Shortly after the test, the Ministry of External Affairs had said that the missile used in Mission Shakti was "DRDO's Ballistic Missile Defence interceptor", which was "part of the ongoing ballistic missile defence programme". Early reports on the test said the same. However, a day after the test, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) Chairman G Satheesh Reddy said that this was a new missile, developed specifically as an anti-satellite weapon. "The missile has technologies developed for ballistic missile defence applications, particularly the kill vehicle," Reddy told a news agency in an interview.
In either case, Reddy has said that the ASAT missile used in the test "had the capability to intercept satellites higher than 1,000 kilometres". This would represent a major boost for India's ballistic missile defence (BMD) programme as well, since intercepting a satellite and BMD are based on near identical technologies. "The recent ASAT test provides a capability to intercept intermediate-range and intercontinental-range ballistic missiles in high-altitude, exo-atmospheric phase," explained Avinash Chander, former chief of the DRDO. This "implicit" boost provided to ballistic missile defence by the ASAT programme "is a new capability", he added.
India has had an avowed BMD programme for over a decade now.
India conducted Mission Shakti, its first ASAT missile test, on March 27. The missile successfully struck and destroyed the target satellite at an altitude of nearly 300 km in a low-earth orbit. "By destroying a target at that altitude (300 km), India has implicitly confirmed its ability to intercept longer-range missiles in their mid-course phase, when they are still outside the Earth's atmosphere before re-entry. This window is crucial to intercept a nuclear-armed medium-range or even intercontinental-range missile," said A Vinod Kumar, an associate fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses.
All ballistic missiles follow a trajectory that includes three phases: boost phase, mid-course phase, and terminal phase.During the boost phase portion of its flight, the missile gains the velocity it needs in order to reach its target. It lasts between one and five minutes depending on the missile's range. During this phase, the missile can completely exit the atmosphere into outer space. However, shorter-range missiles might only reach the edge of outer space.
Destroying a missile in the boost phase would be the ideal solution, but it is also the most difficult.
Once the missile completes firing its propulsion system, it enters the mid-course phase, which is the longest leg of its flight. The missile is now coasting towards its target. This phase can last as long as 20 minutes for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), with the missile warhead travelling more than 24,000 kilometres per hour. In the case of medium- and long-range missiles, this phase occurs outside the atmosphere (exo-atmosphere). "At an altitude of 300 km, the target of the ASAT test was well beyond the Karman Line, situated at a 100-km altitude, that divides outer space from the Earth's atmosphere. An interception at this range is significant as this is the zone where a long-range ballistic missile (especially an ICBM) would be in its mid-course phase," said Kumar.
While the mid-course phase has the longest window of opportunity to destroy the incoming missile, the attacking missile also has the opportunity to use countermeasures against the interceptor.
The final portion of a missile's flight is the terminal phase. During this time, the warhead re-enters the atmosphere. This phase lasts less than a minute for ICBMs.
The terminal phase, writes defence analyst Ajai Shukla, provides the "most realistic opportunity for engagement".
Intercepting a satellite in orbit is different from destroying an incoming enemy ballistic missile. "They have inherently different targeting attributes, and hence demand different algorithms. Unless the satellite is a dysfunctional vehicle in a free fall, it would usually be in a controlled orbit or predicted trajectory, which would enable accurate targeting. A missile, on the other hand, would be in its ballistic phase in the mid-course, coasting through the outer space. Though the trajectory might still be predictable, the missile would have the option of deploying countermeasures against potential interception," explained Kumar. An incoming ballistic missile could also engage in evasive manoeuvres. Kumar said that for these reasons, missile interception is tougher than an ASAT operation.
Satellites do not present the same unpredictability, but destroying one comes with its own challenges. "A satellite's velocity is much higher than a missile's, and it requires a much higher order of precision. However, satellites do not have effective countermeasures at present," said Chander. Despite the difference between satellite and missile interception, Chander contends that since a missile's velocity is lower, the seeker and guidance algorithms can "definitely handle" its interception.
businessstandard
In an indication of the Islamic State terror group’s involve ..
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.