How can Pakistan counter India’s ABM system?

[The Deterrent]

Still this is just a speculation.....there is no credible evidence.

Well then our Abdalis and Ghaznavis have nothing to worry about the ABMs till 2015-2020.

Go ASFC

 

[DARKY]

Pakistani Missile Upgrades

3. Hatf-3 GHAZNAVI

The earlier version of this missile was a ditto copy of Chinese M-11 missiles.Since then,new version(s) have been made indigenously and have been inducted.

Courtesy : Richard Fisher, Jr. "Pakistan’s Long Range Ballistic Missiles: A View From IDEAS"


According to Dr. Samar Mubarakmand...

4. Hatf-4 SHAHEEN-I

As stated by Dr. Samar Mubarakmand...


The first version of Shaheen-I was this.

Later,we saw an improved version with clearly visible separate ReV ,having Terminal Correction System.

In the recent tests of May 2010,it was noted that the ReV had a modified nose cone (for low drag) with no fins attached to the ReV,hinting the use of thrusters instead.

Courtesy : TaimiKhan


Also,by Richard Fisher, Jr. "Pakistan’s Long Range Ballistic Missiles: A View From IDEAS"...


5. Hatf-5A GHAURI-I/Hatf-5B GHAURI-II

There hasn't been much improvement in the Ghauri series,except that NESCOM designs its ReVs now,which are known for their accuracy.

According to Dr. Samar Mubarakmand...

6. Hatf-6 SHAHEEN-II

An upgraded version of the system is being inducted,which has a max range of 2750 km at same 1050 kg payload.The unique feature of this system is Maneuverable Re-entry Vehicle (MaRV) and an integrated Counter-measures suite (incorporating Balloons and Chaff).


References

1. Dr. Samar Mubarakmand's Interview with Geo TV
2. Taimur SLV, Gallery
3. International Assessment and Strategy Center > Research > Pakistan’s Long Range Ballistic Missiles: A View From IDEAS

Hatf I/IA are unguided,
Hatf II outdated aswell as way too less range.
Hatf III again a copy of M-11.... trying to exceed the limitations of M-11 technology.... Depressed trajectory is nothing but a short coming of thruster motors.... Easily detectable and give a lot of time to long range tracking Radars.
Hatf IV again an extension of M-11 with better thrust motors.... however still an outdated technology.... Terminal corrective means are there in all BM and its is what makes a missile different from scud rockets.
Hatf V... worthless.... this should be thrown out 1st.... crappy junk..... takes time to be fueled and is highly vulnerable to even Patriot type defense system.
Hatf VI.... optimization of the technology to its maximum..... adding another stage.... would like to see upto what extent the RV can maneuver.... even on that one.... the killer missile has got active seekers which guide that missile towards the incoming Missile...... on top of that in oder to maneuver it would have to decrease its terminal velocity..... In case you havent seen how maneuverable Ashwin is....

Only MIRV equipped BM can evade Indian BMD system..... or overwhelming number of launches at the same time.

 

[The Deterrent]

Only MIRV equipped BM can evade Indian BMD system..... or overwhelming number of launches at the same time.

Thanks for shitting my post once again...

Hatf I/IA are unguided

Hatf-1/1A(unguided) have been completely replaced by Hatf-1B(guided).

Hatf II outdated aswell as way too less range.

Agreed.At this range,the missile is too bulky and uneconomical.A major transformation in the system is coming soon.

Hatf III again a copy of M-11.... trying to exceed the limitations of M-11 technology.... Depressed trajectory is nothing but a short coming of thruster motors.... Easily detectable and give a lot of time to long range tracking Radars.

I would say,the best version of Scud/M-11 series.It appears that you are not familiar with depressed trajectory.
When following the depressed trajectory,the missile does slow down under normal conditions.In this case,we see aero-spike and probably stronger motor,which overcomes that effect and maintains speed/acceleration.In effect,depressed trajectory actually decreases time of flight.

Hatf IV again an extension of M-11 with better thrust motors.... however still an outdated technology.... Terminal corrective means are there in all BM and its is what makes a missile different from scud rockets.

