# How can Pakistan counter Indias ABM system?



## DrSomnath999

1.Pakistan would develop , multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs)& maneuverable warheads through SHAHEEN3 BM & also future BM


2.Pakistan would develop submarine launched cruise missile i.e Babur cruise missile & CJ-10k in their future chinese Type 39B submarine ,which would give them sea based nuke deterrence & would ensure the survivability of its nuclear deterrent



3.Pakistan would produce more number of ballistic missiles & has increased production of nuclear fissile material like plutonium used for nuke bombs,so that it
would overwhelm india ABM shield ,by firing more missiles towards india


4.Pakistan would use of decoys (e.g., lightweight mylar balloons which, until re-entry, will travel on an identical trajectory with the heavier warheads), use of ablative materials or reflective coatings which limit the damage of directed energy weapons, launches of numerous harmless missiles early in an attack which might cause the defender reveal his defenses and expend valuable resources

5.Pakistan could acquire anti satellite weapon or jammers from chinato confuse indias satellites,which also play a key role in Indias anti ballistic missile shield


6.Pakistan would rely more on cruise missiles like stealthy RAAD & babur for nuke deterrent they are harder to detect due to their lower radar cross-signature, low-level navigation,and use of waypoints to circumvent more secure and heavily defended areas.


7.Pakistan would seek help from from Beijing for high-altitude and anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defenses through HQ-9/ FD2000 deal


8.Pakistan would target indias BMD Radar through long range anti radiation missile like brazilian MER-1 anti radiation missile

9.Pakistan could pursue hypersonic missile technology if they are ready to afford it.

10.Last but not least Pakistan could 1st strike ,as it fears if india 1st strike then their majority nuke detterent might be destroyed & rest if survive would be destroyed by indias ABM shield

*PLEASE NOTE*
this are all my personal assumption ,well anyone having any better ideas apart from this can post
REGARDS

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Kompromat

Technology is evolving fast , it just would be a matter of time when Pakistan would have high end - long range - super/hypersonic - Stealth cruise missiles carrying TNs with multiple erector launchpads to defeat the ABMs.

As for the Ballistic Missiles , new generation of them ones are in planning all over the world and the focus is on how to defeat the AMB and DEWs - CIWS etc. Pakistan surely will get its piece of the pie.

Reactions: Like Like:
16


----------



## XYON

Land based Anti Ballistic Missile Technology (such as Patriot Missiles etc) cannot be fully effective in the Indo-Pak theater due to extremely short flight distances. With the number of nuke tipped multi-range and altitude missiles on both sides and relatively extremely short distances to prime target cities, the missiles will in all probability hot even before the ABMT batteries lock, load and launch.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## The Deterrent

XYON said:


> Land based Anti Ballistic Missile Technology (such as Patriot Missiles etc) cannot be fully effective in the Indo-Pak theater due to extremely short flight distances. With the number of nuke tipped multi-range and altitude missiles on both sides and relatively extremely short distances to prime target cities, the missiles will in all probability hot even before the ABMT batteries lock, load and launch.



Well,that is not the case...ABMs and BMDs are ready to engage hostile missiles in a matter of seconds...

The time factor only eases the decision of retaliation...i.e. Either to retaliate immediately or to wait for engagement or impact.


----------



## The Deterrent

Nice thread Somnaath...BTW point 2 (Greater numbers/salvo launch) and 4 (decoys) are already in place...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mayankmatador

DrSomnath999 said:


> 1.Pakistan would develop , multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs)& maneuverable warheads through SHAHEEN3 BM & also future BM
> 
> 
> 2.Pakistan would develop submarine launched cruise missile i.e Babur cruise missile & CJ-10k in their future chinese Type 39B submarine ,which would give them sea based nuke deterrence & would ensure the survivability of its nuclear deterrent
> 
> 
> 
> 3.Pakistan would produce more number of ballistic missiles & has increased production of nuclear fissile material like plutonium used for nuke bombs,so that it
> would overwhelm india ABM shield ,by firing more missiles towards india
> 
> 
> 4.Pakistan would use of decoys (e.g., lightweight mylar balloons which, until re-entry, will travel on an identical trajectory with the heavier warheads), use of ablative materials or reflective coatings which limit the damage of directed energy weapons, launches of numerous harmless missiles early in an attack which might cause the defender reveal his defenses and expend valuable resources
> 
> 5.Pakistan could acquire anti satellite weapon or jammers from chinato confuse india&#8217;s satellites,which also play a key role in India&#8217;s anti ballistic missile shield
> 
> 
> 6.Pakistan would rely more on cruise missiles like stealthy RAAD & babur for nuke deterrent they are harder to detect due to their lower radar cross-signature, low-level navigation,and use of waypoints to circumvent more secure and heavily defended areas.
> 
> 
> 7.Pakistan would seek help from from Beijing for high-altitude and anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defenses through HQ-9/ FD2000 deal
> 
> 
> 8.Pakistan would target india&#8217;s BMD Radar through long range anti radiation missile like brazilian MER-1 anti radiation missile
> 
> 9.Pakistan could pursue hypersonic missile technology if they are ready to afford it.
> 
> 10.Last but not least Pakistan could 1st strike ,as it fears if india 1st strike then their majority nuke detterent might be destroyed & rest if survive would be destroyed by india&#8217;s ABM shield
> 
> *PLEASE NOTE*
> this are all my personal assumption ,well anyone having any better ideas apart from this can post
> REGARDS




best one is pray for mercy from us and give us back our land

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## The Deterrent

mayankmatador said:


> best one is pray for mercy from us and give us back our land



Happy trolling

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## DrSomnath999

AhaseebA said:


> Nice thread Somnaath...BTW point 2 (Greater numbers/salvo launch) and 4 (decoys) are already in place...


yaar tu iss thread me kya kar rahe ,tu toh yeh thread pehle dekh chuka hey ,ab kya naya hey isss me Bol tu?


----------



## DrSomnath999

Aeronaut said:


> Technology is evolving fast , it just would be a matter of time when Pakistan would have high end - long range - super/hypersonic - Stealth cruise missiles carrying TNs with multiple erector launchpads to defeat the ABMs.


well hope so if pakistan could build it really


----------



## The Deterrent

DrSomnath999 said:


> yaar tu iss thread me kya kar rahe ,tu toh yeh thread pehle dekh chuka hey ,ab kya naya hey isss me Bol tu?



Haha...haan mujhe yaad hai,bari discussion hui thi IDF pe is baray main...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kompromat

DrSomnath999 said:


> well hope so if pakistan could build it really



Pakistan wont be building such tech on its own , Chinese would be interested too. Indian Capital is well in the range of Babur CM - no worries about New dehli & Indian defenses.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## DrSomnath999

Aeronaut said:


> Pakistan wont be building such tech on its own , Chinese would be interested too.


ya i know that ,that's why i had said if they could afford it in point no 9.well 1st of all tell me does china have hypersonic cruise missile technolgy ?


----------



## Areesh

mayankmatador said:


> best one is pray for mercy from us and give us back our land


 
Wake up kid. It's morning time.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Kompromat

DrSomnath999 said:


> ya i know that ,that's why i had said if they could afford it in point no 9.well 1st of all tell me does china have hypersonic cruise missile technolgy ?



At this stage no one "has" the hypersonic CM technology , countries are working on it & chinese wont be far behind - you may see one faster than you think.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Windjammer

^^^^
I think what he meant was, "Have mercy and give our land (?) back.!........ since they are incapable of taking it back.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## DrSomnath999

Aeronaut said:


> At this stage no one "has" the hypersonic CM technology , countries are working on it & chinese wont be far behind - you may see one faster than you think.


ya but US has X41 hypersonic missile & india -Russia are testing brahmos 2 .& About china they might be testing secretly who knows


----------



## TaimiKhan

*Kindly keep the discussion on track and ignore childish comments. If one does trolling, doesn't means that all start trolling and post idiotic comments.*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## DrSomnath999

TaimiKhan said:


> *Kindly keep the discussion on track and ignore childish comments. If one does trolling, doesn't means that all start trolling and post idiotic comments.*


exactly all indian & pak members post according to the thread ,no need to get excited
REGARDS

---------- Post added at 11:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 AM ----------

mod plz delete post no 6 ,it is the main cause of problem


----------



## TaimiKhan

Best answer is to have stealthy CMs which travel as low as possible, combined together with stealth features and materials & below radar range traveling, may give such CMs a chance to reach their targets. 

Plus, BMs should be made maneuverable to the most possible extent, they should be given the shortest flight time period enabling the enemy to have less detection and reaction time period. MIRVs and counter measures in the shape of Chaff like system would be another measure to make sure that the BMs have more chance to reach their intended targets.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DarK-LorD

USE of Decoys is the cheapest & the easiest solution.


----------



## DrSomnath999

see i had posted this thread in IDF & had posted all it's countermeasures by INDIA there but 1st let me tell u about our counter measures on what u said 



TaimiKhan said:


> Best answer is to have stealthy CMs which travel as low as possible, combined together with stealth features and materials & below radar range traveling, may give such CMs a chance to reach their targets.


After the test of Babur ,India immediately teamed up with Israel to develop anti cruise missile system, so they developed Barak 8 anti missile system. these is a real futuristic ,advanced missile system, it can easily intercept any low flying stealthy high manuvering cruise missile ,UAV & can intercept even Supersonic missiles. 

India has also spyder & indigenous akash system for extra protection against cruise missiles. India recently has teamed up with France&#8217;s mbda to develop next gen quick reaction sam maitri missile. it would also add more teeth into India&#8217;s Armour.

india has it's own ISRAELI MADE WORLD'S BEST EL/M-2083 AEROSTAT RADAR SYSTEM.& IAF'S PHALCON AWACS which fills the gap of low aerial radar surveillance ,it can detect low flying jets ,cruise missiles ,uav.

Another important asset to counter Pakistan's cruise missile threat is India &#8216;electronic warfare systems like samyukta electronic warfare system. It is a very advanced system capable of jamming enemy Survelliance signals & radar signals .so it can also be used to jam Pakistan's cruise missiles so that they would fail to hit their designated targets. So it is another great hurdle for Pakistani missiles to jump apart from India's great anti missile shield



TaimiKhan said:


> Plus, BMs should be made maneuverable to the most possible extent, they should be given the shortest flight time period enabling the enemy to have less detection and reaction time period. MIRVs and counter measures in the shape of Chaff like system would be another measure to make sure that the BMs have more chance to reach their intended targets.


MIRV technolgy can also be countered ,drdo chief Saraswat said, "We modified our interceptor missile and provided it with higher energy, an improved guidance and control system and on top of it all, we have integrated a Gimbaled Directional Warhead with it." He said the new guidance system in the missile allowed it to tackle the maneuvers of enemy's incoming missile and could be used against the Russian Topol M class of missiles, which move in a zig-zag manner.So if pak have MIRV then also we can counter by exo atmospheric interception,then by chance some warheads survive it would be intercepted by endo atmospheric interception.
http://www.india-defence.com/reports-4267e
2.Another way is Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) developed by US

The latest trick the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) would like to field is the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV), an ABM with lots of smaller-sized kill vehicles on board. Lockheed Martin is currently developing the MKV to fit into the same space that Raytheon's hit-to-kill vehicle takes up on the U.S. Ground-Based Interceptor being deployed in Alaska this year. The MKV would work a lot like a MIRV It would have a "bus" that would hold dozens of coffee-can-sized kill vehicles and a long-range infrared sensor to spot an approaching cluster of objects such as a bunch of MIRVs and decoys. The bus would assign each kill vehicle a target and provide in-flight targeting updates. With dozens of smaller vehicles, every probable target in an inbound missile attack could be hit, including warheads, decoys, and junk parts that simply look threatening. 

MDA would first use MKVs to complement existing single-shot kill vehicles and ultimately replace them. The MKV design is scalable, so it could be incorporated on smaller systems such THAAD using fewer kill vehicles. Even providing a smaller system such as THAAD or the Navy's Standard Missile with a couple of smaller kill vehicles would be beneficial. Flight tests are expected around 2010. &#8211; Doug Mohney.


http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-23697.html

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## DARKY

DrSomnath999 said:


> 1.Pakistan would develop , multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs)& maneuverable warheads through SHAHEEN3 BM & also future BM



The next phase of BMD which would be inducted by 2017 would have capability to engage MIRVs aswell as maneuverable warheads.... however the number game would be the real factor here.



DrSomnath999 said:


> 2.Pakistan would develop submarine launched cruise missile i.e Babur cruise missile & CJ-10k in their future chinese Type 39B submarine ,which would give them sea based nuke deterrence & would ensure the survivability of its nuclear deterrent



Such missiles can also be intercepted by ABMs.... but yes it would save them from retaliation.





DrSomnath999 said:


> 3.Pakistan would produce more number of ballistic missiles & has increased production of nuclear fissile material like plutonium used for nuke bombs,so that it
> would overwhelm india ABM shield ,by firing more missiles towards india



This is a very cheap and easy process however time consuming..... the real threat from Pakistan would come once they deploy thermonuclear warheads.




DrSomnath999 said:


> 4.Pakistan would use of decoys (e.g., lightweight mylar balloons which, until re-entry, will travel on an identical trajectory with the heavier warheads), use of ablative materials or reflective coatings which limit the damage of directed energy weapons, launches of numerous harmless missiles early in an attack which might cause the defender reveal his defenses and expend valuable resources



Again the number game remains important here while such coatings can withstand a temperature upto certain level.... and would be useless against KE impact missile (like THAAD) which would be the part of 2nd phase of BMD development.



DrSomnath999 said:


> 5.Pakistan could acquire anti satellite weapon or jammers from chinato confuse india&#8217;s satellites,which also play a key role in India&#8217;s anti ballistic missile shield



Anti-satellite missiles can be intercepted aswell..... even on that note damaging Indian satellites in space would result in destruction of most of the satellites in space thanks to the billions of debris produced which would impact other satellites as well.




DrSomnath999 said:


> 6.Pakistan would rely more on cruise missiles like stealthy RAAD & babur for nuke deterrent they are harder to detect due to their lower radar cross-signature, low-level navigation,and use of waypoints to circumvent more secure and heavily defended areas.



Such missiles are highly vulnerable to point defense systems.... and any main target would have numerous such point defense systems waiting for such a subsonic missile only Hypersonic can give an assurance of successful mission in such a case.




DrSomnath999 said:


> 7.Pakistan would seek help from from Beijing for high-altitude and anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defenses through HQ-9/ FD2000 deal



yes they can but that would have to be done in larger number.... here India would have larger number of ABMs for Pakistan's BMs hence Pakistan would have to buy an even larger number to intercept those SAMs.... and a better ones than HQ-9 since the ABMs to be targeted would be faster sleeker and more maneuverable... HQ-9 would be obsolete against them.... hence a fail..... Its better to consider above options in such a case.




DrSomnath999 said:


> 8.Pakistan would target india&#8217;s BMD Radar through long range anti radiation missile like brazilian MER-1 anti radiation missile



For that the anti radiation missile and its platform would have to survive Indian... SAM systems and Air defense network.... even on that note jamming high powered AESA radars like swordfish is close to impossible.



DrSomnath999 said:


> 9.Pakistan could pursue hypersonic missile technology if they are ready to afford it.



Hypersonic cruise missile is probably the best possible solution here..... however it remains to be seen which means Pakistan can afford to attain such technologies and mass produce it.



DrSomnath999 said:


> 10.Last but not least Pakistan could 1st strike ,as it fears if india 1st strike then their majority nuke detterent might be destroyed & rest if survive would be destroyed by india&#8217;s ABM shield



India follows No 1st strike doctrine hence this option is always available.... and the Pakistani regime has not missed any chance to rant about this option.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Major Shaitan Singh

Defensive strategies for dealing with cruise missile threats fall broadly into two categories, the first being the denial or deterrence of launch and counterforce strategies, the second being the interception of launched weapons. 

Deterrence strategies amount to threatening credible retaliation, regardless of weapons used. 
Counterforce strategies amount to pre-emptive destruction of the opponent's cruise missile capability before it can be deployed or launched. This approach requires similar capabilities to deterrence, but involves much more specific targeting. 
Denial of launch strategies amount to shooting the archer, not the arrow paraphrasing the 1980s US Maritime Strategy. This involves killing cruise missile carrying aircraft, sinking cruise missile armed ships/subs, or destroying ground mobile TELs before they have the opportunity to fire. This approach also requires a robust force structure, including good maritime and land strike capabilities, good air defence capabilities, and good ASW capabilities. 

Interception of launched cruise missiles presents its own challenges, especially in terms of fighter persistence, speed, missile payload, radar performance, tanker and AEW&C numbers. However, in strategic terms it is often the only option left, especially during the period preceding an outbreak of full scale hostilities. As cruise missiles present an attractive first strike weapon to disrupt air defence infrastructure, their use is most likely in the opening round of a conflict.
To implement either deterrent or direct counterforce strategies to defeat an opposing cruise missile force requires significant targeting and strike capability. This strategy requires that a opposing force armed with cruise missiles be attacked and destroyed in situ, for instance by demolishing airfields, launch aircraft and missile stocks on the ground, or by analogous strikes against naval bases hosting cruise missile armed warships or submarines. 

Targeting, with the exception of ground mobile TELs, is less challenging as airfields and naval bases are large fixed infrastructure which can be effectively surveilled using satellites or human intelligence assets, although timeliness can be an issue if signs of strike preparation are the trigger for a pre-emptive attack. Cruise missile warfare like ballistic missile warfare to a large extent obeys the use them or lose them rule, and there are strong incentives to fire off as much of the war stock as early as possible in a campaign. 

Interdicting cruise missile armed submarines, or intercepting cruise missile carrying aircraft, also present interesting challenges. However, while a riskier strategy than counterforce strikes in situ, interdiction/interception achieves a similar effect by inflicting cumulative attrition on the opponent's delivery force. Rather than destroying the force in a small number of concurrent or closely timed strikes, the attrition occurs overs days or weeks as the opponent's assets are ground down to impotence. In political terms counterforce strikes, especially if pre-emptive, are problematic, but interdiction/interception of delivery platforms presents a clear cut case of defensive action with clear hostile intent by an opponent. The risk is that not every opposing platform is stopped before it launches, and that many will escape to attack yet again. 

When interdiction of a submarine or interception of a strike aircraft fails, and cruise missiles are launched, the default strategy is then to engage and destroy these before they reach their targets. 

In practice any model for defeating a cruise missile armed opponent must be multi-layered, even if the counterforce strike option is not implementable due to inadequate strike capabilities. Launch platforms must be detected, tracked and engaged, and if this fails, the cruise missiles must be detected, tracked and engaged. The air-sea gap is valuable in this respect, as it provides a defacto free-fire zone for fighters tasked with cruise missile intercepts, and the distances involved provide for repeat engagement opportunities, fighter fuel and weapon payloads permitting. 

Reliance on land based SAM systems for terminal defence of target areas is a popular but relatively ineffective strategy, as high performance SAMs with expensive high power-aperture radars are required, and even with mast mounted antennas to improve coverage the footprint is bounded by ranges of miles to at most tens of miles. Placing SAM batteries on warships increases this expense for some gain in mobility.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Major Shaitan Singh

Detection

The greatest challenge for a cruise missile defense is the detection and tracking of the missile early enough to engage it before it reaches its target. A viable cruise missile defense will have as its goal the earliest possible detection of a missile after its launch. Sensor detection capabilities should be pushed out to as far a distance as possible from the areas defended to allow as much time as possible to track and intercept the missile. Also, in homeland defense, intercepting the attacking missile out over the ocean lessens the consequence management implications than over populated areas on land. Achieving this requires the ability to detect and launch an interceptor quickly so as to extend intercept ranges to the farthest point possible. Cruise missile flight paths make detection a particularly challenging undertaking. Shorter range missiles offer little reaction time. The missiles fly close to the Earth&#8217;s surface, and advanced systems are programmed to use topography (valleys, hills,
and mountains) and the Earth&#8217;s curvature to mask their approach from detection by the defender. Traditional approaches to CMD were specific, i.e., the defense of a particular point such as a naval vessel or military base, and relied on radar to fulfill the detection mission. By virtue of their size and design, cruise missiles present small radar cross sections (RCS) during head-on intercept, which is the method employed by most point defenses.124 Generally, low-flying objects are difficult to detect against other ground objects and sea-backgrounds. The radar must locate a faint cruise missile signal against &#8220;the hundreds of thousands of echoed returns from signals created by ground clutter.&#8221;125 Ground-based radars have gaps in their field of coverage that allow lowflying objects, like cruise missiles, to exploit the curvature of the Earth. Defense of wider areas requires complementing the ground-based radar with air- or space-borne
assets to provide more time to detect and track and result in more opportunities for interception.

Both the Air Force&#8217;s Airborne Warning and Control System
(AWACS) and the Navy&#8217;s E-2 Hawkeye Airborne Early Warning (AEW) aircraft are tasked with detecting and tracking airborne threats at the greatest possible distances,and with directing combat aircraft and anti-air batteries to deal with these air threats.

The Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS) is a longer-term option for stationary airborne sensor missions.130 JLENS is an unpiloted, lighter-than-air vehicle,
essentially an unpowered, tethered balloon, used as an at-altitude radar observation platform. Operating at 10,000 to 15,000 feet, the JLENS can look down over the horizon and down into otherwise-hidden terrain, to scan for cruise missiles.

Interceptors

Once an attacking cruise missile is located, the next major challenge is to shoot it down. Combat aircraft and ship-borne defense systems are the two principal means currently at the India&#8217;s disposal to shoot down cruise missiles. The Sypder, Iron Dome, Barak II, S300/400 and Advanced Air Defence system offers the most viable option for deployment in the near-term of a cost effective wide area defense

All current Indian front-line fighters since the Navy&#8217;s MIG 29k have been equipped with look-down, shoot-down, pulse-Doppler radar. This radar technology was designed from the outset to &#8220;see&#8221; and direct air-to-air missiles against airborne targets flying at low altitudes against ground clutter. All front-line Indian fighter aircraft can carry the AMRAAM active-radar homing air-to-air missile, with a range of up to 110 km.The newly deployed SU 30 MKI air-dominance fighter is also said to have improved cruise missile defense capabilities.Other potential platforms for the ALHTK include the MIG 29, Mirage 2000 , and Jaguar .These weapons would then be carried by aircraft flying Combat Air Patrols to provide area defense against all aerial threats.

Only the construction of an active defense ensures the ability to
intercept and destroy cruise missiles after they have been launched.
Only an active defense deployed on a wide-area scale can defend the
cities.


----------



## DrSomnath999

DARKY said:


> The next phase of BMD which would be inducted by 2017 would have capability to engage MIRVs aswell as maneuverable warheads.... however the number game would be the real factor here.
> 
> 
> 
> Such missiles can also be intercepted by ABMs.... but yes it would save them from retaliation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a very cheap and easy process however time consuming..... the real threat from Pakistan would come once they deploy thermonuclear warheads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again the number game remains important here while such coatings can withstand a temperature upto certain level.... and would be useless against KE impact missile (like THAAD) which would be the part of 2nd phase of BMD development.
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-satellite missiles can be intercepted aswell..... even on that note damaging Indian satellites in space would result in destruction of most of the satellites in space thanks to the billions of debris produced which would impact other satellites as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such missiles are highly vulnerable to point defense systems.... and any main target would have numerous such point defense systems waiting for such a subsonic missile only Hypersonic can give an assurance of successful mission in such a case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes they can but that would have to be done in larger number.... here India would have larger number of ABMs for Pakistan's BMs hence Pakistan would have to buy an even larger number to intercept those SAMs.... and a better ones than HQ-9 since the ABMs to be targeted would be faster sleeker and more maneuverable... HQ-9 would be obsolete against them.... hence a fail..... Its better to consider above options in such a case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For that the anti radiation missile and its platform would have to survive Indian... SAM systems and Air defense network.... even on that note jamming high powered AESA radars like swordfish is close to impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> Hypersonic cruise missile is probably the best possible solution here..... however it remains to be seen which means Pakistan can afford to attain such technologies and mass produce it.
> 
> 
> 
> India follows No 1st strike doctrine hence this option is always available.... and the Pakistani regime has not missed any chance to rant about this option.



thanks i waiting for this kind of post ,i had already posted all it's counter measures by india on OUR forum u can see it


----------



## DARKY

TaimiKhan said:


> Best answer is to have stealthy CMs which travel as low as possible, combined together with stealth features and materials & below radar range traveling, may give such CMs a chance to reach their targets.
> 
> Plus, BMs should be made maneuverable to the most possible extent, they should be given the shortest flight time period enabling the enemy to have less detection and reaction time period. MIRVs and counter measures in the shape of Chaff like system would be another measure to make sure that the BMs have more chance to reach their intended targets.



The BIG problem here with cruise missile is to make them STEALTHY enough to carry a decent warhead which is capable enough to neutralize the target upto the desired extent..... since these subsonic missiles have to travel; low hence it cannot carry a heavy warhead capable enough to take down a strategical target.... It even faces the probability to to get intercepted by point defense systems which would come in its way via different boundary layers which would guard the real target.... the interception of these subsonic terrain hugging missile is not a big deal.... It's only STEALTH which can save them.... which becomes very less once these missiles approach the target if good point defense system is available.... Its similar to intercepting a fighter aircraft..... even Tunguska 30mm guns can bring it down.

---------- Post added at 01:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:07 PM ----------




DrSomnath999 said:


> thanks i waiting for this kind of post ,i had already posted all it's counter measures by india on OUR forum u can see it



I saw your post #24 very good research done

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Major Shaitan Singh

If you see the Modern day WAR.

No country is invading directly... it is guiding its won people against the government and then troppling the government.
You can make your clown as the head of that country.

Recent Example: Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt etc.

If India want it can create civil war between Shia and Sunni and armed the shia.
If India want it can create civil war between Baloch and others and arm the baloch groups.
If India want it can create civil war between Tribals
Open the DAMS and flood half of Pakistan
Block the Sea

That will be enough for Pak Army.... no need to go in all out WAR.


----------



## Awesome

The Indian ABM is a cash pit aimed to help corrupt people stockpile money. Pakistan needs to ignore it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DarK-LorD

Asim Aquil said:


> The Indian ABM is a cash pit aimed to help corrupt people stockpile money. Pakistan needs to ignore it.


True,Corrupt Pakistani Officials will make a lot of money because of the increased missile production due to ABM threat.
Even Ignoring it is actually corruption as it means that they were bribed by intelligence agencies to ignore the ABM's.


----------



## Windjammer

For every action there is reaction.! @ Cold Start > < NASR being a small example.

Without chest thumping, let's be realistic,..... Pakistan tests HATF-1 back in early 80s, India sidelines it as a mere firecracker....yet later in the years, it's India which felt the need for an ABM system. 

Unlike say, US/Russia or US/China, India/Pakistan share a common border which if I am not wrong, extends out to the Sea as well. Where as a launch from Russia gave the Americans some 15 minutes reaction time, between the subjects, it's almost blink of an eye. I have little knowledge in this field, but a three prone attack involving some sophisticated delivery systems would need some heavy duty ABM systems in place..... just my 2 cents.


----------



## DARKY

Asim Aquil said:


> The Indian ABM is a cash pit aimed to help corrupt people stockpile money. Pakistan needs to ignore it.



Such a DELUSION had and have been costing you dearly.... Its better to open the eyes and see the reality... those Scud and M11 variants are just shooting practice of all the current ABM systems available.... Its such a pity that even SAM systems like S-300 have the capability to intercept them and bring them down easily...


----------



## Areesh

Major Shaitan Singh said:


> If you see the Modern day WAR.
> 
> No country is invading directly... it is guiding its won people against the government and then troppling the government.
> You can make your clown as the head of that country.
> 
> Recent Example: Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt etc.
> 
> If India want it can create civil war between Shia and Sunni and armed the shia.
> If India want it can create civil war between Baloch and others and arm the baloch groups.
> If India want it can create civil war between Tribals
> Open the DAMS and flood half of Pakistan
> Block the Sea
> 
> That will be enough for Pak Army.... no need to go in all out WAR.


Lolzz. Here comes the genius. What an epic war plan. 

---------- Post added at 12:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 PM ----------




Asim Aquil said:


> The Indian ABM is a cash pit aimed to help corrupt people stockpile money. Pakistan needs to ignore it.



Hahaha. You nailed it Asim. Never underestimate the enemy but then why overestimate them.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## RockyX

Asim Aquil said:


> The Indian ABM is a cash pit aimed to help corrupt people stockpile money. Pakistan needs to ignore it.



If ABM are just cash pit then Pakistan should ignore everything and wait and watch . But Once Multiple layer of ABM and SAM will be in place, Pakistan corrupt people will start mass production or import of Missiles. 

Once Pakistan will have enough number of Missiles. We will increase the No. of ABM system many times more. So Corruption will continue forever.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The Deterrent

no need for Indians to get excited over the BMD...it is a far-fetched plan...

By 2014,only Delhi will be protected by AAD/PAD...

Why do Indians ignore that Pakistan will also develop its missile technology further?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

Windjammer said:


> For every action there is reaction.! @ Cold Start > < NASR being a small example.
> 
> Without chest thumping, let's be realistic,..... Pakistan tests HATF-1 back in early 80s, India sidelines it as a mere firecracker....yet later in the years, it's India which felt the need for an ABM system.
> 
> Unlike say, US/Russia or US/China, India/Pakistan share a common border which if I am not wrong, extends out to the Sea as well. Where as a launch from Russia gave the Americans some 15 minutes reaction time, between the subjects, it's almost blink of an eye. I have little knowledge in this field, but a three prone attack involving some sophisticated delivery systems would need some heavy duty ABM systems in place..... just my 2 cents.



Its silly that you consider an unoperational Quasi-BM as an answer to the rapid thrust of 3 Mechanized Divisions well supported by AF and Navy......

The current ABM is just a building block or 1st step towards a bigger threat.... i.e. China.... 

These ABM systems are manual aswell as automatic... and functions spontaneously on the detection of any threat.... what you don't realize is the advantage the close distance offers.... making any launch detectable in boost phase only and intercepting it right there in the most vulnerable stage aswell... hence not allowing any such missile enter the space in 1st place.... Remember Swordfish latest variant can detect and track targets as small as a cricket ball at 1500km.... Not to mention a secret Radar project which would operate in X-band and have capability to detect a Football size target at 4000km aswell.... Besides satellite detection... Very less window remains there for any Pakistani BM to enter space.... hence BM is not the option after 2020.... Its =Fail in the scenario you have mentioned.


----------



## RockyX

US offered Patriot System, Russia Offered S-400/500 (we already have S-300). We can also buy Arrow-3 if needed. But I don't think, we will need. Our ABM 1,500-2,000 KM AAD & PDV and 5,000 KM AD-1,2 will be deployed in 2014 and 2016-17 respectively. If By chance, Our ABM fails (which is negligible as all are on schedule since 2004) still we can Buy Any of the best 3 ABM. So, Our ABM will be reality and we will be in Top 4 best by 2017. US will provide ABM for Europe. China ABM will come in 2020 as per news. China has to develop because they don't have 2nd Option.


----------



## The Deterrent

DrSomnath999 said:


> 2.Another way is Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) developed by US
> 
> The latest trick the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) would like to field is the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV), an ABM with lots of smaller-sized kill vehicles on board. Lockheed Martin is currently developing the MKV to fit into the same space that Raytheon's hit-to-kill vehicle takes up on the U.S. Ground-Based Interceptor being deployed in Alaska this year. The MKV would work a lot like a MIRV It would have a "bus" that would hold dozens of coffee-can-sized kill vehicles and a long-range infrared sensor to spot an approaching cluster of objects such as a bunch of MIRVs and decoys. The bus would assign each kill vehicle a target and provide in-flight targeting updates. With dozens of smaller vehicles, every probable target in an inbound missile attack could be hit, including warheads, decoys, and junk parts that simply look threatening.
> 
> MDA would first use MKVs to complement existing single-shot kill vehicles and ultimately replace them. The MKV design is scalable, so it could be incorporated on smaller systems such THAAD using fewer kill vehicles. Even providing a smaller system such as THAAD or the Navy's Standard Missile with a couple of smaller kill vehicles would be beneficial. Flight tests are expected around 2010.  Doug Mohney.
> 
> 
> Strategic Nukes: MIRV and Counter-MIRV [Archive] - Military Photos



The Multiple-Kill Vehicle project has been dropped,owing to the high costs and impractical design...It was aimed at China and Russia.

Since MKV will fail to protect US mainland from any Chinese/Russian attack,so it is useless to waste money on it,According to the latest report on BMD by US Department of Defence.

Instead,US aims to co-operate with Russia and possibly China to share information and detection structure on Ballistic Missile Threat from states like Iran and North Korea.

Practically,the BMD of USA is against Iran and North Korea only.Against Russia/China,MAD is the deterrent.


----------



## RockyX

AhaseebA said:


> no need for Indians to get excited over the BMD...it is a far-fetched plan...
> 
> *By 2014,only Delhi will be protected by AAD/PAD..*.
> 
> Why do Indians ignore that Pakistan will also develop its missile technology further?



ABM is not point missile but range. AAD/PDV will cover 1,500-2,000 KM 360 degree so 3,000-4,000KM. So, Kashmir to Mumbai if deployed at Delhi. (Delhi will be centre of 3,000-4,000 KM border of Pakistan)

Also PDV will replace PAD in 2014.


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> no need for Indians to get excited over the BMD...it is a far-fetched plan...
> 
> By 2014,only Delhi will be protected by AAD/PAD...
> 
> Why do Indians ignore that Pakistan will also develop its missile technology further?



Yes but after the rapid thrust during 1998-2004 period we are yet to see any considerable development.... Nasr etc.... are just for public amusement and propaganda to give them assurance... they hold a little to no significance against the current Indian Missile programs.... which are being tested almost every month.


----------



## The Deterrent

DARKY said:


> Yes but after the rapid thrust during 1998-2004 period we are yet to see any considerable development.... Nasr etc.... are just for public amusement and propaganda to give them assurance... they hold a little to no significance against the current Indian Missile programs.... which are being tested almost every month.



Systems like Nasr,Babur are adding diversity to our Strategic program...the more diverse it is,the harder will be to stop all of it...

BTW,which ABM system (in Indian possession) can intercept Nasr?


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> The Multiple-Kill Vehicle project has been dropped,owing to the high costs and impractical design...It was aimed at China and Russia.
> 
> Since MKV will fail to protect US mainland from any Chinese/Russian attack,so it is useless to waste money on it,According to the latest report on BMD by US Department of Defence.
> 
> Instead,US aims to co-operate with Russia and possibly China to share information and detection structure on Ballistic Missile Threat from states like Iran and North Korea.
> 
> Practically,the BMD of USA is against Iran and North Korea only.Against Russia/China,MAD is the deterrent.



Don't Include China here..... the BMD of US is capable enough to take care of a a couple of hundred of ICBMs which China would possibly launch against it.... Russia was and continues to be the main threat here since it has 1000s of BMs in ready to launch positions.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Pakistan will go for MIRVs soon, probably a decade later or so , India will come up with a system close to being as capable as THAAD.


----------



## The Deterrent

RockyX said:


> ABM is not point missile but range. AAD/PDV will cover 1,500-2,000 KM 360 degree so 3,000-4,000KM. So, Kashmir to Mumbai if deployed at Delhi. (Delhi will be centre of 3,000-4,000 KM border of Pakistan)
> 
> Also PDV will replace PAD in 2014.



New Delhi could have anti-missile shield by 2014

I hope this helps...


----------



## RockyX

AhaseebA said:


> New Delhi could have anti-missile shield by 2014
> 
> I hope this helps...



Ya, read the day when it was published in Business standard. I said in correct way.


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> Systems like Nasr,Babur are adding diversity to our Strategic program...the more diverse it is,the harder will be to stop all of it...
> 
> BTW,which ABM system (in Indian possession) can intercept Nasr?



ASHWIN is the best candidate here.... as it is designed to intercept targets in terminal phase.... If it can intercept a ballistic missile in terminal phase as demonstrated it can surely intercept a quasi-Ballistic one.... and since Nasr would rise upto 50-60km in atmosphere.... it would allow a fair chance to get detected..... besides there are several point defense systems which would come in handy.


----------



## The Deterrent

DARKY said:


> Don't Include China here..... the BMD of US is capable enough to take care of a a couple of hundred of ICBMs which China would possibly launch against it.... Russia was and continues to be the main threat here since it has 1000s of BMs in ready to launch positions.



You seem to over-estimate American BMD capabilities way too much...here are direct quotes from US DoD Ballistic Missile Defence Report...



> *Strategy And Policy Framework *(Page 12)
> 
> Missile Defense: Deterrence,Extended Deterrence and Assurance Goals
> 
> Both Russia and China have expressed concerns that US missile defenses adversely affect their own strategic capabilities and interests.US will continue to engage them on this issue to help them better understand the stabilizing benefits of missile defense--- particularly China,which claims to have successfully demonstrated its own ground-based midcourse interception on January 11,2010.As the US has stated in the past,the homeland defense capabilities are focused on regional actors such as Iran and North Korea.*While the GMD system would be employed to defend the US against limited missile launches from any source,it does not have the capacity to cope with large scale Russian or Chinese missile attacks,ad is not intended to affect the strategic balance with those countries.*


----------



## Windjammer

DARKY said:


> Its silly that you consider an unoperational Quasi-BM as an answer to the rapid thrust of 3 Mechanized Divisions well supported by AF and Navy......
> 
> The current ABM is just a building block or 1st step towards a bigger threat.... i.e. China....
> 
> These ABM systems are manual aswell as automatic... and functions spontaneously on the detection of any threat.... what you don't realize is the advantage the close distance offers.... making any launch detectable in boost phase only and intercepting it right there in the most vulnerable stage aswell... hence not allowing any such missile enter the space in 1st place.... Remember Swordfish latest variant can detect and track targets as small as a cricket ball at 1500km.... Not to mention a secret Radar project which would operate in X-band and have capability to detect a Football size target at 4000km aswell...*. Besides satellite detection... Very less window remains there for any Pakistani BM to enter space.... hence BM is not the option after 2020.... Its =Fail in the scenario you have mentioned.*




Well, isn't it also silly to assume that a decade from now, Pakistan will only field the current generation of BMs, technology evolves, .... man makes aircraft.....man makes radars......and man makes SAMs, yet the aircraft still manages to penetrate, now we are faced with the Stealth evolution.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Deterrent

DARKY said:


> *Yes but after the rapid thrust during 1998-2004 period we are yet to see any considerable development*.... Nasr etc.... are just for public amusement and propaganda to give them assurance



Babur GLCM,Ra'ad ALCM,Nasr were all introduced after 2004.

Yet to introduce are the proposed Shaheen-III,Babur SLCM (these projects are known).

About the previous missiles....upgraded versions of all of them are being inducted (older ones being retired)...
As Dr. Samar said about version 2 of Shaheen-I.Similarly upgraded versions of Abdali (assumed by comparison new test pictures with old),Ghaznavi (aero-spike introduction,Terminal Correction System),Ghauri-II (new ReV designed by NDC,NESCOM),Shaheen-II(including counter-measures suite,MaRV)...


----------



## RockyX

Windjammer said:


> Well, isn't it also silly to assume that a decade from now, Pakistan will only field the current generation of BMs, technology evolves, .... man makes aircraft.....man makes radars......and man makes SAMs, yet the aircraft still manages to penetrate, now we are faced with the Stealth evolution.



There are latest Spy Satellite too which will do rest of the Job to detect if missed by radars. We didn't had Spy satellite few years back. Still, we are planning to launch more with even better technology. So there is always improvement in technology as per new threat.

As per Stealth Aircraft after 2017, Difficult to say. But there must be some technology to detect and kill. I think, modern Spy Satellite will be helpful. Anyway, we will have all Stealth Aircraft to ABM. Even Stealth Hypersonic Missile. let see what is stored in future.


----------



## The Deterrent

AhaseebA said:


> The Multiple-Kill Vehicle project has been dropped,owing to the high costs and impractical design...It was aimed at China and Russia.
> 
> Since MKV will fail to protect US mainland from any Chinese/Russian attack,so it is useless to waste money on it,According to the latest report on BMD by US Department of Defence.
> 
> Instead,US aims to co-operate with Russia and possibly China to share information and detection structure on Ballistic Missile Threat from states like Iran and North Korea.
> 
> Practically,the BMD of USA is against Iran and North Korea only.Against Russia/China,MAD is the deterrent.



Here is the direct quote from DoD BMDR...



> Policy Priorities
> 
> ... Fourth,the commitment to new capabilities must be fiscally sustainable over the long term.The President has made clear that US will move forward with missile defenses that are *affordable,proven and responsive to the threat.*This primarily means that the DoD will realign spending away from defenses planned to rely on currently *immature technology,*away from technologies that require *unrealistic concepts of operations to be effective*,and away from technologies intended to defeat adversarial threats that do not exist and are not expected to evolve in near to midterm.
> *These considerations led to the decisions to terminate both the Multiple Kill Vehicle and Kinetic Energy Interceptor programs and to shift the Airborne Laser to a technology demonstrator program in the FY 2010 budget.*




---------- Post added at 01:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:58 PM ----------




RockyX said:


> There are latest Spy Satellite too which will do rest of the Job to detect if missed by radars. We didn't had Spy satellite few years back. Still, we are planning to launch more with even better technology. So there is always improvement in technology as per new threat.
> 
> As per Stealth Aircraft after 2017, Difficult to say. But there must be some technology to detect and kill. I think, modern Spy Satellite will be helpful. Anyway, we will have all Stealth Aircraft to ABM. Even Stealth Hypersonic Missile. let see what is stored in future.



Too much talk of the future by Indians...why not talk of the present or near future?


----------



## RockyX

AhaseebA said:


> Here is the direct quote from DoD BMDR...
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Post added at 01:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:58 PM ----------
> 
> [/COLOR]
> 
> Too much talk of the future by Indians...why not talk of the present or near future?



Talk about present. We still have advantage.


----------



## DARKY

Windjammer said:


> Well, isn't it also silly to assume that a decade from now, Pakistan will only field the current generation of BMs, technology evolves, .... man makes aircraft.....man makes radars......and man makes SAMs, yet the aircraft still manages to penetrate, now we are faced with the Stealth evolution.



Satellite detection is nothing new.... BM can be detected via satellite... and I would mention here that whole of Pakistan and Arabian sea would be under the envelop of such satellites by 2014-15...... about radars yes... the Radars which I mentioned are being developed and would be fully operational only after 2017.

There are some holes left in every technology..... nothing is full proof however we cannot bank on such traces of holes.... which is very hard to find and get through..... as I said earlier the best possible solution for the scenario presented by ABMs is making more and more nukes and BMs numbering in 1000s to overwhelm the ABM defenses.... still an answer remains here for such an attack by a swarm of BM.... SCALAR shields and High Energy weapons..... like LASER or KALI.


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> You seem to over-estimate American BMD capabilities way too much...here are direct quotes from US DoD Ballistic Missile Defence Report...



Don't try to quote any report from US they usually publish such reports to have a some more $$ for their projects..... US ABM system is very large and includes infra-red based detection method along with satellites and Radar detections... they support ABMs on a large array of platform including airborne and space based ones.... Their defenses against China starts from the yellow sea itself.


----------



## The Deterrent

RockyX said:


> Talk about present. We still have advantage.



Again...

Direct comparison never leads to a realistic approach...you have to consider the requirements and preferences...

Here,Pakistan's aim is to keep a (so-called) minimum deterrence level,so that India always remains vulnerable to a Pakistani nuclear attack (first-strike)...Pakistan does not cares about its own existence in such a case,since the first-strike nuclear threat will prevent any Indo-Pak war.

India's aim is to protect its country...so that they continue developing economy and become a major power...any danger of an Indo-Pak war will push India back by decades...

---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 PM ----------




DARKY said:


> Don't try to quote any report from US they usually publish such reports to have a some more $$ for their projects..... US ABM system is very large and includes infra-red based detection method along with satellites and Radar detections... they support ABMs on a large array of platform including airborne and space based ones.... Their defenses against China starts from the yellow sea itself.



Dude you are just putting it in the dustbin...

You have less knowledge of the subject...There were two Boeing YAL-1 Air-borne laser aircrafts built...Both have been declared TDs...There is no space-based system.The Brilliant Pebbles project was cancelled a long while ago.


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> Babur GLCM,Ra'ad ALCM,Nasr were all introduced after 2004.
> 
> Yet to introduce are the proposed Shaheen-III,Babur SLCM (these projects are known).
> 
> About the previous missiles....upgraded versions of all of them are being inducted (older ones being retired)...
> As Dr. Samar said about version 2 of Shaheen-I.Similarly upgraded versions of Abdali (assumed by comparison new test pictures with old),Ghaznavi (aero-spike introduction,Terminal Correction System),Ghauri-II (new ReV designed by NDC,NESCOM),Shaheen-II(including counter-measures suite,MaRV)...



See Babur, Ra'ad, aswell as Nasr are all tactical missiles..... 

Now taking of Shaheen III and other BM we are yet to see any thing happening.... I would love to see new technologies being tested on the newer BMs rather than the same old longer in length version of M-11 or Scud rockets.....


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> Dude you are just putting it in the dustbin...
> 
> You have less knowledge of the subject...There were two Boeing YAL-1 Air-borne laser aircrafts built...Both have been declared TDs...There is no space-based system.The Brilliant Pebbles project was cancelled a long while ago.


 
Yes we are told they were cancelled but they have the capability.... what I said was we are only shown the tip of Ice berg in such a costly BMD program.


----------



## The Deterrent

RockyX said:


> ABM is not point missile but range. AAD/PDV will cover 1,500-2,000 KM 360 degree so 3,000-4,000KM. So, Kashmir to Mumbai if deployed at Delhi. (Delhi will be centre of 3,000-4,000 KM border of Pakistan)
> 
> Also PDV will replace PAD in 2014.



I think I got now what you were saying...

Dude,the ABM system based in Delhi will protect the city from a missile having 2000km range,launched from anywhere....This does not mean that it will also intercept missiles targeted towards other areas.


----------



## The Deterrent

DARKY said:


> See Babur, Ra'ad, aswell as Nasr are all tactical missiles.....
> 
> Now taking of Shaheen III and other BM *we are yet to see any thing happening*.... I would love to see new technologies being tested on the newer BMs rather than the same old *longer in length version of M-11 or Scud rockets*.....



The same old ..."longer in length version of Scud" 

Why make a new missile having characteristics of Ghaznavi missile (for example) when it can be upgraded and can accept new technology?

Just because we don't announce things like DRDO does,does not mean that we don't have projects in the pipelines...


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> Again...
> 
> Direct comparison never leads to a realistic approach...you have to consider the requirements and preferences...
> 
> Here,Pakistan's aim is to keep a (so-called) minimum deterrence level,so that India always remains vulnerable to a Pakistani nuclear attack (first-strike)...Pakistan does not cares about its own existence in such a case,since the first-strike nuclear threat will prevent any Indo-Pak war.
> 
> India's aim is to protect its country...so that they continue developing economy and become a major power...any danger of an Indo-Pak war will push India back by decades...



No Country in the world would want its people to be in danger of any Nuclear retaliation attack by a country who is more powerful and posses Thermonuclear weapons.

Any 1st strike=Total destruction of Pakistan.... nothing would be spared.... this would be like giving a license or like.... putting your head on the block and handing your enemy the sword.

Pakistan's aim is also to protect its people and resources..... I still believe it has similar goals... as I think it would be too early to call it a failed state or terrorist state.... and any large scale war would push it back in stone age no mercy on that note....


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> The same old ..."longer in length version of Scud"
> 
> Why make a new missile having characteristics of Ghaznavi missile (for example) when it can be upgraded and can accept new technology?
> 
> Just because we don't announce things like DRDO does,does not mean that we don't have projects in the pipelines...



At least test and show them.....
We tested Agni IIP, Agni III, K-X, K-15, Shuraya, after your last tests of Gauri and Shaheen series missiles and would test Agni V in a few months.....
Besides concentrating our resources in BMD and SAM, AAM systems along with CM systems.


----------



## DrSomnath999

Asim Aquil said:


> The Indian ABM is a cash pit aimed to help corrupt people stockpile money. Pakistan needs to ignore it.


well an administrator of a forum troll like this what can i expect from members of this forum

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The Deterrent

DARKY said:


> No Country in the world would want its people to be in danger of any Nuclear retaliation attack by a country who is more powerful and posses Thermonuclear weapons.
> 
> Any 1st strike=Total destruction of Pakistan.... nothing would be spared.... this would be like giving a license or like.... putting your head on the block and handing your enemy the sword.
> 
> Pakistan's aim is also to protect its people and resources..... I still believe it has similar goals... as I think it would be too early to call it a failed state or terrorist state.... and any large scale war would push it back in stone age no mercy on that note....



It appears that you didn't get me...(hell,most Indians don't)

I'm saying,the threat of a first-strike from Pakistan will prevent India from starting a declared war,hence stopping the thereafter retaliation in the first place...

You have to understand...we have very less to lose as compared to India in an event of war.

BTW,the Military Strategists and we fully understand the term "massive retaliation"...so no need to describe it.


----------



## DrSomnath999

AhaseebA said:


> The Multiple-Kill Vehicle project has been dropped,owing to the high costs and impractical design...It was aimed at China and Russia.
> 
> Since MKV will fail to protect US mainland from any Chinese/Russian attack,so it is useless to waste money on it,According to the latest report on BMD by US Department of Defence.
> 
> Instead,US aims to co-operate with Russia and possibly China to share information and detection structure on Ballistic Missile Threat from states like Iran and North Korea.
> 
> Practically,the BMD of USA is against Iran and North Korea only.Against Russia/China,MAD is the deterrent.


any link to prove it?


----------



## The Deterrent

DARKY said:


> At least test and show them.....
> We tested Agni IIP, Agni III, K-X, K-15, Shuraya, after your last tests of Gauri and Shaheen series missiles and would test Agni V in a few months.....
> Besides concentrating our resources in BMD and SAM, AAM systems along with CM systems.



Pakistan tests its missile as soon as they are ready...

You are comparing a big country with much larger resources (both human and financial) to a small country which has comparatively a little budget...I never said that our missile tech is better than India's...I'm saying what we have (and are developing) is enough for our needs.


----------



## The Deterrent

DrSomnath999 said:


> any link to prove it?



The exempts are taken from Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report,by United States Department of Defense.

http://www.defense.gov/bmdr/docs/BMDR as of 26JAN10 0630_for web.pdf
MissileThreat :: DoD's Ballistic Missile Defense Report

---------- Post added at 02:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 PM ----------




Asim Aquil said:


> The Indian ABM is a cash pit aimed to help corrupt people stockpile money. Pakistan needs to ignore it.



That was not appreciated

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> It appears that you didn't get me...(hell,most Indians don't)
> 
> I'm saying,the threat of a first-strike from Pakistan will prevent India from starting a declared war,hence stopping the thereafter retaliation in the first place...
> 
> You have to understand...we have very less to lose as compared to India in an event of war.
> 
> BTW,the Military Strategists and we fully understand the term "massive retaliation"...so no need to describe it.



Again I would point out here..... would Pakistan risk launching nukes in case of a conventional aggression.... Its just a win win situation for Indian war mongers if they do.... since it would give them the license to take the bigger step.... these BMDs are just the leverage they need in such scenarios..... 

I put a question now to you aswell as many Pakistani members would you risk using Nukes in case of a conventional aggression knowing the case that India has deployed ABM systems.


----------



## The Deterrent

DARKY said:


> Again I would point out here..... would Pakistan risk launching nukes in case of a conventional aggression.... Its just a win win situation for Indian war mongers if they do.... since it would give them the license to take the bigger step.... these BMDs are just the leverage they need in such scenarios.....
> 
> I put a question now to you aswell as many Pakistani members would you risk using Nukes in case of a conventional aggression knowing the case that India has deployed ABM systems.



The conventional aggression,will be tackled with tactical nukes,if The Army has lost a part of territory...

If the Army is on the verge of losing the war,with losing a major part of territory too,then strategic nukes will be launched too...


----------



## DrSomnath999

AhaseebA said:


> The exempts are taken from Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report,by United States Department of Defense.
> 
> http://www.defense.gov/bmdr/docs/BMDR as of 26JAN10 0630_for web.pdf





AhaseebA said:


> MissileThreat :: DoD's Ballistic Missile Defense Report



ya thanks , ,it was just an example how to counter MIRVS
BUt all i can US is improving on SM3 interceptor,after reading all those articles .

I


----------



## prototype

Aeronaut said:


> Technology is evolving fast , it just would be a matter of time when Pakistan would have high end - long range - super/hypersonic - Stealth cruise missiles carrying TNs with multiple erector launchpads to defeat the ABMs.
> 
> As for the Ballistic Missiles , new generation of them ones are in planning all over the world and the focus is on how to defeat the AMB and DEWs - CIWS etc. Pakistan surely will get its piece of the pie.


 
Yes,technology is evolving fast but it not keep evolving on one side of the border,it will happen on both the side.

The deal is who is ahead of whom currently,sure Pakistan will eventually come up with technology that will beat our current ABM network,but at the same time India will be also not sitting quietly,by that India may be also present with new generation of ABM devices,some new ABM tech are also in planning all over the world.

Like I said before what matter is who took the lead.


----------



## ares

AhaseebA said:


> no need for Indians to get excited over the BMD...it is a far-fetched plan...
> 
> By 2014,only Delhi will be protected by AAD/PAD...
> 
> Why do Indians ignore that Pakistan will also develop its missile technology further?


 
It is work in progress after the major cities are protected by bi-layered terminal altitude missile shield (PDV- AAD).
Next phase of Terminal High altitude interceptors(AD-1, AD-2) will start coming into operation by 2016..giving way to development mid course and boost phase interceptors( hardkill laser and soft kill KALI).

These systems combined will form the National missile defense..As boost phase and Midcourse interceptors acting as a large canopy protecting huge areas with terminal phase interceptors shielding cities in case some missile escape the initial missile defense envelope(as can happen in saturation/MIRV attacks.)
Yes it will still take long everything to be in place ...but the keel has already been laid.


----------



## The Deterrent

prototype said:


> Yes,technology is evolving fast but it not keep evolving on one side of the border,it will happen on both the side.



That is exactly what we are saying...that Pakistani BM and CM tech will evolve too...



> The deal is who is ahead of whom currently,sure Pakistan will eventually come up with technology that will beat our current ABM network,but at the same time India will be also not sitting quietly,by that India may be also present with new generation of ABM devices,some new ABM tech are also in planning all over the world.



Eventually?...you guys are worse then the fanboys of my country...
Pakistani BMs and CMs already can beat current Indian ABM network (the sad part is,there is no ABM network as of now )...

---------- Post added at 03:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 PM ----------




ares said:


> It is work in progress after the major cities are protected by bi-layered terminal altitude missile shield (PDV- AAD).
> Next phase of Terminal High altitude interceptors(AD-1, AD-2) will start coming into operation by 2016..giving way to development mid course and boost phase interceptors( hardkill laser and soft kill KALI).
> 
> These systems combined will form the National missile defense..As boost phase and Midcourse interceptors acting as a large canopy protecting huge areas with terminal phase interceptors shielding cities in case some missile escape the initial missile defense envelope(as can happen in saturation/MIRV attacks.)
> Yes it will still take long everything to be in place ...but the keel has already been laid.



Will,would etc etc...again underestimating Pakistan's future capabilities,considering that the BMD will have to face the same missiles it has to face now...


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> Eventually?...you guys are worse then the fanboys of my country...
> Pakistani BMs and CMs already can beat current Indian ABM network (the sad part is,there is no ABM network as of now )...



Which of your BM can beat the new ABM systems that India employs ?
Those M-11 and Scud variants can be dealt easily by our S-300 batteries... forget about Ashwin or PAD missiles.....
Talk of Babur CM its only the matter of detection.... although it won't be early however if would be detected eventually and brought down by Anti-aircraft guns.... or the 30mm guns from the Tunguska easily... no need to waste Akash missiles on them.
About Nasr its yet to be operational even then I mentioned earlier that Ashwin can easily take it down.



AhaseebA said:


> Will,would etc etc...again underestimating Pakistan's future capabilities,considering that the BMD will have to face the same missiles it has to face now...


 
Yes It won't be the same but why do you forget that the Indian ABM would've advanced even more accordingly.... haven't you read about the guidelines for the 2nd phase which would have hypersonic Interceptors and High KE Impact kill vehicles.... which would be capable enough to hit MIRV equipped BM also.


----------



## The Deterrent

DARKY said:


> Which of your BM can beat the new ABM systems that India employs ?
> Those M-11 and Scud variants can be dealt easily by our S-300 batteries... forget about Ashwin or PAD missiles.....
> Talk of Babur CM its only the matter of detection.... although it won't be early however if would be detected eventually and brought down by Anti-aircraft guns.... or the 30mm guns from the Tunguska easily... no need to waste Akash missiles on them.
> About Nasr its yet to be operational even then I mentioned earlier that Ashwin can easily take it down.



First it is an insult to call the present BMs of Pakistan as variants of Scuds...True that the first models of Ghaznavi and Ghauri-I were ditto copies (reverse-engineered) of M-11 and Nodong.But now,they are more advanced than any other missile of the old Scud series.

True that the S-300 can take down BMs,but Ghaznavi/M-11 only...and that too,not easily...

Who will take down Ghauri-II,Shaheen-I,Shaheen-II?

True that Babur and Ra'ad are not that perfect as they are claimed.Babur and Ra'ad rely only on reduced RCS,which was made possible through sleek airframe design and employing RAM.The minimum altitude of Babur is 100m,but as claimed by sources,it doesn't appears on the radar due to reduced RCS.
True that once detected,Babur and Ra'ad can be taken down by MANPADs,Aircrafts (having look-down,shoot-down),AA Guns...

Nasr's apogee is too low to give time for the ABM to perform its function...unless India brings in Iron Dome sort of system.



> Yes It won't be the same but why do you forget that the Indian ABM would've advanced even more accordingly.... haven't you read about the guidelines for the 2nd phase which would have hypersonic Interceptors and High KE Impact kill vehicles.... which would be capable enough to hit MIRV equipped BM also.



The reason why I find these claims hard to believe is...

India has just started its ABM program.A super-power like US has dropped and cancelled projects like Kinetic Kill Vehicle and Mutiple Kill Vehicle,despite the experience of decades and funding of Billions of dollars...because it was not feasible.


----------



## prototype

AhaseebA said:


> That is exactly what we are saying...that Pakistani BM and CM tech will evolve too...
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually?...you guys are worse then the fanboys of my country...
> *Pakistani BMs and CMs already can beat current Indian ABM network (the sad part is,there is no ABM network as of now *).



Nopes,the bolded part is called fanboyism,not a single time ur ballistic missiles confronted our sheild,yet ur sure ur BM will beat our ABM,optimism,that serves ur purpose.

About ur BM,what is special about it,rather than the 1000 rumors circulating about its being MIRV with the CEP that can beat even American missiles,again being optimistic.

R u proposing they are different that most of the IRBM's currently present now which can employ cobra maneuvers to evade our ABM,or another Pakistani optimism that Indian missile will fall on the ground at the same time it took off.

About our ABM,we have it,just a matter of time to induct it,I hope by that time u will not again discover some alien tech. rather than ur current arsenal to make it redundant.



AhaseebA said:


> Will,would etc etc...again underestimating Pakistan's future capabilities,considering that the BMD will have to face the same missiles it has to face now...



Why underestimating u,because we already have both sword and sheild,and u r equiped with only a sword that to wich at current level is unable to penetrate our shield as explained above.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ares

AhaseebA said:


> That is exactly what we are saying...that Pakistani BM and CM tech will evolve too...
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually?...you guys are worse then the fanboys of my country...
> Pakistani BMs and CMs already can beat current Indian ABM network (the sad part is,there is no ABM network as of now )...
> 
> ---------- Post added at 03:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> Will,would etc etc...again underestimating Pakistan's future capabilities,considering that the BMD will have to face the same missiles it has to face now...


 
How am I underestimating you ability ..like you, I too envision longer ranges(ie higher speed) Pakistani missile with decoys and MIRV warheads in your future but there are ways to beat those too ie boost phase interception using softkill and hardkill methods.

Plus it all a number a game..supposedly a multilayered BMD has a 99% interception probability ..meaning out of hundred missiles launched only one will be able penetrate the shield...though this missile might destroy the targeted city completely.

But the cost of destroying that one city will be too high coupled with prospects of massive retaliations will self deter the first use nation from launching nukes.


----------



## DrSomnath999

AhaseebA said:


> BTW,which ABM system (in Indian possession) can intercept Nasr?


well india currently can use AKASH systems as it is a mobile in nature ,Also india can procure David's sling or iron dome sytem in future
but actually no need to intercept it ,rather we should destroy it's launchers
(I)Prahaar






it has has a range of 150km while the Nasr has only a range of 60km which means that Prahaar could take out all the elements of the Nasrs system before it could pose any threat to the IBGS. 
A question may arise on why Prahaar? When there is Prithvi-I with the same range? The Prithvi-I is a liquid fuelled missile which will not be suitable for tactical use by the army since the time taken to launch the missile from the time of issuance of command will be long.Since Prahaar is designed with a single stage solid fuel rocket motor the launch time is very less. It is reported widely in the Indian media that it can be launched within 10 minutes from the time the command is given. More over since it is a supersonic missile the flight time is just four minutes and ten second

Another reason is the Prithvi system is not designed to be fired in salvos like the Prahaar system which comes with a road mobile launcher containing six missiles that can be launched in any direction along the entire azimuth plane in salvos to have a maximum kill probability

The Prahaar missile is reported to have a CEP of 10m and it is also said to be provided with radar imaging terminal homing guidance[4]. With radar terminal homing the missile would have low CEP and also have all weather capability. 

The Prahaar uses a solid rocket motor which is of low cost in comparison with a liquid fuel motor. So, compared to a Prithvi missile the Prahaar is cheaper.

The only tough process would be to provide the onboard guidance system with the proper coordinates of the target for the mid-course guidance and the radar image signatures of the target for the terminal homing guidance. This would be possible with the Indian EO satellites and the SAR satellites in orbit. This would work well for a static target, but for a mobile target or a opportunity target the revisit frequency of the satellite has to be increased. The other solution would be to equip the Army with tactical battlefield surveillance drones and long range surveillance drones.

(II)*CBU-97 Sensor Fused Air Deployed Bomb*




The CBU-97 is the Air Forces smartest 1,000-pound class freefall cluster bomb. It can search a radius of 1,500 feet and can literally clear a battlefield of tanks, vehicles and bunkers.

What it does: The CBU-97 is like a space shuttle launch in reverse. The outside shell falls away to reveal the 10 BLU-108 submunition units. Each unit uses rocket power and a small parachute to right it vertically and help spin the four hockey-puck sized skeets out from their holding unit. The skeets deploy and search out enemy targets using their laser sensors to zero in and rain down explosive molten copper.

Why war needs it: To have smart skeets that can pinpoint and follow enemy targets means that more innocent lives than ever before arent needlessly taken, thus reducing civilian casualties.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Deterrent

prototype said:


> Nopes,the bolded part is called fanboyism,not a single time ur ballistic missiles confronted our sheild,yet ur sure ur BM will beat our ABM,optimism,that serves ur purpose.



Also,not a single time your ABM shield confronted OUR missiles...yet you are sure...



> About ur BM,what is special about it,rather than the 1000 rumors circulating about its being MIRV with the CEP that can beat even American missiles,again being optimistic.
> 
> R u proposing they are different that most of the IRBM's currently present now which can employ cobra maneuvers to evade our ABM,or another Pakistani optimism that Indian missile will fall on the ground at the same time it took off.



I never said nor agree with this BS...if someone says it,he is a fanboy...I said that the proposed Shaheen-III will have MIRVs (the number doesn't necessarily have to be 8-10 RVs)



> Why underestimating u,because we already have both sword and sheild,and u r equiped with only a sword



True...except that your shield is weak and pre-mature.



> u r equiped with only a sword that to wich at *current level is unable to penetrate our shield* as explained above.



Thats called fanboyism.


----------



## The Deterrent

@Somnaath....I just would like to repeat that Nasr will be inducted in large numbers,like any other conventional system...so it would be very difficult to target each and every Nasr vehicle,which could merely be providing artillery support...


----------



## prototype

AhaseebA said:


> Also,not a single time your ABM shield confronted OUR missiles...yet you are sure...



No I am not sure,given our ABM have only 99 % interception ratio





AhaseebA said:


> I never said nor agree with this BS...if someone says it,he is a fanboy...I said that the proposed Shaheen-III will have MIRVs (the number doesn't necessarily have to be 8-10 RVs)



U never said ur missiles are MIRV,u never said ur missiles travel at Mach 20,then on which basis u consider ur missile superior than a system designed to take out conventional IRBM.





AhaseebA said:


> True...except that your shield is weak and pre-mature.



True..but never matters since the basic purpose it had to serve is take out an age old BM system.





AhaseebA said:


> Thats called fanboyism.



Definitely yes,because thats the language u guys understand.


----------



## DrSomnath999

AhaseebA said:


> @Somnaath....I just would like to repeat that Nasr will be inducted in large numbers,like any other conventional system...so it would be very difficult to target each and every Nasr vehicle,which could merely be providing artillery support...


arre mere baap thats why i gave the example of CBU-97 Sensor Fused Air Deployed Bomb ,now do i need to explain u this weapons 
capabilty,i am sure u must have seen it in discovery channel


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> First it is an insult to call the present BMs of Pakistan as variants of Scuds...True that the first models of Ghaznavi and Ghauri-I were ditto copies (reverse-engineered) of M-11 and Nodong.But now,they are more advanced than any other missile of the old Scud series.
> 
> True that the S-300 can take down BMs,but Ghaznavi/M-11 only...and that too,not easily...
> 
> Who will take down Ghauri-II,Shaheen-I,Shaheen-II?
> 
> True that Babur and Ra'ad are not that perfect as they are claimed.Babur and Ra'ad rely only on reduced RCS,which was made possible through sleek airframe design and employing RAM.The minimum altitude of Babur is 100m,but as claimed by sources,it doesn't appears on the radar due to reduced RCS.
> True that once detected,Babur and Ra'ad can be taken down by MANPADs,Aircrafts (having look-down,shoot-down),AA Guns...
> 
> Nasr's apogee is too low to give time for the ABM to perform its function...unless India brings in Iron Dome sort of system.



Ghauri serise missile is just an elongated version of Scud or a copy of Nodong Missile










Only Shaheen II remains of some concern here and that's what these new ABM systems have been designed for.

Nasr after rising to an altitude of 60km would allow its detection and provide 30km altitude leverage for Ashwin to prepare for launch.... remember it has got6 active seeker and is highly maneuverable.... It can easily home in to Nasr once in active range..... Beside there is a new SAM/point defense SAM called maitri Under development with france.... which would have 100% kill probability for such missiles.



AhaseebA said:


> The reason why I find these claims hard to believe is...
> 
> India has just started its ABM program.A super-power like US has dropped and cancelled projects like Kinetic Kill Vehicle and Mutiple Kill Vehicle,despite the experience of decades and funding of Billions of dollars...because it was not feasible.


 
You are free to believe it or disregard it.....
... test have taken place for current ABM systems infront of you and will happen for those system infront of you aswell if Time willing...... India are going to have an operational ABM system in 10 years.... by 2015.... with 2nd stage adding by 2020.


----------



## The Deterrent

prototype said:


> No I am not sure,given our ABM have only 99 % interception ratio


Look,there is no BMD shield in the world (except Israeli) which has the right to claim 99% kill ratio...all else are "claims".



> U never said ur missiles are MIRV,u never said ur missiles travel at Mach 20,then on which basis u consider ur missile superior than a system designed to take out conventional IRBM.



The present operational system like Shaheen-II DOES NOT have MIRV.
Here is why our Ballistic missiles can beat current Indian BMD (consisting of S-300 only)

1. Sheer numbers.
2. S-300 can intercept Ghaznavi class missiles and to some extent,Shaheen-I and Ghauri-I.However,it cannot intercept Ghauri-II and Shaheen-II,because their RVs have greater speed than that is in range for S-300 (Mach 5-8).
3. Shaheen-II has a counter-measures suite consisting of decoys (inflatable balloons and chaff).Also,its ReV employs Maneuverability,by using thrust nozzles.Hence,the MaRV can not only correct trajectory but also can dodge the ABM by changing flight path.



> True..but never matters since the basic purpose it had to serve is take out an *age old* BM system.



 Seems like you didn't read my previous posts.

---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:13 PM ----------




DrSomnath999 said:


> arre mere baap thats why i gave the example of CBU-97 Sensor Fused Air Deployed Bomb ,now do i need to explain u this weapons
> capabilty,i am sure u must have seen it in discovery channel



Meray bhai,kis ne kaha hai k saaray Nasr aik jaga ikathay hon gay?...I'm talking of taking out individual vehicles separately.


----------



## IND151

Syama Ayas said:


> Pakistan will go for MIRVs soon, probably a decade later or so , India will come up with a system close to being as capable as THAAD.



i hope so

we definitely need THADD like system


----------



## ares

*In a nuclear war not everything can be protected..but with a decent BMD in place, enough can be protected, so that one country can emerge as clear winner of even a nuclear war.*


----------



## The Deterrent

DARKY said:


> Ghauri serise missile is just an elongated version of Scud or a copy of Nodong Missile



This picture is of Ghauri-I (1300km,700kg) dude,which was a direct copy of Nodong...

Ghauri-II (1300-2300km/1000kg) is a more advanced missile,and has probably replaced Ghauri-I.



> Nasr after rising to an altitude of 60km would allow its detection and provide 30km altitude leverage for Ashwin to prepare for launch.... remember it has got6 active seeker and is highly maneuverable.... It can easily home in to Nasr once in active range..... Beside there is a new SAM/point defense SAM called maitri Under development with france.... which would have 100% kill probability for such missiles.



Who told you Nasr's altitude is 60km?...Its horizontal range is 60km,and being a quasi-ballistic missile,it does not have to rise to 60km...IMO,its apogee would be no more than 20 km.Besides,quasi-ballistic missiles change their trajectories several times during flight and that applies to Nasr too.



> You are free to believe it or disregard it.....
> ... test have taken place for current ABM systems infront of you and will happen for those system infront of you aswell if Time willing...... India are going to have an operational ABM system in 10 years.... by 2015.... with 2nd stage adding by 2020.



Yeah,tested against liquid-fueled and slow Prithvis...

---------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 PM ----------




ares said:


> *In a nuclear war not everything can be protected..but with a decent BMD in place, enough can be protected, so that one country can emerge as clear winner of even a nuclear war.*



A decent BMD can protect a few cities only...

And the quote "There are no winners in a nuclear war" applies to each country in every age...


----------



## IND151

AhaseebA said:


> The conventional aggression,will be tackled with tactical nukes,if The Army has lost a part of territory...
> 
> If the Army is on the verge of losing the war,with losing a major part of territory too,then strategic nukes will be launched too...




if Pakistan launches tactical nukes we will do same.


----------



## ares

AhaseebA said:


> A decent BMD can protect a few cities only...
> 
> And the quote "There are no winners in a nuclear war" applies to each country in every age...




That is why BMD/NMD is a game changer.


----------



## The Deterrent

IND151 said:


> if Pakistan launches tactical nukes we will do same.



Does "the same" means tactical nukes launched by India?

P.S. I like your avatar,can you tell me which weapon system is this?


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> Who told you Nasr's altitude is 60km?...Its horizontal range is 60km,and being a quasi-ballistic missile,it does not have to rise to 60km...IMO,its apogee would be no more than 20 km.Besides,quasi-ballistic missiles change their trajectories several times during flight and that applies to Nasr too.



20km is for cruise missiles.... BM rise above 300km altitude in space... while quasi-ballistic ones go above 60km.... 15-10 km is for cruise missiles.

What advancement does Gauri II has over Gauri I expect for range and an extra stage.... what's the accuracy ??.... Is there any change in the type of liquid fuel ??

The target prithvi missiles were the modified missiles of its solid fueled variants Dhanush... No ship in IN fires a liquid fueled missile..... all the target missiles were modified dhanush launched from different ships.


----------



## The Deterrent

ares said:


> That is why BMD/NMD is a game changer.



It is a game changer when it comes to...

1. Hezbollah/Hamas vs. Israel
2. Iran vs. USA
3. North Korea vs. USA

It does not work in Pakistan vs. India scenario...


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> Who told you Nasr's altitude is 60km?...Its horizontal range is 60km,and being a quasi-ballistic missile,it does not have to rise to 60km...IMO,its apogee would be no more than 20 km.Besides,quasi-ballistic missiles change their trajectories several times during flight and that applies to Nasr too.



20km is for cruise missiles.... BM rise above 300km altitude in space... while quasi-ballistic ones go above 60km.... 15-10 km is for cruise missiles.

What advancement does Gauri II has over Gauri I expect for range and an extra stage.... what's the accuracy ??.... Is there any change in the type of liquid fuel ??

The target prithvi missiles were the modified missiles of its solid fueled variants Dhanush... No ship in IN fires a liquid fueled missile..... all the target missiles were modified dhanush launched from INS Subhadra from the Eastern fleet.


----------



## cyphercide

The purpose of a BMD isn't to stop every ballistic missile that is headed our way but to grant a grace period of time till our missiles are launched in response in order to neutralize the situation.So yes,that grace period could well mean the difference between survival and extermination.


----------



## ares

AhaseebA said:


> It is a game changer when it comes to...
> 
> 1. Hezbollah/Hamas vs. Israel
> 2. Iran vs. USA
> 3. North Korea vs. USA
> 
> It does not work in Pakistan vs. India scenario...


 
I beg to differ or Russia(country with one off the worlds largest stockpile ) would not be so nervous of US erecting a shield around it.


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> It is a game changer when it comes to...
> 
> 1. Hezbollah/Hamas vs. Israel
> 2. Iran vs. USA
> 3. North Korea vs. USA
> 
> It does not work in Pakistan vs. India scenario...



Do you see any difference with 

Pakistan vs India

Or should I ask you why Putin actively protested about ABM shield in Poland ??


----------



## The Deterrent

DARKY said:


> 20km is for cruise missiles.... BM rise above 300km altitude in space... while quasi-ballistic ones go above 60km.... 15-10 km is for cruise missiles.



That applies to Quasi BMs in general....like Shaurya,Iskander etc...

If Nasr's apogee is 60km while its H range is also 60 km,then it is more dumb than a normal BM.Just saying,Shaheen-II has a horizontal range of 2500km while its apogee is 400 km...

And 10-15 km is for cruise missiles like BrahMos...Tomahawk and Babur have altitude 100m or less...



> What advancement does Gauri II has over Gauri I expect for range and an extra stage.... what's the accuracy ??.... Is there any change in the type of liquid fuel ??



More speed and more accuracy...because Ghauri-IIs ReV is made by NDC,NESCOM...which also makes accurate ReVs for Shaheen series...No other advancement.



> The target prithvi missiles were the modified missiles of its solid fueled variants Dhanush... No ship in IN fires a liquid fueled missile..... all the target missiles were modified dhanush launched from different ships



Are you telling me that an interceptor which intercepts missiles of range 350km can do so with missiles of 2500km range?...I won't consider AAD/PAD trustworthy,unless they are successfully tested against Agni series missiles (I or II).


----------



## DrSomnath999

AhaseebA said:


> Meray bhai,kis ne kaha hai k saaray Nasr aik jaga ikathay hon gay?...I'm talking of taking out individual vehicles separately.


arre mene kab kaha ki saaray CBU-97 Sensor Fused Air Deployed Bomb ek hi jaga bomb kiye jaange.Just one CBU-97 Sensor Fused Air Deployed Bomb can cover an area the size of about 12 football fields (or 6 hectares).so jitna Nasr rakna chahoin toh rakho


----------



## The Deterrent

DARKY said:


> Do you see any difference with
> 
> Pakistan vs India
> 
> Or should I ask you why Putin actively protested about ABM shield in Poland ??



American ABM is not even close to intercepting even 20% Russian missiles...

These are political tactics...of course they won't make a difference,but Putin wants to stop these developments in the first place,before they evolve into a considerable threat in future...

---------- Post added at 04:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:44 PM ----------




DrSomnath999 said:


> arre mene kab kaha ki saaray CBU-97 Sensor Fused Air Deployed Bomb ek hi jaga bomb kiye jaange.Just one CBU-97 Sensor Fused Air Deployed Bomb can cover an area the size of about 12 football fields (or 6 hectares).so jitna Nasr rakna chahoin toh rakho



Sir aap jeet gaye 

I wonder where will be the Pakistan Air Force when IAF will be targeting Nasrs...


----------



## IND151

AhaseebA said:


> Does "the same" means tactical nukes launched by India?
> 
> P.S. I like your avatar,can you tell me which weapon system is this?



for 1st line> not sure. may be India will use strategic nukes also.

for 2nd line> i don't know. spark gave me this


----------



## Awesome

A lowly Ghauri I will hit Delhi in a matter of 4 minutes at blazingly fast speeds. When will India detect, mobilize and respond to such a weapon.

Never mind the newer missiles... When MIRV comes into the picture then its best not to talk about ABM for even the US Army at these miniscule distances.

ABM is for countries where there are oceans and continents for missiles to cross not a handful of villages and cities.


----------



## DrSomnath999

AhaseebA said:


> Sir aap jeet gaye
> I wonder where will be the Pakistan Air Force when IAF will be targeting Nasrs...


create a separate thread ,i would answer where will be the Pakistan Air Force when IAF will be targeting Nasrs


----------



## The Deterrent

Asim Aquil said:


> A lowly Ghauri I will hit Delhi in a matter of 4 minutes at blazingly fast speeds. When will India detect, mobilize and respond to such a weapon.



False info+ exaggeration...Ghauri-I is slow missile as compared to Shaheen series...Ghauri-I has a flight time of 8-9 minutes.


----------



## ares

AhaseebA said:


> American ABM is not even close to intercepting even 20% Russian missiles...
> 
> These are political tactics...of course they won't make a difference,but Putin wants to stop these developments in the first place,before they evolve into a considerable threat in future...
> 
> ---------- Post added at 04:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:44 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> Sir aap jeet gaye
> 
> I wonder where will be the Pakistan Air Force when IAF will be targeting Nasrs...


 

Not yet its not ..but yes in the future(once all elements of NMD are in place) that may change...that is why Russia is so nervous...just like India - Pakistan scenario Russia realizes it does not have enough resources to match US in BM/ ABM development.


----------



## DrSomnath999

Asim Aquil said:


> A lowly Ghauri I will hit Delhi in a matter of 4 minutes at blazingly fast speeds. When will India detect, mobilize and respond to such a weapon.


sir i think u have no idea about india 's Long Range Tracking Radar Green pine & sword fish ,it can detect BMS from 600 km away & BTW pakistan is our neighbour,we dont need to place our radar in afghanistan or iran to detect ur BMS



Asim Aquil said:


> Never mind the newer missiles... When MIRV comes into the picture then its best not to talk about ABM for even the US Army at these miniscule distances.


agree that MIRVS are difficult to intercept,but india would try to intercept it in boost phase ,as our ABMs can be moved to borders



Asim Aquil said:


> ABM is for countries where there are oceans and continents for missiles to cross not a handful of villages and cities.


again what do u mean by that .,?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ares

Asim Aquil said:


> A lowly Ghauri I will hit Delhi in a matter of 4 minutes at blazingly fast speeds. When will India detect, mobilize and respond to such a weapon.
> 
> Never mind the newer missiles... When MIRV comes into the picture then its best not to talk about ABM for even the US Army at these miniscule distances.
> 
> ABM is for countries where there are oceans and continents for missiles to cross not a handful of villages and cities.


 
Currently Israel has one of the most potent ABM system deployed anywhere in the world..and last I checked there are no oceans/continents separating Israel from it enemies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Norboo

XYON said:


> Land based Anti Ballistic Missile Technology (such as Patriot Missiles etc) cannot be fully effective in the Indo-Pak theater due to extremely short flight distances. With the number of nuke tipped multi-range and altitude missiles on both sides and relatively extremely short distances to prime target cities, the missiles will in all probability hot even before the ABMT batteries lock, load and launch.


Good point but applies to only short range theater nuclear missiles. Long range missiles always have high parabolic or exo-atmospheric trajectories which means there would be adequate reaction time for launching counter measures.


----------



## deckingraj

AhaseebA said:


> It appears that you didn't get me...(hell,most Indians don't)



With all due respect you post sounds as if there is hardly a difference b/w a suicide bomber and Pakistan state which is very very wrong....Let me explain why...



> I'm saying,the threat of a first-strike from Pakistan will prevent India from starting a declared war,hence stopping the thereafter retaliation in the first place...



You are absolutely correct here...2003-2004 showdown after the parliament attack is a clear indicator that Pakistan has managed to deter India using this first strike option...However it ends there...It is after this debacle ABM system got its full backing from GOI...There is a reason that a country where almost everything is delayed, this system has been on track....Talks about so called cold start(pratical, possible or not is a separate debate) also starting circling around the defense establishment...Lot of procurement has been done post 2003-2004 around this arena...In short what our establishment is trying to do is defeat this deterrance and sneak in a low yield conflict to punish Pak if provoked by a terror attack...

Look i am not trying to say that Pak is doomed or India has achieved what it wants, all i am saying is that we are trying to reach there...Pak is doing the opposite which is deny us....


Think from this perspective...

- Indian ABM will at a minimum force Pakistan to invest heavily in developing/getting technologies to overcome the system...
- Indian ABM will at least knock off certain number of missiles and prevent damage to some/larger extent on our side...
- This can prove to be a deterant for Pakistan first strike option...Because now not only Pak risk a massive retaliation but also risk a condition where she is not able to cripple India the way she would have liked before going out for good...




> You have to understand...we have very less to lose as compared to India in an event of war.



I am sorry but this line of thinking is very flawed...You will loose everything you have, so it doesn't matter how much the opposition loose...I am back to stone age and so are you...So how does it matter that i lost only 300-400 billion economy vs 1.6 trillion dollar???



> BTW,the Military Strategists and we fully understand the term "massive retaliation"...so no need to describe it.



You are right here...However our emphasis is only on nuclear war. Let me try to bring your attention to another headache that ABM will bring in for Pak...

*Scenario*

There is a mumbai like attack on India which is planned, supported and carried by Pak nationals...Indian ABM system is in place...Indian establishment decides enough is enough and give a green signal to defense forces for a retaliation....A couple of low yield cruise missile got fired in P-O-K to take out some terrorist camps...Obviously this will not get well with Pak establishment...They will have to retaliate in some way...Now the question is go for an all out full-flede war or keep the sector small but give a punitive reply to India...With ABM in place what you think your options would be????

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rafi

Pakistan is developing MIRV - this decreases the chance of any ABM working, and any such defense can be overwhelmed by sheer number of re-entry vehicles. Not a problem in my opinion, any working shield is decades away from being deployed.


----------



## deckingraj

Rafi said:


> Pakistan is developing MIRV - this decreases the chance of any ABM working, and any such defense can be overwhelmed by sheer number of re-entry vehicles. Not a problem in my opinion, any working shield is *decades away from being deployed*.



Are you sure about it???


----------



## Rafi

deckingraj said:


> Are you sure about it???



We have good information on the programme - it will not be "deployed" for the foreseeable future. Regarding indian attack - we can take punitive actions against indian targets in case of an attack, we can use fighters equipped with PGM's or long range cruise missiles.


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> That applies to Quasi BMs in general....like Shaurya,Iskander etc...
> 
> If Nasr's apogee is 60km while its H range is also 60 km,then it is more dumb than a normal BM.Just saying,Shaheen-II has a horizontal range of 2500km while its apogee is 400 km...
> 
> And 10-15 km is for cruise missiles like BrahMos...Tomahawk and Babur have altitude 100m or less...



It does not mean that If my BM has 10km range It would fly at 2 km altitude.... If Nasr flies at 20km then It is a hypersonic cruise missile..... which I don't think it is.
All cruise missiles cruise at 10-15 km altitude.... even Babur/Tom Hawk/kH-55/Cj-10 etc.... 00m is the terminal altitude.... missile like Kh-55 can go as low as 3m in last part and Brahmos can dive as low as 10m....



AhaseebA said:


> More speed and more accuracy...because Ghauri-IIs ReV is made by NDC,NESCOM...which also makes accurate ReVs for Shaheen series...No other advancement.



More speed is obvious due to additional stage.... since more liquid to burn.... about the accuracy part Its still has a CEP in excess of 200-300m... whats accurate about that.



AhaseebA said:


> Are you telling me that an interceptor which intercepts missiles of range 350km can do so with missiles of 2500km range?...I won't consider AAD/PAD trustworthy,unless they are successfully tested against Agni series missiles (I or II).



Its boyish when you make comments like this.... the 350km missile was modified to reach an altitude of a 2500km missile and mimic its trajectory.... use of higher efficiency propellants and better coating materials helped it with speed part..... No AAM is able to shoot a real fighter aircraft does not mean that it won't shoot a real aircraft when fired upon one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Deterrent

deckingraj said:


> With all due respect you post sounds as if there is hardly a difference b/w a suicide bomber and Pakistan state which is very very wrong....Let me explain why...


...The nuclear war scenario is a suicide,no matter what country is participating.During the cold war,anyone (USA/USSR) who had started the war would be killing the other and committing suicide at the same time.That is why,nuclear war is called Mutually Assured Destruction.
But at the same time,it is the nuclear threat that stops the situations to escalate further and prevents wars.



> Look i am not trying to say that Pak is doomed or India has achieved what it wants, all i am saying is that we are trying to reach there...Pak is doing the opposite which is deny us....
> 
> 
> Think from this perspective...
> 
> - Indian ABM will at a minimum force Pakistan to invest heavily in developing/getting technologies to overcome the system...
> - Indian ABM will at least knock off certain number of missiles and prevent damage to some/larger extent on our side...
> - This can prove to be a deterant for Pakistan first strike option...Because now not only Pak risk a massive retaliation but also risk a condition where she is not able to cripple India the way she would have liked before going out for good...



I agree with you...



> I am sorry but this line of thinking is very flawed...You will loose everything you have, so it doesn't matter how much the opposition loose...I am back to stone age and so are you...So how does it matter that i lost only 300-400 billion economy vs 1.6 trillion dollar???



What I meant was,that India has a promised and bright future ahead.Its only a matter of years before India develops into a major power,leaving behind UK and France...both financialy and militarily.
On the other hand,Pakistan has quite a difficult path lying ahead.Probably another decade of combating Terrorism and rooting out extremism and militancy.

So,I suppose the Indian leaders would think of solving the issue diplomatically.Anyway,its my thinking.



> You are right here...However our emphasis is only on nuclear war. Let me try to bring your attention to another headache that ABM will bring in for Pak...
> 
> Scenario
> 
> There is a mumbai like attack on India which is planned, supported and carried by Pak nationals...Indian ABM system is in place...Indian establishment decides enough is enough and give a green signal to defense forces for a retaliation....A couple of low yield cruise missile got fired in P-O-K to take out some terrorist camps...Obviously this will not get well with Pak establishment...They will have to retaliate in some way...Now the question is go for an all out full-flede war or keep the sector small but give a punitive reply to India...With ABM in place what you think your options would be????



Are you talking about low-yield nuclear cruise missiles?

I hope not...well,if they are conventional ones,then Pakistan's reply won't be a full-fledged war...The most we could do is attack the bases/launch areas from where these attacks originated by missiles of our own(Babur for example)...that too seems less likely,because the international community will jump in immediately,if the response is not delivered quickly (within minutes after the attack).


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> American ABM is not even close to intercepting even 20% Russian missiles...
> 
> These are political tactics...of course they won't make a difference,but Putin wants to stop these developments in the first place,before they evolve into a considerable threat in future...



Who says that you ??
Only the most modern series of Russian missiles such as Bulava can penetrate ABM shield of US.... If I were to go by your words the Russian would not have been testing newer BMs and SLBMs.


----------



## deckingraj

Rafi said:


> We have good information on the programme - it will not be "deployed" for the foreseeable future.



So you are saying that India's claim of deploying the first phase by 2014-2015 is a farce??? would you mind sharing some source or it is some inner circle talks that cannot be shared???



> Regarding indian attack - we can take punitive actions against indian targets in case of an attack, we can use fighters equipped with PGM's or long range cruise missiles.



see there is a big problem in using Fighter jets...You risk loosing them...Think from this perpective - You send in your fighter jets and loose them in the process of teaching India a lesson...what are you going to do then???? I believe unless and until a full-flede war has been decided there is no role of fighter jets...


Also what kind of long range cruise missiles are you talking about???


----------



## The Deterrent

DARKY said:


> Who says that you ??
> Only the most modern series of Russian missiles such as Bulava can penetrate ABM shield of US.... If I were to go by your words the Russian would not have been testing newer BMs and SLBMs.



Modernization is the demand of every military...If the US DoD admits that they cannot intercept Russian/Chinese missiles and American BMD can tackle only a "limited" ICBM attack so they are cancelling the Multiple Kill Vehicle, Kinetic Energy Interceptor and Airborne Laser Programs...who am I to say that US cannot intercept Russian ICBMs.

Provided that you don't ditch these reports.


----------



## Rafi

deckingraj said:


> So you are saying that India's claim of deploying the first phase by 2014-2015 is a farce??? would you mind sharing some source or it is some inner circle talks that cannot be shared???
> 
> 
> 
> see there is a big problem in using Fighter jets...You risk loosing them...Think from this perpective - You send in your fighter jets and loose them in the process of teaching India a lesson...what are you going to do then???? I believe unless and until a full-flede war has been decided there is no role of fighter jets...
> 
> 
> Also what kind of long range cruise missiles are you talking about???



I have sources that cannot be disclosed on an open forum, we have Babur - with a 700 kilometer range - that brings Delhi into range, and with Raad a fighter can take it in - it has a 350 kilometer range, both missiles will have their ranges increased, so we have many options, including fighters with stand of, PGM's.


----------



## Mech

Rafi said:


> I have sources that cannot be disclosed on an open forum, we have Babur - with a 700 kilometer range - that brings Delhi into range, and with Raad a fighter can take it in - it has a 350 kilometer range, both missiles will have their ranges increased, so we have many options, including fighters with stand of, PGM's.


----------



## deckingraj

I have been on this forum from quite sometime..I just want to tell you that such a balanced reply is very well appreciated..



AhaseebA said:


> ...The nuclear war scenario is a suicide,no matter what country is participating.During the cold war,anyone (USA/USSR) who had started the war would be killing the other and committing suicide at the same time.That is why,nuclear war is called Mutually Assured Destruction.
> But at the same time,it is the nuclear threat that stops the situations to escalate further and prevents wars.



We both are on same page here...It's just that people use here term "nuke war" like kids fight...



> I agree with you...
> 
> What I meant was,that India has a promised and bright future ahead.Its only a matter of years before India develops into a major power,leaving behind UK and France...both financialy and militarily.
> On the other hand,Pakistan has quite a difficult path lying ahead.Probably another decade of combating Terrorism and rooting out extremism and militancy.
> 
> So,I suppose the Indian leaders would think of solving the issue diplomatically.Anyway,its my thinking.


No you are right...i gave you an example as well...In 2003 we got deterred because of the same reason...Any rational mind would see India got defeated by Pak then...That was taken very very seriously by Indian politicians...That's why you see so much emphasis on BMD's...Anyways my only point is that Pak has lot of potential to grow...This can be seen from her GDP growth when there was some sense of normaly there during Mush era...So i understand that going is tough but let's not ignore Pakistan enormous potential to grow...




> Are you talking about low-yield nuclear cruise missiles?


Nopes



> I hope not...well,if they are conventional ones,then Pakistan's reply won't be a full-fledged war...The most we could do is attack the bases/launch areas from where these attacks originated by missiles of our own(Babur for example)...that too seems less likely,because the international community will jump in immediately,if the response is not delivered quickly (within minutes after the attack).


Exactly...This is where BMD's will bring in head ache's...You will have more challenges..Replying to India would be a must and International community with India's BMD would be two challenges that Pak will have to overcome...


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> Modernization is the demand of every military...If the US DoD admits that they cannot intercept Russian/Chinese missiles and American BMD can tackle only a "limited" ICBM attack so they are cancelling the Multiple Kill Vehicle, Kinetic Energy Interceptor and Airborne Laser Programs...who am I to say that US cannot intercept Russian ICBMs.
> 
> Provided that you don't ditch these reports.



The US DoD is scard of an Iranian aswell as NK attack.... no It is not me who is saying that.... they were also scared of saddam Hussain and Gaddafie......

The big thing which makes it hard to Intercept Russian missiles is their sheer number.... aswell as widely deployed MIRV technology.....


----------



## The Deterrent

DARKY said:


> It does not mean that If my BM has 10km range It would fly at 2 km altitude.... If Nasr flies at 20km then It is a hypersonic cruise missile..... which I don't think it is.
> All cruise missiles cruise at 10-15 km altitude.... even Babur/Tom Hawk/kH-55/Cj-10 etc.... 00m is the terminal altitude.... missile like Kh-55 can go as low as 3m in last part and Brahmos can dive as low as 10m....



I am talking about the apogee...i.e. The highest altitude reached in the flight.Make it 30km,it is my speculation only.
IMO,the max speed of Nasr will be Mach 4.Thats not hypersonic.

I should have specified about the cruise missiles...I was talking about the terminal stage.



> More speed is obvious due to additional stage.... since more liquid to burn.... about the accuracy part Its still has a CEP in excess of 200-300m... whats accurate about that.



NDC's ReVs employ Terminal Correction System via Satellite link.This helps to decrease CEP below 100m,which is better for conventionally armed missiles.Anyway,even 300m CEP works for Nuclear missiles.



> Its boyish when you make comments like this.... the 350km missile was modified to reach an altitude of a 2500km missile and mimic its trajectory.... use of higher efficiency propellants and better coating materials helped it with speed part..... No AAM is able to shoot a real fighter aircraft does not mean that it won't shoot a real aircraft when fired upon one.



No doubt your point is valid.But certain elements are there which cannot be achieved just like that.
Speed of Shaheen-II Warhead is around 3-4 km/s in the terminal phase (after re-entering).If that speed was achieved by Dhanush,than so far,so good.
The problem lies with the MaRV.Shaheen-IIs ReV is higly manueverable.It employs thrusters (apart from the Hydrazine based Rocket Motor for TCS in the ReV) which enable it to change its flight path sharply and continuously.
A bigger problem lies with the Counter-measures.Decoys (Inflatable Balloons and Chaff) have been made part of the upgraded version of Shaheen-II.

---------- Post added at 08:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:19 PM ----------




Rafi said:


> I have sources that cannot be disclosed on an open forum, we have Babur - with a 700 kilometer range - that brings Delhi into range, and with Raad a fighter can take it in - it has a 350 kilometer range, both missiles will have their ranges increased, so we have many options, including fighters with stand of, PGM's.



With due respect sir,this is not some sort of top-secret news...everbody knows it and Pakistan officially proclaims that.

BTW,Ra'ad ALCM is yet to enter production.After that,it will be inducted.


----------



## The Deterrent

deckingraj said:


> Exactly...This is where BMD's will bring in head ache's...You will have more challenges..Replying to India would be a must and International community with India's BMD would be two challenges that Pak will have to overcome...


 Yes,because the reply (retaliation) from Pakistani side will be limited,so a fully deployed multiple layered BMD shield can protect India from a small number of missiles.


----------



## prototype

AhaseebA said:


> Look,there is no BMD shield in the world (except Israeli) which has the right to claim 99% kill ratio...all else are "claims".



Tell me who actually verify or discard the claims,If Indian organization claim it had a interception ratio of 99 %(exactly around 97 %)on which basis u discard it,by stating that no other country have it,if that is the criteria then ur missile test success rate is also questionable,since that are miles ahead then each and every nation in the world that dominate this technology.[/QUOTE]




AhaseebA said:


> The present operational system like Shaheen-II DOES NOT have MIRV.
> Here is why our Ballistic missiles can beat current Indian BMD (consisting of S-300 only)
> 
> 1. Sheer numbers.
> 2. S-300 can intercept Ghaznavi class missiles and to some extent,Shaheen-I and Ghauri-I.However,it cannot intercept Ghauri-II and Shaheen-II,because their RVs have greater speed than that is in range for S-300 (Mach 5-8).
> 3. Shaheen-II has a counter-measures suite consisting of decoys (inflatable balloons and chaff).Also,its ReV employs Maneuverability,by using thrust nozzles.Hence,the MaRV can not only correct trajectory but also can dodge the ABM by changing flight path.



1.Sheer numbers dont work here my friend,ABM is not designed to block each and every missile in ur inventory,its purpose is altogether different,it is only developed to gather a grace period,we will not wait untill Pakistan fire each and every missile in its inventory toward us,as soon as u launch ur first missile,we will also reciprocate from here,ABM is only there to provide the much needed extra time,now to overwhelm the defense system if u launch all ur missiles in a single attempt that is a differet scenario,but even then I dont think u have a single launcher for each and every missile u have in ur inventory.

2.I am not talking about S-300 here,u know,we had that even in the 90's,there is nothing new,I am talking about AAD and PDV which will be inducted by 2013,now If u thing an MIRV version will be available at Pakistan's disposal by that time thats a different matter.

3.Remember I am not talking about intercepting stones here,I am talking about BM,MaRV,chaff's,flares,all this are nothing new,MarV is not about changing trajectory,it just a gliding technique,ABM is designed keeping this in mind,once again the current ABM shield is a two tier network will be also coupled with S-300 and Akash


----------



## XYON

AhaseebA said:


> Well,that is not the case...ABMs and BMDs are ready to engage hostile missiles in a matter of seconds...
> 
> The time factor only eases the decision of retaliation...i.e. Either to retaliate immediately or to wait for engagement or impact.



That is the case. Missiles launched near-to the border will acquire their targets in a matter of minutes. ABM capability requires complexed network of early warning/ detection, trajectory calculations, and impact point analysis all that requires more than a few minutes of prep time even by the fastest of military computers. Both sides do not have enough depth to have ABM counter measures in place.

ABM Counter measures have been suitable for presumed conflicts between USSR and USA, China and USA where the distances are in thousands of miles and the warning time is well within 1 hour plus!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Deterrent

XYON said:


> That is the case. Missiles launched near-to the border will acquire their targets in a matter of minutes. ABM capability requires complexed network of early warning/ detection, trajectory calculations, and impact point analysis all that requires more than a few minutes of prep time even by the fastest of military computers. Both sides do not have enough depth to have ABM counter measures in place.



Exaggeration here...if the time factor was too prominent and deploying ABMs was not feasible due to less reaction time,then
1. Israel wouldn't have deployed Arrow series ABM against Iran's Shahab series of missiles and Syria's Scuds
2. USA wouldn't have deployed Patriot SAMs against Iraqi Scuds.
3. India wouldn't have considered developing the ABM in the first place.As per you,it is a complete waste fo money,and I don't take Indians as idiots.



> ABM Counter measures have been suitable for presumed conflicts between USSR and USA, China and USA where the distances are in thousands of miles and the warning time is well within 1 hour plus!



Too much exaggeration...

According to ex-US president Jimmy Carter,Soviet ICBMs gave a time window of 26 minutes before hitting their targets inside US mainland.30 minutes is the time stated by a former NATO General (don't remember his name).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Deterrent

prototype said:


> Tell me who actually verify or discard the claims,If Indian organization claim it had a interception ratio of 99 %(exactly around 97 %)on which basis u discard it,by stating that no other country have it,if that is the criteria then ur missile test success rate is also questionable,since that are miles ahead then each and every nation in the world that dominate this technology.



The 99% kill ratio is often misinterpreted....It does not necessarily mean that out of 100 missiles launched,99 will be intercepted.It means that teh incoming hostile missile faces a 99% interception ratio.That is for the first few missiles.
As the number of missiles launched increases rapidly,this ratio decreases,because BMs are over-whelming the BMD.

I cannot accept that because it is being misinterpreted.The ABM shield protecting one city/area cannot protect the others.If after deploying the system,DRDO says that we have the stated kill ratio,then it is only for that specific area.

Our missile tests are questionable....true.
Here is the answer.There are failures,but a little less than DRDO's.They are not reported as failures on the initiative of Pakistan Army.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Deterrent

prototype said:


> 2.I am not talking about S-300 here,u know,we had that even in the 90's,there is nothing new,I am talking about AAD and PDV which will be inducted by 2013,now If u thing an MIRV version will be available at Pakistan's disposal by that time thats a different matter.
> 
> 3.Remember I am not talking about intercepting stones here,I am talking about BM,MaRV,chaff's,flares,all this are nothing new,MarV is not about changing trajectory,it just a gliding technique,ABM is designed keeping this in mind,once again the current ABM shield is a two tier network will be also coupled with S-300 and Akash



2. Again the induction thing...It should be clear now that only Dehli will be protect by ABM shield by 2014.The other cities will follow on later,but to say India will completely deploy ABM shield by 2013 is a joke.

3. MaRV is just a gliding technique? 
Since Dhanushs didn't have manuevering ReVs and counter measures,so I refuse to accept the claim of having the capability to intercept BMs with such characteristics until the ABM is tested against similar missiles.

And Akash cannot intercept BMs (maybe Nasr)...so

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## XYON

AhaseebA said:


> Exaggeration here...if the time factor was too prominent and deploying ABMs was not feasible due to less reaction time,then
> 1. Israel wouldn't have deployed Arrow series ABM against Iran's Shahab series of missiles and Syria's Scuds
> 2. USA wouldn't have deployed Patriot SAMs against Iraqi Scuds.
> 3. India wouldn't have considered developing the ABM in the first place.As per you,it is a complete waste fo money,and I don't take Indians as idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> Too much exaggeration...
> 
> According to ex-US president Jimmy Carter,Soviet ICBMs gave a time window of 26 minutes before hitting their targets inside US mainland.30 minutes is the time stated by a former NATO General (don't remember his name).



The examples you have quoted (Israel, Iran Syria, US-Iraq) all have a common factor......DISTANCE from point of launch to the Point of Impact. India has strategic depth and can place such ABM's near to its Eastern Borders in order to have ample time for a reaction to Pakistani launched missile. But the same could be countered by launching dummies or multiple missiles. No ABM in the world is that effective to have 100% kill ratio. Saddam Hussein fired a Scud over Saudi Arab, Patriot missile detected it, and intercepted it rather unsuccessfully and the missile fell over Riyadh. If that missile would have been NBC tipped, Riyadh would have been in big trouble (all this action took around 40 minutes). Indians are researching on ABM's mainly to support US program of having such missiles against rogue nations (read China). 

Lastly, 30 minutes flight reaction window (barring the time period the US or Soviet Satellites could detect the location and aggressive posturing/ fueling of enemy missiles) is still is an eternity for a militarily advanced nation as USA compared to Pakistan or India which even do not have early warning satellites. 

Therefore and realistically, ABM will remain an unaffordable venture and essentially a pipe dream for the Indo-Pak area.


----------



## The Deterrent

XYON said:


> The examples you have quoted (Israel, Iran Syria, US-Iraq) all have a common factor......DISTANCE from point of launch to the Point of Impact. India has strategic depth and can place such ABM's near to its Eastern Borders in order to have ample time for a reaction to Pakistani launched missile. But the same could be countered by launching dummies or multiple missiles. No ABM in the world is that effective to have 100% kill ratio. *Saddam Hussein fired a Scud over Saudi Arab, Patriot missile detected it, and intercepted it rather unsuccessfully and the missile fell over Riyadh. If that missile would have been NBC tipped, Riyadh would have been in big trouble (all this action took around 40 minutes).* Indians are researching on ABM's mainly to support US program of having such missiles against rogue nations (read China).
> 
> Lastly, 30 minutes flight reaction window (barring the time period the US or Soviet Satellites could detect the location and aggressive posturing/ fueling of enemy missiles) is still is an eternity for a militarily advanced nation as USA compared to Pakistan or India which even do not have early warning satellites.
> 
> Therefore and realistically, ABM will remain an unaffordable venture and essentially a pipe dream for the Indo-Pak area.



Syria shares border with Israel.Iraq shares border with KSA (when US base was attacked by Scuds).

As for Patriot SAM failure: 


> On February 25, 1991, an Iraqi Scud hit the barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 28 soldiers from the US Army's 14th Quartermaster Detachment.
> A government investigation revealed that the failed intercept at Dhahran had been caused by a *software error in the system's clock.* The Patriot missile battery at Dhahran had been in operation for 100 hours, by which time the system's internal clock had drifted by one third of a second. Due to the closure speed of the interceptor and the target, this resulted in a miss distance of 600 meters.



I fail to understand how a Scud missile has a flight time of 40 minutes?...when the best variant of Scud series has a flight time of 10 minutes...
The rest I agree with you.Developing a BMD which can effectively shield a BM attck from Pakistan is going to be very,rather very very costly.


----------



## deckingraj

^^^^^^^^^^

Two points which we are clearly not looking into when commenting upon distance b/w India and Pakistan...

- If proximity results in less time for interception then it also fascilitate intercepting missile in its most vulnerable position i.e launch phase...
- what we all are banking upon is that BMD system cannot/least effective in intercepting missiles in such a short span of time...However no one has explained as to why??? why is 4-5 minutes time(as stated) not good enough to intercept a missile??? It all depends on when it got detected, no???
- BMD system is specifically meant to counter Pakistan(atleast in the first phase)...Look at the range of missiles we are dealing with in the first phase...I don't mind you guys thinking that Indian scienitist community is nothing but a bunch of fools but then we all know reality is different...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## deckingraj

AhaseebA said:


> The rest I agree with you.Developing a BMD which can effectively shield a BM attck from Pakistan is going to be very,rather very very costly.



Security has no price tag...However BMD is a two edged sword..Not only it gives an extra layer of protection but also drain away resources of the enemy who now has to do much more to ensure she still have a good enough deterrant and capabilty to punish enemy should it try the unthinkable...

Having said that BMD can also you give a flawed sense of security which can make you take "not so smart decisions"...Let's see what future has in store ....


----------



## The Deterrent

deckingraj said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Two points which we are clearly not looking into when commenting upon distance b/w India and Pakistan...
> 
> - If proximity results in less time for interception then it also fascilitate intercepting missile in its most vulnerable position i.e launch phase...
> - what we all are banking upon is that BMD system cannot/least effective in intercepting missiles in such a short span of time...However no one has explained as to why??? why is 4-5 minutes time(as stated) not good enough to intercept a missile??? It all depends on when it got detected, no???
> - BMD system is specifically meant to counter Pakistan(atleast in the first phase)...Look at the range of missiles we are dealing with in the first phase...I don't mind you guys thinking that Indian scienitist community is nothing but a bunch of fools but then we all know reality is different...



1. Boost phase interception is close to impossible by ABMs.However,Boeing YAL-1 Airborne Laser has achieved effective Boost phase kills against Liquid-fueled missiles.

2. I agree...

3. If you are thinking of tackling China with ABMs then forget it.Just simply forget it.

---------- Post added at 12:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 AM ----------




deckingraj said:


> Security has no price tag...However BMD is a two edged sword..Not only it gives an extra layer of protection but also drain away resources of the enemy who now has to do much more to ensure she still have a good enough deterrant and capabilty to punish enemy should it try the unthinkable...
> 
> Having said that BMD can also you give a flawed sense of security which can make you take "not so smart decisions"...Let's see what future has in store ....



Nice one-liner...

Security does have price tags.American projects like KEV,MKV and ABL are cancelled/dropped due to cost over-runs...


----------



## deckingraj

AhaseebA said:


> 1. Boost phase interception is close to impossible by ABMs.However,Boeing YAL-1 Airborne Laser has achieved effective Boost phase kills against Liquid-fueled missiles.
> 
> 2. I agree...
> 
> 3. If you are thinking of tackling China with ABMs then forget it.Just simply forget it.



1. That is the goal...The debate is not if we can achieve it...Point is less distance makes it easy to intercept missile in the lauch phase...Anyways this piece of R&D is part of phase 2 of BMD...

2. Good..

3. Look you are not getting the point...Even Pakistani missiles cannot be countered 100% with BMD..There would be missiles that will sneak in...However with BMD less number will sneak in than otherwise...Secondly no one can fire all(large number of) their missiles in one go without loosing the surprise factor???...It is as simple as that...

---------- Post added at 03:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:29 PM ----------




AhaseebA said:


> Nice one-liner...
> 
> Security does have price tags.American projects like KEV,MKV and ABL are cancelled/dropped due to cost over-runs...


Security does not have price tags my dear and this is no one liner...If the system is effective and a good enough counter measure then price is not such a big deterrent as you are perceiving it to be???


----------



## JayAtl

The arguments/ positions taken in this post makes a case for india to go for the Nato missile shield which even russia is a part of ...


----------



## ares

...........................


----------



## The Deterrent

deckingraj said:


> 1. That is the goal...The debate is not if we can achieve it...Point is less distance makes it easy to intercept missile in the lauch phase...Anyways this piece of R&D is part of phase 2 of BMD...
> 
> 2. Good..
> 
> 3. Look you are not getting the point...Even Pakistani missiles cannot be countered 100% with BMD..There would be missiles that will sneak in...However with BMD less number will sneak in than otherwise...Secondly no one can fire all(large number of) their missiles in one go without loosing the surprise factor???...It is as simple as that...



1. Boost phase interception by an ABM is very difficult because of some reasons...

*a.* Short range.The interceptor missile has to be very close to the launch point of the hostile BM.Currently only Aegis has a possible boost-phase capability, but&#8212;in the case of the SM-2&#8212;it needs to be within 40 km of a launch point.So the Shaheen and Ghauri series can be launched even from Baluchistan.
*b.* Very less time.Boost-phase interception gives a time window of less than a minute in case of majority missiles of Pakistan (including Abdali,Ghaznavi,Shaheen-I).

3. I'm getting your point.What I have understood after studying BMDs,is that they provide protection against hostile missiles in some particular scenarios.For example,a limited strike by a rogue state,accidental launches from enemy,limited strikes by rebels/terrorists etc.Another assurance they provide is the safety of strategic assets and major population/industrial centers.Now,this can be advantageous if the BMD capable country also holds the first strike option.So that they can take out majority nuclear assets in the first strike and the remaining can be intercepted.

But a professional Army realizes all these threats,and takes into account every possible way to over-whelm the enemy's defenses.Hence you are seeing more reliable missiles and tactical nuclear systems being developed by Pakistan.



> Security does not have price tags my dear and this is no one liner...If the system is effective and a good enough counter measure then price is not such a big deterrent as you are perceiving it to be???



Exactly....if a system is effective and reliable,only then a high amount can be invested in it.But there is a limited to that too.I hope India does not have unlimited defense budgets like Pentagon and DoD had.

Have a read.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-mi...ssile-defenses-effectiveness-reliability.html


----------



## The Deterrent

The real threat which could cause considerable damage to Pakistani BMs is the Indian land-based Laser defense system (say,a bigger version of THEL) in phase-2 of the Indian BMD...It could damage BMs in their Boost phase.

Luckily,except Ghauri series,all Pakistani BMs are solid-fueled... which are faster,have less boost time and have thicker skins.Hence,the targeted laser should be very strong and the "heating-time" should be greater...


----------



## DrSomnath999

AhaseebA said:


> 1. Boost phase interception by an ABM is very difficult because of some reasons...
> 
> *a.* Short range.The interceptor missile has to be very close to the launch point of the hostile BM.Currently only Aegis has a possible boost-phase capability, butin the case of the SM-2it needs to be within 40 km of a launch point.So the Shaheen and Ghauri series can be launched even from Baluchistan.
> *b.* Very less time.Boost-phase interception gives a time window of less than a minute in case of majority missiles of Pakistan (including Abdali,Ghaznavi,Shaheen-I).
> 
> &
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real threat which could cause considerable damage to Pakistani BMs is the Indian land-based Laser defense system (say,a bigger version of THEL) in phase-2 of the Indian BMD...It could damage BMs in their Boost phase.
> 
> .


i cant understand ur logic man ,one hand u r saying Boost phase interception by an ABM is very difficult as the interceptor missile has to be very close to the launch point of the hostile Short range BMs, the Shaheen and Ghauri series can be launched even from Baluchistan.& on the other hand u r saying a land-based Laser defense system (bigger version of THEL) damage BMs in their Boost phase.How can that be possible ,as laser range cannot be so much & also cannot be so accurate from such a long range .
Yes air borne laser can do damage in boost phase,but land based cannot do damage at BMs in boost phase at very long range .It's highly impractical


----------



## zaixiatian

This is difficult work, but I believe there is always a solution to the


----------



## The Deterrent

DrSomnath999 said:


> i cant understand ur logic man ,one hand u r saying Boost phase interception by an ABM is very difficult as the interceptor missile has to be very close to the launch point of the hostile Short range BMs, the Shaheen and Ghauri series can be launched even from Baluchistan.& on the other hand u r saying a land-based Laser defense system (bigger version of THEL) damage BMs in their Boost phase.How can that be possible ,as laser range cannot be so much & also cannot be so accurate from such a long range .
> Yes air borne laser can do damage in boost phase,but land based cannot do damage at BMs in boost phase at very long range .It's highly impractical



Actually,you are right...

Ground based lasers might help to a range of 100km...that is better than Boost-phase interceptor missile (40km).Now,missiles like Abdali,Ghaznavi etc might face a problem by them.

I have a confusion.Will the Indian Ground-based Laser (in phase-2 of BMD development) target BMs in boost-phase(after launch) or terminal phase( After re-entry)?


----------



## ares

DrSomnath999 said:


> i cant understand ur logic *man *,one hand u r saying Boost phase interception by an ABM is very difficult as the interceptor missile has to be very close to the launch point of the hostile Short range BMs, the Shaheen and Ghauri series can be launched even from Baluchistan.& on the other hand u r saying a land-based Laser defense system (bigger version of THEL) damage BMs in their Boost phase.How can that be possible ,as laser range cannot be so much & also cannot be so accurate from such a long range .
> Yes air borne laser can do damage in boost phase,but land based cannot do damage at BMs in boost phase at very long range .It's highly impractical



Woman and not man.


----------



## The Deterrent

ares said:


> Woman and not man.



???


----------



## ares

Aren't you a girl??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Deterrent

ares said:


> Aren't you a girl??



Bloody Hell! 

No...why did you presume that?


----------



## DrSomnath999

AhaseebA said:


> Bloody Hell!
> 
> No...why did you presume that?


just BECOZ ur name sounds feminine


----------



## DrSomnath999

AhaseebA said:


> Actually,you are right...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a confusion.Will the Indian Ground-based Laser (in phase-2 of BMD development) target BMs in boost-phase(after launch) or terminal phase( After re-entry)?


Ground-based Laser can do both but for boost phase they need to some how close to BM's launchers ,but for terminal phase range doesnt matter ,but difficulty is manuverable warhead can it can be intercepted by laser i doubt ?


----------



## satishkumarcsc

4 letters.......... MIRV!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cool_Soldier

True, MIRV can create problem against ABM systems.But that can only be put on higher capable missile like Shahen2. Ghouri2 etc.
But Short range missile could be in danger zone if enemy,s ABM system is accurate and successful.

Pakistan needs to develop ABM too to counter enemy's missile strike.I personally hope, we are on the way to get that capability.


----------



## deckingraj

Thanks for the link...Let me reply to each point..



AhaseebA said:


> 1. Boost phase interception by an ABM is very difficult because of some reasons...
> 
> *a.* Short range.The interceptor missile has to be very close to the launch point of the hostile BM.Currently only Aegis has a possible boost-phase capability, but&#8212;in the case of the SM-2&#8212;it needs to be within 40 km of a launch point.So the Shaheen and Ghauri series can be launched even from Baluchistan.
> *b.* Very less time.Boost-phase interception gives a time window of less than a minute in case of majority missiles of Pakistan (including Abdali,Ghaznavi,Shaheen-I).
> 
> 3. I'm getting your point.What I have understood after studying BMDs,is that they provide protection against hostile missiles in some particular scenarios.For example,a limited strike by a rogue state,accidental launches from enemy,limited strikes by rebels/terrorists etc.Another assurance they provide is the safety of strategic assets and major population/industrial centers.Now,this can be advantageous if the BMD capable country also holds the first strike option.So that they can take out majority nuclear assets in the first strike and the remaining can be intercepted.
> 
> But a professional Army realizes all these threats,and takes into account every possible way to over-whelm the enemy's defenses.Hence you are seeing more reliable missiles and tactical nuclear systems being developed by Pakistan.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly....if a system is effective and reliable,only then a high amount can be invested in it.But there is a limited to that too.I hope India does not have unlimited defense budgets like Pentagon and DoD had.
> 
> Have a read.
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-mi...ssile-defenses-effectiveness-reliability.html



1. Thanks for the info..However i never challenged that boost-phase interception is not difficult...All i said is that boost-phase is the most vulnerable point to intercept a missile...Also this part of R&D is second phase of our BMD system

3. Not let's paint your scenario once again...What as per you is the most important aspect of first strike??? To me it is "Surprise"....Now if you want to go for a first strike and also want to evade the BMD and on top of that want to ensure that enough Damage is done to the ememy then imagine the kind of preparation and number of missiles that need to be launched....In short probability of loosing the surprise increase manifold...Also the moment you loose the surprise what as per you will India do??? If i am convinced that Pak is going to lauch nuke frenzy at me why on this earth i will wait till havoc is unleashed on me??? In fact With BMD my side i will be more than ready to launch my own missiles once i have enough reasons to believe authorities in Pak are convinced to press the red button..no???

I am not challenging that professional army will not take things into accounts...However economics is one such factor that cannot be ruled out...Pak is going through a turbulent time whereas her arch rival is probably going through the best time of her 6 decades old life...Anyways these are all hypothesis...


----------



## The Deterrent

Cool_Soldier said:


> True, MIRV can create problem against ABM systems.But that can only be put on higher capable missile like Shahen2. Ghouri2 etc.
> But Short range missile could be in danger zone if enemy,s ABM system is accurate and successful.
> 
> Pakistan needs to develop ABM too to counter enemy's missile strike.I personally hope, we are on the way to get that capability.



No...both Shaheen-II and Ghauri-II have a payload of 1000kg (excluding the weight of ReV and CMs)...The least number of RVs deployed is 3...

Both the payload capacity and the small diameter of the warhead hinder the emloyment of MIRVs on both missiles.Hence they carry single warheads.

Pakistan's ABM are a dream...unless we are ****** rich...


----------



## The Deterrent

deckingraj said:


> Thanks for the link...Let me reply to each point..
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Thanks for the info..However i never challenged that boost-phase interception is not difficult...All i said is that boost-phase is the most vulnerable point to intercept a missile...Also this part of R&D is second phase of our BMD system
> 
> 3. Not let's paint your scenario once again...What as per you is the most important aspect of first strike??? To me it is "Surprise"....Now if you want to go for a first strike and also want to evade the BMD and on top of that want to ensure that enough Damage is done to the ememy then imagine the kind of preparation and number of missiles that need to be launched....In short probability of loosing the surprise increase manifold...Also the moment you loose the surprise what as per you will India do??? If i am convinced that Pak is going to lauch nuke frenzy at me why on this earth i will wait till havoc is unleashed on me??? In fact With BMD my side i will be more than ready to launch my own missiles once i have enough reasons to believe authorities in Pak are convinced to press the red button..no???
> 
> I am not challenging that professional army will not take things into accounts...However economics is one such factor that cannot be ruled out...Pak is going through a turbulent time whereas her arch rival is probably going through the best time of her 6 decades old life...Anyways these are all hypothesis...



1. Okay good...

3. Lets see...

The imporatnce of first strike is not only surprise but also greater numbers.In a second strike (retaliatory),the numbers are much less,hence the no. of surviving missiles decreases further after passing through the BMD.
But that depends on the efficiency and reliability of the BMD.In India's case, there are 6 batteries (48 missiles each) of S-300 SAMs,which are enough to counter Pakistan's Abdali and Ghaznavi missiles.The PAD/AAD (1st phase) isn't going to be deployed anytime before 2014 (that too,for New Dehli)...

Now here is the Pakistani case.Pakistan is not only increasing the number of already inducted missiles,but also upgrading them to the latest standards.Furthermore,the diversity of the Nuclear Delivery Systems is increasing each year.

I understand that it is close to impossible to hide such a large scale activity of escorted mobilization,given the fact the India possesses surveillance satellites.US will also not hesitate to "warn" India of such an activity.
You are talking about a pre-emptive strike.Clarify if it will be a conventional or nuclear one,according to you.


One one hand you say that if a weapon system ensures that it will provide protection to the country and will be efficient,then money must be spent on it.
On the other hand,you are saying that Pakistan has economic restraints,so it shouldn't.

Pakistan has been spending,and will continue to spend money on these strategic weapons,because at this low scale (BRBMs to IRBMs and CMs),they don't affect the budget much.Still,the current government has cut the budgets of our organization down.Thats why you see that the major development took place in the Musharraf Era.


And of course...all this is hypothesis and proposed situations...


----------



## SBD-3

Cool_Soldier said:


> True, MIRV can create problem against ABM systems.But that can only be put on higher capable missile like Shahen2. Ghouri2 etc.
> But Short range missile could be in danger zone if enemy,s ABM system is accurate and successful.
> 
> Pakistan needs to develop ABM too to counter enemy's missile strike.I personally hope, we are on the way to get that capability.


As if.....just bring in a coverage of Long range High altitude sams.....S-300 should be fine.....create a network of these by joint Investment from PAF and PA...it would work both as AD/ABD...no need to reinvent the wheel...


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> The imporatnce of first strike is not only surprise but also greater numbers.In a second strike (retaliatory),the numbers are much less,hence the no. of surviving missiles decreases further after passing through the BMD.
> But that depends on the efficiency and reliability of the BMD.In India's case, there are 6 batteries (48 missiles each) of S-300 SAMs,which are enough to counter Pakistan's Abdali and Ghaznavi missiles.The PAD/AAD (1st phase) isn't going to be deployed anytime before 2014 (that too,for New Dehli)...
> 
> Now here is the Pakistani case.Pakistan is not only increasing the number of already inducted missiles,but also upgrading them to the latest standards.Furthermore,the diversity of the Nuclear Delivery Systems is increasing each year.
> 
> I understand that it is close to impossible to hide such a large scale activity of escorted mobilization,given the fact the India possesses surveillance satellites.US will also not hesitate to "warn" India of such an activity.
> You are talking about a pre-emptive strike.Clarify if it will be a conventional or nuclear one,according to you.
> 
> 
> One one hand you say that if a weapon system ensures that it will provide protection to the country and will be efficient,then money must be spent on it.
> On the other hand,you are saying that Pakistan has economic restraints,so it shouldn't.
> 
> Pakistan has been spending,and will continue to spend money on these strategic weapons,because at this low scale (BRBMs to IRBMs and CMs),they don't affect the budget much.Still,the current government has cut the budgets of our organization down.Thats why you see that the major development took place in the Musharraf Era.
> 
> 
> And of course...all this is hypothesis and proposed situations...



We are yet to see the updated versions of your BM.... you have not tested any long range BM in last 5 years I presume.... how can you update them???
And what are the new out of box developments.... Babur is still derived from Tomhawks thanks to the ones dumped by Uncle Sam in Afghanistan...... and China aswell......
Nasr is just an updated rocket with seekers..... which doesn't even has a range of more than 100km.....
Nither is PAF having long range strike aircrafts with deep penetration capability.


----------



## SBD-3

DARKY said:


> We are yet to see the updated versions of your BM.... you have not tested any long range BM in last 5 years I presume.... how can you update them???


There was a very long and indeed informative interview posted in the same section by santro a while ago featuring NESCOM cheif Dr Samar M Mand. According to information whenever a batch of missiles is manufactured, testing is done prior to handing it over to armed services....There has been a consistent upgrade process in place, Shaheen I has two Versions Shaheen I (I) and Shaheen I (II) before shaheen II. NESCOM alongwith AWC and other organizations, continously works on upgrading current designs. 


> And what are the new out of box developments.... Babur is still derived from Tomhawks thanks to the ones dumped by Uncle Sam in Afghanistan...... and China aswell......


Had it been the case and tech was a copy, then the resulting missile would have been of similar range where as babur is almost half the range of TH....China and Pakistan follow MCTR (though not signatories) thus there hasn't been a long range missile purchase of development exceeding 300 KM. 


> Nasr is just an updated rocket with seekers..... which doesn't even has a range of more than 100km.....
> Nither is PAF having long range strike aircrafts with deep penetration capability.


It is a *Tactical* balistic missle....its small size ensures its shoot and scoot delivery while seekers (optical) ensure high kill probability...can you do that with blind rocket?.
The only place on this earth where people come up with such ignorent logics is of course Bharat BakBak forum...have you been reading over there?


----------



## The Deterrent

DARKY said:


> We are yet to see the updated versions of your BM.... you have not tested any long range BM in last 5 years I presume.... how can you update them???
> .



Well thanks for shitting my post like that...I suppose you are not a regular follower of this section,otherwise you would have seen those upgrades...I'll post about them in a while.



> And what are the new out of box developments.... Babur is still derived from Tomhawks thanks to the ones dumped by Uncle Sam in Afghanistan...... and China aswell......



Babur is only based on Tomahawk.Foreign experts have suggested that a cruise missile has a fragile structure,so it cannot survive a crash to an extent that any of its components can be recovered in intact form.I will not elaborate on it here further,as it will derail the thread.



> Nasr is just an updated rocket with seekers..... which doesn't even has a range of more than 100km.....



Yes,Nasr is nothing more than a rocket with seekers and nose canards which help it to follow a depressed and irregular trajectory,powerful rocket motor and high payload capacity...obviously these "modifications" don't make a difference.
Then why the hell are Indians going frenzy about it?


----------



## MilSpec

ABM shield will not cover all of India .. just a few key installations and cities... rest is all going poof wherever either china or pakistan attacks ... the question is how effective retaliation will be served... 

I hope both of the nations never have to fire missiles on each other... if they do.. the decision makers will be safe and sound and poor common people will die.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

sandy_3126 said:


> ABM shield will not cover all of India .. just a few key installations and cities... rest is all going poof wherever either china or pakistan attacks ... the question is how effective retaliation will be served...


many r saying this by reading some internet links , it is intial plan ,but by 2020 it range would cover 2/3rd of india


----------



## SBD-3

DrSomnath999 said:


> u hope that there is no repeat of 26/ 11 & hence no CSD fromindia & no nuclear attack from pakistan


Its quite surprising that Indian Media and Admin Machine had its guns at full burner against Pakistan but none has even cared to ask WHAT THE HEX WAS INDIAN INTEL AGENCIES DOING? even UK said that its MI6 warned Indian counterpart, but surprisingly no action was taken..even till date, no body has raised this question. Even in Samghota train, the truth was uncovered late and that too not by intel agencies but police...Still this does not ring any bells to GoI, anyways on topic, ABM is a fairly complex system, not even the US is confident in it till date, that too with far superior early warning net and more complex system in place, this points to the fact that for having an active system, Indian military would have to have huge investments in allied fields i.e. early warning nets. Thats why I think Pakistan should rather build a network of High altitude longrange SAMs backed by intermediate and low level ones. This should me much more economical rather than having an expensive venture for nothing


----------



## DrSomnath999

hasnain0099 said:


> Its quite surprising that Indian Media and Admin Machine had its guns at full burner against Pakistan but none has even cared to ask WHAT THE HEX WAS INDIAN INTEL AGENCIES DOING? even UK said that its MI6 warned Indian counterpart, but surprisingly no action was taken..even till date, no body has raised this question. Even in Samghota train, the truth was uncovered late and that too not by intel agencies but police...Still this does not ring any bells to GoI


kindly leave that matter ,dont post ur opinion in this thread,post according to the thread ,i repiled that sentence but now i m going to delete it
REGARDS


----------



## DrSomnath999

AhaseebA said:


> *Pakistani Missile Upgrades
> 
> *


*
execellent compilation bro well done
U should be recommended for think tank .If required i would bribe the administrator for u *

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Deterrent

DrSomnath999 said:


> execellent compilation bro well done
> U should be recommended for think tank .If required i would bribe the administrator for u



Na bhai,tu rehnay day...


----------



## IND151

prototype said:


> Tell me who actually verify or discard the claims,If Indian organization claim it had a interception ratio of 99 %(exactly around 97 %)on which basis u discard it,by stating that no other country have it,if that is the criteria then ur missile test success rate is also questionable,since that are miles ahead then each and every nation in the world that dominate this technology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Sheer numbers dont work here my friend,ABM is not designed to block each and every missile in ur inventory,its purpose is altogether different,it is only developed to gather a grace period,we will not wait untill Pakistan fire each and every missile in its inventory toward us,as soon as u launch ur first missile,we will also reciprocate from here,ABM is only there to provide the much needed extra time,now to overwhelm the defense system if u launch all ur missiles in a single attempt that is a differet scenario,but even then I dont think u have a single launcher for each and every missile u have in ur inventory.
> 
> 2*.I am not talking about S-300 here,u know,we had that even in the 90's*,there is nothing new,I am talking about AAD and PDV which will be inducted by 2013,now If u thing an MIRV version will be available at Pakistan's disposal by that time thats a different matter.
> 
> 3.Remember I am not talking about intercepting stones here,I am talking about BM,MaRV,chaff's,flares,all this are nothing new,MarV is not about changing trajectory,it just a gliding technique,ABM is designed keeping this in mind,once again the current ABM shield is a two tier network will be also coupled with S-300 and Akash



we have S 300? its new info for me. can you give me link?


----------



## The Deterrent

IND151 said:


> we have S 300? its new info for me. can you give me link?



India has 6 batteries of S-300PMU,each having 48 SAMs.

S-300PMU SA-10 GRUMBLE - Russia / Soviet Nuclear Forces

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IND151

^^ wiki doesn't say so.

any other respected source?


----------



## The Deterrent

IND151 said:


> ^^ wiki doesn't say so.
> 
> any other respected source?



First,wikipedia is not always the reliable source.

There were reports that India concluded a deal of $ 1 Billion for the procurement of the S-300 PMU missiles.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/29632-indian-missiles-news-discussions-60.html

But it is ambiguous,since there are no pictures available ,showing S-300 in Indian possession... The system has neither participated in any of the Indian weapons' display parades nor it has been showcased in any Indian defense exhibition.


----------



## kaykay

AhaseebA said:


> India has 6 batteries of S-300PMU,each having 48 SAMs.
> 
> S-300PMU SA-10 GRUMBLE - Russia / Soviet Nuclear Forces



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


----------



## The Deterrent

*NOTE: *
* The modifications/upgrades mentioned in the above article (post # 158) are based On pictures available of the missiles (describing their outer structure)and quotes from former Chairman NESCOM Dr. Samar Mubarakmand.

The described picture-based modifications are of the outer structure,which affects the missiles' aerodynamic performances.The modifications/upgrades made inside the missile (electronics/mission computers/guidance systems etc) are not known fully,and may be even of greater significance than the structural modifications.*


----------



## The Deterrent

kaykay said:


> 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

AhaseebA said:


> *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.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Deterrent

DARKY said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 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?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cyphercide

DARKY said:


> 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

cyphercide said:


> 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

AhaseebA said:


> 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

cyphercide said:


> 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

AhaseebA said:


> 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

cyphercide said:


> 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

paki1 said:


> 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

AhaseebA said:


> 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

AhaseebA said:


> @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 ----------




cyphercide said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Deterrent

DARKY said:


> 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.



The reason why I say this because you simply ignore (****) the information given in my posts and come up misinformed...anyway,no hard feelings. 



DARKY said:


> 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



Again you didn't look into depressed trajectory of ballistic missiles...

_According to [1]_


> If a missile is flown over shorter ranges,the excess energy can be used to fly *less energy-efficient trajectories*,such as low-apogee or "depressed" trajectories.Missiles flown on a depressed trajectory (DT) can have *significantly shorter flight paths*,and therefore *significantly shorter flight times*,than those flown on a standard trajectory of the same range.



Although this para discusses SLBMs,but the same method can be used in any BM,specially in the case of Indo-Pak situation.


> There are several reasons why DT SLBMs may be useful in countering missile defenses. First, the *short flight times* of DT SLBMs limit the time available for an antimissile system to intercept the incoming warheads. Second, the *low profile of depressed trajectories *can greatly decrease the range over which a ground-based radar can observe and track the missile, also decreasing the time available for the intercept. Finally, space-based defenses such as the proposed Brilliant Pebbles system are limited to attacking targets at altitudes above about 100 kilometers because of the rapid increase in atmospheric density below this level, which results in extreme heating of the sensors on kinetic interceptors. DTs with apogees below this altitude could therefore *underfly such defensive systems*;we find that it is possible to fly a shaped trajectory with an apogee of less than 100 kilometers for ranges of roughly 2,000 kilometers or less.



In effect,Indian Quasi-Ballistic missile "Shaurya" also has a depressed trajectory.Tell me that it is too a short-coming of rocket motors.
But Shaurya uses a powerful motor to travel through the atmosphere,maintaining a low altitude.



DARKY said:


> 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.



You also don't know much about aerospikes and are merely speculating.

A simple definition "A drag-reducing aerospike is a device used to *reduce the forebody pressure drag* of blunt bodies at supersonic speeds. The aerospike creates a detached shock ahead of the body. Between the shock and the forebody a zone of recirculating flow occurs which acts like a more streamlined forebody profile, *reducing the drag*."



> This concept was used on the Trident missile and is estimated to have *increased the range by 550 km*. The Trident aerospike consists of a flat circular plate mounted on an extensible boom which is *deployed shortly after the missile breaks through the surface of the water* after launch from the submarine. The use of the aerospike allowed a much blunter nose shape, providing increased internal volume for payload and propulsion without increasing the drag.





> The aerospike, a telescoping outward extension that halves aerodynamic drag, is then deployed, and the boost phase begins.



It is clearly mentioned that the aerospike is deployed after the missile emerges out of water.It is also apparent that the aero-spike increases range and speed.
And where the hell did you see that aerospike is used to improve accuracy?...how?

Actually,both the aerospike and the depressed trajectory should be employed together.The aerospike will decrease drag faced in DT,hence the need of a powerful engine is eliminated to some extent.And I believe,this is the method applied to the modernized Ghaznavi.



DARKY said:


> 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....



Yes,all modern BMs have post-correction system.But only long range BMs have Terminal Correction system.
And yes,TCS incorporates a flex nozzle and side-thrusters fitted on the ReV.



DARKY said:


> 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.....



Agreed...but Pakistan didn't incorporate it after the solid fueled missiles ere inducted.The Ghauri series was the pioneer of Pakistani missiles and is expected to be retired.I believe that Ghauri-I has already been retired.



DARKY said:


> 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...



I would say,an indigenously developed first-stage motor for Shaheen-II... It has no counterpart in the Chinese arsenal. so 



DARKY said:


> Now A few questions about your most modern missile....



I didn't say it was the most modern in its class in the world.But it is the most modern missile of Pakistan.



> Does it have different and better fuel than Its earlier version ??


No...the fuel is the same.


> Does it have different motors ??


The second stage has a faster motor.


> Does it have automated internal guidance system ??


Yes,the INS is present even in Ghauri-II,Shaheen-I and Ghaznavi.


> Does it have artificial intelligence or a robotic computers ??


Is that a joke? 
BTW,it does have a mission computer.


> Does it have flex nozzle ??


Yes,thats what helps the TCS and makes up the MaRV.


> Does it have composite casing ??


I don't know about that.Most probably,no.


> Does it have RV with additional fuel and motors ??


The ReV is called a "vehicle" because of a small motor which corrects the trajectory 



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



You are highly over-estimating Indian ABMs and highly under-estimating Pakistani BMs,taking them for mere Scuds.

*Referrence :*

[1] http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...trajectory+slbms+pdf&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=pk

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Deterrent

@DARKY....the video you posted is of PAD (Pradyumna),not of AAD(Ashwin)...


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> Again you didn't look into depressed trajectory of ballistic missiles...
> 
> _According to [1]_
> 
> 
> Although this para discusses SLBMs,but the same method can be used in any BM,specially in the case of Indo-Pak situation.
> 
> 
> In effect,Indian Quasi-Ballistic missile "Shaurya" also has a depressed trajectory.Tell me that it is too a short-coming of rocket motors.
> But Shaurya uses a powerful motor to travel through the atmosphere,maintaining a low altitude.
> 
> 
> 
> You also don't know much about aerospikes and are merely speculating.
> 
> A simple definition "A drag-reducing aerospike is a device used to *reduce the forebody pressure drag* of blunt bodies at supersonic speeds. The aerospike creates a detached shock ahead of the body. Between the shock and the forebody a zone of recirculating flow occurs which acts like a more streamlined forebody profile, *reducing the drag*."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is clearly mentioned that the aerospike is deployed after the missile emerges out of water.It is also apparent that the aero-spike increases range and speed.
> And where the hell did you see that aerospike is used to improve accuracy?...how?
> 
> Actually,both the aerospike and the depressed trajectory should be employed together.The aerospike will decrease drag faced in DT,hence the need of a powerful engine is eliminated to some extent.And I believe,this is the method applied to the modernized Ghaznavi.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,all modern BMs have post-correction system.But only long range BMs have Terminal Correction system.
> And yes,TCS incorporates a flex nozzle and side-thrusters fitted on the ReV.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed...but Pakistan didn't incorporate it after the solid fueled missiles ere inducted.The Ghauri series was the pioneer of Pakistani missiles and is expected to be retired.I believe that Ghauri-I has already been retired.
> 
> 
> 
> I would say,an indigenously developed first-stage motor for Shaheen-II... It has no counterpart in the Chinese arsenal. so
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it was the most modern in its class in the world.But it is the most modern missile of Pakistan.
> 
> 
> No...the fuel is the same.
> 
> The second stage has a faster motor.
> 
> Yes,the INS is present even in Ghauri-II,Shaheen-I and Ghaznavi.
> 
> Is that a joke?
> BTW,it does have a mission computer.
> 
> Yes,thats what helps the TCS and makes up the MaRV.
> 
> I don't know about that.Most probably,no.
> 
> The ReV is called a "vehicle" because of a small motor which corrects the trajectory
> 
> 
> 
> You are highly over-estimating Indian ABMs and highly under-estimating Pakistani BMs,taking them for mere Scuds.
> 
> *Referrence :*
> 
> [1] www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/pdf/3_1-2gronlund.pdf+depressed+trajectory+slbms+pdf&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=pk]A Technical Evaluation and Arms Control Possibilities[/url]



Taking of depressed trajectory.... Its nothing but a half elliptical path.... with very less speed.... yes It avoids detection by very long range X-band radars.... However It cannot escape the LRTR such as swordfish..... or green pine.... since they have been designed to..... to track such trajectories...

The velocity is also very less and moreover the low flight path means even shorter celling height ABMs can take care of it.... Aswin has been tested with such trajectories..... to check the reaction time of the automatic system.

Artificial Intelligence is not a joke.... and It is very important part of modern weapon systems.... It might sound joke to people who still believe in scud missiles.

I would to know the source of your information regarding Flex nozzle in ReV of Shaheen II.

---------- Post added at 10:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 PM ----------




AhaseebA said:


> @DARKY....the video you posted is of PAD (Pradyumna),not of AAD(Ashwin)...



Yes I realized after posting.... never mind that also shows maneuvers....


----------



## The Deterrent

DARKY said:


> Taking of depressed trajectory.... Its nothing but a half elliptical path.... with very less speed.... yes It avoids detection by very long range X-band radars.... However It cannot escape the LRTR such as swordfish..... or green pine.... since they have been designed to..... to track such trajectories...
> 
> The velocity is also very less and moreover the low flight path means even shorter celling height ABMs can take care of it.... Aswin has been tested with such trajectories..... to check the reaction time of the automatic system.



Well you cannot say "it is nothing but this" to everything...
Agreed that DT is a half elliptical path,with the missile having a lower velocity than that in a normal flight path.It is not that low,so that both flight times are equal.DT offers shorter flight time.

Agreed that the modernized Ghaznavi can be detected and intercepted by the proposed yet-to-be deployed Indian BMD.



> Artificial Intelligence is not a joke.... and It is very important part of modern weapon systems.... It might sound joke to people who still believe in scud missiles.



I know that AI has been "in" from the 90's.
The question is,what do you mean by AI here,employed by Ballistic missiles.
I presume that you are trying to say that the mission computer should be intelligent,to detect the incoming ABM and choose the available counter-measure,including changing flight path rapidly.

Then no,Pakistan's missile technology is not that advanced.Although Shaheen-II has a mission computer which automatically corrects trajectory after stage and ReV seperations and during re-entry.



> I would to know the source of your information regarding Flex nozzle in ReV of Shaheen II.



Well,my source is an inside one,although the news of Shaheen-II being capable of radically changing its trajectory has been mentioned in several news reports.


Dude,I understand that you are inspired by Agni-IIP alot,thats why you bring up terms like "composites" and "flex nozzles".Believe me,Shaheen-II (upgrade) is very similar to Agni-IIP,except that it does not incorporates composite materials and "artificial intelligence" (btw kindly explain what you mean by this).

Also,your assumption that these missiles are just repainted,licensed-built,copied,modified Scuds will lead you to nowhere.I will elaborate on that in a while.
"To defeat your enemy,you need to know it first".

That said,honestly I don't think you know much about Pakistani BMs,since you said that Ghauri-II has two stages when it has one.
You are seeing only one side of the coin,and it has led you to chest-thump  on the capabilities of Indian ABMs.


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> Well you cannot say "it is nothing but this" to everything...
> Agreed that DT is a half elliptical path,with the missile having a lower velocity than that in a normal flight path.It is not that low,so that both flight times are equal.DT offers shorter flight time.
> 
> Agreed that the modernized Ghaznavi can be detected and intercepted by the proposed yet-to-be deployed Indian BMD.
> 
> 
> 
> I know that AI has been "in" from the 90's.
> The question is,what do you mean by AI here,employed by Ballistic missiles.
> I presume that you are trying to say that the mission computer should be intelligent,to detect the incoming ABM and choose the available counter-measure,including changing flight path rapidly.
> 
> Then no,Pakistan's missile technology is not that advanced.Although Shaheen-II has a mission computer which automatically corrects trajectory after stage and ReV seperations and during re-entry.
> 
> 
> 
> Well,my source is an inside one,although the news of Shaheen-II being capable of radically changing its trajectory has been mentioned in several news reports.
> 
> 
> Dude,I understand that you are inspired by Agni-IIP alot,thats why you bring up terms like "composites" and "flex nozzles".Believe me,Shaheen-II (upgrade) is very similar to Agni-IIP,except that it does not incorporates composite materials and "artificial intelligence" (btw kindly explain what you mean by this).
> 
> Also,your assumption that these missiles are just repainted,licensed-built,copied,modified Scuds will lead you to nowhere.I will elaborate on that in a while.
> "To defeat your enemy,you need to know it first".
> 
> That said,honestly I don't think you know much about Pakistani BMs,since you said that Ghauri-II has two stages when it has one.
> You are seeing only one side of the coin,and it has led you to chest-thump  on the capabilities of Indian ABMs.



No.... DT takes more time.... since the velocity is low and a bigger path is followed.... test a depressed trajectory on a round object and normal one u'll see the difference..... and do that with a piece of thread for accurate measurements.

Artificial Intelligence is the robotic memory which makes the computer function without any manual command.... Its very difficult to mount any antenna on a BM or its ReV....to detect any Offensive ABM.... and take countermeasures... It is simply not possible... even if you use break through heat shields the detection and evading time would be very less at such speed and such size....of the antenna.

Every BM has a ground link... used to guide it upto certain stage in its flight path and the ones like Agni I/II, Shaheen I/II or DF-21 have it..... the mission computer uses these inputs and the data feed at the launch to guide the missile in its path.... and correct the mid course flight.... the real difference come when It is the computer which makes the correction and has no linkage from the ground..... such a ground linkage is necessary for safety measures and is used when there is something wrong with missile.... and it is asked to self destruct while the artificial intelligence keeps the track of health of missile and decides weather to abort mission or continue with it.... along with course correction methods.... the ring laser gyroscopes and accelerometer is used as standards while correcting the unnecessary deviations and distortions in the missile path.

Having ability to change path and flex nozzles are two different things.... however I would take your word on that note for the ReV of Shaheen II...

My good friend Agni IIP has technologies derived from Brahmos, Shurya, and Agni III programs and its actually a test bed for technologies to be used on Agni V..... and interestingly It has some sort of antenna on it ReV.... quiet uncharacteristic of any BM..... Composite motors, Composite casings as well as High Heat resistant ReV which can withstand an explosion of a nuclear warhead upto 500m distance.... is a result of CFC structures research done for Tejas program which is paying highly nowadays.... If you have such ReV then you are near immune to proximity fuse ABMs.... and only Kinetic Kill vehicles like... THAAD or Ashwin can harm you..... only Russia employees such technology on its ReV and India has just tested it on an Improved Agni III, and Agni IIP, Shaurya.... and would be a part of Agni V programme....

These newer missiles are totally different with different motors, different fuel, different body, etc... only Agni IIP shares the same design....


----------



## DARKY

I am pointing the shortcomings of working on old technologies.... Pakistan should introduce newer generation BMs...... to counter India's ABM/BMD systems.


----------



## The Deterrent

Dude,thats why I say you keep shitting my posts and trash them...



DARKY said:


> No.... DT takes more time.... since the velocity is low and *a bigger path is followed*.... test a depressed trajectory on a round object and normal one u'll see the difference..... and do that with a piece of thread for accurate measurements.



DT takes more time?.....I don't think so,given that you have 2 missiles with same range but different trajectories...

A bigger path is followed?  Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

does the term "depressed" means anything to you?...well,it means lowered...having lower altitude.Apparently,you ignored my previous post(s). Here it is again...



> If a missile is flown over shorter ranges,the excess energy can be used to fly less energy-efficient trajectories,such as low-apogee or "depressed" trajectories.Missiles flown on a depressed trajectory (DT) can have *significantly shorter flight paths,*and therefore *significantly shorter flight times*,than those flown on a standard trajectory of the same range.



However,if DT is applied to a missile without any modifications,its range decreases radically along with it speed.Thats where the aero-spike and a powerful motor come in.

I am not implying that Ghaznavi cannot be intercepted by the "being-developed" Indian ABM.What I am saying,is that Ghaznavi/M-11/Scud-C could reach the 300km mark without any modification.Now,when modifications are being made to Ghaznavi,it most certainly means that it will follow a depressed trajectory (by incorporating aerspike and a powerful motor) to reach its 290 km mark.



DARKY said:


> Artificial Intelligence is the robotic memory which makes the computer function without any manual command.... Its very difficult to mount any antenna on a BM or its ReV....to detect any Offensive ABM.... and take countermeasures... It is simply not possible... even if you use break through heat shields the detection and evading time would be very less at such speed and such size....of the antenna.



Totally agreed.The sheer speed and heating of the ReV will make it impossible for any MRBM to deploy effective evading measures.



DARKY said:


> Every BM has a ground link... used to guide it upto certain stage in its flight path and the ones like Agni I/II, Shaheen I/II or DF-21 have it..... the mission computer uses these inputs and the data feed at the launch to guide the missile in its path.... and correct the mid course flight.... the real difference come when It is the computer which makes the correction and has no linkage from the ground..... such a ground linkage is necessary for safety measures and is used when there is something wrong with missile.... and it is asked to self destruct while the artificial intelligence keeps the track of health of missile and decides weather to abort mission or continue with it....



Just wanted to add,every guided ballistic missile is a pre-programmed one.There are no manual inputs required during flight for an operational BM (except while testing,and that too,to self-destruct). The mission computer is autonomous,and it makes trajectory corrections by itself.By receiving data from the inertial Navigation System (self-guidance) or space based guidance systems (GPS/GLONASS/COMPASS) or celestial guidance (self-guidance).

No,our missiles cannot abort flight by themselves.



DARKY said:


> along with course correction methods.... the ring laser gyroscopes and accelerometer is used as standards while correcting the unnecessary deviations and distortions in the missile path.



The laser ring gyroscopes and accelerometer constitute the Inertial Navigation System (INS).This guidance is found in every ballistic missile of ours,since it is the simplest guidance.Although it is not very very accurate.



DARKY said:


> Having ability to change path and flex nozzles are two different things.... however I would take your word on that note for the ReV of Shaheen II...



Good...but what do you mean? The trajectory is corrected/adjusted/changed by using flex nozzles and thrusters.How else are you supposed to change flight path (out of the atmosphere)?


DARKY said:


> My good friend Agni IIP has technologies derived from Brahmos, Shurya, and Agni III programs and its actually a test bed for technologies to be used on Agni V..... and interestingly It has some sort of antenna on it ReV.... quiet uncharacteristic of any BM..... Composite motors, Composite casings as well as High Heat resistant ReV which can withstand an explosion of a nuclear warhead upto 500m distance.... is a result of CFC structures research done for Tejas program which is paying highly nowadays.... If you have such ReV then you are near immune to proximity fuse ABMs.... and only Kinetic Kill vehicles like... THAAD or Ashwin can harm you..... only Russia employees such technology on its ReV and India has just tested it on an Improved Agni III, and Agni IIP, Shaurya.... and would be a part of Agni V programme....



I didn't say that Agni-IIP is not an advanced missile.Of course it is,and IMO Agni-II should be completely replaced by the Agni-IIP.



DARKY said:


> These newer missiles are totally different with different motors, different fuel, different body, etc... only Agni IIP shares the same design....



Agreed.Thats very good.


----------



## The Deterrent

DARKY said:


> I am pointing the shortcomings of working on old technologies.... Pakistan should introduce newer generation BMs...... to counter India's ABM/BMD systems.



I understand what you are trying to say.That Pakistan should introduce systems like Shaurya,BrahMos,Prahaar to effectively modernize its Ballistic missiles.
You have to understand,that Pakistan does not have the money for these type of new and expensive projects.I will also post about the possible improvements that could be made on the existing systems in a while.


----------



## muse

India have an operational ABM system ? Do tell...


----------



## IndianArmy

muse said:


> India have an operational ABM system ? Do tell...



India might not have an operational ABM yet, but we do have an air defence SAM(AKASH) tested in Anti-ballistic missile roles just like Patriots of US.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LiberalAtheist

for the ones who don't know India's ABM is not just for defense against Ballistic missiles but low flying cruise missiles so the Babur and Raa'd have been countered here is proof AAD 







the ABM currently has ability to protect against missiles of the 2,000km range class however soon it will be upgraded to 5,000km with 3 new missiles like the AD-1 AD-2 and the PDV and in that case any missile threat from Pakistan will have been taken care of as anything above 3,000km would overshoot India to defend against Chinese missiles we need missiles that can intercept missiles of the ~7,000km range class (from Harbin to Sulur is around 6,500km) it is unclear about our ABM there are reports we may still procure Israeli Arrow 2 missiles or that we are interested in S-400/S-500 systems, and even NATO willing to help India in missile defense 

right we will have to wait and see but once when the ABM is up and running (by 2015) Pakistan will be at a serious disposition

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

India has a huge coastline. A huge Pakistani fleet of submarine based missiles would keep India guessing which coast to defend.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cyphercide

DARKY said:


> 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.



Well,let's agree to disagree on this context.I still would consider singular lower atmosphere hypersonic ballistic missiles a bigger concern with it's lower flight-time and the higher probability of it evading radars.


----------



## LiberalAtheist

Developereo said:


> India has a huge coastline. A huge Pakistani fleet of submarine based missiles would keep India guessing which coast to defend.



which is why the AESA ABM radars are designed to cover areas the size of at least 3,000 square km plus we have spy satellites so the element of surprise is really taken away


----------



## drunken-monke

Developereo said:


> India has a huge coastline. A huge Pakistani fleet of submarine based missiles would keep India guessing which coast to defend.



Well you are right and Indian Navy will only guess where to search for these Submarines. after all, all thoes P8 are only for having a plesant flight over sea dont you think??


----------



## SBD-3

AhaseebA said:


> I understand what you are trying to say.That Pakistan should introduce systems like Shaurya,BrahMos,Prahaar to effectively modernize its Ballistic missiles.
> You have to understand,that Pakistan does not have the money for these type of new and expensive projects.I will also post about the possible improvements that could be made on the existing systems in a while.


Prahaar is roughy in Nasr class, Brahmos is also of tactical nature and supersonic cruise missles have a long development history origens of which can be tracked from Russia. I said it earlier onething comes at the cost of other, being supersonic the manuverbility is lost....secondly the SAM missile is also supersonic and having an non manuverable target makes life much easier for a fast moving interceptor, If I can recall the interview of an F-15 pilot who engaged a supersonic Mig-25 in desert strom ,"When we truned in merge, i could see him lost as his turn would be of the size of arizona while mine would of some miles". Thats why western nations still like Subsonic CMs for land attack preferabally. And lastly, NESCOM continously runs its programs, Dr Samar said that they never faced shortage of funds from government and were allocated the required amount.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

PunjabiSidhu said:


> which is why the AESA ABM radars are designed to cover areas the size of at least 3,000 square km plus we have spy satellites so the element of surprise is really taken away



Surely you know the difference between 3000 sqkm v/s 3000 km straight line coast-to-coast distance.

More importantly, India has focussed their defence along the Pakistani border. Will India spend the money to deploy an equally dense ABM system along the eastern coast?




drunken-monke said:


> Well you are right and Indian Navy will only guess where to search for these Submarines. after all, all thoes P8 are only for having a plesant flight over sea dont you think??



If submarines were so easy to detect, the concept of sea-based nuclear deterrance would not exist.


----------



## SBD-3

drunken-monke said:


> Well you are right and Indian Navy will only guess where to search for these Submarines. after all, all thoes P8 are only for having a plesant flight over sea dont you think??


How innocent.....I am amazed how some posters here take things for granted....be it any ASW platform, unless a sub does not give away its position, its very difficult to even detect one (let alone engage it). I am full of smiles when some posters come here with RTS games mentality. A sub is like an covert agent on its own, disconnected from external world when on its task. The general principal states the more noise, the more *Chance* of it being detected, the more *Chance* it being engaged, the more *Chance* it being destroyed. So effectively a sub is itself responsible for its destruction rather than ASW platform


----------



## drunken-monke

hasnain0099 said:


> How innocent.....I am amazed how some posters here take things for granted....be it any ASW platform, unless a sub does not give away its position, its very difficult to even detect one (let alone engage it). I am full of smiles when some posters come here with RTS games mentality. A sub is like an covert agent on its own, disconnected from external world when on its task. The general principal states the more noise, the more *Chance* of it being detected, the more *Chance* it being engaged, the more *Chance* it being destroyed. So effectively a sub is itself responsible for its destruction rather than ASW platform



Anti-submarine warfare (ASW, or in older form A/S) is a branch of naval warfare that uses surface warships, aircraft, or other submarines to find, track and deter, damage or destroy enemy submarines.

Successful anti-submarine warfare depends on a mix of sensor and weapon technology, training, experience and luck. Sophisticated sonar equipment for first detecting, then classifying, locating and tracking the target submarine is a key element of ASW. To destroy submarines both the torpedo and mine are used, launched from air, surface and underwater platforms. 

My first question is how many of Pakistan's submarine are nucleared powered??

As far as my knowledge is concerned majority are Diseal electric powered one

There are a large number of technologies used in modern anti-submarine warfare:

Sensors 
Acoustics particularly in active and passive sonar, sonobuoys and fixed hydrophones and in the reduction of radiated noise. 
Pyrotechnics in the use of markers, flares and explosive devices 
Searchlights 
Radar 
Low frequency spread-spectrum electromagnetic surface wave devices 
Active spread-spectrum magnetic techniques 
Hydrodynamic pressure wave detection 
Blue-green laser airborne and satellite LIDAR 
Electronic countermeasures and Acoustic Countermeasures such as noisemakers 
Passive acoustic countermeasures such as concealment and design of sound-absorbing materials to coat reflecting underwater surfaces 
Magnetic anomaly detection (MAD) 
Active and (more commonly) passive infra-red detection 
In modern times Forward looking infrared (FLIR) detectors have been used to track the large plumes of heat that fast nuclear-powered submarines leave while rising to the surface. FLIR devices are also used to see periscopes or snorkels at night whenever a submariner might be incautious enough to probe the surface.

The active sonar used in such operations is often of "mid-frequency", approximately 3.5 kHz. Because of the quietening of submarines, resulting in shorter passive detection ranges, there has been interest in low frequency active for ocean surveillance. However, there have been protests about the use of medium and low frequency high-powered active sonar because of its effects on whales. Others argue the high power level of some LFA (Low Frequency Active) sonars is actually detrimental to sonar performance in that such sonars are reverberation limited.

Today some nations have seabed listening devices capable of tracking submarines. It is known to be possible to detect man-made marine noises across the southern Indian Ocean from South Africa to New Zealand. Some of the SOSUS arrays have been turned over to civilian use and are now used for marine research.

Well in India's case, there are dedicated military satellite which would help in thermal imaging (if am not wrong), P8 are very much potent anti- sub platform and most importantly indian navy is much more large, well equipted and has that much resources.

Though I must say still tracking a submarine is not a walk in the park, but sure can be tracked...

regards


----------



## cyphercide

^^^ Just to add to your post,conventional submarines that do not employ a nuclear propulsion system can't engage in elaborate routes to throw the enemy off-guard due to it's fuel limitations.It takes some of the guesswork on which routes that they might take out of the equation.


----------



## Developereo

If you guys are so confident of your ability to track submarines, that is excellent news for Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## muse

IndianArmy said:


> India might not have an operational ABM yet, but we do have an air defence SAM(AKASH) tested in Anti-ballistic missile roles just like Patriots of US.



So the entire thread is based essentially, on much Khiali palau?


----------



## IND151

AhaseebA said:


> 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.



MIRV warheads are not easy to intercept.

you are right.

before MIRV interceptors had upper hand over BMs as they had only one warhead.

situation changed with MIRV as missiles were able to carry 6 to 10 warheads while interceptors were unable to do so


----------



## IndianArmy

muse said:


> So the entire thread is based essentially, on much Khiali palau?


 
The technology is the factor, the thread if I am not wrong questions the counter medicine to the ABM Technology India Possesses. Nothing is materialistic in this world apart from a few cutting edge technologies such as these.


----------



## SBD-3

drunken-monke said:


> Anti-submarine warfare (ASW, or in older form A/S) is a branch of naval warfare that uses surface warships, aircraft, or other submarines to find, track and deter, damage or destroy enemy submarines.
> 
> Successful anti-submarine warfare depends on a mix of sensor and weapon technology, training, experience and luck. Sophisticated sonar equipment for first detecting, then classifying, locating and tracking the target submarine is a key element of ASW. To destroy submarines both the torpedo and mine are used, launched from air, surface and underwater platforms.
> 
> My first question is how many of Pakistan's submarine are nucleared powered??
> 
> As far as my knowledge is concerned majority are or Diseal electric powered one
> 
> There are a large number of technologies used in modern anti-submarine warfare:
> 
> Sensors
> Acoustics particularly in active and passive sonar, sonobuoys and fixed hydrophones and in the reduction of radiated noise.
> Pyrotechnics in the use of markers, flares and explosive devices
> Searchlights
> Radar
> Low frequency spread-spectrum electromagnetic surface wave devices
> Active spread-spectrum magnetic techniques
> Hydrodynamic pressure wave detection
> Blue-green laser airborne and satellite LIDAR
> Electronic countermeasures and Acoustic Countermeasures such as noisemakers
> Passive acoustic countermeasures such as concealment and design of sound-absorbing materials to coat reflecting underwater surfaces
> Magnetic anomaly detection (MAD)
> Active and (more commonly) passive infra-red detection
> In modern times Forward looking infrared (FLIR) detectors have been used to track the large plumes of heat that fast nuclear-powered submarines leave while rising to the surface. FLIR devices are also used to see periscopes or snorkels at night whenever a submariner might be incautious enough to probe the surface.
> 
> The active sonar used in such operations is often of "mid-frequency", approximately 3.5 kHz. Because of the quietening of submarines, resulting in shorter passive detection ranges, there has been interest in low frequency active for ocean surveillance. However, there have been protests about the use of medium and low frequency high-powered active sonar because of its effects on whales. Others argue the high power level of some LFA (Low Frequency Active) sonars is actually detrimental to sonar performance in that such sonars are reverberation limited.
> 
> Today some nations have seabed listening devices capable of tracking submarines. It is known to be possible to detect man-made marine noises across the southern Indian Ocean from South Africa to New Zealand. Some of the SOSUS arrays have been turned over to civilian use and are now used for marine research.
> 
> Well in India's case, there are dedicated military satellite which would help in thermal imaging (if am not wrong), P8 are very much potent anti- sub platform and most importantly indian navy is much more large, well equipted and has that much resources.
> 
> Though I must say still tracking a submarine is not a walk in the park, but sure can be tracked...
> 
> regards


Just a few things to further clarify....first thing first, you cant detect a sub like an aircraft or a ship or a tank. A things are pre requisitis for detecting a sub
1-One should know that a particular location contains a sub operating
2-then in that particular location what is the possible area where sub has the higher probability of detection
3-Then there is deployment of sensors and other equipment to get the more precise location
4- Then Weapons are used such as depth charges *In hope* that one of them will eventually hit the sub.
The best chance of a sub is to sit quiet underdepth as this would most of the sensing equipment almost ineffective as passive sensors based on acoustic and infrared detection wont hear anything.

Secondly regarding Nuke Subs and Conventional subs, both have their relative advantages and disadvantages. While Nuke sub can practically remain submerged for much much longer time than concventional sub alongwith size and speed advantage. It will also have to eventually surface ( the air in the sub, if remains submerged for longer period, gets contaminated). The noise and heat signature is also larger as compared to disel electric subs. The disel subs are slower and short legged yet quieter than Nukies. The introduction of AIP serves the very purpose of enhacing underwater endurence of disel electric subs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## drunken-monke

hasnain0099 said:


> Just a few things to further clarify....first thing first, you cant detect a sub like an aircraft or a ship or a tank. A things are pre requisitis for detecting a sub
> 1-One should know that a particular location contains a sub operating
> 2-then in that particular location what is the possible area where sub has the higher probability of detection
> 3-Then there is deployment of sensors and other equipment to get the more precise location
> 4- Then Weapons are used such as depth charges *In hope* that one of them will eventually hit the sub.
> The best chance of a sub is to sit quiet underdepth as this would most of the sensing equipment almost ineffective as passive sensors based on acoustic and infrared detection wont hear anything.
> 
> Secondly regarding Nuke Subs and Conventional subs, both have their relative advantages and disadvantages. While Nuke sub can practically remain submerged for much much longer time than concventional sub alongwith size and speed advantage. It will also have to eventually surface ( the air in the sub, if remains submerged for longer period, gets contaminated). The noise and heat signature is also larger as compared to disel electric subs. The disel subs are slower and short legged yet quieter than Nukies. The introduction of AIP serves the very purpose of enhacing underwater endurence of disel electric subs.



I agree to every point you had made, and thanks for sharing the same with us. Thats y I said its not easy to detect subs, but reconaisance, use of tech, surviliance, information gathered by security agencies, thermal imaging satellites. all these taken togather can increase the chances of detecting a sub.

Regards


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> Dude,thats why I say you keep shitting my posts and trash them...
> 
> 
> 
> DT takes more time?.....I don't think so,given that you have 2 missiles with same range but different trajectories...
> 
> A bigger path is followed?  Are you sure you know what you are talking about?
> 
> does the term "depressed" means anything to you?...well,it means lowered...having lower altitude.Apparently,you ignored my previous post(s). Here it is again...
> 
> 
> 
> However,if DT is applied to a missile without any modifications,its range decreases radically along with it speed.Thats where the aero-spike and a powerful motor come in.
> 
> I am not implying that Ghaznavi cannot be intercepted by the "being-developed" Indian ABM.What I am saying,is that Ghaznavi/M-11/Scud-C could reach the 300km mark without any modification.Now,when modifications are being made to Ghaznavi,it most certainly means that it will follow a depressed trajectory (by incorporating aerspike and a powerful motor) to reach its 290 km mark.
> 
> 
> 
> Totally agreed.The sheer speed and heating of the ReV will make it impossible for any MRBM to deploy effective evading measures.
> 
> 
> 
> Just wanted to add,every guided ballistic missile is a pre-programmed one.There are no manual inputs required during flight for an operational BM (except while testing,and that too,to self-destruct). The mission computer is autonomous,and it makes trajectory corrections by itself.By receiving data from the inertial Navigation System (self-guidance) or space based guidance systems (GPS/GLONASS/COMPASS) or celestial guidance (self-guidance).
> 
> No,our missiles cannot abort flight by themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> The laser ring gyroscopes and accelerometer constitute the Inertial Navigation System (INS).This guidance is found in every ballistic missile of ours,since it is the simplest guidance.Although it is not very very accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> Good...but what do you mean? The trajectory is corrected/adjusted/changed by using flex nozzles and thrusters.How else are you supposed to change flight path (out of the atmosphere)?
> 
> 
> I didn't say that Agni-IIP is not an advanced missile.Of course it is,and IMO Agni-II should be completely replaced by the Agni-IIP.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.Thats very good.



I saw whats written in your quote at the earlier post..... In most form DT would take similar amount or greater amount of time in case same missiles are used all depends on the apogee of the missile for both Depressed or normal ballistic trajectory..... now If the motor is powerful enough it would burn the same amount of fuel to reach the apogee height at quicker speed since the density of air would decrease in higher atmosphere..... while the less powerful motor would burn the equal amount of fuel ant still travel relatively slower since the higher density of air..... hence more time taken..... now the path from the apogee is where higher potential energy would convert into higher kinetic energy since the mass is same hence the higher projectile would have higher velocity..... now the difference is between height of apogee for both cases.... you don't need any source for this... can check yourself (remember the earth is spherical so take it into account.... the rotation can be neglected here since it is SRBM)..... ultimately the warhead with low velocity here would be easier to intercept than the one with higher velocity..... the significant advantage for the DT missile would be that it would escape the eye of extra long range X-band tracking radars which have range in excess of 2000-3000 km..... 

Actually the heat would not allow any antenna to function.... hence detection of offensive ABM would not be possible.... you can still perform blind maneuvers and hope not to be intercepted... or reach in the range of proximity fuse.


yes It is pre-programmed.... and inputs are added in mid flight if necessary.... the GPS thing which you mentioned is one such input... artificial intelligence does all that on its own... just attach a laptop and feed the target into missile and forget it.... it makes it a kind of fire and forget system.

The The laser ring gyroscopes and accelerometer are new technologies which are finding its place in newer ballistic missiles like DF-21D, DF-31, DF-41, Bulava, Agni III etc.... It was not there in earlier BMs.... rather normal qyros were used to keep the nose on path.

The path can be corrected in outer space aswell haven't you seen satellites correcting their path.... or the manned missions.... etc.... how would these things operate in space if they could not correct or alter their path.... space is full of surprise elements and unknown threads which popup all of a sudden.... In case just to remind you Rocket fuel does not require any air.


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> I understand what you are trying to say.That Pakistan should introduce systems like Shaurya,BrahMos,Prahaar to effectively modernize its Ballistic missiles.
> You have to understand,that Pakistan does not have the money for these type of new and expensive projects.I will also post about the possible improvements that could be made on the existing systems in a while.



New systems like Agni III, Agni IIP, Shaurya, DF-21 (later models).... etc... etc... Brahmos and Prahaar are two different things..... yes it would cost a little but that is necessary and you can't live on those preemptive concepts for long by the time your money comes.... the 2nd phase of BMD would be operational.... so its better to start now.... rather than wasting the same money on older concepts.... and unnecessary nukes.... one capable is better than 100 in incapables.


----------



## DARKY

To all.... *PLEASE LIMIT THIS TO BM AND ABM DISCUSSION*.... don't bring your unnecessary crap here.

I think there are many threads running full time about subs-P8Is-P3C.... and naval wars.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LiberalAtheist

Developereo said:


> Surely you know the difference between 3000 sqkm v/s 3000 km straight line coast-to-coast distance.
> 
> More importantly, India has focussed their defence along the Pakistani border. Will India spend the money to deploy an equally dense ABM system along the eastern coast?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If submarines were so easy to detect, the concept of sea-based nuclear deterrance would not exist.



obviously thats what the swordfish radar we developed with help from the Israelis can do its technologies are similar to the green pine which is one of the worlds most capable anti ballistic radar and the radar will be upgraded to preform even more capably against BM's

---------- Post added at 09:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 PM ----------




chengdusudise said:


> indian ABM?it just is a joke, why should pakistan counter a joke?



to you its a joke for us its reality


----------



## KS

How can Pakistan tackle the Indian ABM system ?

--- By coming to terms with the fact that J&K is an integral part of India and accepting the LoC to be the IB.


----------



## LiberalAtheist

KS said:


> How can Pakistan tackle the Indian ABM system ?
> 
> --- By coming to terms with the fact that J&K is an integral part of India and accepting the LoC to be the IB.



pretty much... when AD-1 AD-2 and PDV enter the picture then they really have to face this


----------



## DARKY

KS said:


> How can Pakistan tackle the Indian ABM system ?
> 
> --- By coming to terms with the fact that J&K is an integral part of India and accepting the LoC to be the IB.



I doubt it.... I don't think our Military Generals would be satisfied with this.... they would go for a bigger yard stick and demand rest of Kashmir aswell..... they can't let their billions of $$ investment in their costly war machine rot with time....


----------



## The Deterrent

DARKY said:


> I saw whats written in your quote at the earlier post..... In most form DT would take similar amount or greater amount of time in case same missiles are used all depends on the apogee of the missile for both Depressed or normal ballistic trajectory..... now If the motor is powerful enough it would burn the same amount of fuel to reach the apogee height at quicker speed since the density of air would decrease in higher atmosphere..... while the less powerful motor would burn the equal amount of fuel ant still travel relatively slower since the higher density of air..... hence more time taken..... now the path from the apogee is where higher potential energy would convert into higher kinetic energy since the mass is same hence the higher projectile would have higher velocity..... now the difference is between height of apogee for both cases.... you don't need any source for this... can check yourself (remember the earth is spherical so take it into account.... the rotation can be neglected here since it is SRBM)..... ultimately the warhead with low velocity here would be easier to intercept than the one with higher velocity..... the significant advantage for the DT missile would be that it would escape the eye of extra long range X-band tracking radars which have range in excess of 2000-3000 km.....



Look bro...I'm fed up of explaining this thing over and over again...we are not applying daily life physics here.Your concept of depressed trajectory is weak.You are still sticking to the idea of "short coming of less powerful motors".

Depressed trajectory is an intentional step.It is more advanced than making a BM which follows a normal trajectory.The motor has to be made powerful,so that the missile can achieve greater than hypersonic velocities while flying inside the atmosphere.True,that the speed of a DT missile is lesser than that of a normal one,but the distance traveled by the missile (not the one on ground,which is termed as range) is far lesser than the distance which a normal BM travels.Therefore,the time decrease is not significant.

Please use Uncle Google and research on DTs.

To further strengthen my POV,here is a real-life example.The Russian Iskander Tactical Missile System.












Iskander system is capable of making very sharp maneuvers inside the atmosphere,and is capable of defeating the Tactical ABM systems like Patriot PAC-3 SAM,as clearly stated by Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and FAS.

Other examples include Indian Shaurya missile (your very own),American UGM-96 Trident I SLBM etc...

*I am still not implying that Ghaznavi is at the standard of Iskander (it should be)...rather I am speculating that Ghaznavi follows a DT with no maneuvering at all.*


DARKY said:


> Actually the heat would not allow any antenna to function.... hence detection of offensive ABM would not be possible.... you can still perform blind maneuvers and hope not to be intercepted... or reach in the range of proximity fuse.



Yes,the "blind" maneuvers are programmed and it is hoped that the warhead will evade ABMs.Since the ABM system does not know where the warhead will be maneuvering next,hence every move is new for it.So the "blind" maneuvers work perfectly well.


DARKY said:


> yes It is pre-programmed.... and inputs are added in mid flight if necessary.... the GPS thing which you mentioned is one such input... artificial intelligence does all that on its own... just attach a laptop and feed the target into missile and forget it.... it makes it a kind of fire and forget system.



I don't know what exactly are you talking about.All operational/deployed Ballistic missiles are fire and forget.Unless the system is being tested (self-destruct commands),or new target(s) are assigned in mid-course (e.g. Iskander),or an intentional abort order is given (without any sign of malfunction) so that the missile is stopped from hitting its target.
The missile itself obtains co-ordinates from GPS etc,then corrects the errors in INS to achieve dead accuracy.If thats AI,our missiles have it too.
The missile health monitoring system etc is not there in our missiles.They are good for ICBMs.



DARKY said:


> The The laser ring gyroscopes and accelerometer are new technologies which are finding its place in newer ballistic missiles like DF-21D, DF-31, DF-41, Bulava, Agni III etc.... It was not there in earlier BMs.... rather normal qyros were used to keep the nose on path.



I suppose only Agni-III,Shaurya and ASM-135 ASAT have laser-ring gyroscopes for INS.Kindly state the links for DF-21D, DF-31, DF-41, Bulava having laser ring gyroscopes.
Yes,it is a new technology,and our missiles don't have it.They simply rely on Gimballed Gyrostabilized Platforms (only a speculation),and might update it with inputs from GPS/Beidou (in future COMPASS) to remove errors.



DARKY said:


> The path can be corrected in outer space aswell haven't you seen satellites correcting their path.... or the manned missions.... etc.... how would these things operate in space if they could not correct or alter their path.... space is full of surprise elements and unknown threads which popup all of a sudden.... In case just to remind you Rocket fuel does not require any air.





I didn't say anywhere that exo-atmospheric corrections can't be made.Maybe you misunderstood me.
Anyway,Shaheen-II uses side thrusters as well as a flexible Hydrazine-based motor to correct (or disturb ) its path in space...

Dude rocket fuel doesn't requires any air,even within the atmosphere.All missiles (liquid,solid,both fueled) have oxidizer and fuel inside the missile.

---------- Post added at 04:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:32 PM ----------




DARKY said:


> New systems like Agni III, Agni IIP, Shaurya, DF-21 (later models).... etc... etc... Brahmos and Prahaar are two different things..... yes it would cost a little but that is necessary and you can't live on those preemptive concepts for long by the time your money comes.... the 2nd phase of BMD would be operational.... so its better to start now.... rather than wasting the same money on older concepts.... and unnecessary nukes.... one capable is better than 100 in incapables.



Better to start now?...how do you know that we aren't developing new systems already?

P.S I know a mixed up DT with quasi-ballistic missile and cruise missile...Here is how I see them.

1. Normal BM = exits and then re-enters atmosphere (e.g. Shaheen-I,Agni-I,Ghauri etc)
2. DT BM = follows a low apogee but still parabolic and ballistic trajectory.Remains inside atmosphere throughout the flight (for SRBM) and reenters (for IRBM).(e.g. Trident SLBM,Ghaznavi etc)
3. Quasi-Ballistic missile = add some maneuvering to DT BM (e.g. Nasr,LORA etc)
4. Solid-fueled cruise missile = maintain the altitude of the maneuvering DT BM (e.g. Shaurya,Iskander etc)


----------



## The Deterrent

chengdusudise said:


> indian ABM?it just is a joke, why should pakistan counter a joke?





KS said:


> How can Pakistan tackle the Indian ABM system ?
> 
> --- By coming to terms with the fact that J&K is an integral part of India and accepting the LoC to be the IB.



*Stop trolling !*


----------



## Developereo

DARKY said:


> To all.... *PLEASE LIMIT THIS TO BM AND ABM DISCUSSION*.... don't bring your unnecessary crap here.
> 
> I think there are many threads running full time about subs-P8Is-P3C.... and naval wars.



SLBM is a BM.


----------



## Storm Force

The indians will spend $billions on countering ballistic missles over the next decade 

I SUGGEST the pakistans do the same SPEND SPEND SPEND $$$ 

ITS AN ARMS RACE 

ULTIMATELY it come down to DOLLARS $$$$44


----------



## LiberalAtheist

once when the entire system is complete with the works like lasers, ABM's, satellites, etc they will have no chance Pakistan will be at a serious disposition and i believe i saw a post concerning Nasr missile a missile like that can be intercepted by the Akash SAM


----------



## KS

AhaseebA said:


> *Stop trolling !*


 
Its not trolling dude.

I'm just going to the root of the matter skipping un-necessary technicalities.


----------



## The Deterrent

KS said:


> Its not trolling dude.
> 
> I'm just going to the root of the matter skipping un-necessary technicalities.


Well in this thread,we have to discuss the "technicalities"...otherwise it would derail pretty soon...


----------



## eiffe

Once fully developed to handle Mirv , only way to counter is to fire hundreds of missiles all at once and hopefuly some will hit


----------



## The Deterrent

PunjabiSidhu said:


> once when the entire system is complete with the works like lasers, ABM's, satellites, etc they will have no chance Pakistan will be at a serious disposition and i believe i saw a post concerning Nasr missile a missile like that can be intercepted by the Akash SAM



Your "entire" system is 15-20 years away from being deployed.

Nasr can only be stopped by a pre-emptive strike on the launch vehicle.The reason why it can evade Akash SAM is because of its maneuverability at low altitudes and very short time of flight (probably less than a minute).

Besides,if India starts intercepting Multi-barelled Rockets (hoping that anyone of them could be Nasr),then good luck


----------



## eiffe

AhaseebA said:


> Your "entire" system is 15-20 years away from being deployed.
> 
> Nasr can only be stopped by a pre-emptive strike on the launch vehicle.The reason why it can evade Akash SAM is because of its maneuverability at low altitudes and very short time of flight (probably less than a minute).
> 
> Besides,if India starts intercepting Multi-barelled Rockets (hoping that anyone of them could be Nasr),then good luck



to you your views, to me mine


----------



## Developereo

PunjabiSidhu said:


> obviously thats what the swordfish radar we developed with help from the Israelis can do its technologies are similar to the green pine which is one of the worlds most capable anti ballistic radar and the radar will be upgraded to preform even more capably against BM's



Can an ABM system deployed along the Pakistani border counter an SLBM heading for Kolkata from the other coast?

Can India afford the political fallout in asserting that Delhi and Mumbai are more worthy of protection than Kolkata or Bangalore?

Having a substantial SLBM capability will force India to triple or quadruple their ABM expenditure.


----------



## The Deterrent

eiffe said:


> to you your views, to me mine



Yeah sure...

The reason I gave the timeline of 15-20 years is due to tha Laser BMD,which according to DRDO chief would take that much time for deployment.Hemce the "entire" system is going to take 15-20 yrs.I know other ABMs (AAD,PAD,PDV,AD-1,AD-2) will be deployed earlier...

P.S.....I didn't reply you.I replied PunjabiSidhu.


----------



## LiberalAtheist

AhaseebA said:


> Your "entire" system is 15-20 years away from being deployed.
> 
> Nasr can only be stopped by a pre-emptive strike on the launch vehicle.The reason why it can evade Akash SAM is because of its maneuverability at low altitudes and very short time of flight (probably less than a minute).
> 
> Besides,if India starts intercepting Multi-barelled Rockets (hoping that anyone of them could be Nasr),then good luck



thats why the ABM date for production is in 2015? and i don't know what kind of math they teach you over there but that is not 15 or 20 years from now  

Nasr is a 60km range missile if Patriot missiles can intercept Scud missiles then our Akash which is similar to the patriot can intercept the Nasr radars and satellites could detect its launch the Akash is maneuverable too why do you think its good for defense against SRBM's? adding on the Akash is entirely road mobile which means it can travel with advancing divisions and tank columns 



to defend against your missiles we need ABM's that can intercept missiles of the 3,000km range class because anything over that would overshoot India but we are going for ABM's to defend against the 5,000km range class not just ABM's laser weapons are being developed too the missile threat from you guys won't stand out for long


----------



## The Deterrent

Developereo said:


> Can an ABM system deployed along the Pakistani border counter an SLBM heading for Kolkata from the other coast?
> 
> Can India afford the political fallout in asserting that Delhi and Mumbai are more worthy of protection than Kolkata or Bangalore?
> 
> Having a substantial SLBM capability will force India to triple or quadruple their ABM expenditure.



Did anybody mention Pakistan has a SLBM?...the program is only on papers,and will be deployed on our "future" Nuclear Submarine.Not happening till 2020.Till then


----------



## The Deterrent

PunjabiSidhu said:


> thats why the ABM date for production is in 2015? and i don't know what kind of math they teach you over there but that is not 15 or 20 years from now
> 
> Nasr is a 60km range missile if Patriot missiles can intercept Scud missiles then our Akash which is similar to the patriot can intercept the Nasr radars and satellites could detect its launch the Akash is maneuverable too why do you think its good for defense against SRBM's? adding on the Akash is entirely road mobile which means it can travel with advancing divisions and tank columns
> 
> 
> 
> to defend against your missiles we need ABM's that can intercept missiles of the 3,000km range class because anything over that would overshoot India but we are going for ABM's to defend against the 5,000km range class not just ABM's laser weapons are being developed too the missile threat from you guys won't stand out for long



I already have clarified the timeline in post # 226.read it.

Scuds were big,unguided,longer ranged missiles.Nasr is battle-field range,sleek and guided+maneuverable quasi-ballistic missile.Aksah is India's first attempt on a SAM,and suddenly it becomes a tactical ABM.

Laser BMD won't be deployed till 2025-2030,according to DRDO chief.


----------



## Developereo

AhaseebA said:


> Did anybody mention Pakistan has an SLBM?...the program is only on papers,and will be deployed on our "future" SLBM.Not happening till 2020.Till then



2020 is not that far off. And the whole point is to make the Indians spread out their defense grid in anticipation of that threat. Although I admit we probably don't have the money for a substantial fleet.


----------



## eiffe

AhaseebA said:


> Did anybody mention Pakistan has a SLBM?...the program is only on papers,and will be deployed on our "future" Nuclear Submarine.Not happening till 2020.Till then



better to go for asat.. slbm wont do much under ABM


----------



## LiberalAtheist

AhaseebA said:


> I already have clarified the timeline in post # 226.read it.
> 
> Scuds were big,unguided,longer ranged missiles.Nasr is battle-field range,sleek and guided+maneuverable quasi-ballistic missile.Aksah is India's first attempt on a SAM,and suddenly it becomes a tactical ABM.
> 
> Laser BMD won't be deployed till 2025-2030,according to DRDO chief.



nonetheless the AD-1 AD-2 PDV and upgraded AESA ABM radar will be functional by 2015 

battle field range proves my point the longer the range of the missile is the faster it travels and the harder it is to intercept Akash is a very capable SAM it can be used as a ABM because it can be fitted with a nuclear warhead and you underestimate it because its Indian but oh well ignorance is bliss  

we do not need laser based BMD against you guys thats for China because they have MIRV's you guys do not.


----------



## LiberalAtheist

Developereo said:


> Can an ABM system deployed along the Pakistani border counter an SLBM heading for Kolkata from the other coast?
> 
> Can India afford the political fallout in asserting that Delhi and Mumbai are more worthy of protection than Kolkata or Bangalore?
> 
> Having a substantial SLBM capability will force India to triple or quadruple their ABM expenditure.



does Pakistan have a SLBM? let alone a submarine capable of launching a ballistic missile? do not kid your self bro 

now see one of the advantages of having a growing economy means you can spend more on your military we only spend less then 2% of our entire GDP on defense if we could not afford it we would have not gone for it 

get a SLBM and a submarine that fires SLBM's first sea based radars are there too that is if we need them satellites can detect the launch of SLBM's ABM is designed to defend areas against missiles launched from land air or sea that is the point of ABM


----------



## Developereo

PunjabiSidhu said:


> does Pakistan have a SLBM? let alone a submarine capable of launching a ballistic missile? do not kid your self bro



Well, the discussion is not what does Pakistan have today to counter Indian ABM system, but what are the possible options.



PunjabiSidhu said:


> now see one of the advantages of having a growing economy means you can spend more on your military we only spend less then 2% of our entire GDP on defense if we could not afford it we would have not gone for it



Yes, I agree that India has a huge advantage in terms of economic capability.



PunjabiSidhu said:


> get a SLBM and a submarine that fires SLBM's first sea based radars are there too that is if we need them satellites can detect the launch of SLBM's ABM is designed to defend areas against missiles launched from land air or sea that is the point of ABM



I think the issue is not so much detection as having a dense enough battery of interceptors within range.


----------



## The Deterrent

PunjabiSidhu said:


> nonetheless the AD-1 AD-2 PDV and upgraded AESA ABM radar will be functional by 2015



Dude claims aside....but it took much time for Phase-I (AAD,PAD) and it isn't going to be deployed till 2014,as per your own media.



> battle field range proves my point the longer the range of the missile is the faster it travels and the harder it is to intercept Akash is a very capable SAM it can be used as a ABM because it can be fitted with a nuclear warhead and you underestimate it because its Indian but oh well ignorance is bliss



Then why are you jumping over that all of our BMs can be intercepted? aren't they faster?
Speed does not matter that much till ICBMs come into play...

I'm not under-estimating Akash.It is a very capable SAM against aircrafts.You are over-estimating its capabilities by saying that it can be used effectively as an ABM.

The problem with you guys is that you see only 1 vs 1 scenario and ignore the full-scale war scenario.Tell me,can India waste its SAMs for intercepting mere MBRL rockets?...and about the nuclear warhead.It is a very primitive method to intercept nukes with nukes (Russia still does it).But again,are you going to nuke your own atmosphere by intercepting rockets and our missiles with nukes? (remember that Akash is an endo-atmospheric SAM).



> we do not need laser based BMD against you guys thats for China because they have MIRV's you guys do not.



See? you are dreaming.Yes,thinking of intercepting Chinese missiles is a dream...and I tell you what,you don't even know about your own Laser BMD.It will be capable of destroying BMs in the boost-phase.Sadly,this will work for Pakistan only,and that too if we launched from Punjab or Sindh.

So,happy dreams


----------



## LiberalAtheist

AhaseebA said:


> Dude claims aside....but it took much time for Phase-I (AAD,PAD) and it isn't going to be deployed till 2014,as per your own media.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are you jumping over that all of our BMs can be intercepted? aren't they faster?
> Speed does not matter that much till ICBMs come into play...
> 
> I'm not under-estimating Akash.It is a very capable SAM against aircrafts.You are over-estimating its capabilities by saying that it can be used effectively as an ABM.
> 
> The problem with you guys is that you see only 1 vs 1 scenario and ignore the full-scale war scenario.Tell me,can India waste its SAMs for intercepting mere MBRL rockets?...and about the nuclear warhead.It is a very primitive method to intercept nukes with nukes (Russia still does it).But again,are you going to nuke your own atmosphere by intercepting rockets and our missiles with nukes? (remember that Akash is an endo-atmospheric SAM).
> 
> 
> 
> See? you are dreaming.Yes,thinking of intercepting Chinese missiles is a dream...and I tell you what,you don't even know about your own Laser BMD.It will be capable of destroying BMs in the boost-phase.Sadly,this will work for Pakistan only,and that too if we launched from Punjab or Sindh.
> 
> So,happy dreams



and VK Saraswat confirmed that the ABM would be in production phase in 2015

Akash is a mobile SAM system with ABM capability its specifications take a look at them the Nasr is a battlefield range missile having 2 mobile missiles it cancels out and Pakistan would not use its strategic missiles on battlefield forces that is the point of having battle field and strategic long range missiles the ABM's in development are for defense against Ghauri Shaheen and all the other missiles 

dude we would not waste a ABM on some artillery rocket besides the warheads used will be kinetic and gimbaled ensuring interception 

yeah and if we cannot intercept the missile in the boost phase we will intercept it in the midcourse or terminal phases 

any Chinese missile over 6,500km would overshoot India (from Harbin to Sulur is 6,300km) different lasers will be made and so will new missiles


----------



## The Deterrent

PunjabiSidhu said:


> and VK Saraswat confirmed that the ABM would be in production phase in 2015



Yes,of phase I and maybe II...but in production,not deployment.ABMs will be deployed in major cities first,then military and Industrial installations.It is going to take more time then you presume.



> Akash is a mobile SAM system with ABM capability its specifications take a look at them the Nasr is a battlefield range missile having 2 mobile missiles it cancels out and Pakistan would not use its strategic missiles on battlefield forces that is the point of having battle field and strategic long range missiles the ABM's in development are for defense against Ghauri Shaheen and all the other missiles



Just like Prahaar is launched from a single tube,Nasr is being launched from 1 tube only.....the final version of Nasr will have 4 tubes...


> dude we would not waste a ABM on some artillery rocket besides the warheads used will be kinetic and gimbaled ensuring interception



Most of the guided missiles have gimball-based sensors...ABM has radar based...I am not denying that it is not maneuverable...


> yeah and if we cannot intercept the missile in the boost phase we will intercept it in the midcourse or terminal phases
> 
> any Chinese missile over 6,500km would overshoot India (from Harbin to Sulur is 6,300km) different lasers will be made and so will new missiles



You don't know what you are talking about...Lasers are very expensive and difficult to operate...


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> P.S I know a mixed up DT with quasi-ballistic missile and cruise missile...Here is how I see them.
> 
> 1. Normal BM = exits and then re-enters atmosphere (e.g. Shaheen-I,Agni-I,Ghauri etc)
> 2. DT BM = follows a low apogee but still parabolic and ballistic trajectory.Remains inside atmosphere throughout the flight (for SRBM) and reenters (for IRBM).(e.g. Trident SLBM,Ghaznavi etc)
> 3. Quasi-Ballistic missile = add some maneuvering to DT BM (e.g. Nasr,LORA etc)
> 4. Solid-fueled cruise missile = maintain the altitude of the maneuvering DT BM (e.g. Shaurya,Iskander etc)














The trajectories shown are of the same missile launched at different elevation angles. [Note; keep the density of air and other natural factors in mind for different altitudes]
There's nothing extraordinary here.... from the apogee its just classical physics.....
http://curricula2.mit.edu/pivot/book/ph0403.html?acode=0x0200

All BM exists the mesosphere which as a decent density of air aswell as gravity waves.... be it DT or NT.... the height of apogee remains a question here.... Iskander, Shaurya etc... are different things.... Shaurya does not have any defined trajectory.... Its trajectory depends on the mission requirements.

For Instance get me the apogee of the DT missile of the Haft series and I am sure it would be out of mesosphere.... since no separations are performed in that part of atmosphere due to obvious reasons.

DF-31, DF-41, DF21D etc are Chinese missiles whose images are even hard to find what we get is from their inside sources which usually claimed DF-31 to be in the class of Agni III technology wise.... weather it is pure fanboyism or correct... I am not sure.... About Bulava yes it has Ring leaser gyros... for INS..... If would support this with a credible link once I find one.

Feeding GPS type data or terrain data for course correction is nothing but guiding the missile.... While in a flight a BM is monitored and feed with different types of course correction data... which its mission computer cannot perform.... It includes getting info about missile health for a successful mission until apogee.... people don't want their missile to crash down on their on land do they ??.... The smart computers does all these jobs without any help from ground stations or satellites.... 

No the blind maneuver are not much of a success If your ABM has a good active seeker..... they would home into the warhead performing whatever maneuver.... plus the maneuver at very high speeds is limited for Incoming warheads.


----------



## IceCold

Reading all the 16 pages of thread with Indians making it sound like we already lost the war was a bit too much. Indians really have the tendency to over estimate their own capabilities while severely underestimate ours. While i am not complaining about this attitude since it will be very help full to us, fact is no ABM has proved to be successful to intercept everything. Not even the US has managed to do so which as compared with India and Pakistan is far more advanced in this field and has relatively more time to counter missiles fired from the China or Russia. Unless of course Hanumaan decides to intervene him self on behalf of Indians, it is really naive to believe that India can counter Pakistans BM and CM threat. And let me also remind Indians here that in India Pakistan scenario, 2-3 hits( and i am being generous here) should be suffice for either one of us to send us back to stone age and Pakistan can easily manage those hits even if we use our F-16s for this purpose.
So ABM or no ABM, if things go down to nuclear exchange, Pakistan will not go down alone, so let us all pray that sanity prevails on both sides of the border.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## deckingraj

IceCold said:


> Reading all the 16 pages of thread with Indians making it sound like we already lost the war was a bit too much. Indians really have the tendency to over estimate their own capabilities while severely underestimate ours. While i am not complaining about this attitude since it will be very help full to us, fact is no ABM has proved to be successful to intercept everything. Not even the US has managed to do so which as compared with India and Pakistan is far more advanced in this field and has relatively more time to counter missiles fired from the China or Russia. Unless of course Hanumaan decides to intervene him self on behalf of Indians, it is really naive to believe that India can counter Pakistans BM and CM threat. And let me also remind Indians here that in India Pakistan scenario, 2-3 hits( and i am being generous here) should be suffice for either one of us to send us back to stone age and Pakistan can easily manage those hits even if we use our F-16s for this purpose.
> So ABM or no ABM, if things go down to nuclear exchange, Pakistan will not go down alone, so let us all pray that sanity prevails on both sides of the border.



Then you totally failed to understand the threat that ABM will bring to Pakistan...I as an adversary will not mind you guys thinking like that...but then let me share my thoughts here...


- Who told you that India's ABM is there to save India from a nuclear frenzy luanched by Pak??? Even if there is mid-course interception don't you think the debris are going to fall on India only???

Let me show some of the threats/headache's that ABM brings on the table...Let's assume India's ABM is in place and deployed. With that assumption set in stone let me start with the favourite topic of members here i.e. Nuclear war..

- A conventional war is on b/w India and Pakistan. India is making a good headway and Pak is finding it very hard to contain India. Pak establishment decides it is time to use nukes. Now Pak best bet is to launch a frenzy in order to destroy as much of India/indian assets as possible to minimize the retaliation. Now with ABM in place this job becomes many notches harder. Atleast you would want to cripple India by taking main cities. In order to achieve that you will have to launch a much higher number of missiles then you would have done otherwise...However preparing such a massive launch and avoid detection is going to be almost impossible...What do you think India will do once our establishment is sure that you are going to launch nukes??? 

In short ABM will force you to lauch a higher number of missiles at us which will risk you loosing the most important paradigm of nuke frenzy i.e. SURPRISE. This can be very very dangerous. 

Anyhow at the end no one win's nuclear war. So i will move to a realistic scenario...


- There was a terror attack on India and indian establishment decides it is time to make terrorists pay for it...Some pre-emptive strikes were authorized and carried by Indian forces. Now as a result Pak decides to teach India a lesson...

Obviously the first approach would be to teach India a lesson but also keep the theater of war small... The obvious choice would be to fire a couple of missiles to destroy a couple of sensitive(not hyper sensitive) areas. However with ABM working couple of those missiles will not bring in the desired results. The next choice would be to send in some fighter jets...which again is risky option since SAMS are a real threat...

See the headache right there....before ABM a few missiles was the best suitable answer to India's aggression which now is not going to be as effective as it would have been otherwise....So to achieve your desired results you will be forced to send in your fighter jets and risk loosing them...or fire a higher number of missiles which straighway would increase the theater of war and then again the risk of loosing surprise is always there...


*************************************************************************************************

@Off Topic

If i look at history then i see lot of examples where Pakistani establishment has underestimated Indian might..though can't find similar examples on out side...so not sure why you have this impression that only Indians have habit of underestimating their adversary...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Deterrent

DARKY said:


> The trajectories shown are of the same missile launched at different elevation angles. [Note; keep the density of air and other natural factors in mind for different altitudes]
> There's nothing extraordinary here.... from the apogee its just classical physics.....
> http://curricula2.mit.edu/pivot/book/ph0403.html?acode=0x0200



Dude,I'm done...you are applying free flight projectile physics to powered and guided ballistic missiles.



> All BM exists the mesosphere which as a decent density of air aswell as gravity waves.... be it DT or NT.... the height of apogee remains a question here.... Iskander, Shaurya etc... are different things.... Shaurya does not have any defined trajectory.... Its trajectory depends on the mission requirements.



Yes,both Shaurya and Iskander don't have a defined trajectory.They are one step ahead of DT.



> For Instance get me the apogee of the DT missile of the Haft series and I am sure it would be out of mesosphere.... since no separations are performed in that part of atmosphere due to obvious reasons.



All Pakistani missiles belong to the Hatf series.I presume you are talking about Ghaznavi.Well,I don't know its apogee.



> DF-31, DF-41, DF21D etc are Chinese missiles whose images are even hard to find what we get is from their inside sources which usually claimed DF-31 to be in the class of Agni III technology wise.... weather it is pure fanboyism or correct... I am not sure.... About Bulava yes it has Ring leaser gyros... for INS..... If would support this with a credible link once I find one.



Ok...thanks.


> Feeding GPS type data or terrain data for course correction is nothing but guiding the missile.... While in a flight a BM is monitored and feed with different types of course correction data... which its mission computer cannot perform.... It includes getting info about missile health for a successful mission until apogee.... people don't want their missile to crash down on their on land do they ??.... The smart computers does all these jobs without any help from ground stations or satellites....



Missile health monitoring and subsequent actions can be termed as AI.

But error correction by feeding GPS data is very crucial to give the missile very high accuracy.INS alone cannot give CEP of less than 100m for MRBMs.
I don't know whether its AI or not,but the mission computer obtains the coordinates on its own.



> No the blind maneuver are not much of a success If your ABM has a good active seeker..... they would home into the warhead performing whatever maneuver.... plus the maneuver at very high speeds is limited for Incoming warheads.



You are not getting it.Whether the maneuver is blind or not,it is the same for the ABM.In both the cases,the ABM will have to face the same difficulty to counter the incoming missile.

All ABMs have active seekers...and all of them home into the target.But the target can be missed if the missile is maneuvering sharply.

P.S. Sorry for the late reply.


----------



## very

I guess its not hard for Pakistan to counter any threat from India if Allah Az-Wo-Jal helps it.


----------



## deckingraj

very said:


> I guess its not hard for Pakistan to counter any threat from India if Allah Az-Wo-Jal helps it.


Well Allah is for all...However things might be hard but nothing is impossible....Pakistan has survived for 6 decades against a mighty Adversary...i have no doubts it will continue to do so...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## notorious_eagle

deckingraj said:


> If i look at history then i see lot of examples where Pakistani establishment has underestimated Indian might..though can't find similar examples on out side...so not sure why you have this impression that only Indians have habit of underestimating their adversary...



Actually i would respectfully disagree with you on this point. 

I would say the attitude on the Indian side has been extremely snobby, some of your senior officers have made some very irresponsible statements. Your AVM on record stated that IAF has 5000 targets earmarked inside Pakistan, your former COAS on record stated that India can fight war on two fronts simultaneously. Even an amateur knows of the fact that India at present does not possess the muscle to simultaneously conduct war on two fronts especially against the likes of Pakistan and a giant like China. Thus, i will conclude by saying that India is definitely overestimating its capabilities and underestimating its adversaries.


----------



## deckingraj

notorious_eagle said:


> Actually i would respectfully disagree with you on this point.



And there is nothing wrong with that...There must be some valid reasons for you to believe in there... However let me reply with my POV



> I would say the attitude on the Indian side has been extremely snobby, some of your senior officers have made some very irresponsible statements. Your AVM on record stated that IAF has 5000 targets earmarked inside Pakistan



I am not sure what is wrong in this particular statement....Can we not identify 5000 targets inside Pakistan??? Are you saying that the statement is a farce or was provocative???? If former then why you think India don't have the capability to identify targets within Pak and if later then what else you would expect in such a high charged atmosphere????



> your former COAS on record stated that India can fight war on two fronts simultaneously. Even an amateur knows of the fact that India at present does not possess the muscle to simultaneously conduct war on two fronts especially against the likes of Pakistan and a giant like China.



What??? You are somewhat mislead there...It is more of containment then agressive posture.....A so called two front war is being talked about since the 70's...Even in 71 we had kept spares should China intervene...Not saying that we can blow off both of them together but just want to bring it to your notice then so called two front war is not something that we have not given a good thinking....

Anyways talk to me when you see some action by India/Indian forces where we underestimate our adversary....Talk are more contexual and are victim to media spin...




> Thus, i will conclude by saying that India is definitely overestimating its capabilities and underestimating its adversaries.



With all due respect your examples are not enough...Just to give you some recent examples where we did not underestimate our adversary

- Kargil Saga - We did not cross LOC even though would have been easy on our part
- 2003 Military showdown never fructify because we knew the strengths of our adversary
- Mumbai attacks were not responded militarily because we knew the strengths and weakness of our adversary...

Not sure why you have made such an impression...anyways as said if i look into history i do see our adversary underestimating our will and might but hardly a vice-versa...


----------



## very

Right now our ruling elites Lacks Emaan power otherwise they can counter anything by without even having no materialistic power.


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> Dude,I'm done...you are applying free flight projectile physics to powered and guided ballistic missiles.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,both Shaurya and Iskander don't have a defined trajectory.They are one step ahead of DT.
> 
> 
> 
> All Pakistani missiles belong to the Hatf series.I presume you are talking about Ghaznavi.Well,I don't know its apogee.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok...thanks.
> 
> 
> Missile health monitoring and subsequent actions can be termed as AI.
> 
> But error correction by feeding GPS data is very crucial to give the missile very high accuracy.INS alone cannot give CEP of less than 100m for MRBMs.
> I don't know whether its AI or not,but the mission computer obtains the coordinates on its own.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not getting it.Whether the maneuver is blind or not,it is the same for the ABM.In both the cases,the ABM will have to face the same difficulty to counter the incoming missile.
> 
> All ABMs have active seekers...and all of them home into the target.But the target can be missed if the missile is maneuvering sharply.
> 
> P.S. Sorry for the late reply.



After apogee the motion is more or less projectile.... with very little to no guidance...

Unless and until you can't say about its apogee we can consider it as a ballistic missile.

See there are a whole lot of functions performed by AI modern airplanes like PAK FA would have such computers for its radars and other passive sensors.... GPS can be jammed.... MRBMs have gained CEPs in order of 50m or less with INS.

The maneuvering is limited due to high speed for a ballistic missile warhead and it can perform escape maneuver from a hostile ABM only upto a certain distance and that too blindly.... once the ABM gets into that distance the warhead cannot escape.... and usually the distance i very large.

P.S... Nevermind we all have some work other than this partime nonsense


----------



## notorious_eagle

deckingraj said:


> I am not sure what is wrong in this particular statement....Can we not identify 5000 targets inside Pakistan??? Are you saying that the statement is a farce or was provocative???? If former then why you think India don't have the capability to identify targets within Pak and if later then what else you would expect in such a high charged atmosphere????



Sir Pakistan is not big enough to have 5000 targets, the number was extremely over inflated by the IAF's AVM. I would argue that at the height of the hysteria when both nations were on full alert Post Mumbai, a statement like this by the AVM was extremely provocative. India can earmark as many targets as they can, but why air it out in the media. Airing these sentiments out in the media only created further hysteria and forced PAF to keep flying its wartime CAP sorties. 



deckingraj said:


> What??? You are somewhat mislead there...It is more of containment then agressive posture.....A so called two front war is being talked about since the 70's...Even in 71 we had kept spares should China intervene...Not saying that we can blow off both of them together but just want to bring it to your notice then so called two front war is not something that we have not given a good thinking....



How about the good COAS keeps this strategy to himself instead of blurting out in the media. I will give you a perfect example and something i have honestly admired. If you look at how nicely China has encircled India without even raising any hysteria in the media, its absolutely beautiful. Not only are the Chinese extremely mobile and have their forces in decent side on the Indian border, they are slowly encircling India through naval ports and by forming alliances with India's neighbours. Do you see the Chinese coming out and saying that we are prepared to fight a war on our borders with India. There is an old saying, 'Silence is Golden', and it certainly seems that this is strategy not followed by Indian officers. 



deckingraj said:


> Anyways talk to me when you see some action by India/Indian forces where we underestimate our adversary....Talk are more contexual and are victim to media spin...



Well one of your AVM came on the news and made a statement that IAF's adversary referring to Pakistan fears the might of IAF. This to me is extremely funny that an IAF officer has to speak on behalf of PAF to tell us how mighty the IAF is. India's Cold Start Doctrine manoeuvres performed close to the Indo-Pak border is a clear sign of India's over confidence. 



deckingraj said:


> - Kargil Saga - We did not cross LOC even though would have been easy on our part



Not at all, crossing the LOC would have not at all been easy for the Indian side. While across the LOC your division sized force was facing less than a battalion sized fighting force with overwhelming airpower, crossing the border would have meant your division would have been facing a well dug in equally sized enemy with the airspace being contested. Although i do agree and see your point here; but we are not in 1999 where the Indian Armed Forces were not fielding the SU30MKI and Smerch in larger numbers. 



deckingraj said:


> - 2003 Military showdown never fructify because we knew the strengths of our adversary



Your mobilization was so slow that by the time the Indian Army mobilized a corps level fighting force, it was almost a month and the hysteria had died down. 



deckingraj said:


> - Mumbai attacks were not responded militarily because we knew the strengths and weakness of our adversary...



For this part, i agree with you. 



deckingraj said:


> Not sure why you have made such an impression...anyways as said if i look into history i do see our adversary underestimating our will and might but hardly a vice-versa...



Well your adversary was being led by bunch of a donkeys whom had no idea what they were doing. My opinion has been formed by looking at the posture and the statements of the officers of the Indian Armed Forces, and by officers i mean high ranking officers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Deterrent

DARKY said:


> After apogee the motion is more or less projectile.... with very little to no guidance...



Agreed,but it doesn't applies to modern ballistic missiles.



> Unless and until you can't say about its apogee we can consider it as a ballistic missile.


ok...



> See there are a whole lot of functions performed by AI modern airplanes like PAK FA would have such computers for its radars and other passive sensors.... GPS can be jammed.... MRBMs have gained CEPs in order of 50m or less with INS.



Agreed,but without an external correction input,high accuracy cannot be achieved....unless you have 2-3 levels of INS including Laser Ring gyroscopes....expensive...


> The maneuvering is limited due to high speed for a ballistic missile warhead and it can perform escape maneuver from a hostile ABM only upto a certain distance and that too blindly.... once the ABM gets into that distance the warhead cannot escape.... and usually the distance i very large.



Yes,it is limited....but blind or not blind,it works...
Unless the ABM has a very high explosive warhead or a nuclear warhead,it cannot damage the Ballistic missile.The Patriot SAM didn't damage the incoming Scud at 600m.


----------



## deckingraj

Look we have gone way to Off Topic...As said earlier you must have some valid reasons to believe what you do..Though the examples you are citing are not satisfactory(atleast for me)...I hope this is our last exchange within this thread on this particular topic...



notorious_eagle said:


> Sir Pakistan is not big enough to have 5000 targets, the number was extremely over inflated by the IAF's AVM. I would argue that at the height of the hysteria when both nations were on full alert Post Mumbai, a statement like this by the AVM was extremely provocative. India can earmark as many targets as they can, but why air it out in the media. Airing these sentiments out in the media only created further hysteria and forced PAF to keep flying its wartime CAP sorties.



See you are completely ignoring my point...Talk to me when you see an indian action where adversary is underestimated....You never know what was the thought process going in there...In such a charged atmosphere, when our financial capital was under seige for almost three days and where our govt. was actually mulling about surgical strikes in Pak, a provovative statement from our armed forces is not a surprise for me.....How do you know what kind of surgical strikes we were after????



> How about the good COAS keeps this strategy to himself instead of blurting out in the media.


Who told you that the strategy is out??? I am sorry but i believe you guys are hyper-sensitive to this issue...When our COAS talked about two-front war then only one side jumped up and down whereas the other side kept quiet...Probably a point to circumspect....




> I will give you a perfect example and something i have honestly admired. If you look at how nicely China has encircled India without even raising any hysteria in the media, its absolutely beautiful. Not only are the Chinese extremely mobile and have their forces in decent side on the Indian border, they are slowly encircling India through naval ports and by forming alliances with India's neighbours. Do you see the Chinese coming out and saying that we are prepared to fight a war on our borders with India. There is an old saying, 'Silence is Golden', and it certainly seems that this is strategy not followed by Indian officers.


Now here you are comparing Apples and Oranges...Free print media vs a state controlled media...b/w Chinese encircling is not gone unnoticed...You have seen counter measures already in place/being worked upon...This is irrespective of the fact that Chinese are quiet or not...




> Well one of your AVM came on the news and made a statement that IAF's adversary referring to Pakistan fears the might of IAF. This to me is extremely funny that an IAF officer has to speak on behalf of PAF to tell us how mighty the IAF is. *India's Cold Start Doctrine manoeuvres performed close to the Indo-Pak border is a clear sign of India's over confidence.*



what??? Did you for real think that???? Where else you want us to practice our doctorine meant specifically for Pakistan??? In our Eastern border??? How is that over-confidence??? 





> Not at all, crossing the LOC would have not at all been easy for the Indian side. While across the LOC your division sized force was facing less than a battalion sized fighting force with overwhelming airpower, crossing the border would have meant your division would have been facing a well dug in equally sized enemy with the airspace being contested. Although i do agree and see your point here; but we are not in 1999 where the Indian Armed Forces were not fielding the SU30MKI and Smerch in larger numbers.


See there are many accounts which say's that the best way of minimizing casualties at our end was to go for an easy target...Fighting with well dug enemy on Kargil heights was not the easy route...Anyways my point being we don't underestimate the enemy which is visible in the actions...




> Your mobilization was so slow that by the time the Indian Army mobilized a corps level fighting force, it was almost a month and the hysteria had died down.


See reason A or B...My point is very simple....If we overestimate our capabilities then we would have gone ahead with the plan...We did not proves something, no????




> For this part, i agree with you.


Great...




> Well your adversary was being led by bunch of a donkeys whom had no idea what they were doing. My opinion has been formed by looking at the posture and the statements of the officers of the Indian Armed Forces, and by officers i mean high ranking officers.



See it does not matter who the adversary was being led by...My only point is that looking into the history i see many examples where our adversary has overestimated their might and underestimated us...be it 65, be it 71, be it 99...However i don't see similar examples on our side...

Just to give you an example...Our media has highlighted many provocations by Chinese side...Now there may be some truth in it but if you see GOI has very well kept its cool...The so called encircling by China is being countered...Look east policy saw the light and is being worked upon...This is being done while trade with China has touched $60 Billion and is growing as we are talking...I hope you are getting the point...We ain't no fools and neither are being led by one's....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## HZR2011

Aeronaut said:


> Technology is evolving fast , it just would be a matter of time when Pakistan would have high end -* long range - super/hypersonic - Stealth cruise missiles *carrying TNs with multiple erector launchpads to defeat the ABMs.
> 
> As for the Ballistic Missiles , new generation of them ones are in planning all over the world and the focus is on how to defeat the AMB and DEWs - CIWS etc. Pakistan surely will get its piece of the pie.



India is already producing it!!!
Shaurya 1000KM Mach 7 speed tested 3 times ..the last test missile was taken from production lot....

So when is pakistan going to acheive a comparable missile like shaurya??


----------



## The Deterrent

HZR2011 said:


> India is already producing it!!!
> Shaurya 1000KM Mach 7 speed tested 3 times ..the last test missile was taken from production lot....
> 
> So when is Pakistan going to acheive a comparable missile like shaurya??



First,testing only 3 times before a ballistic missile enters production is not a good sign...I don't want to criticize unnecessarily,but Pakistan tests them 4-6 times.One last test,conducted after these ones,incorporates a cold nuclear warhead (U-235).This last test,if successful,marks the starting of production.The end user trials (ASFC tests) are conducted again if necessary...

Second...Pakistan is not close to developing a hypersonic cruise-cum-quasi-ballistic-missile (similar to Shourya) till 2015,though it is the need of the hour.

I wish Pakistan had two missiles in development,BrahMos and Shaurya.....they are very effective in countering ABMs.


----------



## DrSomnath999

Nineteen seventyone said:


> Hai,guys tejas is excellent ,my first ride on tejas ....love u baby...indian airforce mmmmuuuuhhh


 ok great ,when did u ride it & r u airforce pilot .
BTW it was an offtopic post


----------



## The_magnificent

Nineteen seventyone said:


> Hai,guys tejas is excellent ,my first ride on tejas ....love u baby...indian airforce mmmmuuuuhhh



This was funniest !st post of the forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GORKHALI

AhaseebA said:


> First,testing only 3 times before a ballistic missile enters production is not a good sign...I don't want to criticize unnecessarily,but Pakistan tests them 4-6 times.One last test,conducted after these ones,incorporates a cold nuclear warhead (U-235).This last test,if successful,marks the starting of production.The end user trials (ASFC tests) are conducted again if necessary...
> 
> Second...Pakistan is not close to developing a hypersonic cruise-cum-quasi-ballistic-missile (similar to Shourya) till 2015,though it is the need of the hour.
> 
> I wish Pakistan had two missiles in development,BrahMos and Shaurya.....they are very effective in countering ABMs.


It's land version of K 15 sagarika ,so why you need to again test 8times again as in the case of K 15,all they did is like they succesfully tested in land 3times and it's more than enough to establish its reliablity and accuracy.


----------



## The Deterrent

PANDORA said:


> It's land version of K 15 sagarika ,so why you need to again test 8times again as in the case of K 15,all they did is like they succesfully tested in land 3times and it's more than enough to establish its reliablity and accuracy.


Oops,forgot that...I excuse...

If K-15 has been tested enough times (please specify number),than its perfectly okay to induct Shaurya after 3 tests...


----------



## IndianTiger

The_magnificent said:


> This was funniest !st post of the forum.


 
you tìnk its funny , i feel its foolish, as it diverts good discussion to meaningless jerk. . .


----------



## LiberalAtheist

our ABM will take care of any nuclear threats in the region besides once when there missile launches are seen by our satellites then we will respond back also so in reality they will launch there missiles, they're missile are intercepted, and very quickly we use our massive, credible and very capable second strike. so in the end you can see who would come out on the bottom because of stupid decision to use nukes.


----------



## notorious_eagle

PunjabiSidhu said:


> our ABM will take care of any nuclear threats in the region besides once when there missile launches are seen by our satellites then we will respond back also so in reality they will launch there missiles, they're missile are intercepted, and very quickly we use our massive, credible and very capable second strike. so in the end you can see who would come out on the bottom because of stupid decision to use nukes.



Oh my Goodness, i offer the nation of India heartiest congratulations from the bottom of my heart for achieving something that even the US could not achieve . I must say, Indians are definitely a martian breed as they were able to accomplish something that America with all her infinite resources could not do.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LiberalAtheist

notorious_eagle said:


> Oh my Goodness, i offer the nation of India heartiest congratulations from the bottom of my heart for achieving something that even the US could not achieve . I must say, Indians are definitely a martian breed as they were able to accomplish something that America with all her infinite resources could not do.



America has built ABM's i'm sure you would know if you weren't such an ignorant troll Israel America China Russia and we have developed ABM's the Americans only have not been able to achieve credible defense against ICBM's but India does not face an ICBM threat from you guys we only need missiles to engage the 3,000km class of ballistic missiles which our AD and PDV missiles are capable of our AAD and PAD are already capable of doing that as well. 

and yes sit there and troll but we are not the ones with our hands down strategically


----------



## DARKY

notorious_eagle said:


> Oh my Goodness, i offer the nation of India heartiest congratulations from the bottom of my heart for *achieving something that even the US could not achieve* . I must say, Indians are definitely a martian breed as they were able to accomplish something that *America with all her infinite resources* could not do.



Why can't Indians or for that matter any one achieve what US have not yet achieved ??...... Is me or are Pakistanis are really panoroid about US in particular.... and worship them for their Infinite resources ??


----------



## DARKY

notorious_eagle said:


> Actually i would respectfully disagree with you on this point.
> 
> I would say the attitude on the Indian side has been extremely snobby, some of your senior officers have made some very irresponsible statements. Your AVM on record stated that IAF has *5000 targets earmarked inside Pakistan*, your former COAS on record stated that* India can fight war on two fronts simultaneously*. Even an amateur knows of the fact that India at present does not possess the muscle to simultaneously conduct war on two fronts especially against the likes of Pakistan and a giant like China. Thus, i will conclude by saying that India is definitely overestimating its capabilities and underestimating its adversaries.



Why can't 5000 targets marked inside Pakistan..... The Chinese never had any problems marking 1500 targets in Taiwan which is hardly as big as 2 Pakistani districts combined... And what's the issue with fighting a two front war.... what would Pakistan do if attacked from India and Afghanistan both ??.....Will your Generals advocate to fight Afghanistan only and Surrender to India ??.... We did fight a two front war successfully in 71...... and expect my Generals to do the same if situation arises.... It need not remind you that we are the 4th strongest and 3rd largest military power and the top most strongest are our allies.


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> Yes,it is limited....but blind or not blind,it works...
> Unless the ABM has a very high explosive warhead or a nuclear warhead,it cannot damage the Ballistic missile.The Patriot SAM didn't damage the incoming Scud at 600m.




It is Blind since you can't have microwave or IR detectors functioning on your RV due to high temperature.... which won't let it see the ABM hence Blind.
ABM usually have HE warheads which gimbals its explosion to the direction nearest to RV..... patriot could not shoot Scud.... since the scud disintegrated into many parts and Presented a clutter image on Radars making it hard for the SAM to choose the correct warhead.... and gimbaled warhead for SAM was absent.


----------



## The Deterrent

DARKY said:


> It is Blind since you can't have microwave or IR detectors functioning on your RV due to high temperature.... which won't let it see the ABM hence Blind.
> ABM usually have HE warheads which gimbals its explosion to the direction nearest to RV..... patriot could not shoot Scud.... since the scud disintegrated into many parts and Presented a clutter image on Radars making it hard for the SAM to choose the correct warhead.... and gimbaled warhead for SAM was absent.


Yes it is blind...but it works to some extent...

Again,gimballed or not gimballed...the seeker still has to figure out which warhead is real...


----------



## The Deterrent

DARKY said:


> Why can't Indians or for that matter any one achieve what US have not yet achieved ??...... Is me or are Pakistanis are really panoroid about US in particular.... and worship them for their Infinite resources ??



You've gotta look at it again...US DoD and Pentagon had and possibly still have almost unlimited budget for R&D...the result is the most sophisticated weapons technology in almost every field of weapons...
US has been working on ABMs since the 1960s...and each system they developed,went obsolete almost immediately...

While India just started in 1995...I fully understand the capability of DRDO,but still I can't take their word for everything...

Indian ABM shield hasn't been deployed (as of now),and I will be convinced when it is pitched against the Agni series...


----------



## LiberalAtheist

AhaseebA said:


> You've gotta look at it again...US DoD and Pentagon had and possibly still have almost unlimited budget for R&D...the result is the most sophisticated weapons technology in almost every field of weapons...
> US has been working on ABMs since the 1960s...and each system they developed,went obsolete almost immediately...
> 
> While India just started in 1995...I fully understand the capability of DRDO,but still I can't take their word for everything...
> 
> Indian ABM shield hasn't been deployed (as of now),and I will be convinced when it is pitched against the Agni series...



ok dude i don't know what your talking about but the U.S has had capable ABM's since the nike zeus missile they are only struggling in defense against ICBM's which is nearly impossible to intercept do not compare U.S strategic needs with India's as they are very different the U.S faces missile threats from Russia which has thousands of ICBM's that no system on earth can intercept like the Topol-M 

India like Israel,Russia, and the U.S has already developed ABM's to defend against MRBM's and IRBM's to intercept Pakistani ballistic missiles we need to develop ABM's to intercept the 3,000km range class of ballistic missiles currently our PAD/AAD have reached that capability 

read up on ABM technology before posting


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> Yes it is blind...but it works to some extent...
> 
> Again,gimballed or not gimballed...the seeker still has to figure out which warhead is real...



yes It does... 

Yes and Patriots did figure out how to deal with such situation... and Scuds became less successful.


----------



## hunter_hunted

mayankmatador said:


> best one is pray for mercy from us and give us back our land


 
Than come n get it v will be very happy to give u a PIECE of land in graveyard

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## tamygu

launch all missiles in a single go rhis will konfuse the ABM computer to decided which to shoot down and which not to shoot down.In the konfusion it wont shoot even a single ABM missile


----------



## DARKY

AhaseebA said:


> You've gotta look at it again...US DoD and Pentagon had and possibly still have almost unlimited budget for R&D...the result is the most sophisticated weapons technology in almost every field of weapons...
> US has been working on ABMs since the 1960s...and each system they developed,went obsolete almost immediately...
> 
> While India just started in 1995...I fully understand the capability of DRDO,but still I can't take their word for everything...
> 
> Indian ABM shield hasn't been deployed (as of now),and I will be convinced when it is pitched against the Agni series...




You can have unlimited budget and infinite resources.... but what you need is the right approach.
They started in 60s and could not make it due to the changing requirements..... don't go by the words of western media which actually has been an instrument for pumping more and more tax money in their defense projects.... one always wants a better weapon irrespective of what the other has..... science has got no ends and the greed to become better is always there.
Do you even know about direct energy weapons developed by US and USSR.... they were and continue to be the pioneers our situation is completely different as of now.

Don't take the words of DRDO however If you see it's systems being adopted by the Defense forces then it has to be world class.

The Deployment would start by 2013.... once the production hits full swing by 2012..... the Current system is good enough to take care of BM upto the range of 1500-2000 km.... for longer ranges the testings would start next year.


----------



## DrSomnath999

notorious_eagle said:


> Oh my Goodness, i offer the nation of India heartiest congratulations from the bottom of my heart for achieving something that even the US could not achieve . I must say, Indians are definitely a martian breed as they were able to accomplish something that America with all her infinite resources could not do.


well mate trolling is nice ,but sometimes it backfires .So troll but do it wisely dont make a laughing stock of urself .
REGARDS

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

notorious_eagle said:


> Oh my Goodness, i offer the nation of India heartiest congratulations from the bottom of my heart for achieving something that even the US could not achieve . I must say, Indians are definitely a martian breed as they were able to accomplish something that America with all her infinite resources could not do.



because you should know by now india is incredible


----------



## DrSomnath999

Aryan_B said:


> because you should know by now india is incredible


 well thats why we say incredible india

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LiberalAtheist

Aryan_B said:


> because you should know by now india is incredible



at least now u admit it


----------



## Tshering22

You need to concentrate on how to stop TTP and other militant groups from fracturing you rather than concentrating on ABM system that you will never need to use, especially looking at the situation at your place since last decade.


----------



## tamygu

Aryan_B said:


> because you should know by now india is incredible


India is truly incredible and will make pakistan incredible too coz its in the destiny of india to make pakistan incredible.


----------



## Bratva

Tshering22 said:


> You need to concentrate on how to stop TTP and other militant groups from fracturing you rather than concentrating on ABM system that you will never need to use, especially looking at the situation at your place since last decade.



And you need to stop making Tall claims of what the "INDIAN ABM" can achieve while practically NO ABM has done or show me the Proof In real time scenario, the ABM has actually shot down any ballistic missile and second thing, The topic is about Pakistani Countering ABM of yours so don't act like a 3rd class troller and bring nonsense in this objective debate.


----------



## lem34

tamygu said:


> India is truly incredible and will make pakistan incredible too coz its in the destiny of india to make pakistan incredible.



you nostradamus mow?


----------



## notorious_eagle

DARKY said:


> Why can't Indians or for that matter any one achieve what US have not yet achieved ??...... Is me or are Pakistanis are really panoroid about US in particular.... and worship them for their Infinite resources ??



Lets be realistic here for once, the US has so far been the most successful country when it comes down to designing and building military hardware. The amount of resources they can throw human and capital are simply unmatched, you honestly expect India to build a 100% credible ABM for only a fraction of the budget and only a fraction of the expertise, you have to be on some really nice drugs to actually believe that. Its good to be optimistic, but i will be a fool if i believe that i can outrun Bolt in a 100 meter sprint race.

As far as India's ABM capabilities are concerned, i have my doubts about its operational capabilities. Looking at the current state of the Indian Missile Program, i have a hard time believing that in such a short span of time the Indians are going to come up with a missile that can shoot down another maneuvering missile. The amount of testing that is required, the steps that are required, its an incremental process. Anyways, no point in speculating, all our queries will be answered in due time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## notorious_eagle

DARKY said:


> Why can't 5000 targets marked inside Pakistan..... The Chinese never had any problems marking 1500 targets in Taiwan which is hardly as big as 2 Pakistani districts combined...



Pakistan is not big enough and does not even has enough military installations, all that talk was simply hot air. I have no idea what those 5000 targets the AVM was referring too, another thing, smart officers always let their actions do the talking and not their mouths. 



DARKY said:


> And what's the issue with fighting a two front war.... what would Pakistan do if attacked from India and Afghanistan both ??.....Will your Generals advocate to fight Afghanistan only and Surrender to India ??.... We did fight a two front war successfully in 71...... and expect my Generals to do the same if situation arises....



Successfully fighting against both Pakistan and China at the same time, Best of Luck to you. Again i will reiterate my point, wise Generals let their actions do the talking. 



DARKY said:


> It need not remind you that we are the 4th strongest and 3rd largest military power and the top most strongest are our allies.



Good for you, but all this empty rhetoric is not scaring not impressing anyone . How about you guys for once let your actions do the talking and not your mouths


----------



## DARKY

notorious_eagle said:


> Lets be realistic here for once, the US has so far been the most successful country when it comes down to designing and building military hardware. The amount of resources they can throw human and capital are simply unmatched, you honestly expect India to build a 100% credible ABM for only a fraction of the budget and only a fraction of the expertise, you have to be on some really nice drugs to actually believe that. Its good to be optimistic, but i will be a fool if i believe that i can outrun Bolt in a 100 meter sprint race.
> 
> As far as India's ABM capabilities are concerned, i have my doubts about its operational capabilities. Looking at the current state of the Indian Missile Program, i have a hard time believing that in such a short span of time the Indians are going to come up with a missile that can shoot down another maneuvering missile. The amount of testing that is required, the steps that are required, its an incremental process. Anyways, no point in speculating, all our queries will be answered in due time.



I never said India needs to compete with US in order to make a reliable military system..... nothing is 100% atleast certainly not at very long ranges unless you have some short of shield.

I tried to explain the US propaganda over the reports of their MDS being ineffective by their media in my last post..... the MD is certainly active and is being installed all over the globe.

It is really strange how you people blindly believe when China pops out a system in no time.... but advocate time in case when Indians do.... the test results are there for you to see... a few videos are also present on the youtube.... take some time and look at them to decide for yourself.... you have enough data available unlike in the case of any Chinese weapon system.


----------



## DARKY

notorious_eagle said:


> Pakistan is not big enough and does not even has enough military installations, all that talk was simply hot air. I have no idea what those 5000 targets the AVM was referring too, another thing, smart officers always let their actions do the talking and not their mouths.



I mentioned how the Chinese have marked 1500 targets in Taiwan.... these not only include General Headquarters or air bases.... but railway stations, bridges, petrol pumps, highways etc... nevertheless if you could understand then you would've been doing other good works.... about the taking part even it seems you have a little or no knowledge how Generals prepare for their wars.... Go back to history and pickup any war... verbal assaults has been a very integral and effective part of it.



notorious_eagle said:


> Successfully fighting against both Pakistan and China at the same time, Best of Luck to you. Again i will reiterate my point, wise Generals let their actions do the talking.



The General never said successfully he only said we must be "Prepared" and I don't see any wrong in that... being successful is not just dependent on the amount of power projected but effective utilization of resources, strategy and planning to satisfy ones objective ... in that case one is successful even if he looses the war.



notorious_eagle said:


> Good for you, but all this empty rhetoric is not scaring not impressing anyone . How about you guys for once let your actions do the talking and not your mouths



Our actions does not need any validation of yours... you have seen in the past and would continue to see in future... And If you are not scared then you wouldn't have reacted.... nor would've your Generals.... certainly not in the manner they did.

---------- Post added at 12:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------




notorious_eagle said:


> Pakistan is not big enough and does not even has enough military installations, all that talk was simply hot air. I have no idea what those 5000 targets the AVM was referring too, another thing, smart officers always let their actions do the talking and not their mouths.



I mentioned how the Chinese have marked 1500 targets in Taiwan.... these not only include General Headquarters or air bases.... but railway stations, bridges, petrol pumps, highways etc... nevertheless if you could understand then you would've been doing other good works.... about the taking part even it seems you have a little or no knowledge how Generals prepare for their wars.... Go back to history and pickup any war... verbal assaults has been a very integral and effective part of it.



notorious_eagle said:


> Successfully fighting against both Pakistan and China at the same time, Best of Luck to you. Again i will reiterate my point, wise Generals let their actions do the talking.



The General never said successfully he only said we must be "Prepared" and I don't see any wrong in that... being successful is not just dependent on the amount of power projected but effective utilization of resources, strategy and planning to satisfy ones objective ... in that case one is successful even if he looses the war.



notorious_eagle said:


> Good for you, but all this empty rhetoric is not scaring not impressing anyone . How about you guys for once let your actions do the talking and not your mouths



Our actions does not need any validation of yours... you have seen in the past and would continue to see in future... And If you are not scared then you wouldn't have reacted.... nor would've your Generals.... certainly not in the manner they did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## happycanuck

Windjammer said:


> ^^^^
> I think what he meant was, "Have mercy and give our land (?) back.!........ since they are incapable of taking it back.



Your statement is the acceptance of being guilty party. Here is some who has admitted that Kashmir is under illegal occupation of Pakistan. Thanks neighbour. Now at least denial is over. What we are capable is for another time to be discussed.


----------



## LiberalAtheist

btw ignorant Pakistanis claiming USA ABM is unsuccessful go and read about the successful test of the THAAD system yesterday in Hawaii 

only ABM against ICBM has not been fully achieved India like Israel Russia and the U.S has already established credible ABM's to defend against at the very least IRBM's


----------



## Safriz

add metal baloons and chaff...the common decoys used with the warhead to fool ABM.


----------



## LiberalAtheist

safriz said:


> add metal baloons and chaff...the common decoys used with the warhead to fool ABM.



last time i checked Pakistani missiles were not MIRV'D meaning only 1 warhead missiles with no chaffs or decoys of any kind


----------



## deckingraj

notorious_eagle said:


> Lets be realistic here for once, the US has so far been the most successful country when it comes down to designing and building military hardware. The amount of resources they can throw human and capital are simply unmatched, you honestly expect India to build a 100% credible ABM for only a fraction of the budget and only a fraction of the expertise, you have to be on some really nice drugs to actually believe that. Its good to be optimistic, but i will be a fool if i believe that i can outrun Bolt in a 100 meter sprint race.



In short your argument is based on an assumption if US cannot do it then no body can...You tell is it fair argument???? Now i am not saying or claiming India's ABM system is perfect but we do have 5 succesful tests.. Only one being unsuccesful so far(there is a story behind that one but for now i will let it go)....Are you saying all of that is farce????

The missiles that we have right now in our arsenal are also build at a fraction of cost of what Americans have, does that mean our missiles are not reliable either??? Look i am not sure what are you basing your data upon but technology is growing very fast...Something which was almost impossible 10 years back is up and running today...Americans with their superior resources and knowledge will reach there far early then rest of the world. I have no doubt on that however that doesn't mean rest of us will never reach there...

Let me give you one example. American's have operations F-22 for almost 7-8 years while the rest of the world is still building prototypes of what is considered as 5 generation. This prooves their advanced technology might. However the same Americans with their superior knowhow are struggling to keep costs of F-35 program down. So the amount of money poured in R&D is not always a good indicator...




> As far as India's ABM capabilities are concerned, i have my doubts about its operational capabilities. *Looking at the current state of the Indian Missile Program,* i have a hard time believing that in such a short span of time the Indians are going to come up with a missile that can shoot down another maneuvering missile. The amount of testing that is required, the steps that are required, its an incremental process. Anyways, no point in speculating, all our queries will be answered in due time.



I am not sure what you mean by the bold part but AAD and PAD are a reality..System and capability is already there...right now they are being fine tuned....Thereafter it will take time before it becomes operations but that does not negate the fact that capability is there, no???


----------



## Dazzler

WE will compare the ABM when it is fully functional, delivering the goods and pack a genuine threat. In the mean time, stop living in disillusion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## oct605032048

nabil_05 said:


> WE will compare the ABM when it is fully functional, delivering the goods and pack a genuine threat. In the mean time, stop living in disillusion.



That's won't happen in 50 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DARKY

oct605032048 said:


> That's won't happen in 50 years.


 
And who said that kid ??..... your crystal ball or the tooth fairy ?


----------



## DrSomnath999

oct605032048 said:


> That's won't happen in 50 years.


well man we r discussing about india 's ABM ,not about chinese developing it's own weapon without copying from other countries


----------



## DrSomnath999

nabil_05 said:


> WE will compare the ABM when it is fully functional, delivering the goods and pack a genuine threat. In the mean time, stop living in disillusion.


 until then u atleast think what to do about it for the sake of status which the forum has given to U


----------



## LiberalAtheist

oct605032048 said:


> That's won't happen in 50 years.



so 2015 is 50 years from now? wow i can see that you learned basic addition pretty well


----------



## pakdefender

For the moment the indian ABM is a lab rat and given the track record of indian defence projects it'll remain a lab rat for a very long time perhaps even indefinitely


----------



## LiberalAtheist

pakdefender said:


> For the moment the indian ABM is a lab rat and given the track record of indian defence projects it'll remain a lab rat for a very long time perhaps even indefinitely



the "lab rat" has already been successfully tested many times and its operational date is 2015 it was a lab rat last decade now its a gorilla


----------



## Chogy

Something to consider - ABM's have been around for 50 years. The problem is that none of them were genuinely effective. They were better than nothing, but no one truly believed they'd be an actual shield from ballistic attack.

ABM's... are... HARD to make and do well. But we will be seeing them get much better, due to one thing - high-speed digital electronics. Older systems simply didn't have the speed to deal with a mach 20 RV. Now, we're getting closer, but we must be careful not to swallow the propaganda that "We will be 100% protected."

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

DrSomnath999 said:


> until then u atleast think what to do about it for the sake of status which the forum has given to U



This is not your concern Mr. The reality is that you folks live in a world of your fantasies where everything is perfect if it is made in India. Where has this led you? No INDIGENOUS project has been a suceess. Do you have any idea why US has been repeatedly failed in making an effective ABM shield despite spending billions and world'd best tech?? Go figure out first.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jango

Chogy said:


> Something to consider - ABM's have been around for 50 years. The problem is that none of them were genuinely effective. They were better than nothing, but no one truly believed they'd be an actual shield from ballistic attack.
> 
> ABM's... are... HARD to make and do well. But we will be seeing them get much better, due to one thing - high-speed digital electronics. Older systems simply didn't have the speed to deal with a mach 20 RV. Now, we're getting closer, but we must be careful not to swallow the propaganda that "We will be 100% protected."



Bang on there. 100% certainty can never be provided.


----------



## Dazzler

DARKY said:


> A pathetic post indeed specially considering the status the forum offers you..... you people have all the time, reasoning, logic and inputs to justify discussions on JF-17 block II (4-5 threads running any time), AK II, etc... which you are yet to seen in design phase even..... aswell as endlessly debating about imaginary projects like JF-17XX, Tipu/Taimur ICBM, J-XXX single seated stealth aircraft of China..... with your assumptions and imagination but somehow it starts to burn behind when someone brings out the real projects which are there for every one to see and has been highly successful it is clear who is living in disillusion here.... An eye opener with some hard facts the 1st level of ABM or I should say the Ashwin BMD system would start its deployment by the end of next year while the PDV would start an year after..... In the meanwhile the Akash SAM is being heavily deployed at various places all over the country thanks to BEL for helping Churning out 500 missiles per annum expect a similar rate for Ashwin and somewhat less but sufficiently rates for PDV..... the only reason that PAD is not being brought under production for deployment purpose is because it is a liquid fueled missile hence a solid fueled PDV has been made which would share the same seeker technology with that of PAD with some modifications and greater interception height extended upto 150km the test to validate the missile systems would be done next month.... since the missile would share many features from the PAD hence its production is slated to start by the end of 2013 and the deployment at important cities would be completed by 2014..... in the meanwhile the Early detection capability is being strengthened by the deployment of 4-6 4D AESA MRTR with a range of 400+ km and other smaller ESA radars like 3D Rajendra PESA in numbers upto 15-19 on the western border with Pakistan alone.....however the deployment of LRTR the Swordfish which can spot an object with an RCS equivalent to a cricket ball at ranges upto 1500 km is being kept a secret..... with such a deployment our Air Defense network with the help of RIT sats. would be able to track any flying object in the Pakistani airspace as far as quetta and detect any launch of BMs as far as Iran.... better learn for once and be done with your--- will dig the well when the house will burn attitude .



Do the world a favor, share your super tech with them all so they could learn from you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jango

kanpur said:


> OKAY AT THE TIME OF WAR YOU CAN SEE THESE MISSILES PARTS SPLITTED ON THE ROADS OF KARACHI.



Uh, missiles destroyed over Indian airspace, near delhi, Bangalore etc will land in Karachi, thats news to me!


----------



## DrSomnath999

nabil_05 said:


> This is not your concern Mr. The reality is that you folks live in a world of your fantasies where everything is perfect if it is made in India. Where has this led you? No INDIGENOUS project has been a suceess.


pardon me for my arrogance ,who the hell u r to certify our made in india products are perfect or not ? Who certified ur pak missiles including ballistic missiles & cruise missiles are perfect & war proven kindly tell me ?



nabil_05 said:


> Do you have any idea why US has been repeatedly failed in making an effective ABM shield despite spending billions and world'd best tech?? Go figure out first.


US has failed or not, it is decided upon it's succesful test & deployment ,thats why russians are paranoid about US missile shield when US opted out from ABM treaty .Yes US air borne laser missile defence has failed ,but They are working on THAAD & would deploy it .I agree no system is 100% perfect .But even 95% success rate interception is a promissing sign about the succesful interception capabilty of any ABM.


----------



## Dazzler

DrSomnath999 said:


> pardon me for my arrogance ,who the hell u r to certify our made in india products are perfect or not ? Who certified ur pak missiles including ballistic missiles & cruise missiles are perfect & war proven kindly tell me ?
> 
> 
> US has failed or not, it is decided upon it's succesful test & deployment ,thats why russians are paranoid about US missile shield when US opted out from ABM treaty .Yes US air borne laser missile defence has failed ,but They are working on THAAD & would deploy it .I agree no system is 100% perfect .But even 95% success rate interception is a promissing sign about the succesful interception capabilty of any ABM.



95% for which your ABM system? Did the test prove this? last i heard it was all but a complete success. This is an example of "I can do it all" attitude. Which leads to epic failures.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

nabil_05 said:


> 95% for which your ABM system? Did the test prove this? last i heard it was all but a complete success.


mate check google or any defence website of india all ABM test done by India had been succesful intercept,except one that also was fault of test target that prithvi had igniton problems.


nabil_05 said:


> This is an example of "I can do it all" attitude. Which leads to epic failures.


mate India's ABM is a matter of life and death for us .U take it in any way rather our overconfidence or arrogance we have to deploy it we have no other choice.Do u get me .


----------



## Abhishek_

Pakistan should continue stockpiling nukes and long range missiles. Keep those armaments factories chugging


----------



## DARKY

Its silly how nabil_05 has been arguing about the sucess rate for ABM system...... Even if that system is 80% successful that means 80 out of 100 missiles don't hit and thats a great bonus while in a nuclear war..... And about learning part...... Nabil_05 types have repeatedly demonstrated that Pakistanis in general consider that US are like Gods and normal people like Indians cannot develop any thing which they can't.
Your types have been US ABM system as failed while billions are being spent over its deployments...... It amuses me how such godly people of your types have been foolishly wasting their money on such system which is a fail according to you and your types...... Include notorious in this aswell.


----------



## DARKY

Abhishek_ said:


> Pakistan should continue stockpiling nukes and long range missiles. Keep those armaments factories chugging





That is the only way If they want their arsenal to have any effect then they would require more and more missiles may be in 1000s to have the desired impact in a nuclear war........ BTW your avatar would force me to visit the thread next time again so keep posting.


----------



## Bratva

Darky Types... don't understand your ABM works perfect when tests are conducted in Simulated and ideal conditions where you know the missile launch, it's pattern, it's path.

But how will it work in real time situations when we release 10's of BM's and CM's in an instance and the proximity of Pakistan and Indian borders and a very short reaction time. It's not like Russia release a ICBM and it has to travel 5000KM+. We are talking about game of 500-700 KM and Missiles with speeds of 6+ Machs Missiles.

Keeping your Nationalistic egoes aside. Talk with some rational thoughts and facts keeping real time scenario in your mind not some simulated and ideal scenario where everything you can do things more faster then the speed of missile.


----------



## Dazzler

DARKY said:


> Its silly how nabil_05 has been arguing about the sucess rate for ABM system...... Even if that system is 80% successful that means 80 out of 100 missiles don't hit and thats a great bonus while in a nuclear war..... And about learning part...... Nabil_05 types have repeatedly demonstrated that Pakistanis in general consider that US are like Gods and normal people like Indians cannot develop any thing which they can't.
> Your types have been US ABM system as failed while billions are being spent over its deployments...... It amuses me how such godly people of your types have been foolishly wasting their money on such system which is a fail according to you and your types...... Include notorious in this aswell.



Darky, you dont worth my time. Dont exhaust yourself.


----------



## DARKY

nabil_05 said:


> Darky, you dont worth my time. Dont exhaust yourself.



Only if you realized the importance of time....... Such silly remarks are of no good since you have failed to prove how US BMD/ABM is a fail and what has Indian ABM has got to do with that.


----------



## DARKY

mafiya said:


> Darky Types... don't understand your ABM works perfect when tests are conducted in Simulated and ideal conditions where you know the missile launch, it's pattern, it's path.
> 
> But how will it work in real time situations when we release 10's of BM's and CM's in an instance and the proximity of Pakistan and Indian borders and a very short reaction time. It's not like Russia release a ICBM and it has to travel 5000KM+. We are talking about game of 500-700 KM and Missiles with speeds of 6+ Machs Missiles.
> 
> Keeping your Nationalistic egoes aside. Talk with some rational thoughts and facts keeping real time scenario in your mind not some simulated and ideal scenario where everything you can do things more faster then the speed of missile.



Read the thread and about Indian ABM system in general... Only If you knew how modern ABM functions you would've not raised this silly queestion... There's nothing nationalistic here... However the silly remarks of your types..


----------



## Dazzler

Indian Pursuit Of Ballistic Missile Defence Program

StrategyPage Error Page 2

will give you reasons why indian abm strategy is not upto mark. till then, prepare yourself for arguments.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## notorious_eagle

nabil_05 said:


> Indian Pursuit Of Ballistic Missile Defence Program
> 
> StrategyPage Error Page 2
> 
> will give you reasons why indian abm strategy is not upto mark. till then, prepare yourself for arguments.



Sir why are you even bothering with these fanboys, you know that no matter how rationale of an explanation you give them they still wont admit whats right and whats wrong. What they fail to admit is that US is decades ahead of them when it comes to missile technology, India's missile technology is relatively primitive compared to that of the US and Israel. 

I think we all remember Indian fanboys claiming the SU30MKI to be the best fighter aircraft in the world until it got thrashed in RF2008. Dont bother arguing with these fanboys Sir, it will be a waste of your time.


----------



## Dazzler

Point taken bro.


----------



## LiberalAtheist

^^^ to compare USA and India's strategic situation is in one word idiotic the Americans Israelis Russians and we have already demonstrated ballistic missile interception the Americans are only have problems dealing with ICBM defense 

India does not face an ICBM threat at the most IRBM's we have already demonstrated ABM defense against 2,000km ballistic missiles soon that ability will be 5,000 

you people amaze with your ignorance just a couple of days ago the Americans tested they're THAAD successfully India needs defense against IRBM's not ICBM's


----------



## Developereo

Can Indian BMD intercept BrahMos?

I know Pakistan doesn't have BrahMos, but just asking what would happen if China develops comparable technology?


----------



## LiberalAtheist

Developereo said:


> Can Indian BMD intercept BrahMos?
> 
> I know Pakistan doesn't have BrahMos, but just asking what would happen if China develops comparable technology?



BrahMos is a cruise missile not a ballistic missile the Barak-8 and the AAD have capability to intercept low flying stealthy cruise missiles at subsonic and supersonic speeds but sophisticated satellites and radars like AEW&C, SATCOM, aerostat etc are required to track cruise missiles as they are very difficult to intercept once you track the target you can use the kill vehicle to destroy it. 

just some examples of AAD cruise missile defense operation 












Livefist: EXCLUSIVE: Official Schematics Of India's Layered Missile Defence System, Including Cruise Missile Defence [DECLASS]


----------



## Developereo

Good to have acknowledgement that BrahMos can be interecepted.


----------



## Shabz Nist

Developereo said:


> Good to have acknowledgement that BrahMos can be interecepted.



Did you catch the fact that this is rather difficult to achieve?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## notorious_eagle

Shabz Nist said:


> Did you catch the fact that this is rather difficult to achieve?



Shooting down any missile whether cruise or ballistic is no easy task. Brahmos high RCS makes it an easier target to shoot compared to other subsonic low observable cruise missiles.


----------



## Developereo

Shabz Nist said:


> Did you catch the fact that this is rather difficult to achieve?


 
Americans (and others) have had this capability for quite some time.

It is "difficult" only for those who believe it to be difficult.


----------



## Vishnu Nagadevara

It's simple at Pakistans current situation it cant.


----------



## deckingraj

notorious_eagle said:


> Shooting down any missile whether cruise or ballistic is no easy task. Brahmos high RCS makes it an easier target to shoot compared to other subsonic low observable cruise missiles.



So you are saying intercepting missiles with supersonic speed is nothing but a cake??? High RCS is a very very open ended remark.....Anyhow this thread is not about Brahmos...but just keep in mind...from a mere anti ship missile role to a land version to an air-version, makers of brahmos has put lot of faith on this system...this itself should be an indicator about the potency...


----------



## deckingraj

nabil_05 said:


> Indian Pursuit Of Ballistic Missile Defence Program
> 
> StrategyPage Error Page 2
> 
> will give you reasons why indian abm strategy is not upto mark. till then, prepare yourself for arguments.



The second link is not working..after reading the first one i am still not clear that why Indian ABM is not up to mark...In fact this article makes me feel we are very much on track...here are few quotes


_This shows that Indian ballistic missile defence program comprising of long range tracking radar, command and control system and the interceptor, is maturing at a faster pace_

_It would ultimately engage in acquiring additional missiles and launchers to devise a much larger attacking force which would elude the Indian interceptors, leading to triangular security dilemma in the region._

I mean if India's ABM is not potent then why does the author feels Pakistan will go for countermeasures??? Can you throw some more light on this????


----------



## deckingraj

Developereo said:


> Americans (and others) have had this capability for quite some time.
> 
> It is "difficult" only for those who believe it to be difficult.



They have the capability or not does not negate the fact that it is difficult to intercept a supersonic missile, no???


----------



## notorious_eagle

deckingraj said:


> So you are saying intercepting missiles with supersonic speed is nothing but a cake???



Cake would be a harsh word, intercepting any missile is no easy task as the physics and the initiative is always on the side of the aggressor. Supersonic missiles have their own pros and cons, one of its biggest cons is its high RCS. The US did develop a supersonic missile but the verdict was that it was too expensive and its high RCS gives the enemy enough time to deploy counter measures. 



deckingraj said:


> High RCS is a very very open ended remark.....



I fail to see how, the faster the missile is travelling the more IR signature its releasing. No country in the world has the technology to reduce the IR emissions for a supersonic cruise missile, smart skin concept is all speculative and has not been fully developed. 



deckingraj said:


> Anyhow this thread is not about Brahmos...but just keep in mind...from a mere anti ship missile role to a land version to an air-version, makers of brahmos has put lot of faith on this system...this itself should be an indicator about the potency...



Dont get me wrong, the Brahmos is an amazing weapon and definitely adds more muscle to the IA. But Brahmos will definitely be challenged if the adversary has a well developed early warning radar system. India is lucky in that sense that not many nations in the world have a highly sophisticated early warning radar systems in place.



deckingraj said:


> I mean if India's ABM is not potent then why does the author feels Pakistan will go for countermeasures??? Can you throw some more light on this????



Its always good to be prepared than not be prepared at all. If India fields a successful operational ABM system than it simply changes the balance of power in South Asia, Pakistan will never accept this and that is why its taking additional steps to increase the lethality of its missile program. I have my doubts about the Indian ABM because the Indians have started only researching about it recently and its missile program is quite primitive compared to those nations whom are fielding ABM systems that are operational, but ones with flaws.


----------



## Developereo

deckingraj said:


> They have the capability or not does not negate the fact that it is difficult to intercept a supersonic missile, no???


 
It's an arms race so, of course, the technological ante keeps getting upped. But the point is that for every better mouse, there is a mousetrap.


----------



## LiberalAtheist

notorious_eagle said:


> Shooting down any missile whether cruise or ballistic is no easy task. Brahmos high RCS makes it an easier target to shoot compared to other subsonic low observable cruise missiles.



who says BrahMos has a high RCS? it has been described as a stealthy low flying cruise missile anyways stop talking about BM i'm sure there are threads on that else where.

---------- Post added at 08:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:20 PM ----------




Developereo said:


> Good to have acknowledgement that BrahMos can be interecepted.



it can be but it is very difficult since it flies very low and is stealthy not to mention supersonic missiles like patriot,S-300, Barak-8, etc can intercept it but the hardest part about intercepting a low flying cruise missile is that it is difficult to track only country's like America and Russia have good enough defenses to intercept low flying cruise missiles as does Israel


----------



## notorious_eagle

PunjabiSidhu said:


> who says BrahMos has a high RCS? it has been described as a stealthy low flying cruise missile
> 
> it can be but it is very difficult since it flies very low and is stealthy not to mention supersonic missiles



Can you stop spreading lies, calling it stealthy does not make it stealthy, the physics behind it does not advocate what you are stating. 

At 3 times the speed of sound the skin temperature would be approximately around 50 degrees, if the missile is skimming low the temperature of the skin will be even more higher as the missile passes through dense air and the hot engine exhaust will appreciate its IR even more factored in with other surrounding elements. At this altitude and speed, IR emissions will enhance significantly making it a magnet for a heat seeking missile. Brahmos from day one was designed to skid through enemy's defences by sheer speed and not stealth, for sheer speed it compromises on its stealth and manoeuvrability.



PunjabiSidhu said:


> but the hardest part about intercepting a low flying cruise missile is that it is difficult to track only country's like America and Russia have good enough defenses to intercept low flying cruise missiles as does Israel



How So? The key to tracking this missile would be to detect its launch at an early stage. Your two main adversaries are fielding AWACS and Ground Radars(3D, 2D and Low Detection Radars) all data linked with each other, you can be sure as hell that this missile will be long detected as soon as it is launched with its high IR emissions. Fighter jets equipped with electro optic sensors can track and cue missiles for a successful intercept of the incoming skimming missile.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LiberalAtheist

notorious_eagle said:


> Can you stop spreading lies, calling it stealthy does not make it stealthy, the physics behind it does not advocate what you are stating.
> 
> At 3 times the speed of sound the skin temperature would be approximately around 50 degrees, if the missile is skimming low the temperature of the skin will be even more higher as the missile passes through dense air and the hot engine exhaust will appreciate its IR even more factored in with other surrounding elements. At this altitude and speed, IR emissions will enhance significantly making it a magnet for a heat seeking missile. Brahmos from day one was designed to skid through enemy's defences by sheer speed and not stealth, for sheer speed it compromises on its stealth and manoeuvrability.



good point but you do realize BrahMos flies at low altitudes adding to its stealth? a supersonic low flying cruise missile is nearly impossible to intercept and what you said for Brahmos can be applied to the Harpoon missile as well yet it is difficult to intercept because of the low altitude flight. BrahMos is very much stealthy either you have no idea on BrahMos specs or your in denial most likely both


----------



## notorious_eagle

PunjabiSidhu said:


> good point but you do realize BrahMos flies at low altitudes adding to its stealth?



Did you even read what i wrote? Off course it flies at low altitude but what about the high IR signature, with high IR signature like that there is no way it can escape detection from an AWAC or a capable 3D radar. 



PunjabiSidhu said:


> a supersonic low flying cruise missile is nearly impossible to intercept and what you said for Brahmos can be applied to the Harpoon missile as well yet it is difficult to intercept because of the low altitude flight.



Harpoon is subsonic and has a much lower IR signature compared to the Brahmos, its pointless comparing these two systems. The Harpoon can fly even lower and can manoeuvre which the Brahmos cannot due to its sheer speed, with speed it compromises on those two elements. A supersonic missile with high IR can definitely be brought down if the opposing side has the necessary means too, which are a good radar network system and capable armaments. 



PunjabiSidhu said:


> BrahMos is very much stealthy either you have no idea on BrahMos specs or your in denial most likely both



Are you seriously joking me? You certainly do live in your own little world, there is nothing that suggests that Brahmos is stealthy, at least the physics behind it does not support that and you are more than welcome to prove me wrong using facts, and not empty statements. Dont bother replying if you you are going to make empty statements and not use any facts.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LiberalAtheist

notorious_eagle said:


> Did you even read what i wrote? Off course it flies at low altitude but what about the high IR signature, with high IR signature like that there is no way it can escape detection from an AWAC or a capable 3D radar.
> 
> 
> 
> Harpoon is subsonic and has a much lower IR signature compared to the Brahmos, its pointless comparing these two systems. The Harpoon can fly even lower and can manoeuvre which the Brahmos cannot due to its sheer speed, with speed it compromises on those two elements. A supersonic missile with high IR can definitely be brought down if the opposing side has the necessary means too, which are a good radar network system and capable armaments.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously joking me? You certainly do live in your own little world, there is nothing that suggests that Brahmos is stealthy, at least the physics behind it does not support that and you are more than welcome to prove me wrong using facts, and not empty statements. Dont bother replying if you you are going to make empty statements and not use any facts.



i doubt any of our enemies have the radars AWACS etc to detect BrahMos not really a problem 

India, Russia work on hypersonic stealth cruise missile - Home » Other Sections » Breaking News

you are using mere logic to prove your point i have a link now bye bye unless you have anything else to say


----------



## notorious_eagle

PunjabiSidhu said:


> i doubt any of our enemies have the radars AWACS etc to detect BrahMos not really a problem



Both your enemies have high performing airborne AWACS and 3D Radars , you better do your research before making such a ridiculous claim. Dont doubt, actually do the research which you are not doing. AN/FPS-117 long range 3D radar, with YLC-2 long range 3D radar data linked with AWACS is a very credible radar network threat. 



PunjabiSidhu said:


> India, Russia work on hypersonic stealth cruise missile - Home » Other Sections » Breaking News
> 
> you are using mere logic to prove your point i have a link now bye bye unless you have anything else to say



How is this link even relevant, it does not address the fact that how Brahmos IR emissions are suppressed. Just calling it stealthy does not make it stealthy, there is lots of logic and physics that goes behind this and you are yet to post a single credible source that shows that this missile is stealthy. 

You have officially proved that your a fanboy and dont know sh** about military matters, you are officially dismissed and added to the fanboy list. Keep living in your little bubble fanboy


----------



## LiberalAtheist

notorious_eagle said:


> Both your enemies have high performing airborne AWACS and 3D Radars , you better do your research before making such a ridiculous claim. Dont doubt, actually do the research which you are not doing. AN/FPS-117 long range 3D radar, with YLC-2 long range 3D radar data linked with AWACS is a very credible radar network threat.
> 
> 
> 
> How is this link even relevant, it does not address the fact that how Brahmos IR emissions are suppressed. Just calling it stealthy does not make it stealthy, there is lots of logic and physics that goes behind this and you are yet to post a single credible source that shows that this missile is stealthy.
> 
> You have officially proved that your a fanboy and dont know sh** about military matters, you are officially dismissed and added to the fanboy list. Keep living in your little bubble fanboy



tell me what is the point of these radars when you have no kill vehicle to intercept the BrahMos 

your views on IR emissions deal with logic not proof and your saying i don't know sht about military matters when you claim that the USA has not mastered ABM technology  

cruise missiles use turbofans or ramjets yet apparently the IR signature is different just because you say so? take physics 101 goml


----------



## Major Shaitan Singh

*The INDIAN BMD Program*

*Ballistic Missile System is being developed in two phases under a capability based deployment plan.*

*DRDO has developed and deploy a system for defense against missiles with less than 2,000 km range like Pakistan's Ghauri and Shaheen missiles.*







In the second phase, system capability will be upgraded to defend against missiles with ranges greater than 2,000 km that can additionally deploy decoys or maneuver.

*The Phase 2 system will require longer range radars (Detection range of 1,500km as opposed to 600 km for Phase 1 radars), and new hypersonic interceptor missiles flying at Mach 6-7 (As opposed to Mach 4-5 for Phase 1 missiles) with agility and the capability to discriminate against ballistic missile defence counter measures*. 

&#8220;Our effort is to have interception at very high altitudes, and the entire system will be able to handle multiple, simultaneous attacks,&#8221; Saraswat said.

Indian BMD program has a two-tiered system namely Prithvi Air Defence (PAD) for high altitude interception and Advanced Air Defence (AAD) for lower altitude interception. 

*The PAD missiles are for intercepting ballistic missiles at altitudes between 50-80 km and the Advanced Air Defence (AAD) missile is for destroying them at heights ranging 15-30 km.*



*1. Akash Missile*






Akash (Sanskrit: &#2310;&#2325;&#2366;&#2358; &#256;k&#257;&#347; "Sky") is India's medium range surface-to-air missile defense system developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Bharat Electronics Limited(BEL) as part of the Integrated Guided Missile Development Program.The missile can target aircraft up to 30 km away, at altitudes up to 18,000 m. Akash can be fired from both tracked and wheeled platforms.[8] Akash is said to be capable of both conventional and nuclear warheads, with a reported payload of 60 kg. A nuclear warhead could potentially give the missile the capability to destroy both aircraft and warheads from ballistic missiles. The missile battery is described as being able to track and attack several targets simultaneously.

An Akash battery comprises four 3D phased array radars and four launchers with three missiles each, all of which are interlinked. Each radar is able to track 16 targets simultaneously and control a launcher with 3 missiles. Hence it is reported to be able to detect 100 and track 64 targets and simultaneously attack any 8 of those targets at one time. The Akash system is comparable to the Patriot system, but unlike the Patriot, Akash is fully mobile and capable of protecting a moving convoy of vehicles. Like the Patriot, the Akash is really an air defence SAM which has been tested in a ballistic missile role. The system provides air defence missile coverage of 2,000 km².

As reported on June 11, 2010, Akash Mk-II version has begun development and will be ready for a first flight in 24 months. The Akash Mk-II will be a longer-range, faster and more accurate SAM. The missile will have an intercept range of 30-35 km and increase in the accuracy of the missile's guidance system and the fire control system. 

*STATUS : OPERATIONAL/ORDERED *


*2. Barak-8 /MR-SAM Program*






India and Israel agreed to jointly develop a new long range, land-based air defense system to replace the aging Pechora (SA-3 GOA) missiles currently in service with the Indian Air Force. Covering a range of 70 km, the new missile will almost double the range of the 60km vertically launched Barak 8 shipborne missile (also known as Barak NG) currently being developed for the Indian and Israeli Navies under a US$480 million five year program launched in early 2006.

The new missile system will be based on the medium-range naval air defense missile currently under development for the Indian and Israeli Navies. The naval application of the missile will be integrated with the MF-STAR phased array shipborne radar, which Elta claims to be superior to the SPY-1 AEGIS radar. Overall, the MF-STAR / Barak 8 combination is claimed to be superior to the leading US made systems such as AEGIS or Patriot PAC-3 missile systems 

*STATUS : UNDER DEVELOPMENT *


*3. S-300*






The S-300 is a series of Russian long range surface-to-air missile systems produced by NPO Almaz, all based on the initial S-300P version. 

The S-300 system was developed to defend against aircraft and cruise missiles for the Soviet Air Defence Forces. Subsequent variations were developed to intercept ballistic missiles. The S-300 was jointly produced by Almaz with Samsung Group of South Korea since 1993.

The S-300 system was first deployed by the Soviet Union in 1979, designed for the air defense of large industrial and administrative facilities, military bases, and control of airspace against enemy strike aircraft.

The project-managing developer of the S-300 is Russian Almaz corporation (government owned, aka "KB-1") which is currently a part of "Almaz-Antei" Air Defense Concern. S-300 uses missiles developed by MKB "Fakel" design bureau (a separate government corporation, aka "OKB-2").

The S-300 is regarded as one of the most potent anti-aircraft missile systems currently fielded. Its radars have the ability to simultaneously track up to 100 targets while engaging up to 12. S-300 deployment time is five minutes. The S-300 missiles are sealed rounds and require no maintenance over their lifetime. An evolved version of the S-300 system is the S-400 (NATO reporting name SA-21), entering limited service in 2004. 

*STATUS : OPERATIONAL *


*4. S-125 Neva/Pechora*






The Isayev S-125 Neva/Pechora (Russian: &#1057;-125 "&#1053;&#1077;&#1074;&#1072;"/"&#1055;&#1077;&#1095;&#1086;&#1088;&#1072;", NATO reporting name SA-3 Goa) Soviet surface-to-air missile system was designed to complement the S-25 and S-75. It has a shorter effective range and lower engagement altitude than either of its predecessors and also flies slower, but due to its two-stage design it is more effective against more maneuverable targets. 

It is also able to engage lower flying targets than the previous systems, and being more modern it is much more resistant to ECM than the S-75. The 5V24 (V-600) missiles reach around Mach 3 to 3.5 in flight, both stages powered by solid fuel rocket motors. The S-125, like the S-75, uses radio command guidance. The naval version of this system has the NATO reporting name SA-N-1 Goa and original designation M-1 Volna (Russian &#1042;&#1086;&#1083;&#1085;&#1072; &#8211; wave). 

*STATUS : OPERATIONAL* 


*5. SPYDER SAM*




[

The SPYDER (Surface-to-air PYthon and DERby) is an anti-aircraft missile system developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems (with use of Czech Tatra chassis) and using surface-to-air versions of the Python 5 and Derby missiles, also made by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. It is a quick reaction medium range missile system. SPYDER is capable of engaging aircraft, helicopters, unmanned air vehicles, drones and precision-guided munitions. It provides air defence for fixed assets and for point and area defence for mobile forces in combat areas. 
Aug 18/09: Indian Army&#8217;s QR-SAM. The Times of India reports that India&#8217;s Ministry of Defence has finally given the go-ahead for the army&#8217;s INR 40 billion (about $820 million) Quick-Reaction SAM program. These mobile missiles would protect Indian maneuver elements like armored columns and troop concentrations, as well as important areas and installations. The Army seeks to equip 3 regiments with this contract, which is over twice the size of the IAF&#8217;s 18 squadron purchase. 

*STATUS : Deployed*

*6. MBDA Maitri SAM*






The Maitri missile project is a next-generation Quick Reaction Surface-to-Air Missile (QRSAM) with a lethal hundred per cent kill probability. It is a short-range (15km,9.3mi) surface-to-air point defense missile system. It should not be confused with the similar Indian Army Low-Level Quick Reaction Missile system (LLQRM) requirement. The missile will fill the gap created by the Indian government's decision to wind up development of the Trishul point defense missile system. It is believed to be a blend of the French Mica and DRDO Trishul. Maitri will build on the work done by DRDO while developing the Trishul missile, using technology transfer from MBDA to fill the technological gaps that led to the failure of the Trishul project. 
his is the programme that succeeds the defunct Trishul shipborne point-defence missile programme, and is a joint venture between DRDO and MBDA, with developmental feeds from the VL-MICA and Trishul programmes.

*STATUS : UNDER DEVELOPMENT *

*FUTURE POSSIBILITIES/PLANNING *


1. India is also planning to develop a laser based weapon system as part of its defense to intercept and destroy missiles soon after they are launched towards the country. DRDO's Air Defence Programme Director 

V. K. Saraswat says its ideal to destroy a ballistic missile carrying nuclear or conventional warheads in its boost phase. Saraswat further added that it will take another 10&#8211;15 years for the premier defence research institute to make it usable on the ground. 

2. India has been offered the deadly S-400 and Patriot SAMs.

3. India is Possibly developing MR SAM with Israel

4. India is also visualizing to develop s Land based SAM , Basd on the Successful Astra BVR Missile.

5. India Anti-satellite weapons could be developed as part of the Indian Ballistic Missile Defense Program, which will complete the development stage in totality by 2014.[14] India had identified development of ASAT weapons "for electronic or physical destruction of satellites in both LEO (2,000-km altitude above earth's surface) and the higher GEO-synchronous orbits" as a thrust area in its long-term integrated perspective plan (2012&#8211;2027).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

Developereo said:


> Can Indian BMD intercept BrahMos?
> 
> I know Pakistan doesn't have BrahMos, but just asking what would happen if China develops comparable technology?


 
Every offensive move has a counter defensive move and vice versa....... Thats how the science evolves........ If the Russians would've sat down with the making of B-52 then we would not have seen a B-1B and the B-2 spirit...... one of the master piece of Stealth and bomber technology....... In neqr future China would definitely develop something similar to brahmos hence we already have Akash mk II in line which would be capable of intercepting supersonic and hypersonic targets upto 50-60 km with speeds in excess of mach 5-6 upto a height of about 20-25 km...... The best part of the mk II sam would be very little increase in its size and weight and you be amazed to know that the cost of the project would be covered from the huge profits being made from mk I SAM deliveries...... The 1st test is expected by the latter half of next year.


----------



## Developereo

PunjabiSidhu said:


> cruise missiles use turbofans or ramjets yet apparently the IR signature is different just because you say so? take physics 101 goml



The IR signature here is not from the engine exhaust, but friction heat from the missile body itself. The faster you go, the greater the friction IR signature.

In fact, the biggest hurdle the US faces with hypersonic missiles is not the engine technology but finding materials for the missile skin that can withstand the friction heat.


----------



## DARKY

I don't understand how notorious would detect an infrared signature emmiting target with a microwave radar....... And notorious the temperature of skin would be way over 50degrees.


----------



## DARKY

Developereo said:


> The IR signature here is not from the engine exhaust, but friction heat from the missile body itself. The faster you go, the greater the friction IR signature.
> 
> In fact, the biggest hurdle the US faces with hypersonic missiles is not the engine technology but finding materials for the missile skin that can withstand the friction heat.



The design of brahmos allows it to have low RCS profile...... And about the Infrared part it would be very less to that of a Mig 25 foxbat........ However the main point here is speed and maneuvers...... The missile will fly low hence one would not be able to detect it early only if airborne survailance of enemy air space was available....... Even after detection it would be interesting what missiles Pakistan has to intercept brahmos ?


----------



## DARKY

notorious_eagle said:


> Can you stop spreading lies, calling it stealthy does not make it stealthy, the physics behind it does not advocate what you are stating.


How is this stealthy 






and this not








notorious_eagle said:


> *At 3 times the speed of sound the skin temperature would be approximately around 50 degrees*, if the missile is skimming low the temperature of the skin will be even more higher as the missile passes through dense air and the* hot engine exhaust will appreciate its IR even more factored in with other surrounding elements*. At this altitude and speed, IR emissions will enhance significantly making it a magnet for a heat seeking missile. Brahmos from day one was designed to skid through enemy's defences by sheer speed and not stealth, for sheer speed it compromises on its stealth and manoeuvrability.



The temperature would be higher than 50 degrees.
The missile performs rolls to evenly distribute temperature on its skin.
Even on that note how would the Infrared sensors detect an incoming cruise missile which flies low and in quiet heated surrounding of lower altitudes ?



notorious_eagle said:


> How So? *The key to tracking this missile would be to detect its launch at an early stage. Your two main adversaries are fielding AWACS and Ground Radars(3D, 2D and Low Detection Radars) all data linked with each other*, you can be sure as hell that this missile will be long detected as soon as it is launched with its high IR emissions. Fighter jets equipped with electro optic sensors can track and cue missiles for a successful intercept of the incoming skimming missile.



How can a heat emitting body be detected by a microwave emitter ??
What kind of Physics applies here please do tell.... or does the laws of Physics changes for a Pakistani Radar ?
And how would the fighter jets intercept such a missile in 1st place which flies at around Mach 3.... I am yet to know if SR-71 and Mig 25 foxbats were ever intercepted by any fighter jets at their top speeds of Mach 3.... even though they flew higher and were easy to detect from long ranges.... besides being a lot bigger.


----------



## DrSomnath999

Major Shaitan Singh said:


> *The INDIAN BMD Program*
> 
> 
> *7. Trishul *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trishul (Sanskrit &#2340;&#2381;&#2352;&#2367;&#2358;&#2370;&#2354; meaning trident) is the name of a short range surface-to-air missile developed by India as a part of the Integrated Guided Missile Development Program. It has a range of 9 km and is fitted with a 5.5 kg warhead. Designed to be used against low-level (sea skimming) targets at short range, the system has been developed to defend naval vessels against missiles and also as a short range surface to air missile on land. Guidance consists of three different guiding beams, with the guidance handed over progressively to a narrower beam as the missile approaches the target.
> 
> According to reports, the range of the missile is 12 km and is fitted with a 15 kg warhead. The weight of the missile is 130 kg. The length of the missile is 3.1 m.[43]


brother shaitan plz delete trishul from the list as it is cancelled project other wise pak trolls would start bashing us on Trishul as a failed project of us

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

DARKY said:


> The design of brahmos allows it to have low RCS profile...... And about the Infrared part it would be very less to that of a Mig 25 foxbat........ However the main point here is speed and maneuvers...... The missile will fly low hence one would not be able to detect it early only if airborne survailance of enemy air space was available....... Even after detection it would be interesting what missiles Pakistan has to intercept brahmos ?



Air friction creates heat -- that's basic physics, doesn't matter how you design your missile. And that heat is radiated in all directions from every single square inch of the missile's body. I am sure there is furious research going on in the materials departments in major countries but no dice so far.

As for detecting it, US has satellites that can detect a house fire. Detecting BrahMos in flight is a piece-of-cake. There are not too many things on this planet that are super hot (enough to almost melt metal) and move at supersonic speeds.

Agreed that Pakistan doesn't have that technology but, if US has it, you can be sure China will develop it too.


----------



## Cool_Soldier

One thing, I like in Indian, they think and claim beyond their capabilities.This thing boost us and we increase our capabilities.


----------



## DARKY

Developereo said:


> Air friction creates heat -- that's basic physics, doesn't matter how you design your missile. And that heat is radiated in all directions from every single square inch of the missile's body. I am sure there is furious research going on in the materials departments in major countries but no dice so far.



Yes Heat is generated.... but the point here is is the heat generated enough to track the missile at long ranges ?? or at what point in the path of the missile the generated heat is enough to get it detected and at what point it is good enough to successfully track the missile.... yes the heat is radiated from every direction and every single inch but the surface which experiences more drag generates more heat in a case of air breathing non rocket motor missile.... there are measures employed to reduce the drag hence reduce the heat.... I don't know what is your point here ??



Developereo said:


> As for detecting it, US has satellites that can detect a house fire. *Detecting BrahMos in flight is a piece-of-cake.* There are not too many things on this planet that are super hot (enough to almost melt metal) and move at supersonic speeds.



Indian satellites can detect "*you*" sitting on your terrace.... forget about house fire.... here we are talking of a supersonic cruise missile which has ramjet propulsion and very small boost phase may be somehow launchers are detected and even boost phase is clipped but *how can a satellite track such a small object which would be moving at mach 3*.... there's a lot of difference in detecting and tracking.



Developereo said:


> Agreed that Pakistan doesn't have that technology but,* if US has it, you can be sure China will develop it too.*



Why should I be *Sure* that China would definitely develop it to ??.... does US give all its weapon system for China to develop... or does the godly logic of infinite resources apply here ??.... or Chinese are also gods and out of world people ??......
..... Even on that note what has Pakistan to do with any such development


----------



## DARKY

Cool_Soldier said:


> One thing, I like in Indian, they think and claim beyond their capabilities.This thing boost us and *we increase our capabilities*.



http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/130819-pakistani-ballistic-missiles-indigenous-content-development.html

We can see the increase lol.

---------- Post added at 04:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 PM ----------




Cool_Soldier said:


> One thing, I like in Indian, they think and claim beyond their capabilities.This thing boost us and *we increase our capabilities*.



http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/130819-pakistani-ballistic-missiles-indigenous-content-development.html

We can see the increase lol.


----------



## Developereo

DARKY said:


> Yes Heat is generated.... but the point here is is the heat generated enough to track the missile at long ranges ?? or at what point in the path of the missile the generated heat is enough to get it detected and at what point it is good enough to successfully track the missile.... yes the heat is radiated from every direction and every single inch but the surface which experiences more drag generates more heat in a case of air breathing non rocket motor missile.... there are measures employed to reduce the drag hence reduce the heat.... I don't know what is your point here ??



You cannot reduce the friction on the leading surfaces. They will generate heat no matter what you do, unless you develop special materials. And that heat is detected. It's got nothing to do with what the rocket breathes.



DARKY said:


> Indian satellites can detect "*you*" sitting on your terrace.... forget about house fire.... here we are talking of a supersonic cruise missile which has ramjet propulsion and very small boost phase may be somehow launchers are detected and even boost phase is clipped but *how can a satellite track such a small object which would be moving at mach 3*.... there's a lot of difference in detecting and tracking.



Leaving aside "Incredible Indian" satellites and coming back to reality, the fact is that the technology exists to detect this kind of extreme heat -- and when something like that is moving at mach _anything_, there's only one conclusion.

For countries with the requisite satellite technology, detecting BrahMos is a piece of cake.



DARKY said:


> Why should I be *Sure* that China would definitely develop it to ??.... does US give all its weapon system for China to develop... or does the godly logic of infinite resources apply here ??.... or Chinese are also gods and out of world people ??......



Chinese are smart with money. They have a track record of catching up with western technology.



DARKY said:


> ..... Even on that note what has Pakistan to do with any such development



All we need is a linkup to Chinese satellite coverage of India.


----------



## IND151

> *For countries with the requisite satellite technology, detecting BrahMos is a piece of cake.
> *


true but stopping it wont be


----------



## Developereo

IND151 said:


> true but stopping it wont be



Yes, interception is the harder part, but US has had that capability for a while.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilitie...ups/public/documents/content/cms01_055809.pdf

And that's just the old ESSM. The newer interceptors are even more capable.


----------



## DARKY

Developereo said:


> You cannot reduce the friction on the leading surfaces. They will generate heat no matter what you do, unless you develop special materials. And that heat is detected. It's got nothing to do with what the rocket breathes.



Yes detected but at what range ?? and what would you do with the detection ??.... how will you know the path of the missile ??



Developereo said:


> Leaving aside "Incredible Indian" satellites and coming back to reality, the fact is that the technology exists to detect this kind of extreme heat -- and when something like that is moving at mach _anything_, there's only one conclusion.
> 
> *For countries with the requisite satellite technology, detecting BrahMos is a piece of cake*.



What extreme heat are you talking about ??.... the exhaust of a fighter plane would generate more heat in a AB mode.... is that extreme for you ??.... mention/post your source for the peice of cake part.... or explain how a satellite can track a cruise missile.




Developereo said:


> Chinese are smart with money. They have a track record of catching up with western technology.
> 
> 
> 
> All we need is a linkup to Chinese satellite coverage of India.


 
What track record ??.... prove it....


----------



## deckingraj

notorious_eagle said:


> Cake would be a harsh word, intercepting any missile is no easy task as the physics and the initiative is always on the side of the aggressor. Supersonic missiles have their own pros and cons, one of its biggest cons is its high RCS. The US did develop a supersonic missile but the verdict was that *it was too expensive and its high RCS gives the enemy enough time to deploy counter measures.*



That's where you are making you biggest mistake. You are ignoring both the key hard facts.

a) The sophistication that so called US enemy possess.
b) The distance that these so-called supersonic missiles need to travel.

why are you ignoring the fact the sub-sonic cruise missiles are there for quite sometime. It is quite obvious that their counters are far more mature then the counters for supersonic one's..Having said that it all depends upon the threat perception...Don't you guy say that distance b/w India and Pakistan is so less that India's ABM system will not get enough time to defend against a BM??? Now why that argument(proximity) goes into thin air when we talk about cruise missile???Look at the end of the day everything has counter measures...Brahmos is not invincible and if anyone is saying that then he/she is wrong...but it is avery potent weapon and will prove to be nemesis for the adversary...have no doubts about it...



> I fail to see how, the faster the missile is travelling the more IR signature its releasing. *No country in the world has the technology to reduce the IR emissions for a supersonic cruise missile*, smart skin concept is all speculative and has not been fully developed.



What i mean is that RCS is very subjective. If my radar is more sophisticated then a so called smaller RCS is no longer smaller...You seem to be very sure about the bolded part...so i will leave it there...



> Dont get me wrong, the Brahmos is an amazing weapon and definitely adds more muscle to the IA. But Brahmos will definitely be challenged if the adversary has a well developed early warning radar system. India is lucky in that sense that not many nations in the world have a highly sophisticated early warning radar systems in place.



I am not sure if we care about world nations. Our potential adversary are Pakistan and China....Good to hear you acknowledge Brahmos is amazing weapon. Look detection is one aspect of countering a missile. Let's not undermine the other aspects...




> Its always good to be prepared than not be prepared at all. If India fields a successful operational ABM system than it simply changes the balance of power in South Asia, Pakistan will never accept this and that is why its taking additional steps to increase the lethality of its missile program. I have my doubts about the Indian ABM because the Indians have started only researching about it recently and its missile program is quite primitive compared to those nations whom are fielding ABM systems that are operational, but ones with flaws.



What you mean by recent??? Look let's not ignore some key facts here...

a) We have 5 successful interception. It is a big hard fact and cannot/shouldn't be ignored
b) Technology has improved considerably. There is no reason for a system to take same amount of time that it might have taken in the initial stages.

---------- Post added at 10:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 AM ----------




Developereo said:


> It's an arms race so, of course, the technological ante keeps getting upped. But the point is that *for every better mouse, there is a mousetrap*.



Is that so??? For every better mouse there is not always a mousetrap. However there is no deny the fact that counters will come/being researched. It doesn't matter if there is a mousetrap...What matter's is that do you possess one??? I believe that is the crux of our discussion...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## notorious_eagle

DARKY said:


> How is this stealthy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and this not



You still are not getting what i am trying to state, you cannot compare a subsonic missile to a supersonic missile. A supersonic missile comprises its maneuverability and stealth for speed. 



DARKY said:


> The temperature would be higher than 50 degrees.
> The missile performs rolls to evenly distribute temperature on its skin.
> Even on that note how would the Infrared sensors detect an incoming cruise missile which flies low and in quiet heated surrounding of lower altitudes ?



Clearly since you haven't done your research and are just B.Sing, i wont waste my time my crafting a huge response. I will cheat a bit and post a very beautiful analysis from another website, hope it open up your eyes because my friend you are living in a lie if you think a missile that big and travelling at that speed could have a low IR signature. 

_"The problems with running very high speed bodies through dense air are manifest. The main aerodynamic issue we found was with a form of pressure drag that created buffeting on the airframe. Basically what happens is the kinetic heating on the missile body causes the air passing over it (the aerodynamic boundary layer - as opposed to the atmospheric boundary layer between sea-surface and air) to expand rapidly. This expansive air intersects with the airflow over this missile and induces drag. 

The denser or, rather, wetter the air you fly though the greater this drag is as the greater potential energy transfer from airframe to air. Furthermore the quicker you try to go through that air the higher the thermal loading on the airframe and the more intense the pressure drag. You can calculate the average effects from this condition but those equations were ones I last studied over 14 years ago and are a bit vague now.

There are solutions to this, of course, heavy metals in the missile fuselage to act as a heat sink being the most obvious but then that adds weight and changes your size, propulsion, performance, range and payload calculus. The most obvious, and the one seemingly adopted by the Moskit design team was to fly slightly higher and slower to reduce the loading.

As to the issue of subsonic warhead damage look at the bows photo of the USS Stark again. That hole in the superstructure and the heavy list to port was nothing to do with a fire - that is damage from the impact!. That damage is sufficient to send the ship back to port. If the prevailing conditions are kind it might even make it!. Even if the ship does make it back to be repaired its out of action for duration of most modern conflicts. I ask you again how much damage do you think you need to do to a ship?.

You say Brahmos has a low RCS design. From a look at the airframe I dont see it personally, at least if you compare it to a real low-RCS design like NSM, but even if it were the case you cannot propose that Brahmos has Low Observability characteristics. Not when you are talking of such a large missile travelling at such a high velocity. Even basic IRST's like Radamec's 2000 series can detect tactical fastjets at 20km plus, Thales's new SIRIUS sensor has, allegedly, the capability to detect TBM's at ranges in the hundreds of kilometres. A mach2.8 missile travelling at altitude will beacon on IRST at 40km even if, and IMO this is very unlikely, the radar doesnt catch it. The basic physics of it is that a vehicle cannot expend the kind of energy that M2.8 requires without radiating some of it out into the environment somewhere in some form."_



DARKY said:


> How can a heat emitting body be detected by a microwave emitter ??
> What kind of Physics applies here please do tell.... or does the laws of Physics changes for a Pakistani Radar ?



You are telling me that the Brahmos wont be picked up by an AWAC that is equipped with an AESA radar ? 

Is it just me or is your nationalistic pride taking over the better of your judgement. I wont spoon feed you everything, do some freakin research and learn how an AESA tracks a cruise missile especially one that is huge and is travelling at speed of almost Mach 3. Supersonic CM's reflected radar waves have more detectable doppler frequency shift because of its speed, its easier to pick up its signals due to the background clutter such as the radar waves that are reflected. 




DARKY said:


> And how would the fighter jets intercept such a missile in 1st place which flies at around Mach 3.... I am yet to know if SR-71 and Mig 25 foxbats were ever intercepted by any fighter jets at their top speeds of Mach 3.... even though they flew higher and were easy to detect from long ranges.... besides being a lot bigger.



Have you ever heard of something called head on interception? A missile emitting IR of that size will be a magnet for a heat seeking missile, electro optic sensors can track and cue a missile for successful interceptions. 

I have no idea why are you guys getting so defensive, Brahmos is a wonderful weapon but not a weapon made by God himself. You guys need to drop your ego and drop this mindset of 'Every Indian weapon is invincible'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## notorious_eagle

deckingraj said:


> why are you ignoring the fact the sub-sonic cruise missiles are there for quite sometime. It is quite obvious that their counters are far more mature then the counters for supersonic one's..



A supersonic missile uses its sheer speed to skid through the enemy defences and a subsonic cruise missile uses its maneuverability and low observability to bypass the enemy defences. 

These two missiles are completely different beasts and different set of counter measures are needed to tame them. To counter a supersonic missile, the missile needs to be detected quickly and complete operational readiness is required to deploy the effective counter measures in time. To counter a subsonic missile, an excellent radar network is needed that can look down and discriminate the missile from other clutters such as mountains or trees. 



deckingraj said:


> Having said that it all depends upon the threat perception...Don't you guy say that distance b/w India and Pakistan is so less that India's ABM system will not get enough time to defend against a BM??? Now why that argument(proximity) goes into thin air when we talk about cruise missile???



It depends what stage of the conflict we are in? If we are in a full scale shooting than countering every Brahmos is going to be difficult as your enemy's assets would be divided up. In a skirmish, the probability of countering Brahmos is higher as your enemy can focus more resources on countering down the incoming missiles. 



deckingraj said:


> Look at the end of the day everything has counter measures...Brahmos is not invincible and if anyone is saying that then he/she is wrong...but it is avery potent weapon and will prove to be nemesis for the adversary...have no doubts about it...



Why dont you tell your country men this whom are advocating that Brahmos is invincible, its so stealthy that is will bypass your enemy's radars. You were asking me in another thread why my hostility towards Indian members have increased its exactly because of this, sheer blind patriotism has clouded their judgement to even think rationally. I am not questioning the fact that Brahmos is not a potent weapon, it is no doubt about it but making it out to be a missile sent by God himself is what is ticking me off. 



deckingraj said:


> What i mean is that RCS is very subjective. If my radar is more sophisticated then a so called smaller RCS is no longer smaller...You seem to be very sure about the bolded part...so i will leave it there...



Both your enemies field very sophisticated radar networks. I still cannot believe that you guys purchased AWACS, it gave Pakistan the perfect excuse to purchase AWACS of its own. If Pakistan did not have any AWACS in its inventory, these Brahmos and your low flying Mirage 2000's would be very difficult to pick up. 



deckingraj said:


> I am not sure if we care about world nations. Our potential adversary are Pakistan and China....Good to hear you acknowledge Brahmos is amazing weapon. Look detection is one aspect of countering a missile. Let's not undermine the other aspects...



Indeed, but detection is the most important step in countering the Brahmos. 



deckingraj said:


> What you mean by recent??? Look let's not ignore some key facts here...
> 
> a) We have 5 successful interception. It is a big hard fact and cannot/shouldn't be ignored
> b) Technology has improved considerably. There is no reason for a system to take same amount of time that it might have taken in the initial stages.




The US has been researching ABM systems for decades now and they invested hundreds of billions of dollars, an amount that India can only dream of investing. They still dont have a fully functional ABM system, during the Gulf War Scud missiles which are very primitive in terms of design managed to get past the Patriot Missile defences. Your ABM systems are not close to being as advance as the Americans and your enemies field much more sophisticated missiles than the Iraqi scuds.


----------



## DARKY

notorious_eagle said:


> You still are not getting what i am trying to state, you cannot compare a subsonic missile to a supersonic missile. A supersonic missile comprises its maneuverability and stealth for speed.





> _The Brahmos test firing once again has established &#8220;its mountain warfare capability with upgraded software and a new advanced guidance scheme* incorporating large-scale maneuvers at multiple points and a steep dive from high altitude with precision strike capability*,&#8221; a statement says.
> 
> While the Block II launch met the army&#8217;s requirement for the land attack version with advanced seeker software with target discriminating capabilities, the Block III version was *&#8220;better in its maneuvering capability,&#8221;* an army official tells AVIATION WEEK. &#8220;This is a significant step because maneuvering in supersonic mode is a difficult task. *Now it is multipoint maneuvering* ... and a major deviation in its path.&#8221;_



http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awx/2010/12/02/awx_12_02_2010_p0-273623.xml&channel=defense



notorious_eagle said:


> Clearly since you haven't done your research and are just B.Sing, i wont waste my time my crafting a huge response. I will cheat a bit and post a very beautiful analysis from another website, hope it open up your eyes because my friend you are living in a lie if you think a missile that big and travelling at that speed could have a low IR signature.
> 
> _"The problems with running very high speed bodies through dense air are manifest. The main aerodynamic issue we found was with a form of pressure drag that created buffeting on the airframe. Basically what happens is the kinetic heating on the missile body causes the air passing over it (the aerodynamic boundary layer - as opposed to the atmospheric boundary layer between sea-surface and air) to expand rapidly. This expansive air intersects with the airflow over this missile and induces drag.
> 
> The denser or, rather, wetter the air you fly though the greater this drag is as the greater potential energy transfer from airframe to air. Furthermore the quicker you try to go through that air the higher the thermal loading on the airframe and the more intense the pressure drag. You can calculate the average effects from this condition but those equations were ones I last studied over 14 years ago and are a bit vague now.
> 
> There are solutions to this, of course, heavy metals in the missile fuselage to act as a heat sink being the most obvious but then that adds weight and changes your size, propulsion, performance, range and payload calculus. The most obvious, and the one seemingly adopted by the Moskit design team was to fly slightly higher and slower to reduce the loading.
> 
> As to the issue of subsonic warhead damage look at the bows photo of the USS Stark again. That hole in the superstructure and the heavy list to port was nothing to do with a fire - that is damage from the impact!. That damage is sufficient to send the ship back to port. If the prevailing conditions are kind it might even make it!. Even if the ship does make it back to be repaired its out of action for duration of most modern conflicts. I ask you again how much damage do you think you need to do to a ship?.
> 
> You say Brahmos has a low RCS design.* From a look at the airframe* I dont see it personally, at least if you compare it to a real low-RCS design like NSM, but even if it were the case you cannot propose that Brahmos has Low Observability characteristics. Not when you are talking of such a* large missile* travelling at such a high velocity. Even basic IRST's like Radamec's 2000 series can detect tactical fastjets at 20km plus, Thales's new *SIRIUS sensor* has, allegedly, the capability to detect *TBM's at ranges in the hundreds of kilometres*. *A mach2.8 missile travelling at altitude will beacon on IRST at 40km* even if, and IMO this is very unlikely, the radar doesnt catch it. The basic physics of it is that a vehicle cannot expend the kind of energy that M2.8 requires without radiating some of it out into the environment somewhere in some form."_



Name the poster and the defense forum from where you have copied those lines *No* Brahmos does not fly at 40-30 km it flies below 10 km go and ask that poster how to detect a ramjet cruise missile of the size of brahmos at hundreds of kilometers..... and about its size... the missile only 1.4 m longer and 8 cm thicker than your babur CM.... wonder how big that becomes ??



notorious_eagle said:


> You are telling me that the Brahmos wont be picked up by an AWAC that is equipped with an AESA radar ?



Don't put your words in others mouth.....



notorious_eagle said:


> Is it just me or is your nationalistic pride taking over the better of your judgement. I wont spoon feed you everything, do some *freakin research* and learn how an AESA tracks a cruise missile especially one that is huge and is travelling at speed of almost Mach 3.* Supersonic CM's reflected radar waves have more detectable doppler frequency shift because of its speed, its easier to pick up its signals due to the background clutter such as the radar waves that are reflected*.



Here is the freaking research you did..... 
What advantage in terms of time and range does a shift in dropper frequency provides when the medium being used is an EMW ??
How is it *easier* ?? and what background *clutters* ??
Atleast *copy* the things correctly 



notorious_eagle said:


> Have you ever heard of something called *head on interception*? A missile emitting IR of that size will be a magnet for a heat seeking missile, electro optic sensors can track and cue a missile for successful interceptions.



How would you perform a head on interception when the missile is maneuvering and you don't know its path.... yes that would be a magnet for a sea sparrow but only for small ranges before the missile evades it or out runs it...



notorious_eagle said:


> I have no idea why are you guys getting so defensive, Brahmos is a wonderful weapon but not a weapon made by God himself. You guys need to drop your ego and drop this mindset of 'Every Indian weapon is invincible'.



How are we getting defensive ??
Never did any Indian here said that brahmos is invisible... 

You still did'nt answer the question.... *How would your Radar detect a heat emmiting body ??*...... I never asked what AWACS you had.


----------



## Developereo

deckingraj said:


> Is that so??? For every better mouse there is not always a mousetrap. However there is no deny the fact that counters will come/being researched.



The mousetrap for BrahMos existed before BrahMos itself. Effectively, it was obsolete the day it was commissioned.
I already posted the link to the Raytheon website for ESSM.



deckingraj said:


> It doesn't matter if there is a mousetrap...What matter's is that do you possess one??? I believe that is the crux of our discussion...



Yes, Pakistan doesn't have the technology.



DARKY said:


> Yes detected but at what range ?? and what would you do with the detection ??.... how will you know the path of the missile ??
> 
> 
> 
> What extreme heat are you talking about ??.... the exhaust of a fighter plane would generate more heat in a AB mode.... is that extreme for you ??.... mention/post your source for the peice of cake part.... or explain how a satellite can track a cruise missile.



There was a whole STARTFOR article explaining it, but the content is now password protected.
Here's a description from a non-Pakistani how BrahMos can be countered.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/53380-brahmos-high.html#post783777



DARKY said:


> What track record ??.... prove it....



If you don't believe Chinese military technology is closing ground with the west, there's not much to talk about. There have been enough threads about that subject.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## notorious_eagle

Developereo said:


> If you don't believe Chinese military technology is closing ground with the west, there's not much to talk about. There have been enough threads about that subject.



Sir i already arrived at that conclusion when he asked me 'How would an AESA equipped radar detect the super duper Brahmos'. If he is asking such a stupid question like that, there is no reason for me to argue with a fanboy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Some info about Brahmos that might help 



> Besides its supersonic speed, which will
> make its interception extremely difficult, the BrahMos incorporates stealth
> technology and many experts consider the BrahMos a state-of-the-artcruise
> missile.112 Particularly troubling to the United States is the reported stated intent of
> Russia and India to export the Brahmos to Third World countries which could
> provide these countries with an asymmetric advantage113 over the United States and
> our allies who could be hard pressed to effectively defend against this missile.114



This is as per a US Congress report of 2004 

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl30427.pdf


----------



## DARKY

notorious_eagle said:


> Sir i already arrived at that conclusion *when he asked me* 'How would an AESA equipped radar detect the super duper Brahmos'. If he is asking such* a stupid question* like that, there is no reason for me to argue with a *fanboy*.



When did I or any of the Indian posters asked about your AWACS detecting Brahmos.... *Quote the lines* for every one to see.... else *stop* putting *your* words in others mouth....

You are *yet* to answer..... *How does your microwave emitter or Radar detect a heat emitting body ??*
.... If you don't have the answer then *admit it*.... rather than putting *your* words in others mouth.... and running away hiding you face....


----------



## DARKY

Developereo said:


> There was a whole STARTFOR article explaining it, but the content is now password protected.
> Here's a description from a non-Pakistani how BrahMos can be countered.
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/53380-brahmos-high.html#post783777


 
Explain it* yourself*.... *How can you track a moving cruise missile with a satellite ??*
Else provide your *source* for that *claim*.... don't *run *away like your *pal*...
And I saw the whole thread.... and the *replies* to that poster aswell....


----------



## LiberalAtheist

currently with our ABM we can already intercept all Pakistani SRBM's as for MRBM's we have shown that we can intercept Pakistan's Ghauri 1 and Shaheen 1 missiles..... in 2009 a PAD missile intercepted a modified dual stage liquid and solid fueled Prithvi missile with a range of 1,500km its trajectory was designed to mimic the No-Dong and M-11 ballistic missiles it was successfully intercepted... 
now we have to move on to next stage and intercept the 3,500km class of missiles we should use one of our Agni 3 or 2 missiles to help improve our ABM.


----------



## GURU DUTT

Good morning Gentlelmen

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

Syama Ayas said:


> Some info about Brahmos that might help
> 
> 
> 
> This is as per a US Congress report of 2004
> 
> http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl30427.pdf



Yes, Congress trying to justify military funding. If you read the military reports, including statfor, they are confident about handling the BrahMos.



DARKY said:


> Explain it* yourself*.... *How can you track a moving cruise missile with a satellite ??*
> Else provide your *source* for that *claim*.... don't *run *away like your *pal*...
> And I saw the whole thread.... and the *replies* to that poster aswell....



Nobody's running away. You refuse to accept reality and want to believe in the BrahMos. Same reaction as Indians in that other thread.

How many natural phenomena do you know on this planet that have a big as$ heat signature and that move at mach 3? According to you, Indian satellites can see people sitting in their backyards, but other countries, which can already track ballistic missiles, can't track such a huge heat signature moving at an unnatural speed -- especially over a cold ocean.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## notorious_eagle

DARKY said:


> When did I or any of the Indian posters asked about your AWACS detecting Brahmos.... *Quote the lines* for every one to see.... else *stop* putting *your* words in others mouth....
> 
> You are *yet* to answer..... *How does your microwave emitter or Radar detect a heat emitting body ??*
> .... If you don't have the answer then *admit it*.... rather than putting *your* words in others mouth.... and running away hiding you face....



I am not putting words in your mouth, what else would you mean with a stupid question like that. Being patriotic is one thing but being an idiot is another, i honestly cannot believe that you think PAF wont catch Brahmos on its radar. Now, i am not going to baby you as you want me to, here are two excellent links, read them and comprehend it. Put some damn effort in instead of finding shortcuts. 

Infrared Countermeasures Systems
ERIEYE AEW&C / S100B Argus

---------- Post added at 11:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:50 PM ----------




Developereo said:


> How many natural phenomena do you know on this planet that have a big as$ heat signature and that move at mach 3? According to you, Indian satellites can see people sitting in their backyards, but other countries, which can already track ballistic missiles, can't track such a huge heat signature moving at an unnatural speed -- especially over a cold ocean.



Sir forget the satellites, there is no way in hell the Super Duper Brahmos can escape the detection range of our AWACS and our Ground Radars. Our AWACS can look over the horizon deep inside the Indian territory, Brahmos range is 280km and we have that range covered quite easily.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Spitfighter

deleted. wrong thread.


----------



## PiyaraPakistan

Dear Darky evryone knows that Pakistani missile technology is far better than India and i think you also know that.


----------



## DARKY

notorious_eagle said:


> I am not putting words in your mouth, what else would you mean with *a stupid question* like that. Being patriotic is one thing but being an idiot is another, i honestly cannot believe that you think PAF wont *catch Brahmos on its radar*. Now, i am not going to baby you as you want me to, here are two excellent links, read them and comprehend it. Put some *damn effort* in instead of finding shortcuts.
> 
> Infrared Countermeasures Systems
> ERIEYE AEW&C / S100B Argus



Your links still *don't answer* the question *"How can your radar track a heat emitting body ??"*
And No matter what* damn* efforts you put or *freaking* researches you do to *copy and paste* from other defense forms.... you still *won't* get the answer... hence its better to *admit* that your *ridiculous claims* about *radars detecting a heat emitting body* was a complete *non-sense* which you puked out of sheer patriotism, idiotism, fanboism.. and etc.. etc.. isms...


----------



## GURU DUTT

DARKY said:


> Your links still *don't answer* the question *"How can your radar track a heat emitting body ??"*
> And No matter what* damn* efforts you put or *freaking* researches you do to *copy and paste* from other defense forms.... you still *won't* get the answer... hence its better to *admit* that your *ridiculous claims* about *radars detecting a heat emitting body* was a complete *non-sense* which you puked out of sheer patriotism, idiotism, fanboism.. and etc.. etc.. isms...


seneor good morning & treat thrm a bit kindly


----------



## DARKY

Developereo said:


> Nobody's running away. You refuse to *accept reality* and want to believe in the BrahMos. Same reaction as Indians in that other thread.
> 
> How many *natural phenomena* do you know on this planet that have a big as$ *heat signature *and that move at mach 3? According to you, Indian satellites can see people sitting in their backyards, but other countries, which can already *track ballistic missiles*, can't track such a huge heat signature moving at an *unnatural speed *-- especially over a *cold ocean*.


 
Accept reality is the *key* here... hope your friend *realizes* that....
There are many natural and unnatural phenomenon which emit *more heat*...
How will your IR detectors and tracking equipment *distinguish* a *50degree Celsius* object of the size of brahmos in say a *30-35 degree Celsius* heated sea and almost *50-55 degree Celsius* heated sands of the Thar desert...
Ballistic missiles emit extremely high heat, are bigger, generate a lot of smoke during launch, leave a tail behind its path, have rocket fuel burning out of exhaust and have a defined trajectory... which in addition is ballistic to make tracking a lot easier....

---------- Post added at 01:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 PM ----------




PiyaraPakistan said:


> Dear Darky evryone knows that Pakistani missile technology is far better than India and i think you also know that.



Yes I do...

---------- Post added at 01:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:16 PM ----------




GURU DUTT said:


> seneor good morning & treat thrm a bit kindly



Good morning... and yes a nice suggestion about the kindnesses part... Thanks for that....


----------



## Developereo

DARKY said:


> There are many natural and unnatural phenomenon which emit *more heat*...
> How will your IR detectors and tracking equipment *distinguish* a *50degree Celsius* object of the size of brahmos in say a *30-35 degree Celsius* heated sea and almost *50-55 degree Celsius* heated sands of the Thar desert...



How many of these natural phenomena travel at mach 3?

The combination of heat signature and high speed are dead giveaways for BrahMos.

P.S. The temperature of 50C was at 37000 feet. At sea level, the temperature is expected to be in excess of 1000F (538C).


----------



## ares

Developereo said:


> How many of these natural phenomena travel at mach 3?
> 
> The combination of heat signature and high speed are dead giveaways for BrahMos.



Lets say you detect the missiles with the infrared camera you have placed on your satellite(which btw you don't have) then what?


----------



## DARKY

Developereo said:


> How many of these natural phenomena travel at mach 3?
> 
> The combination of heat signature and high speed are dead giveaways for BrahMos.



What has Mach 3 got to do with tracking.... only think which it can do on contrary is make tracking difficult since the path would be a horizontal cruise....
If according to you a satellite were to track a brahmos then tracking fighter planes were to be a lot easier....
Current technology allows for tracking of naval ships in ISRO but yes NASA has satellites which can track an MBT in an urban environment but for that the satellites need to be pre-programmed and extensive coverage is required.... what you need to realize is that *detection* and *tracking *are two *different* things altogether... you still detect a vehicle near your house using google earth.. but won't be able to track its movement..


----------



## LiberalAtheist

PiyaraPakistan said:


> Dear Darky evryone knows that Pakistani missile technology is *far better* than India and i think you also know that.



according to who? you? even this clown accepts Indian missiles are better 

Pakistan Accepts Truth About Their Armed Forces....Hindi/Urdu Version - YouTube


----------



## Developereo

ares said:


> Lets say you detect the missiles with the infrared camera you have placed on your satellite(which btw you don't have) then what?



As notorious_eagle pointed out, our AWACS should be enough since they already see beyond the BrahMos range. Pakistan may or may not have interceptor technology, I don't know. The point is that the technology exists in the west and, quite possibly, China.



DARKY said:


> What has Mach 3 got to do with tracking.... only think which it can do on contrary is make tracking difficult since the path would be a horizontal cruise....
> If according to you a satellite were to track a brahmos then tracking fighter planes were to be a lot easier....
> Current technology allows for tracking of naval ships in ISRO but yes NASA has satellites which can track an MBT in an urban environment but for that the satellites need to be pre-programmed and extensive coverage is required.... what you need to realize is that *detection* and *tracking *are two *different* things altogether... you still detect a vehicle near your house using google earth.. but won't be able to track its movement..



Systems can already track ballistic missiles moving much faster than mach3 and you feel that a 538C object will simply vanish from view.


----------



## ares

Developereo said:


> As notorious_eagle pointed out, our AWACS should be enough since they already see beyond the BrahMos range. Pakistan may or may not have interceptor technology, I don't know. The point is that the technology exists in the west and, quite possibly, China.
> 
> 
> 
> Systems can already track ballistic missiles moving much faster than mach3 and you feel that a 538C object will simply vanish from view.



Your whole concept is mixed up here..

1.) Yes both ballistic missile and cruise missiles can be detected..though both need to have different kind of sys in place to detect them...for detecting a ballistic missile you need an air search high altitude radar , which can track targets travelling at great speeds(5-8Km/sec).

For detecting a low flying cruise missile you need Airborne radars(aerostat or Awacs) having the ability differentiate the target from underlying ground clutter.

2.) Now ballistic missile flies parabolic trajectory..hence its point of origin, point of impact and exact flight path can determined once a radar starts tracking it. Whereas cruise missile have a essentially a flat trajectory in which mid course deviation(Waypoints)can be programmed as it has engine powered flight throughout(unlike ballistic missiles which only have their engine powered during boost phase)..point here being the flight path of cruise missile can not be predicted.

3.)To intercept any missile(or any flying object) the speed of interceptor should be higher than speed of the target.(so that it can manouvere at same or higher speed than target).

Now Bhramos essentially has two flight profiles Lo-Hi-Lo(range 300 Km) and Lo-Lo-Lo(range 120 Km)..In the later it flies nap of the Earth where air resistance is more hence the reduced range.

Now if you wan't intercept Brahmos when it is flying Lo-Hi-Lo you will need an interceptor with speed more than 3.2 Mach and engagement altitude more than 30 Km(you don't have one and neither do Chinese..American claims there SM3 interceptors can do it)

If you want to intercept Brahmos when its flying a Lo-Lo-Lo profile well you will be extremely lucky ..because its entire flight time will be less than 100secs) in addition the Brahmos flight path should passing over SAM batteries capable of doing over mach 3.

Hence you will have less than 100sec to detect the target using AWACs.. start tracking it(there is a few seconds delay before the radar starts tracking the target after it has been acquired)..relay the information to SAM batteries..SAM batteries to start tracking the target using their own radars..to fire their engines and get going...Hence it is next to impossible due to low rxn time.


----------



## Developereo

ares said:


> For detecting a low flying cruise missile you need Airborne radars(aerostat or Awacs) having ability differentiate target from underlying ground clutter.



Not hard to differentiate a 538C body from "ground clutter".



ares said:


> To intercept any missile(or flying object) the speed of interceptor should be higher than speed of the target.(so that it manouvere at same or higher speed than target).



Wrong.

The missile is coming at you, i.e. at the interceptor. The interceptor is not chasing the missile; it just has to get in its way.

A brick wall travelling at ZERO km/h will intercept the BrahMos just fine.

A million rounds from a MetalStorm or similar only have to get in its way.

A heat seeking missile only has to get in its way.

The rest of the post is irrelevant since it relies on the above faulty premise.


----------



## ares

Developereo said:


> Not hard to differentiate a 538C body from "ground clutter".



Now you are again mixing us the two concepts .. an aircraft has essentially two kinds of detection techniques..one is the radar(range 300 Km for an AWACS) and second one is IRST(Infra red search and track).
So question is does your AWACS or any other plane carry a IRST?

Second point here being tracking range of an IRST is just 20 Kms..so if you start tracking the missile at just 20 Km from the target ..you are as good as dead.


Developereo said:


> Wrong.
> 
> The missile is coming at you, i.e. at the interceptor. The interceptor is not chasing the missile; it just has to get in its way.
> 
> A brick wall travelling at ZERO km/h will intercept the BrahMos just fine.
> 
> A million rounds from a MetalStorm or similar only have to get in its way.
> 
> A heat seeking missile only has to get in its way.
> 
> The rest of the post is irrelevant since it relies on the above faulty premise.



Contrary to your belief no missile has a straight line trjectoy ..external forces such as air resistance are constantly throwing it of its planned path..and the missile guidance sys is also constantly trying to bring it back to its planned path hence every missile is in constant state monouver deviating upto hundreds of meters from its planned path and then coming back to it and then deviatingagain..hence it is at best a zig-zag motion.

Second point here being all cruise missile have the ability to change their course at will, infact many just like Bhramos and Tomahawk also follow a terminal 'S' manouvere to fool the interceptors.

So if the interceptor missile is not able to to manouvere at the same speed as the target it will never be able to intercept the missile. 

Even if the interceptor misses its target by one meter ..it is still a miss.

As far ability of CIWS to destroy the missile..it theoretically exists, but the missile will have to extremely close to its target as CIWS do not have much range and even if destroyed the oncoming debris(at mach 3.2) has enough kinetic energy to totally decimate the target.


----------



## DARKY

Developereo said:


> Systems can already track ballistic missiles moving much faster than mach3 and you feel that a* 538C object* will simply vanish from view.


 
Are you serious....
Or just* blabbermouthing* what ever comes there.... like your friend notorious 
Here's what your esteemed poster had to say about surface temperature of brahmos....


Death.By.Chocolate said:


> Yes at mach 2.8 the Brahmos is really fast, at nearly 3 times the speed of sound the estimated skin temperature of the missile is approximately 323 K or *49.85 deg C* at 37,000 ft.


http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/53380-brahmos-high.html#post783777

Think before what you say... and think *again* when you write that to someone.
You two are just making a *laughing stock* of yourselves here with *No* knowledge about the subject at all....


----------



## Bratva

DARKY said:


> Are you serious....
> Or just* blabbermouthing* what ever comes there.... like your friend notorious
> Here's what your esteemed poster had to say about surface temperature of brahmos....
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/53380-brahmos-high.html#post783777
> 
> Think before what you say... and think *again* when you write that to someone.
> You two are just making a *laughing stock* of yourselves here with *No* knowledge about the subject at all....



Can Land version of BrahMos follows Lo-Lo-Lo trajectory or only Sea version can do the Lo-Hi-Lo and Lo-Lo-Lo


----------



## Developereo

ares said:


> Now you are again mixing us the two concepts .. an aircraft has essentially two kinds of detection techniques..one is the radar(range 300 Km for an AWACS) and second one is IRST(Infra red search and track).
> So question is does your AWACS or any other plane carry a IRST?
> 
> Second point here being tracking range of an IRST is just 20 Kms..so if you start tracking the missile at just 20 Km from the target ..you are as good as dead.



Fair point. I would say the early detection would have to rely on satellites or whatever mechanism detects BM launches.
I would expect China has full coverage of India in that respect, so Pakistan just needs to tap into that.



ares said:


> Contrary to your belief no missile has a straight line trjectoy ..external forces such as air resistance are constantly throwing it of its planned path..and the missile guidance sys is also constantly trying to bring it back to its planned path hence every missile is in constant state monouver deviating upto hundreds of meters from its planned path and then coming back to it and then deviatingagain..hence it is at best a zig-zag motion.
> 
> Second point here being all cruise missile have the ability to change their course at will, infact many just like Bhramos and Tomahawk also follow a terminal 'S' manouvere to fool the interceptors.
> 
> So if the interceptor missile is not able to to manouvere at the same speed as the target it will never be able to intercept the missile.
> 
> Even if the interceptor misses its target by one meter ..it is still a miss.
> 
> As far ability of CIWS to destroy the missile..it theoretically exists, but the missile will have to extremely close to its target as CIWS do not have much range and even if destroyed the oncoming debris(at mach 3.2) has enough kinetic energy to totally decimate the target.



The BrahMos doesn't do sharp 90 degree turns; it does flattened S-curves. It has to; because of its high forward momentum. So the speed that needs to be matched is not its forward speed, but the speed of lateral manoevers. That will be much less than the forward mach 3.

Secondly, whatever manoevers it is doing are preprogrammed. They are not evasive manoeuvers to match any intgerceptor since the heat seeking interceptor is fully passive. The BrahMos isn't even aware of the interceptor.



DARKY said:


> Are you serious....
> Or just* blabbermouthing* what ever comes there.... like your friend notorious
> Here's what your esteemed poster had to say about surface temperature of brahmos....
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/53380-brahmos-high.html#post783777
> 
> Think before what you say... and think *again* when you write that to someone.
> You two are just making a *laughing stock* of yourselves here with *No* knowledge about the subject at all....



This is sad.

http://**********************/strategic-forces/13-brahmos-news-discussions-37.html#post139824

_The heat I was referring to was just the skin temperature at Mach 2.8. At sea level the air is denser and will exaggerate the heating effect; temperatures are expected to be approximately 1,000°F or 537.8°C. This is well within the capability of passive IR 'heat seeking' missiles Mid-wavelength infrared (MWIR) sensors._

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bratva

Developereo said:


> Fair point. I would say the early detection would have to rely on satellites or whatever mechanism detects BM launches.
> I would expect China has full coverage of India in that respect, so Pakistan just needs to tap into that.
> 
> 
> 
> The BrahMos doesn't do sharp 90 degree turns; it does flattened S-curves. It has to; because of its high forward momentum. So the speed that needs to be matched is not its forward speed, but the speed of lateral manoevers. That will be much less than the forward mach 3.
> 
> Secondly, whatever manoevers it is doing are preprogrammed. They are not evasive manoeuvers to match any intgerceptor since the heat seeking interceptor is fully passive. The BrahMos isn't even aware of the interceptor.
> 
> 
> 
> This is sad.
> 
> http://**********************/strategic-forces/13-brahmos-news-discussions-37.html#post139824
> 
> _The heat I was referring to was just the skin temperature at Mach 2.8. At sea level the air is denser and will exaggerate the heating effect; temperatures are expected to be approximately 1,000°F or 537.8°C. This is well within the capability of passive IR 'heat seeking' missiles Mid-wavelength infrared (MWIR) sensors._



Develpro you copy cat, you cheating others work, we will not believe what you are saying. Darky Is more knowledgeable


----------



## DARKY

Developereo said:


> http://**********************/strategic-forces/13-brahmos-news-discussions-37.html#post139824
> 
> _The heat I was referring to was just the skin temperature at Mach 2.8. At sea level the air is denser and will exaggerate the heating effect; temperatures are expected to be approximately 1,000°F or 537.8°C. This is well within the capability of passive IR 'heat seeking' missiles Mid-wavelength infrared (MWIR) sensors._



Comparing a big plane like SR-71 black bird and a small missile like brahmos is silly.... since the former having large size would've more drag as compared to brahmos.... hence a lot higher temperature... 

http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/sr-71/

SR-71 is almost 33m long with a large wing area of 170 m2 plus huge air frame while brahmos is about 8m without any large wings.

even on that note brahmos won't be around the sea level for more than 4-5 seconds... and off course during impact...


----------



## DARKY

mafiya said:


> Can Land version of BrahMos follows Lo-Lo-Lo trajectory or only Sea version can do the Lo-Hi-Lo and Lo-Lo-Lo



Land versions can perform more trajectories as compared to the sea versions read about block II and block III versions which are the land versions of the missile.


----------



## notorious_eagle

DARKY said:


> Your links still *don't answer* the question *"How can your radar track a heat emitting body ??"*
> And No matter what* damn* efforts you put or *freaking* researches you do to *copy and paste* from other defense forms.... you still *won't* get the answer... hence its better to *admit* that your *ridiculous claims* about *radars detecting a heat emitting body* was a complete *non-sense* which you puked out of sheer patriotism, idiotism, fanboism.. and etc.. etc.. isms...



Okay Sir you win. Our AWACS cannot detect the super duper brahmos because its operated by Indian Armed Forces, it emits zero heat and has 0 RCS, it is invisible to all the radars in the world, heck its even invisible to human eyes except for those of the people whom are operating it. Since you are deflecting the question from the real issue and have engaged in trolling and fanboyism, i thought i might as well talk to you on your level. So i agree, Brahmos is the King of all missiles because its Indian.



DARKY said:


> You two are just making a *laughing stock* of yourselves here with *No* knowledge about the subject at all....



Dont worry about us being a laughing stock because you have done the job very well for yourself, infact you have made us look even more smarter. When you assume that an AWAC cannot detect the super duper brahmos, that just makes you look like a complete moron.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DARKY

notorious_eagle said:


> Okay Sir you win. Our AWACS cannot detect the super duper brahmos because its operated by Indian Armed Forces, it emits zero heat and has 0 RCS, it is invisible to all the radars in the world, heck its even invisible to human eyes except for those of the people whom are operating it. Since you are deflecting the question from the real issue and have engaged in trolling and fanboyism, i thought i might as well talk to you on your level. So i agree, Brahmos is the King of all missiles because its Indian.
> 
> 
> 
> Dont worry about us being a laughing stock because you have done the job very well for yourself, infact you have made us look even more smarter. When you assume that an AWAC cannot detect the super duper brahmos, that just makes you look like a complete moron.



Again you are trying to put your words in my mouth answer straight "*How does your radar detect a heat emmiting body ??*" Thats all I am asking since you made the claim.


----------



## LiberalAtheist

^ what does BrahMos have to do with this?


----------



## DARKY

PunjabiSidhu said:


> ^ what does BrahMos have to do with this?





notorious_eagle said:


> Did you even read what i wrote? Off course it flies at low altitude but what about the high IR signature, *with high IR signature like that there is no way it can escape detection from an AWAC or a capable 3D radar*.



For obvious reasons.... as one can see clearly.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## deckingraj

mafiya said:


> Develpro you copy cat, you cheating others work, we will not believe what you are saying. Darky Is more knowledgeable



If instead of posting such one liner's you explain to us one question that Darky has asked multiple times then don't you think it would be more useful???

"How does your radar detect a heat emmiting body ??" 

It seems Notorious Eagle claimed that since brahmos has high IR signature its detection via radar's is cake walk.....




Developereo said:


> Fair point. I would say the early detection would have to rely on satellites or whatever mechanism detects BM launches. I would expect China has full coverage of India in that respect, so Pakistan just needs to tap into that.



Well you do agree there are few "I think" here...Anyhow lets assume what you are saying is correct...However i believe the original question was detection vs tracking....Can you throw some more light on that as well????



> The BrahMos doesn't do sharp 90 degree turns; it does flattened S-curves. It has to; because of its high forward momentum. So the speed that needs to be matched is not its forward speed, but the speed of lateral manoevers. That will be much less than the forward mach 3.



but do you agree that interceptor needs to be faster then the speed of Brahmos(whatever it is at that moment)??? I believe there was some disagreement in that aspect...




> Secondly, whatever manoevers it is doing are preprogrammed. They are not evasive manoeuvers to match any intgerceptor since the heat seeking interceptor is fully passive. The BrahMos isn't even aware of the interceptor.


 
I believe you are right here...However that's where cruise missile scores over a typical BM. Calculating a BM path and trajectory is quite easy as compared to Cruise Missile...that is why speed gives a new dimension to CM.....If you can manage a CM which is supersonic and can maneuver (obviously not as much as subsonic one) then it do become a deadly combo...Don't u agree????


----------



## Jungibaaz

Brahmos is very much detectable by radar.
what is your debate against this DARKY?

I've had many folks argue that it's too quick for radar and is far too fast to be intercepted, which is just untrue, and some times some talk about the plume created at the speeds, little do they know to match it up with X-Band.


----------



## Dazzler

Topic has drifted from ABM to Brahmos which is becoming more of a norm by some members. What Brahmos has to do with ABM? Also, the fact that ABM by nature is a defensive system so it is the ABM user (India this case) who will have to defend from Pak missiles, not the other way around.

---------- Post added at 09:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 PM ----------




Jungibaaz said:


> Brahmos is very much detectable by radar.
> what is your debate against this DARKY?
> 
> I've had many folks argue that it's too quick for radar and is far too fast to be intercepted, which is just untrue, and some times some talk about the plume created at the speeds, little do they know to match it up with X-Band.



Adding to your point, even those who are advocating Brahmos all the time as if it is some sort of a divine weapon that cannot be detected by a radar (very false indeed) know they are making a mountain out of a mole.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

then somebody please answer the post # 382.


----------



## Dazzler

DARKY said:


> Again you are trying to put your words in my mouth answer straight "*How does your radar detect a heat emmiting body ??*" Thats all I am asking since you made the claim.



So as per you, a radar is the only sensor used for detection purpose? Do you know what an integrated combat data system is and how many sensors, electronic equipment can a modern battle ship handle? Remove the notion of Brahmos being superior to any detection because in real combat scenario, fantasies do not stand firm.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

a bit more info can be found here...

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/522.pdf


----------



## Developereo

DARKY said:


> Comparing a big plane like SR-71 black bird and a small missile like brahmos is silly.... since the former having large size would've more drag as compared to brahmos.... hence a lot higher temperature...



No, the temperature will be the same whether its a missile or a plane. The plane will emit a bigger heat signature because of its size, but the heat intensity does not depend on size.



DARKY said:


> even on that note brahmos won't be around the sea level for more than 4-5 seconds... and off course during impact...



But I thought the BrahMos was 'invisible' because it merges in with 'ground clutter'. Where is the ground clutter at 37000 feet?

Unless the BrahMos takes scenic route along the Himalayas and K2 before coming down into Pakistan's heartland...



deckingraj said:


> Well you do agree there are few "I think" here...Anyhow lets assume what you are saying is correct...However i believe the original question was detection vs tracking....Can you throw some more light on that as well????



The "I think" are reasonable. It's reasonable to assume that China is covering Indian launches and it's reasonable to assume that Pakistan can come to some arrangement about accessing that data.

Once you can detect, tracking is easy. There are not too many things that are so hot and that move at mach 3.



deckingraj said:


> but do you agree that interceptor needs to be faster then the speed of Brahmos(whatever it is at that moment)??? I believe there was some disagreement in that aspect...



No, that was my whole point. The interceptor is not coming from behind and catching up; it is approaching from the front or side. I gave the trivial example of a brick wall which just needs to _be there_ at 0 mph.

People are confusing BrahMos forward speed of mach 3 with its lateral evasive speed which will be much less than mach 3. The BrahMos can only make wide turns _precisely because it has so much forward momentum_.



deckingraj said:


> I believe you are right here...However that's where cruise missile scores over a typical BM. Calculating a BM path and trajectory is quite easy as compared to Cruise Missile...that is why speed gives a new dimension to CM.....If you can manage a CM which is supersonic and can maneuver (obviously not as much as subsonic one) then it do become a deadly combo...Don't u agree????



That's where the example of MetalStorm came in. Heat seeking missiles are one type of interceptor; the other is a million round/minute which will effectively create a metal wall in front of the missile Of course the body of the BrahMos will get through because of its momentum, but only in shreds, not intact.


----------



## LiberalAtheist

detecting BrahMos is great intercepting is another thing that is near to impossible AWACS can help but aerostat is the best way to detect cruise missiles does Pakistan even have aerostat radars?


----------



## notorious_eagle

nabil_05 said:


> So as per you, a radar is the only sensor used for detection purpose? Do you know what an integrated combat data system is and how many sensors, electronic equipment can a modern battle ship handle? Remove the notion of Brahmos being superior to any detection because in real combat scenario, fantasies do not stand firm.



Sir Thanks for the info, but why are you babying him? 

It appears to me that its became a norm among Indian members to come and make foolish claims, and than expecting us to do the research for them and counter their stupid claims. Anyone with a decent mind can comprehend how a modern AWAC Radar works, it uses multiple sensors and tracking mode simultaneously to detect any symmetric or asymmetric threat. Its quite clear that the Indian fanboys over here have derailed the topic successfully. 

I am surprised why the mods haven't started kicking out all these Indian trolls out.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## notorious_eagle

deckingraj said:


> It seems Notorious Eagle claimed that since brahmos has high IR signature its detection via radar's is cake walk.....



Since you are the only sensible Indian poster here, i will try to answer your question. 

As nabil pointed out, a modern AWAC uses multiple sensors to detect any object that is moving with such high speed and emitting so much heat. Pulse Doppler Radar are deadly accurate and will easily detect an object that is moving at a speed of Mach 3 with such high heat signature. Feel free to go over the link that Nabil shared and in the past few posts that i shared, modern AWACS are capable of detecting fast moving objects even if they are hugging the terrain as they can look down and focus their energy on those targets. 



deckingraj said:


> Well you do agree there are few "I think" here...Anyhow lets assume what you are saying is correct...However i believe the original question was detection vs tracking....Can you throw some more light on that as well????



Modern AWACS have the capability to detect and track at the same time, they can focus their energy on the target that has been detected while tracking for other threats. 



deckingraj said:


> but do you agree that interceptor needs to be faster then the speed of Brahmos(whatever it is at that moment)??? I believe there was some disagreement in that aspect...



That would be a tail chase interception, there is always a possibility that you can hit your target head on. Brahmos has a speed of Mach 2.8; MANPADS such as Stingers have top speed of around Mach 2.2, SAMS can go as fast as Mach 4 and modern heat seeking missiles can also go as fast as Mach 4. Newer fighter aircrafts are equipped with electro optical sensor suites, they can guide a missile with their sensor suites to intercept an incoming enemy missile. Also there is a possibility that Brahmos can be shot down by radar guided anti aircraft guns, they are deadly accurate as they use smart munitions. There are many options to counter the Brahmos, but the attacker also has the option of launching several different Brahmos from different angles to confuse the enemy. Its a cat and mouse game. 



deckingraj said:


> I believe you are right here...However that's where cruise missile scores over a typical BM. Calculating a BM path and trajectory is quite easy as compared to Cruise Missile...that is why speed gives a new dimension to CM.....If you can manage a CM which is supersonic and can maneuver (obviously not as much as subsonic one) then it do become a deadly combo...Don't u agree????



Any smart munition that can hit with deadly precision is a deadly weapon.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DARKY

nabil_05 said:


> So as per you, a *radar* is the only sensor used for detection purpose? Do you know what an integrated combat data system is and how many sensors, electronic equipment can a modern battle ship handle? Remove the notion of Brahmos being superior to any detection because in real combat scenario, fantasies do not stand firm.



What has got that to do with my question.... it's still not answered.
What kind of radar detects an IR signature ??
Detecting an IR signature with a radar.... wondering who is fantasizing here


----------



## GURU DUTT

DARKY said:


> What has got that to do with my question.... it's still not answered.
> *What kind of radar detects an IR signature ??*
> Detecting an IR signature with a radar.... wondering who is fantasizing here


 sir ab to choor do ...they wont answer it


----------



## DARKY

Developereo said:


> *No*, the temperature will be the same whether its a missile or a plane. The plane will emit a bigger heat signature because of its size, but the heat intensity does not depend on size.



*Temperature* depends on *Heat* depends on *drag* depends on *size & shape*...
don't make ridiculous claims like your *pal*.



Developereo said:


> But I thought the BrahMos was 'invisible' because it merges in with 'ground clutter'. Where is the ground clutter at 37000 feet?
> 
> Unless the BrahMos takes scenic route along the Himalayas and K2 before coming down into Pakistan's heartland...



The cruise height of brahmos is between 10000 ft to 30000 ft.... depending on ranges and trajectories.... yes brahmos block III has the capabilities to strike targets with pin-point accuracy even on mountainous regions and deep valleys.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

GURU DUTT said:


> sir ab to choor do ...they wont answer it



I know they won't since the answer is No.... rather than accepting the mistake they are ranting as usual... 
I wonder If they'll ever learn anything like that.... and with that behavior they aren't leading themselves any where...
So sad... and such a pity...


----------



## GURU DUTT

DARKY said:


> I know they won't since the answer is No.... rather than accepting the mistake they are ranting as usual...
> I wonder If they'll ever learn anything like that.... and with that behavior they aren't leading themselves any where...
> So sad... and such a pity...


 thanks seneor but thats there ******** passtime...!


----------



## DARKY

notorious_eagle said:


> Sir Thanks for the info, but why are you babying him?
> 
> It appears to me that its became a norm among Indian members to come and make* foolish claims*, and than expecting us to do the research for them and counter their stupid claims. Anyone with a decent mind can comprehend how a modern AWAC Radar works, it uses multiple sensors and tracking mode simultaneously to detect any symmetric or asymmetric threat. Its quite clear that the Indian fanboys over here have* derailed* the topic successfully.
> 
> I am surprised why the mods haven't started kicking out all these Indian *trolls* out.





notorious_eagle said:


> Did you even read what i wrote? Off course it flies at low altitude but what about the high IR signature, with high *IR* signature like that there is no way it can escape detection from an AWAC or a capable *3D radar.*



Still ranting rather than accepting *your* mistakes here....
No wonder *who* made stupid claims 
*who* derailed the topic 
*who* is ranting 
and *who* is trolling.....

---------- Post added at 06:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------




GURU DUTT said:


> thanks seneor but thats there ******** passtime...!



The can be understood and even seen here....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## notorious_eagle

DARKY said:


> Still ranting rather than accepting *your* mistakes here....
> No wonder *who* made stupid claims
> *who* derailed the topic
> *who* is ranting
> and *who* is trolling.....




You are the one whose derailing, constantly questioning how an AWAC will be able to track the Brahmos? You have to come out clear with your intentions, what exactly are you asking instead of derailing the topic. *Are you suggesting that an AWAC cannot track and detect the Brahmos?* *Are you claiming that Brahmos has a low RCS? *What exactly are your intentions. 

_"The Erieye radar has an instrumental range of 450km and detection range of 350km against a fighter aircraft sized target in dense hostile electronic warfare environments and at low target altitudes. The system is capable of tracking multiple air and sea target over the horizon and provides above 20km altitude coverage, 360° coverage and has sea surveillance capability. The radar incorporates an identification friend or foe interrogator. The system comprises an active phased array pulse Doppler radar with a secondary surveillance radar."_

Saab 2000 AEW&C - Airforce Technology

http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/pdf/3_1-2lewis.pdf

Brahmos will have a higher RCS compared to other subsonic cruise missiles as it is flying at supersonic speed as it emits heat, a pulse doppler AESA radar will easily be able to pick up this object on its screens. The launch of the Brahmos will be within the detection range of the radar horizon, with plumes those big there is no way the Brahmos will be able to hide from the eye in the sky. You are more than welcome to refute this claim.


----------



## LiberalAtheist

^ thats great you can detect it but not intercept it meaning its pointless now get back on topic.


----------



## gambit

Gents,

There seems to be a bit of misunderstanding on both sides about this speculation.

First...What does the letters 'A W A C S' stands for: *A*irborne *W*arning *A*nd *C*ontrol *S*ystem.

Second...Where does it say that an AWACS is restricted only to active sensor, ie radar? Nowhere.

Third...Can radar (microwave) be used to detect an infrared (IR) field? There are some highly theoretical work about this technique involving extremely high freqs because the microwave and infrared bands are pretty much next door to each other, but the concept is still far from being applicable, as in 'trickle' down to our level that for now the answer must be 'No'.

Am going to stray off a bit here: Radar detection is an active sensor with the 'R' stands for 'radio', as in using the microwave region. Technically speaking, there is nothing to say that we cannot use the other regions in the EM spectrum and we already have with the laser, as in 'infrared laser'...

Far-infrared laser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> *Far infrared laser (FIR laser, terahertz laser)* is a laser with output wavelength in far infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum, between 30-1000 µm (*300 GHz - 10 THz*).


Take note of the freq range: ghz - thz. We already have triple-digits freq radar systems, as in very high millimetric imaging radar whose target resolutions approaches that of B/W photographic quality.

Optics InfoBase - Terahertz radar cross section measurements


> We perform angle- and frequency-resolved radar cross section (RCS) measurements on objects at *terahertz frequencies.*


But that is for another discussion.

The current technology with active sensor is that it is highly directional, as in 'beam forming' and we already about that here. When we say that the AWACS has 360 deg coverage, we do not mean at the same time. We mean that we can steer that beam -- more like cone or very thin fan -- to any point in a circle. Obviously, an electronic beam steering method will be superior -- as in speed -- to a mechanical one. But the essence of this diversion is still the same: That an active sensor system in the IR region that is capable of field deployment in a combat environment is still quite a ways off.

Back to topic...

Can an AWACS detect an IR emitting vehicle? Yes, *IF* the AWACS is equipped with a dedicated IR sensor, after all, there is nothing to say that only radar can be airborne but not IR sensor. We already have airborne IR sensor as in 'heat seeking' missile.

Can an AWACS be equipped solely of passive IR sensor? Yes, but the problem with passive sensor is that there is no ranging information. The system can only tell us the direction of the IR emission. If the IR source is moving, we can perform some fanciful math based upon variable intensity due to distance changes to give us range information, but that leave us vulnerable to other IR sources that may be in the area whose intensity and physical proximity approaches our target's, contaminating our math. We know about this problem with the earlier generation Sidewinder missile being distracted by the sun. So an all passive AWACS is out of the discussion.

This leave us with an AWACS that contain both active and passive sensor exploiting different areas of the EM spectrum. The advantage with a passive IR sensor system is that it can be designed to be either a wide field of view (FoV) or as narrow as we want. An AWACS certainly have room for both types. The US Navy's E2C AWACS fleet has both active radar and passive IR sensors. What happens is that the wide FoV IR sensor detect an IR contrast, meaning there is an IR emission that is considerably higher than the background's IR emission. This information is then transmit to the active sensor system, as in a cue or a clue-in, so that the active sensor system can (re)direct its more precise beam to that IR source. With a mechanical beam control system, this will require some time for the radar beam to approach the IR source. For an AESA system, the redirection will be quite instant.

To the Indian members here, sorry, but the Brahmos is not 'stealth' or not as 'stealthy' as you would like to believe. What constitute being 'stealthy' involve different areas or modes of detection: radar, IR, acoustic, and visual. The last item include physicality such as dimensions and shape of the vehicle and whether or not the vehicle produces smoke or contrails in flight. The missile can have low radar observability but if its IR emission is high enough to produce that contrast then it violated the advice of being 'balanced stealth'.

The question is: How soon into flight will that contrast be available for detection by any passive sensor in the area? That depends on acceleration and the Brahmos is supersonic, no?

Can I reach Mach 1 with an acceleration of 100km/hr or 1000km/hr? Yes to both. Can I reach Mach 1 with an acceleration of merely 1km/hr? Absolutely. The higher the acceleration the sooner I will reach Mach 1 but also the sooner I will produce that IR contrast.

Contrary to popular belief, during supersonic flight, it is not skin friction IR emission that produces the greater IR contrast but compressed air being heated up during -- what else -- being compressed. Below supersonic is when skin friction IR emission matter. At supersonic speed, skin friction IR is a contributor to total IR emission, but not necessarily the dominant.

The Science Pundit: Air friction myths


> As an object moves through the air, it displaces the air in its path by pushing it forward and aside. The air moves away from the object as a series of compression waves (similar to the waves that a boat creates as it moves through the water).
> 
> What happens is that the air gets pushed forward and aside faster than it can naturally escape. As long as the object is moving slower than sound, the compression waves outrace it and take most of their energy with them. But *at supersonic speeds, the air keeps getting compressed and compressed and compressed as the object pushes it forward faster than the air can get away.
> 
> Basically, the supersonic object creates its own oven by compressing the air in front of it.*


The lower the flight altitude the higher this compressed air IR emission will be due to the denser atmosphere. This leave the Brahmos -- in my opinion -- not merely vulnerable but highly vulnerable to an AWACS that contains and integrate active and passive sensors, aka 'data fusion' and we are not talking about an IR operator shouting his finding down the corridor to the radar operator or even if they sit next to each other. We are talking about the IR sensor computer directly linked to the radar computer complete with video integration of both the IR and radar backgrounds.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## notorious_eagle

PunjabiSidhu said:


> ^ thats great you can detect it but not intercept it meaning its pointless now get back on topic.



How So? Instead of these one liners why dont you explain why Brahmos cannot be intercepted. 

Infrared guided missiles can home into the source that is producing heat. Modern SAM's and Anti Air Craft Guns that use smart munitions can be used to neutralize the threat. A ship has multiple levels of air defence, an electro optical guided Phalanx can fire more than a thousand rounds in a matter of seconds. I fail to see how can you possibly claim that the Brahmos cannot be intercepted, thats a very vague statement.


----------



## LiberalAtheist

notorious_eagle said:


> How So? Instead of these one liners why dont you explain why Brahmos cannot be intercepted.
> 
> Infrared guided missiles can home into the source that is producing heat. Modern SAM's and Anti Air Craft Guns that use smart munitions can be used to neutralize the threat. A ship has multiple levels of air defence, an electro optical guided Phalanx can fire more than a thousand rounds in a matter of seconds. I fail to see how can you possibly claim that the Brahmos cannot be intercepted, thats a very vague statement.



lmfao. Brahmos flies below 10 meters and flies over a speed of mach 2.8 and is very maneuverable do you even have any kind of SAM or capable radar to intercept this? i doubt it your AWACS primary role is for early warning against our aircraft even if you detect a BrahMos missile you won't be able to react quick enough because by the time you get wind of it the missile will have reached its targets we have already deployed block 3 in west Kashmir 

i never said it can't be intercepted i am just saying Pakistan doesn't have anything to intercept it with you can see where it is but you can't stop it from hitting its target


----------



## SBD-3

PunjabiSidhu said:


> detecting BrahMos is great intercepting is another thing that is near to impossible AWACS can help but aerostat is the best way to detect cruise missiles does Pakistan even have aerostat radars?


Here you are mixing two things togather which are complements (rather prerequsitis to be precise), If detection of mere crusie missile is near impossible (as you put it) then why would there be efforts to add radar evasion techniques like Terrain Hugging and Design shaping? Brahmos being a supersonic missile has two critical weaknesses 1) it can not use tarrain hugging thus flying at higher altitude exposes it to greater radar coverage (both air and ground based) and secondly being supersonic it looses manuverbility. The Sam systems of this age have Mach 3-4 capability.


----------



## LiberalAtheist

hasnain0099 said:


> Here you are mixing two things togather which are complements (rather prerequsitis to be precise), If detection of mere crusie missile is near impossible (as you put it) then why would there be efforts to add radar evasion techniques like Terrain Hugging and Design shaping? Brahmos being a supersonic missile has two critical weaknesses 1) it can not use tarrain hugging thus flying at higher altitude exposes it to greater radar coverage (both air and ground based) and secondly being supersonic it looses manuverbility. The Sam systems of this age have Mach 3-4 capability.


 
it flies below 10 meters BrahMos is primarily designed for the anti ship role as navy needed to replace older sea hawk missiles i dont even know how BrahMos got involved into the topic..... but its supersonic speed makes it detectable but nearly impossible to intercept because 1) flies at low altitude and 2) its speed of mach 2.8 to 3.0 

you clearly do not know of BrahMos capability read up on it then post on it please. but its design is meant to sink surface combatants at sea like destroyers and frigates. 

Nirbhay will be our land attack terrain hugging stealth cruise missile which will be designed to be undetectable and impossible to intercept we have another cruise missile called the LRCM which will be a long range supersonic cruise missile 

anyways i'm done talking about BrahMos that is a different topic for a different thread discuss how you guys will be able to defeat our ABM


----------



## sputnik

i don't understand 1 thing ... ki Yeh sub apun lyon bata rahein hai( why we are talking abt this)


----------



## SBD-3

PunjabiSidhu said:


> it flies below 10 meters BrahMos is primarily designed for the anti ship role as navy needed to replace older sea hawk missiles i dont even know how BrahMos got involved into the topic..... but its supersonic speed makes it detectable but nearly impossible to intercept because 1) flies at low altitude and 2) its speed of mach 2.8 to 3.0
> 
> you clearly do not know of* BrahMos capability read up on it then post on it please*. but its design is meant to sink surface combatants at sea like destroyers and frigates.


Well what can i expect, I guess you got the correct medicine. 



> Nirbhay* will be *our land attack terrain hugging stealth cruise missile which* will be* designed to be undetectable and impossible to intercept we have another cruise missile called the LRCM which *will be* a long range supersonic cruise missile


anyways...........


> anyways i'm done talking about BrahMos that is a different topic for a different thread discuss how you guys will be able to defeat our ABM


 depends upon 1) when ABM will be online 2)how much will it be able to cover and 3) how effective it will be are the first three things first to be explored before we start discussing the defeat of this system


----------



## ziaulislam

PunjabiSidhu said:


> it flies below 10 meters BrahMos is primarily designed for the anti ship role as navy needed to replace older sea hawk missiles i dont even know how BrahMos got involved into the topic..... but its supersonic speed makes it detectable but nearly impossible to intercept because 1) flies at low altitude and 2) its speed of mach 2.8 to 3.0
> 
> you clearly do not know of BrahMos capability read up on it then post on it please. but its design is meant to sink surface combatants at sea like destroyers and frigates.
> 
> Nirbhay will be our land attack terrain hugging stealth cruise missile which will be designed to be undetectable and impossible to intercept we have another cruise missile called the LRCM which will be a long range supersonic cruise missile
> 
> anyways i'm done talking about BrahMos that is a different topic for a different thread discuss how you guys will be able to defeat our ABM



1. missles going at mach 3 can be intercepted
2. other system like c-803 also have terminal velocity of 2-3 mach
3. its gives its positon very early in its intial flight

its advantage is the time it takes to reach its target


----------



## gambit

PunjabiSidhu said:


> lmfao. Brahmos flies below 10 meters and flies over a speed of mach 2.8 and is very maneuverable...


At this low altitude, the missile *MUST* have terrain-avoidance (TA) algorithms, which are much more complex than terrain-following (TF) algorithms.

What TF does is to send climb-dive commands to the flight control system (FLCS). When the missile climb, there will be nothing above the missile, when the missile dive, there will be a 'constant' -- the Earth -- for the missile to consider. It is a 'constant' for obvious reason: the Earth will always be there.

The TA algorithms are much different. What TA algorithms does is to set a limit on how high the missile is allowed to climb. If the terrain projection -- a hill or mountain -- ahead is taller than that altitude limit, then the TF 'climb' command will not occur. The missile's radar and programmed map system will determine the turn rate based upon the map's information about the terrain projection, as in how 'wide' is that hill, if there are any other projections nearby that would 'intrude' into the turn, crashing the missile, and if such a companion hill exist, the TA algorithms must create a new turn command with a new turn rate and FLCS surface deflections. All anyone has to do is look at the typical topographic style of map to see that *NOT* all terrain across the world are the same.

The more complex the terrain as in map programming, the more flexible and more responsive the TA algorithms must be and that complexity depends very much on hardware. This is why the simpler TF capability came before more complex TA capability. The more complex the terrain for TA algorithms, the greater the need for high vehicle robustness to anticipate those turns, especially at supersonic speed, and the greater the speed, the greater the need for the missile's radar to look further ahead to see the changing terrain projections and its rapid approach.

If the Brahmos is truly capable of flying at 10m and below and with terrain avoidance (TA) capability at supersonic speed, then this is indeed a very commendable technical achievement for India.



PunjabiSidhu said:


> ...do you even have any kind of SAM or capable radar to intercept this? i doubt it your AWACS primary role is for early warning against our aircraft *even if you detect a BrahMos missile you won't be able to react quick enough* because by the time you get wind of it the missile will have reached its targets we have already deployed block 3 in west Kashmir
> 
> i never said it can't be intercepted i am just saying Pakistan doesn't have anything to intercept it with you can see where it is but you can't stop it from hitting its target


This is a valid argument...

Horizon calculator - radar and visual

The longer the radar horizon, the greater the response time for the defense. Plug in various combinations of altitude for h1 (attacker) and for h2 (defense) and see the horizon distance. Keep in mind that an AWACS (h2) is often at 10k meters altitude, giving the defense over 400km of radar horizon distance.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## DrSomnath999

sputnik said:


> i don't understand 1 thing ... ki Yeh sub apun lyon bata rahein hai( why we are talking abt this)


well buddy this matter is important for both countries so dont be amused as an indian posting a thread on this


----------



## DrSomnath999

ziaulislam said:


> 1. missles going at mach 3 can be intercepted


yes but u need more velocity interceptor missile above mach 6-7 to intercept it currently US's SEA RAM is capable of intercepting supersonic cruise missile ,well aster 30 & barak 2 also has the capabilty


ziaulislam said:


> 2. other system like c-803 also have terminal velocity of 2-3 mach


yes but it lacks terrain hugging capabilty like brahmos block II & III missile so it only has limited land attack capability against coastal targets


ziaulislam said:


> 3. its gives its positon very early in its intial flight


but it's speed compensates it


ziaulislam said:


> its advantage is the time it takes to reach its target


and also its higher kinetic impact against harderned target


----------



## DrSomnath999

gambit said:


> If the Brahmos is truly capable of flying at 10m and below and with terrain avoidance (TA) capability at supersonic speed, then this is indeed a very commendable technical achievement for India.


well this is only supersonic cruise missile ,indian & russian are going for hypersonic brahmos ,i would join u in the above statement if india & russia manage to do it for hypersonic one which looks next to impossible


----------



## jamshaid56us

i am amazed that indians are thinking to catch bugati veryon with an old bycle.....because pakistan have hypersonic missiles

shaheen missile latest varient speed mach 25+ (some sources said 20+)
gauri missile latest varient speed mach 15-20 
infact most of the Pakistani missile arsenal consists of mach 10+

indians prithvi ABM maximun speed mach 3-5 
infact indian whole missile defence system cant exceed 5 mach

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rocky25

jamshaid56us said:


> i am amazed that indians are thinking to catch bugati veryon with an old bycle.....because pakistan have hypersonic missiles
> 
> shaheen missile latest varient speed mach 25+ (some sources said 20+)
> gauri missile latest varient speed mach 15-20
> infact most of the Pakistani missile arsenal consists of mach 10+
> 
> indians prithvi ABM maximun speed mach 3-5
> infact indian whole missile defence system cant exceed 5 mach



You have good sense of humor! Please tell people that you are joking before you crack a joke, It would be helpful for others to laugh!


----------



## Bukhari.syed

Check them out......


----------



## patna_ke_presley

jamshaid56us said:


> i am amazed that indians are thinking to catch bugati veryon with an old bycle.....because pakistan have hypersonic missiles
> 
> shaheen missile latest varient speed *mach 25+ (some sources said 20+)*
> gauri missile latest varient speed *mach 15-20*
> infact most of the Pakistani missile arsenal consists of *mach 10+*
> 
> indians prithvi ABM maximun speed mach 3-5
> infact indian whole missile defence system cant exceed 5 mach



It seems Pakistani missiles are 300yrs ahead of Russian, US and Chinese missiles.


----------



## tatasteel

jamshaid56us said:


> i am amazed that indians are thinking to catch bugati veryon with an old bycle.....because pakistan have hypersonic missiles
> 
> shaheen missile latest varient speed mach 25+ (some sources said 20+)
> gauri missile latest varient speed mach 15-20
> infact most of the Pakistani missile arsenal consists of mach 10+
> 
> indians prithvi ABM maximun speed mach 3-5
> infact indian whole missile defence system cant exceed 5 mach




Mate you are comparing of basaltic missiles with cruise missile..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

Rocky25 said:


> You have good sense of humor! Please tell people that you are joking before you crack a joke, It would be helpful for others to laugh!



IMO he does not know or is being mislead by some mullah science.


----------



## Storm Force

MACH 25

PAKISTANI MISSLES TRAVEL 25 X THE SPEED OF SOUND 



I actually think he serious and they exist Lol

---------- Post added at 07:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:01 PM ----------

Indian Ballistic Missile Defense Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this is the abm system that india is de;ploying i believe israeli technology is involved


----------



## Skorpion

Bukhari.syed said:


> Check them out......



the range quoted in the video about babur is wrong! also the Shaheen III is still under developement and testing phase!
i wonder who makes such videos :-s


----------



## Skorpion

jamshaid56us said:


> i am amazed that indians are thinking to catch bugati veryon with an old bycle.....because pakistan have hypersonic missiles
> 
> shaheen missile latest varient speed mach 25+ (some sources said 20+)
> gauri missile latest varient speed mach 15-20
> infact most of the Pakistani missile arsenal consists of mach 10+
> 
> indians prithvi ABM maximun speed mach 3-5
> infact indian whole missile defence system cant exceed 5 mach



"Captian sahib ainii v anni ni pae hoe " 
what material would u use for your ballestic missile to prevent disintegration if it re-enter into atmosphere with mach 25+ 
please don't misguide people!

---------- Post added at 08:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:53 AM ----------




tatasteel said:


> Mate you are comparing of basaltic missiles with cruise missile..



you AMB cruise missile is not a cruise missile  lol
its a flop russian technology accept it mate!
although its super fast but..


----------



## jamshaid56us

Rocky25 said:


> You have good sense of humor! Please tell people that you are joking before you crack a joke, It would be helpful for others to laugh!



Anything which is out of you sense and expectations is a joke for you......keep it up


----------



## jamshaid56us

patna_ke_presley said:


> It seems Pakistani missiles are 300yrs ahead of Russian, US and Chinese missiles.



If indians missile source Russia cant exceed hypersonic speed and cant make high hypersonic ballistic missiles then what is our fault......

and fo america read and search through internet if you can swallow the truth

http://www.infowars.com/u-s-army-tests-hypersonic-missile-that-fires-five-times-speed-of-sound/


----------



## jamshaid56us

Many Mullahs are living in your country, so look around thrice before saying something foolish...

if you think high hypersonic missiles donot exist search around internet to swallow truth

» U.S. Army tests hypersonic missile that fires five times speed of sound Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!


----------



## jamshaid56us

tatasteel said:


> Mate you are comparing of basaltic missiles with cruise missile..



I'm comparing speed with speed

---------- Post added at 02:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:22 PM ----------

for those idiots who are still living in an age when first man landed on the moon here is something they need to tell themself to awake

http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/141693-pentagon-tests-new-hyper-sonic-missile.html

» U.S. Army tests hypersonic missile that fires five times speed of sound Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!


----------



## jamshaid56us

Storm Force said:


> MACH 25
> 
> PAKISTANI MISSLES TRAVEL 25 X THE SPEED OF SOUND
> 
> 
> 
> I actually think he serious and they exist Lol
> 
> ---------- Post added at 07:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:01 PM ----------
> 
> Indian Ballistic Missile Defense Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> this is the abm system that india is de;ploying i believe israeli technology is involved



awake yourself and your nation before its late.....search around the net to search if such technology exist or not....

http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/141693-pentagon-tests-new-hyper-sonic-missile.html

http://www.infowars.com/u-s-army-tests-hypersonic-missile-that-fires-five-times-speed-of-sound/

Pakistan always hold the strategy of obscuring their secret weapons


----------



## asad71

1.From inception Pakistan has stressed on weaponry whereas her real strength lies in her people. In Op Gibraltar leading to 65 War, 71 War or Kargil War, the people were totally left out. Perhaps successive Pak Govts felt unsure about the people or part of the population. Iran, Afghanistan,N Korea and Cuba would be good examples for Pakistan to emulate. 

2. Muslims are enjoined by their Faith to take part in the defense of the nation. This factor alone makes Pakistan powerful provided her leadership is sincere to the ideology of Pakistan and the teachings of Islam.

3. Can I be candid? If God forbid Pakistan is overrun and occupied by an alien power, then it is the people of Pakistan who will fight on. The person who is vilified as a terrorist or TTP enemy will be the person who will blow himself up under an enemy tank. Much of the urban western educated lot would probably collaborate with the enemy. Looking from outside we can see Pakistan has surely lost its soul under the influence of WCC agents in the leadership. IK seems to understand this as does Air Marshal Asghar Khan.

4. If you understand what I am trying to say, then the answer to the question posed is: Pakistanis can counter Indian or even American IBMs with bare hand.


----------



## DARKY

jamshaid56us said:


> Many Mullahs are living in your country, so look around thrice before saying something foolish...
> 
> if you think high hypersonic missiles donot exist search around internet to swallow truth
> 
> » U.S. Army tests hypersonic missile that fires five times speed of sound Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!



Thats a Glider not a missile.


----------



## jamshaid56us

DARKY said:


> Thats a Glider not a missile.



they test fired a glider sometimes ago and last month they test fired a missile


----------



## bilal

if we cant built one soon no prob we can buy from china thats right. our friends are always there for us   

---------- Post added at 11:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 AM ----------

KT series anti-ballistic / anti satellite missiles is reportedly a series of highly classified and thus little known missiles based on DF-21. Designed to intercept ballistic missiles and satellites, KT series utilizes experience gained from earlier FJ ABM developed decades earlier. Four models of KT series have been developed so far, including KT-1, KT-2, KT-2A and KT-III:
KT-1: designed to engage sub-orbital targets.
KT-1A: upgraded KT-1
KT-409: upgraded solid-fuelled variant
SC-19: KT-1 variant
KT-2: designed to engage low earth orbit (LEO) targets at altitude up to 600 km.
KT-2A: designed to engage polar orbital targets.
KT-III: designed to engage targets at altitude 1000 km or higher.
It is rumored that there are other versions of KT under development, but these claims have yet to be verified.






---------- Post added at 11:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 AM ----------

o it also shots satellites


----------



## jamshaid56us

Pakistan's latest missile series is named "Tipu" after the name of great Freedom fighter "Tipu Sultan" who gave English army a tough time and is remembered in good words by both Pakistani and Indian Nation, it was named because it can be fired beyound english channel, some leaked information represents its range upto 7000km, no other information is revealed so far


----------



## DrSomnath999

asad71 said:


> If you understand what I am trying to say, then the answer to the question posed is: *Pakistanis can counter Indian or even American ABMs with bare hand*.


oh really 




i didnt know that thanks for letting me know


----------



## yyetttt

Pakistan cannot counter American system, however it can definently override India's. Considering that India's missle crash right after they take off.


----------



## paritosh

well dont fire any missiles at us...the abm would sit in their silos and rust and rot...best solution...or risk taking it on...but then there is a MAd scenario on the other side...if I were you...I'd go with the first option.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## paritosh

asad71 said:


> 1.From inception Pakistan has stressed on weaponry whereas her real strength lies in her people. In Op Gibraltar leading to 65 War, 71 War or Kargil War, the people were totally left out. Perhaps successive Pak Govts felt unsure about the people or part of the population. Iran, Afghanistan,N Korea and Cuba would be good examples for Pakistan to emulate.
> 
> 2. Muslims are enjoined by their Faith to take part in the defense of the nation. This factor alone makes Pakistan powerful provided her leadership is sincere to the ideology of Pakistan and the teachings of Islam.
> 
> 3. Can I be candid? If God forbid Pakistan is overrun and occupied by an alien power, then it is the people of Pakistan who will fight on. The person who is vilified as a terrorist or TTP enemy will be the person who will blow himself up under an enemy tank. Much of the urban western educated lot would probably collaborate with the enemy. Looking from outside we can see Pakistan has surely lost its soul under the influence of WCC agents in the leadership. IK seems to understand this as does Air Marshal Asghar Khan.


awww cuhmon bro!
musims can do this and do that...well look around you...they really cant!
in the end you are as human as i or the aborginees or the cro-magnons were...faith helps you reach a spiritual plane..it doesnt make you a super-saiyen level 4
if only you'd leave fanaticism and educate your lot as we are trying hard to do to ours...thing will shape up. 
[/QUOTE]

4. If you understand what I am trying to say, then the answer to the question posed is: Pakistanis can counter Indian or even American IBMs with* bare hand*.[/QUOTE]

yeah really...them stupid tanks and missiles are just an eye wash...what was your football team's FIFA rating now?


----------



## Peaceful Civilian

I think pocket/bag size nuclear weapon is enough to destroy every defence system. Prepare some Man(commandos) around 50-100 that can suicide with the weapon. Cruel tactical strategy, but enough to destroy defence.I know this is Headache for every Defence, because Man has Mind, while missile's are just guided and control by Man(in case of Cruise missile)
MAN Are also small enough to easily enter any land with commando strategy and to avoid radar. Lol. Even if tracked by Land forces, and surrounded him, one man is enough to destroy this defence also ,making himself huge blast, while when they ask for air support, Job is already done. I am not expert but contributed this strategy.
Strategy to break defence only. lol
Keep your missile defence system in your pocket.
Now troll me, you can't make this, You don't have, Oh you have.


----------



## DrSomnath999

Peaceful Civlian said:


> *I think pocket/bag size nuclear weapon is enough to destroy every defence system. Prepare some Man(commandos) around 50-100 that can suicide with the weapon. Cruel tactical strategy, but enough to destroy defence.I know this is Headache for every Defence, because Man has Mind, while missile's are just guided and control by Man(in case of Cruise missile)
> MAN Are also small enough to easily enter any land with commando strategy and to avoid radar. Lol. Even if tracked by Land forces, and surrounded him, one man is enough to destroy this defence also ,making himself huge blast, while when they ask for air support, Job is already done. I am not expert but contributed this strategy.*
> Strategy to break defence only. lol
> Keep your missile defence system in your pocket.
> Now troll me, you can't make this, You don't have, Oh you have.


 well i think u deserve think tank status by looking at quality of ur posts

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The enlightened

paritosh said:


> awww cuhmon bro!
> musims can do this and do that...well look around you...they really cant!
> in the end you are as human as i or the aborginees or the cro-magnons were...faith helps you reach a spiritual plane..it doesnt make you a super-saiyen level 4
> if only you'd leave fanaticism and educate your lot as we are trying hard to do to ours...thing will shape up.
> 
> 
> 4. If you understand what I am trying to say, then the answer to the question posed is: Pakistanis can counter Indian or even American IBMs with* bare hand*.
> 
> yeah really...them stupid tanks and missiles are just an eye wash...what was your football team's FIFA rating now?


Super Saiyan ?
So I am not the only one that has seen dragon ball z here


----------



## The SC

DARKY said:


> Its silly that you consider an unoperational Quasi-BM as an answer to the rapid thrust of 3 Mechanized Divisions well supported by AF and Navy......
> 
> The current ABM is just a building block or 1st step towards a bigger threat.... i.e. China....
> 
> These ABM systems are manual aswell as automatic... and functions spontaneously on the detection of any threat.... what you don't realize is the advantage the close distance offers.... making any launch detectable in boost phase only and intercepting it right there in the most vulnerable stage aswell... hence not allowing any such missile enter the space in 1st place.... Remember Swordfish latest variant can detect and track targets as small as a cricket ball at 1500km.... Not to mention a secret Radar project which would operate in X-band and have capability to detect a Football size target at 4000km aswell.... Besides satellite detection... Very less window remains there for any Pakistani BM to enter space.... hence BM is not the option after 2020.... Its =Fail in the scenario you have mentioned.



Than they will put them on donkey's backs, manoeuvre through the mountains , reach your big cities and detonate the nuclear devices in your down towns.
Do you have any anti-donkey technology !!!?


----------



## DARKY

The SC said:


> Than they will put them on donkey's backs, manoeuvre through the mountains , reach your big cities and detonate the nuclear devices in your down towns.
> Do you have any anti-donkey technology !!!?



We have technology for every donkey you throw at us... but the problem here is that does your donkey know about this.


----------



## The SC

DARKY said:


> We have technology for every donkey you throw at us... but the problem here is that does your donkey know about this.



Even my donkey knows better!


----------



## Wright

By focusing on insurgency. Pakistan should not try to fight India by conventional means. But focus on its expertise: unconventional assymetric insurgent warfare.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## deckingraj

Wright said:


> By focusing on insurgency. Pakistan should not try to fight India by conventional means. But focus on its expertise: unconventional assymetric insurgent warfare.



What else do you think they have tried in Punjab and Kashmir??? Even that has failed...so let's cut the crap..will ya???


----------



## Tija

Wright said:


> By focusing on insurgency. Pakistan should not try to fight India by conventional means. But focus on its expertise: unconventional assymetric insurgent warfare.



Do you know this expertise did what for Pakistan ?

It's a snake it will try to harm you as well.


----------



## acetophenol

Why is this thread sticky?


----------



## IceCold

The only successful way of countering an ABM system is to develop one of our own. We can upgrade our missiles all we want but even if there is a 10% chance of our missiles getting intercepted, that puts us at a serious disadvantage via-a-via India. Developing a counter system to intercept Indian incoming attack is the only way we can answer such a threat.
However obtaining such a capability would prove to be challenging, but with our track record, certainly not impossible.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The SC

A question for the starter of the thread:

Why do you want to know?
Or, do you need to know?


----------



## Black Widow

IceCold said:


> The only successful way of countering an ABM system is to develop one of our own. We can upgrade our missiles all we want but even if there is a 10% chance of our missiles getting intercepted, that puts us at a serious disadvantage via-a-via India. Developing a counter system to intercept Indian incoming attack is the only way we can answer such a threat.
> However obtaining such a capability would prove to be challenging, but with our track record, certainly not impossible.


 



one of very few sensible comment. Thanks


----------



## Wright

deckingraj said:


> What else do you think they have tried in Punjab and Kashmir??? Even that has failed...so let's cut the crap..will ya???



I dont know, the Afghans claim such tactics broke up the USSR, and now the USA, and muslims do insurgent warfare the best. 

So perhaps they should specialize. Because that is what it will end up as anyway. Small pockets of disorganized resistance. 

There is no way pakistan can face India's modern military machine, not with their lack of funds, and dependancy on military aid.


----------



## LiberalAtheist

IceCold said:


> The only successful way of countering an ABM system is to develop one of our own. We can upgrade our missiles all we want but even if there is a 10% chance of our missiles getting intercepted, that puts us at a serious disadvantage via-a-via India. Developing a counter system to intercept Indian incoming attack is the only way we can answer such a threat.
> However obtaining such a capability would prove to be challenging, but with our track record, certainly not impossible.



sounds like a good solution but nonetheless will prove difficult for Pakistan ABM systems do not come cheap and for Pak to fund development of a system would be a strain on the already fragile economy perhaps Pak should undertake a joint development with China that would definitely be a way to counter the Indian ABM system


----------



## IceCold

PunjabiSidhu said:


> sounds like a good solution but nonetheless will prove difficult for Pakistan ABM systems do not come cheap and for Pak to fund development of a system would be a strain on the already fragile economy perhaps Pak should undertake a joint development with China that would definitely be a way to counter the Indian ABM system



Pakistans economy maybe fragile or whatever you may want to call it, but it isnt going to remain the same forever. Fact is we are constantly developing and upgrading our strategic assets and that is not happening without money. Make no mistake about it if we need to develop such a system arranging funds would not be an issue.


----------



## IND151

^^ in that case you need to cover Lahore, Islamabad,Rawalpindi and Karachi with ABM shield as they produce most of Pak GDP


----------



## Storm Force

Livefist: Indian Missile Shield Ready: DRDO Chief

its alomost surreal how far the indians have come in indengious ICMB & ABM defense tech so quickly 

Livefist: India Tests Advanced Interceptor Missile In User Config

its alomost surreal how far the indians have come in indengious ICMB & ABM defense tech so quickly 

Livefist: India Tests Advanced Interceptor Missile In User Config

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice_man

Pakistan realistically cannot counter indian missile shield! however, what pakistan can do is unleash such a salvo of so many missiles onto india that some do manage to get through the missile shield. that is the only hope Pakistan currently can have. Other than that the geographic proximty of both nations is such that any missile shield close to the border will have very little time of interception. 

In the case of india it has depth unlike Pakistan which is width is pretty shallow compared to india.



Storm Force said:


> Livefist: Indian Missile Shield Ready: DRDO Chief
> 
> its alomost surreal how far the indians have come in indengious ICMB & ABM defense tech so quickly
> 
> Livefist: India Tests Advanced Interceptor Missile In User Config
> 
> its alomost surreal how far the indians have come in indengious ICMB & ABM defense tech so quickly
> 
> Livefist: India Tests Advanced Interceptor Missile In User Config



surreal???????? what's surreal its all thanks to RUSSIA!


----------



## Tija

ice_man said:


> surreal???????? what's surreal its all thanks to RUSSIA!



Do you have any Idea about what Radar & what missile it uses ?


----------



## kingofkings

ice_man said:


> Pakistan realistically cannot counter indian missile shield! however, what *pakistan* can do is unleash such a salvo of so many missiles onto *india* that some do manage to get through the missile shield.


Firstly lean English it's Pakistan and India ( not pakistan and india ) if intentional at least hav some respect for ur nation.

Secondly Wow so after you have ur salvo of missiles and according to your logic our ABM will be dried our leaving us nothing but open our umbrellas and wonder ????


AHH WAT THE HELL you can even notify us so that we could turn off our radars, airborne warning systems, quick reaction systems, active satellite systems and all the systems costing billions of $, 'cause U came up with such a mind blowin brilliant plan.

Grow up kid.


----------



## IceCold

IND151 said:


> ^^ in that case you need to cover Lahore, Islamabad,Rawalpindi and Karachi with ABM shield as they produce most of Pak GDP



Add Faisalabad to the list as well as it has most of our textile industry.


----------



## