which it begins it's descent (accelerated by gravity).

The gravitational force is the same anywhere on the planet, it's no different at the equator than it is at the pole.

 

[Rolex]

The gravitational force is the same anywhere on the planet, it's no different at the equator than it is at the pole.

NO... Its not the same... Earth is not a perfect sphere, flattened at the poles.. Its 10m/s^2 at poles and 9.8 at the equator..
And i was just explaining that it was the ICBM they are talking about.... And gravity is one of the factors... quote]
If u are talking about ICBM then it will be easy to intercept them in boost phase rather than in Terminal Phase.
If u are talking about IRBM's,Then they can be intercepted in Terminal Phase.
[/quote]

Yes... Thats what i was trying to say....

No I don't think like that becoz its also depends on Engine and weight to thrust ratio.

We dont talk about weight to thrust ratio... Any rocket will have to accelarate to an escape velocity... So, as the payload increases, the propellant quantity and the size of the engine increases...
These facts are from the text books... Source... I'll get the help of search engines and give some websites later...

Are u joking? ABM systems are deployed near cities to protect from Ballistic Missiles which target them.

You have answer for this in the overview
http://www.missilethreat.com/overview/destroyphasebyphase.html

Nevertheless, killing missiles in boost phase is difficult because of one requirement: all the equipment for detection, discrimination, fire control and killing must be present within range of the boosting missiles, and just at the time when their engines are burning. Hence the effectiveness of equipment for killing missiles in boost phase depends—like the value of real estate—on location, location, location. And since enemies launch missiles either from their own territory, from others’ territory, or from surprise locations at sea, having the equipment at the right time and place can be a problem.

The problem, obviously, cannot be solved by stationing the missile killing equipment on the enemy’s soil, or by flying that equipment where the enemy can shoot it down. Very rarely, the problem is soluble by putting the equipment on the ground - providing that it is on the soil of a country right next to the one from which the missiles are being launched, close to the point of launch, and directly under the trajectory that the missiles must travel to get to their targets

GF I take your comments in the right manner... It's not about classified materials but i can't give you source for things that i understand from my text books... Will try and get you websites, the sources you believe in.,

 

[highsea]

The gravitational force is the same anywhere on the planet, it's no different at the equator than it is at the pole.

NO... Its not the same... Earth is not a perfect sphere, flattened at the poles.. Its 10m/s^2 at poles and 9.8 at the equator..

Your logic is flawed. The variation is only for an object on the surface of the planet. An object at the pole is slightly heavier because it is closer to the earths center of gravity. This is due to the inverse square rule, not a variation in the strength of the field. The other factor is centrifugal force for an object at the equator. Neither of these factors apply to a missile in space.

The variation is .004%, nowhere close to the 2% you cite. The average gravitational force at the surface of the earth is 9.8m/s^2.

http://www.geocities.com/ramin1102000/chap2-2page.html

An object in space will feel the same attraction to the earth no matter what the latitude, since it is measured from the earth's center of gravity. The only factor is altitude. (inverse square rule again)

 

[ajay_ijn]

GF I take your comments in the right manner... It's not about classified materials but i can't give you source for things that i understand from my text books... Will try and get you websites, the sources you believe in.,

Its not that we believe in,Its a rule in this forum to support your argument with sources

These facts are from the text books... Source... I'll get the help of search engines and give some websites later...

First find out the source and then post the message.

You have answer for this in the overview

I thought u were talking about interception in terminal phase.Till I know US has never deployed ABM systems in poland as u said.
Do u have any source for that.

If all the missiles will have to travel to same heights(distance as you said), being a ballistic projectile why would you need many diff missiles with diff propellant weights etc., Why would it take india 3 yrs to develop agni after very sucessfully developing pritvi??

I meant that all ballistic Missiles have to go into the space regardless of their range or class.

We dont talk about weight to thrust ratio... Any rocket will have to accelarate to an escape velocity... So, as the payload increases, the propellant quantity and the size of the engine increases...
These facts are from the text books... Source... I'll get the help of search engines and give some websites later...

Cmon Rolex u are claiming yourself to be a Aerospace engineer.
http://www.defenceindia.com/def_common/road_missile_development.html

The missile has a shelf life of five years with the propellant loaded and twenty-five years without the propellant being loaded. Prithvi-III is a "boosted liquid propellant version, to generate more thrust-to-weight ratio…"

If we got to increase the range,Then the Missile must have greater Thrust to Weight ratio.
If The ratio is one then Missile will lift off.
http://www.missilethreat.com/overview/stages.html

The missile’s range depends on the ratio between the thrust generated by the engines and the weight that the thrust must overcome—and of course on the duration of the thrust

The other most imortant factor is the mass ratio.

A rocket's mass ratio is defined as the total mass at lift­off divided by the mass remaining after all the propellant has been consumed. A high mass ratio means that more propellant is pushing less missile and payload mass, resulting in higher velocity. A high mass ratio is necessary to achieve the high velocities needed for long-range missiles.

To achieve higher velocites, a Missile Must have high mass ratio.