It is based on M-11 and M-9,but not a copy of them.Outdated technology?how?...can the same be said about Agni-I?
You are confusing two correction systems.
One is post-correction,which corrects the missile's trajectory soon after it is seperated from the main rocket motor.The missile drifts away from its trajectory during stage separation because of massive jerks caused by firing of explosive bolts,which are used to separate two stages or ReV from the last stage.Post-correction system separates again with the small rocket motor which was used to correct the trajectory.So only the warhead,which follows a purely ballistic trajectory,goes on from that stage onwards.These separations occur after the missile has exited the atmosphere (during mid-course).PCS is employed on Abdali and Ghaznavi.

Second is the Terminal correction system.It remains with the warhead until impact.It consists of side-thrusters,hence providing accuracy till impact.TCS is employed probably on Shaheen-I,Ghauri-I and definitely on Ghauri-II and Shaheen-II.

Hatf V... worthless.... this should be thrown out 1st.... crappy junk..... takes time to be fueled and is highly vulnerable to even Patriot type defense system.

Agreed.I believe Ghauri-I has been retired,because the last test was of Ghauri-II which was tested to 1300 km(which lies in the range of Ghauri-I).Also there has been no test of it since 2002-3.
The Ghauri series is very time consuming to prepare for launch.The liquid-fueled motor provides less acceleration,hence the missile is slower in all phases.
The Ghauri series is only adding diversity and variety to Pakistan's Strategic Nuclear Arsenal.

Hatf VI.... optimization of the technology to its maximum..... adding another stage.... would like to see upto what extent the RV can maneuver.... even on that one.... the killer missile has got active seekers which guide that missile towards the incoming Missile...... on top of that in oder to maneuver it would have to decrease its terminal velocity..... In case you havent seen how maneuverable Ashwin is....

Adding another stage?
Don't be such a child.Adding another stage means more weight,which means a stronger first stage.
Everybody knows that all ABMs are higly maneuverable.The maneuverability of the hostile missile matters at high super-sonic speeds.At hypersonic relative speeds,it is very difficult to get in the proximity of a maneuverable ReV.

---------- Post added at 08:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 PM ----------

@DARKY...I'm saying that the existing Pakistani missiles are up-to-date in their respective roles.

 

[The Deterrent]

@DARKY,BTW,since Prithvi-I and II are also liquid-fueled and slow,aren't they "crappy junk" and outdated?
Isn't Agni-I outdated too,since it is equivalent to Shaheen-I?

 

[cyphercide]

Only MIRV equipped BM can evade Indian BMD system..... or overwhelming number of launches at the same time.

Not quite.The MIRVed warheads would be the easiest ones to catch as they need to attain upper atmosphere heights to set off the separation stage.Those are guaranteed to not hit their targets.In fact, the first ABM systems were solely targeted towards MIRVed missiles due to ease of interception.

 

[The Deterrent]

Not quite.The MIRVed warheads would be the easiest ones to catch as they need to attain upper atmosphere heights to set off the separation stage.Those are guaranteed to not hit their targets.In fact, the first ABM systems were solely targeted towards MIRVed missiles due to ease of interception.

Dude,true that the MIRVed warheads are the easiest to detect owing to their large size,but they are not even close to being easy for engagement.
The true fact is,that American Nike-X ABM system (deployed in the 1960s) and the Soviet A-35 ABM system (deployed in 1971) were targeted against single warheads.MIRVs were introduced in mid-1970s.
Current US,Russian,Israeli,Indian ABM systems cannot intercept MIRVs succesfully.

Please correct your knowledge.

 

[cyphercide]

Dude,true that teh MIRVed warheads are the easiest to detect owing to their large size,but they are not even close to being easy for engagement.
The true fact is,that American Nike-X ABM system (deployed in the 1960s) and the Soviet A-35 ABM system (deployed in 1971) were targeted against single warheads.MIRVs were introduced in mid-1970s.
Current US,Russian,Israeli,Indian ABM systems cannot intercept MIRVs succesfully.

Not for their size but for the height they need to attain to successfully separate into independent warheads.That makes it easier to intercept.A mid range singular Pakistani missile would be much harder to defend against as compared to a MIRVed missile that has to attain a predetermined height for separation.

 

[The Deterrent]

Not for their size but for the height they need to attain to successfully separate into independent warheads.That makes it easier to intercept.A mid range singular Pakistani missile would be much harder to defend against as compared to a MIRVed missile that has to attain a predetermined height for separation.

Going by your logic,the MIRV will be deployed after reaching the peak altitude.Tell me,is it easy to intercept a single warhead or 12 MIRVs (in modern ICBMs)?

I presume you are talking about mid-course interception.The hostile missile,if MIRVed is more vulnerable in mid-course,because it is travelling as a unitary warhead.But designing an ABM which can perform mid-course interception is very difficult.So far,only US and China have that capability.

The higher the altitude of the hostile missile,the better it is.But it doesn't makes that much difference once the missile is not below the minimum altitude for interception.

The speed of the hostile missile,however,matters more.Generally,the higher the altitude of the missile,the faster it is.Hence making it difficult for interception by tactical ABMs.

 

[cyphercide]

Going by your logic,the MIRV will be deployed after reaching the peak altitude.Tell me,is it easy to intercept a single warhead or 12 MIRVs (in modern ICBMs)?

I presume you are talking about mid-course interception.The hostile missile,if MIRVed is more vulnerable in mid-course,because it is travelling as a unitary warhead.But designing an ABM which can perform mid-course interception is very difficult.So far,only US and China have that capability.

I'm not talking about the numbers game buddy. Of course,12 different warheads pose a bigger problem.But with MIRVed missiles,the separation occurs in the upper atmosphere and so you get time to respond against them.Have enough ABMs,you can shoot everyone of them down.But lower atmosphere missiles with countermeasures are much more difficult to tackle.12 different mid-range missiles would definitely be a bigger headache than a single MIRVed missile carrying 12 re-entry warheads.

 

[The Deterrent]

I'm not talking about the numbers game buddy. Of course,12 different warheads pose a bigger problem.But with MIRVed missiles,the separation occurs in the upper atmosphere and so you get time to respond against them.Have enough ABMs,you can shoot everyone of them down.But lower atmosphere missiles with countermeasures are much more difficult to tackle.12 different mid-range missiles would definitely be a bigger headache than a single MIRVed missile carrying 12 re-entry warheads.

The time to respond is enough,for MRBMs to ICBMs...

A bigger problem which MIRVed missiles bring with them is increased counter-measures capability.It includes inflatable balloons,chaff and reflectors.So the number of targets may well increase beyond 20.

Again,just one MIRVed missile is not launched.There are multiple missiles launched at approx the same time in a nuclear war scenario.

Unless the enemy has mid-course interceptors,the MIRVs are the best solution to tackle the enemy's ABM shield.Read further here
http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-mi...ssile-defenses-effectiveness-reliability.html

PS : I have edited (added content to) my previous post,so read it again.

 

[paki1]

In my suggestion its very easy to counter Indiaz ABM systems.....just to increase the speed of our Ballistic Missiles , more than their ABMz and thats what we need.....

 

[DrSomnath999]

In my suggestion its very easy to counter Indiaz ABM systems.....just to increase the speed of our Ballistic Missiles , more than their ABMz and thats what we need.....

hey man ur avatar is very vulgar ,there r female members in this forum ,plz change ur avatar
REGARDS

 

[Secur]

Still this is just a speculation.....there is no credible evidence.

Then what the hell were you doing all the time ? lol Talking of a system thats not even in place

 

[DARKY]

I would say,the best version of Scud/M-11 series.It appears that you are not familiar with depressed trajectory.
When following the depressed trajectory,the missile does slow down under normal conditions.In this case,we see aero-spike and probably stronger motor,which overcomes that effect and maintains speed/acceleration.In effect,depressed trajectory actually decreases time of flight.



It is based on M-11 and M-9,but not a copy of them.Outdated technology?how?...can the same be said about Agni-I?
You are confusing two correction systems.
One is post-correction,which corrects the missile's trajectory soon after it is seperated from the main rocket motor.The missile drifts away from its trajectory during stage separation because of massive jerks caused by firing of explosive bolts,which are used to separate two stages or ReV from the last stage.Post-correction system separates again with the small rocket motor which was used to correct the trajectory.So only the warhead,which follows a purely ballistic trajectory,goes on from that stage onwards.These separations occur after the missile has exited the atmosphere (during mid-course).PCS is employed on Abdali and Ghaznavi.

Second is the Terminal correction system.It remains with the warhead until impact.It consists of side-thrusters,hence providing accuracy till impact.TCS is employed probably on Shaheen-I,Ghauri-I and definitely on Ghauri-II and Shaheen-II.



Agreed.I believe Ghauri-I has been retired,because the last test was of Ghauri-II which was tested to 1300 km(which lies in the range of Ghauri-I).Also there has been no test of it since 2002-3.
The Ghauri series is very time consuming to prepare for launch.The liquid-fueled motor provides less acceleration,hence the missile is slower in all phases.
The Ghauri series is only adding diversity and variety to Pakistan's Strategic Nuclear Arsenal.



Adding another stage?
Don't be such a child.Adding another stage means more weight,which means a stronger first stage.
Everybody knows that all ABMs are higly maneuverable.The maneuverability of the hostile missile matters at high super-sonic speeds.At hypersonic relative speeds,it is very difficult to get in the proximity of a maneuverable ReV.

---------- Post added at 08:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 PM ----------

@DARKY...I'm saying that the existing Pakistani missiles are up-to-date in their respective roles.

Be done with that shitting--shitting..... I have raised reasonable question.... might sound a bit harsh.... but all the fingers are not equal in your hand..... even on that note apologies If I offended you.... in any of my posts.

See depressed trajectory is an old thing which came from the shortcoming of fuel quality or thruster motors or missile being overweight...etc.... and only Iranian missiles or NK missiles have such trajectory.... not even cruise missile these days have such a trajectory..... the spike is there to improve accuracy.... but that has little effect on accuracy..... It has got nothing to do with speed yes it might reduce the initial drag... but that would not make much difference.... you can see why most of modern BM don't have any such spike..... barring SLBM since they have to tear through water for 150m which has lot more drag than air.... in a way that spike on a normal BM shows the shortcomings of the inadequate thrust.

All the BM have such separation as well as terminal trajectory controlling mechanism.... I would like to know weather the RV has additional motors with flex nozzle or not....

Now adding diversity is one thing but making your arsenal weak in with such missiles is another...... What kind of liquid fuel is being used for Gauri series BMs normally these liquid fuel missiles are kept empty and it takes 1-2 hours to refuel them.... and you can't allow the liquid fuel to be in the missile for launch.... It has to be launched quickly.....

Adding another stage has just increased the range and velocity.... aswell as payload capacity to some extent.... but there isn't much technological difference in motors.... fuel.... thrusters.... casing..... etc..etc... Now A few questions about your most modern missile....

Does it have different and better fuel than Its earlier version ??
Does it have different motors ??
Does it have automated internal guidance system ??
Does it have artificial intelligence or a robotic computers ??
Does it have flex nozzle ??
Does it have composite casing ??
Does it have RV with additional fuel and motors ??

Unless and Until it does not have all the things combined..... Its possibility of evading current ABM system of India is very minimal......

 

[DARKY]

@DARKY,BTW,since Prithvi-I and II are also liquid-fueled and slow,aren't they "crappy junk" and outdated?
Isn't Agni-I outdated too,since it is equivalent to Shaheen-I?

Yes Prithvi I & II are junks and are being replaced by Prithvi III slowly... even on that note..... the improved liquid fuel has made it possible to keep these missiles with fuel in storage.... quite uncharacteristic of all liquid fuel missiles...... and being a small and sleek design with better motors they have reasonably good speed for a liquid fuel missile.

Yes Agni I is also out dated by nothing is stopping it.... It is western specific and no countries on our western borders have ABM capabilities.... hence even scuds fired on them are effective.

---------- Post added at 11:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 AM ----------

Not quite.The MIRVed warheads would be the easiest ones to catch as they need to attain upper atmosphere heights to set off the separation stage.Those are guaranteed to not hit their targets.In fact, the first ABM systems were solely targeted towards MIRVed missiles due to ease of interception.

Its not about the speed but a sudden increase in number of targets..... even scuds disintegrating in terminal stages were difficult to intercept since they made many threats or targets for ABMs.