India Indian BMD+ASAT Programs

Gessler

Contributor
Moderator
India Moderator
Messages
852
Reactions
38 1,896
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
remember, block IIA has flight ceiling of 1000km.

And i am gonna say this is a late midcourse interception.


and only thing has similar capability to SM 3 is arrow 3 at that moment
And yes, GBI is a class of its own.

Nice chart on where everything falls in the US terminology as of 2017:

170223-D-ZZ999-999.JPG


can you explain doctrinal logic behind AD 2 type capability ? because it seems to me, at the it will become operational, HGVs will take over the role of MRBMs.

HGVs are too shaky at the moment as a definitive system on which deterrence can be built. They are in the same league as Railguns which everyone thought would be the future and that fizzled out because they are too complicated to be reliable.

Just like SM-3 isn't going anywhere for a long time (there will undoubtedly be future Blocks), this class of interceptor has a long future.

Even with HGVs, the future developments will focus on changing up the type of Kill Vehicle loaded on these ABMs (taking cues from existing Midcourse & ASAT developments) to include likes of maneuverable or multi-object KKVs. The booster & missile itself will still be needed to get the KKV where it needs to go.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,409
Reactions
69 8,191
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Nice chart on where everything falls in the US terminology as of 2017:

170223-D-ZZ999-999.JPG




HGVs are too shaky at the moment as a definitive system on which deterrence can be built. They are in the same league as Railguns which everyone thought would be the future and that fizzled out because they are too complicated to be reliable.

Just like SM-3 isn't going anywhere for a long time (there will undoubtedly be future Blocks), this class of interceptor has a long future.

Even with HGVs, the future developments will focus on changing up the type of Kill Vehicle loaded on these ABMs (taking cues from existing Midcourse & ASAT developments) to include likes of maneuverable or multi-object KKVs. The booster & missile itself will still be needed to get the KKV where it needs to go.
Thank you for the chart,

Maybe sm 3 will have long future.

I think we talked about HGV before! I disagree with you.

First of all, I didn't said at the moment!
Secondly, in next 5/7 years it would become much more mature.
Last but not the least, even today, the comparison between railgun and HGV would be just false!

russia and china already have two class of HGV in active service ( avangand and DF-ZF ). And this is just not a propaganda claim!
It has been confirmed by various prestigious western security think tanks and Pentagon itself. And it does make sense, given both countries has been developing these over a decade now.
And Us amry gonna have there own next year.

From that video you can tell DARPA acheived maximum precision from common hypersonic glide body in a test in 2020 ( it hit within 14 inches of target according to us army )

And again, for nuclear delivery it doesn't even matter if you miss by 100 meters or more.
 
Last edited:

Gessler

Contributor
Moderator
India Moderator
Messages
852
Reactions
38 1,896
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Thank you for the chart,

Maybe sm 3 will have long future.

I think we talked about HGV before! I disagree with you.
First of all, I didn't said at the moment.
Secondly, in next 5/7 years it would become much more mature.
Last but not the least, even today, the comparison between railgun and HGV would be just false!

russia and china already have them in active service ( avangand and DF-ZF ). And this is just not a propaganda claim.
It has been confirmed by various prestigious western security think tanks and Pentagon itself. And it does make sense, given both countries has been developing these over a decade now. And Us amry gonna have there own next year.

From that video you can tell DARPA acheived maximum precision from common hypersonic glide body from a test last year ( it hit within 14 inches of target according to us army )

And again, for nuclear delivery it doesn't even matter if you miss by 100 meters or more.

Well the US just sanctioned the development of LGM-35 Sentinel ICBM - its future ground based deterrence through 2075. Russia doing the same with RS-28 Sarmat...both conventional missile systems with MIRVs, not unlike existing Minuteman-III and R-36 Satan.

Whether these MIRVs will be replaced with HGV warheads in the future is speculation currently. Deterrence platforms, as a rule, always stick with the most mature & reliable systems until such systems become obsolete or ineffective. Deterrence platforms cannot afford to play around with the "latest & greatest hotness."

It will take a minimum of 10-20 years of HGVs being deployed in the real world against tactical targets before they become Deterrence platforms.

There's a reason stuff like Fiber-Optic Gyros are still rarely used on Deterrence platforms, preferring instead to stick with the older, proven Ring Laser Gyros.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,409
Reactions
69 8,191
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Well the US just sanctioned the development of LGM-35 Sentinel ICBM - its future ground based deterrence through 2075. Russia doing the same with RS-28 Sarmat...both conventional missile systems with MIRVs, not unlike existing Minuteman-III and R-36 Satan.