 

[srirangan]

Highsea,

I'll side with Rolex on the gravity issue. If you take a world map of Space Launch Centers, you'll observe that most of them are near the equator. Why? Cause its considerably easier to launch from the equator as the rotation spin of the earth is maximum at the equator.

Experiment, take a muddy football (soccer ball), spin/rotate it in the air; you'll find that the dust that gets flung out is from the equator of the spinning football and the speed of spinning is highest there. On earth you see the same effect, on a very large scale though

 

[ajay_ijn]

I'll side with Rolex on the gravity issue. If you take a world map of Space Launch Centers, you'll observe that most of them are near the equator. Why? Cause its considerably easier to launch from the equator as the rotation spin of the earth is maximum at the equator.

But he is not talking about the launch stage of ballstic Missiles,its about ballistic Missiles in space.
I question is "Is the speed of Ballistic Missiles in space depend upon the Geographical position like in the north pole"?

 

[highsea]

Highsea,

I'll side with Rolex on the gravity issue. If you take a world map of Space Launch Centers, you'll observe that most of them are near the equator. Why? Cause its considerably easier to launch from the equator as the rotation spin of the earth is maximum at the equator.

Sri, look at Rolex's statement:

So They talk about the ICBMs that come through the north pole route.. You know the gravity effect is ever higher that route giving the re entry shell to get speeds as much as 25 machs..

He is not talking about launches, he is saying a missile will gain a greater re-entry acceleration at the poles than at the equator. Sorry, but that is BS!

In my response, I noted the effect of centrifugal force at the equator. Of course it helps in launching. That's why we put Cape Canaveral in Florida and not in Alaska.

But once a missile is in space, the gravitational effects of the earth are the same no matter what latitude the missile is at! The only factor is altitude. Inverse square rule. The earth's gravitational field is constant.

Centrifugal force is not gravity, it only helps you overcome gravity on the launch. If you want a reciprocal effect (higher apparent acceleration), you would have to re-enter against the spin of the earth at the equator.

Newton's law shows us that the force of gravity is determined by distance and mass. INVERSE SQUARE RULE!

Aaargh!...How hard is that to understand?

 

[rajupaki]

It can hardly intersept a High altitude Aircraft

So how many Pakistan Fighters have maximum Ceiling greater than 18km ?
It is not designed to intercept SR-71 or Mig-25 :

Comeon Man! lets get out from the Pakistan circule. I havent said that it can intersept pakistani crafts or not. I am talking generally(i.e HIGH ALTITUDE AIRCRAFTS). I dont know why every Indian here in this forum has PAKISTAN riding on its Mind all the time. Every country make equipments to compete internationnaly. If you think that countering Pakistan is way forward then your mind is really thinking backward. I know that Pakistan has no high altitude flying aircraft(excluding f16's) but China has it. What about countering that??

 

[ajay_ijn]

Comeon Man! lets get out from the Pakistan circule. I havent said that it can intersept pakistani crafts or not. I am talking generally(i.e HIGH ALTITUDE AIRCRAFTS). I dont know why every Indian here in this forum has PAKISTAN riding on its Mind all the time

No no its not like that,I was just joking.Take it easy dude

know that Pakistan has no high altitude flying aircraft(excluding f16's)

Why exclude F-16,I think it has ceiling of 15km.

but China has it. What about countering that??

True,Planes like Su-27 and Su-30 can go to very high alititude.But India has other Russian SAM which can counter(I doubt) them.
Akash is the first SAM project by India.How can we expect it to be capable as Russian or Western SAM's?That is why I said India is trying to improve Akash by getting tech help from S-300 or PAC-3 or Arrow-2

Atleast DRDO has made a SAM.Indian Defence Industry is hard working its way to achieve Complete Self Reliance.
Akash,Trishul,LCA,NAG(ATGM),ATV etc and many more are some good projects by India.Though most of them have foreign involvement but Atleast some systems are developed in india.

 

[Rolex]

Hi highsea,

Newton's law shows us that the force of gravity is determined by distance and mass. INVERSE SQUARE RULE!

Fine...
Difference between equatorial and polar radius = 21 384.6858 m
http://home.online.no/~sigurdhu/WGS84_Eng.html
Let’s assume that the warhead is at a distance R from the c.g of the earth...
This means the height of the warhead from the surface is 21km higher at the polar region than at the equator...
So there is greater acceleration... To achieve same velocities at the poles, you dont have to go to the same height reached at the equatorial region...

 

[Rolex]

Hi ajay,
Let me explain that…
The Thrust to weight ratio of an aero engine is dependant mainly on the engine size and the aerodynamic efficiency of its various components. We dont consider the fuel at all.
In case of a rocket engine, it is dependant on the fuel also. It is called specific impulse. The liquid propellants have a higher specific impulse than the solid propellants. Still both have their own advantages and disadvantages..
As the criteria are not the same, we stick to the specific impulse and burnout time for range calculations.
About the mass ratio,
This has nothing to do with the thrust to weight ratio…
Long range missiles are usually staged rockets…. This is done to shed the unwanted structure after the burn out, thus reducing the burnout mass (mass at the end of that stage) :arrow: higher mass ratio. This helps to achieve higher velocities.