Whether these MIRVs will be replaced with HGV warheads in the future is speculation currently. Deterrence platforms, as a rule, always stick with the most mature & reliable systems until such systems become obsolete or ineffective. Deterrence platforms cannot afford to play around with the "latest & greatest hotness."

It will take a minimum of 10-20 years of HGVs being deployed in the real world against tactical targets before they become Deterrence platforms.

There's a reason stuff like Fiber-Optic Gyros are still rarely used on Deterrence platforms, preferring instead to stick with the older, proven Ring Laser Gyros.
That's because usa won't need any strategic HGV capability in next 30 years. This is very obvious, given russia ( for economic reason ) and china ( for lack of technology and also economic reason ) doesn't have and won't have any serious BMD capability like GBI that would actually challenge the conventional us MIRVs in next two/three decades. It makes total sense if usa wanna stick with the reliable conventional delivery system in foreseeable future.

But for china and russia strategic HGV is not speculation at all! It is a 'must' capability for both countries.
And That's why Already two regiment of avangand in service with russian strategic rocket force with more to come.
On the other hand, china is speeding up the development of similar ( or better ) capability which was demonstrated with their last year infamous test.

And that's Because unlike russia and china, usa has an actual BMD capability ( GBI ) that can challenge russian and chinese MIRV in a limited sense now and in relatively greater sense in the future ( at least, that's how chinese and russian perceived it ) and russia was complaining about it for a decade now when usa withdrew from anti balistic missile treaty. and putin explicitly said, russia was forced to develop avangand given usa was developing GBI, which was disturbing the stability of strategic balance between usa and russia.

And about RS 28 sarmat I would point to three key points.

1. It doesn't need to carry avangand. That's because it can already avoid us defence by going over the south pole ( and this is one the reason for it to be the longest range icbm )
2. Secondly, it can carry ridiculous 10 ton of warhead. which is huge and more than double compared to other ICBMs, so it wouldn't be very economical to carry only 1 avangard when it can carry 15/16 MIRVs and go over south pole.
3. SARMAT is not replacing all ICBMs in Russian inventory ( only 50 has been planned ) and also it is not mobile for its super heavy neture thus cannot replace all ICBMs. So, in combination with conventional sarmat, some other small and less costly icbm will carry avangand.

I am not claiming that, conventional MIRVs will be out of service soon. Instead what I am saying is, because GBI exist, HGV is 'must complement' to the conventional delivery systems in russian and chinese strategic thinking in foreseeable future.
 
Last edited:

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,500
Reactions
111 19,264
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
@Nilgiri this one deserves a separate thread for sometime don’t you think? This also probably means BMD Phase 1 is complete. And budget is funded from PMO directly I think similar to Nuke sub projects

I have moved it to the dedicated BMD archive.

The detailed ongoing discussion thread (which I hope you participate in):


will also be archived here eventually
 

Rajendra Chola

Committed member
Messages
245
Reactions
71
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
I guess this also means BMD Phase 1 has been implemented to a large extent with Delhi, Mumbai protected now. With AD2 testing beginning , double layered protection can be provided to all the metros plus important cities.
 

fire starter

Well-known member
Messages
314
Reactions
3 441
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
I would describe the AD-1 as roughly equivalent to the Aster-30 Block-1NT/Block-2 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 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 Ku-band RF seekers
Older iterations of these technologies were already demonstrated on the XSV-1 ASAT missile, but as is visually apparent, the BMD Phase-II requires much more miniaturization & precision in these departments due to nature of the threats its supposed to defeat + nature of the mobile platforms that its supposed to be installed on.

View attachment 49891

a-07-14-jpg.17862
It's Ka band seeker.
 

Gessler

Contributor
Moderator
India Moderator
Messages
852
Reactions
38 1,896
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
That's because usa won't need any strategic HGV capability in next 30 years. This is very obvious, given russia ( for economic reason ) and china ( for lack of technology and also economic reason ) doesn't have and won't have any serious BMD capability like GBI that would actually challenge the conventional us MIRVs in next two/three decades. It makes total sense if usa wanna stick with the reliable conventional delivery system in foreseeable future.

But for china and russia strategic HGV is not speculation at all! It is a 'must' capability for both countries.
And That's why Already two regiment of avangand in service with russian strategic rocket force with more to come.
On the other hand, china is speeding up the development of similar ( or better ) capability which was demonstrated with their last year infamous test.

I don't read too much into Russian propaganda. It's like their claim of Kinzhal being operational & that it was used in combat against Ukraine, which turned out be false claims.


The US DoD has an oft-repeated habit of inflating the threats from Russia & China in order to prop up Boogeymen so that their own funding gets expanded. As was the case with the Chinese FOBS (a technology already adopted, and subsequentially abandoned by the USSR decades ago due to being impractical). Unfortunately Russia/China do themselves no favours as their domestic needs for propaganda vehicles is as strong, if not stronger, than the Pentagon's need to use these vehicles to prop up Boogeymen that will keep the funding coming. It's an almost perfect synergy.

And that's Because unlike russia and china, usa has an actual BMD capability ( GBI ) that can challenge russian and chinese MIRV in a limited sense now and in relatively greater sense in the future ( at least, that's how chinese and russian perceived it ) and russia was complaining about it for a decade now when usa withdrew from anti balistic missile treaty. and putin explicitly said, russia was forced to develop avangand given usa was developing GBI, which was disturbing the stability of strategic balance between usa and russia.

And about RS 28 sarmat I would point to three key points.

1. It doesn't need to carry avangand. That's because it can already avoid us defence by going over the south pole ( and this is one the reason for it to be the longest range icbm )
2. Secondly, it can carry ridiculous 10 ton of warhead. which is huge and more than double compared to other ICBMs, so it wouldn't be very economical to carry only 1 avangard when it can carry 15/16 MIRVs and go over south pole.
3. SARMAT is not replacing all ICBMs in Russian inventory ( only 50 has been planned ) and also it is not mobile for its super heavy neture thus cannot replace all ICBMs. So, in combination with conventional sarmat, some other small and less costly icbm will carry avangand.

I am not claiming that, conventional MIRVs will be out of service soon. Instead what I am saying is, because GBI exist, HGV is 'must complement' to the conventional delivery systems in russian and chinese strategic thinking in foreseeable future.

As you point out yourself, the Russians have determined (correctly) that going over the South pole, even with a liquid-fueled missile which is less flexible than existing solid fuel types, is a more reliable method of delivering deterrence than relying on HGVs. The Chinese are falling back on an even more basic method to achieve deterrence: Redundancy. That's why the increase in number of land silos rather than equip existing ones with exotic, unproven techs.

Don't look at what they're saying, look at what they're doing.

GBI are too few in number and will not be wasted on any conventional missile/HGV. That means at best, only the short/medium-range conventionally-armed missiles will use HGVs, against tactical fixed-point targets for the foreseeable future. Because if the US detects launch of Missiles beyond a certain range class, they can only afford to see it as one thing: a nuclear attack. And they obviously cannot & will not wait for them to detonate to see if they are nukes or not because then their own launch and C&C capabilities could be lost if the Russians/Chinese are allowed to carry through a first strike. So if they see those missiles launching, the only response would be MAD. Use of HGVs to attack aforementioned GBI launchers would also amount to a first strike, and deserving of the same response.

HGVs on Deterrence platforms is not happening for a long, long time, perhaps never. It makes no practical sense at the moment.

Not to mention, operationalization of new high-end systems is going to become a huge problem for Russia & China going forward due to the Semiconductor bans & Lithography bans. Even production of existing systems like S-400 has already been effected.
 
Last edited:

Gessler

Contributor
Moderator
India Moderator
Messages
852
Reactions
38 1,896
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
2 year old thread but still extremely relevant regarding the Phase-II BMD program, of which the XSV-1 (aka PDV Mk-2) ASAT is also a part due to technology overlap:


Note that one of the slides mentioning an older iteration of ASAT design uses an Agni-1/2 solid booster to achieve an altitude of up to 900 kms. The 2019 test used a K4 SLBM booster which is far more powerful (I'd wager between 1,500-2,000km altitude at least) even though the interception itself took place at lower altitudes (~300km) for debris safety considerations.

But the K4 is still not the most powerful booster available even today (ignoring under-development types). An interceptor that uses the Agni-5 booster should be capable of achieving at least 75% of the GBI's kinematics. Although the real challenge will be developing a KKV as efficient as the GBI's.

ExpSOAVUYAIdno5.jpg
 
Top Bottom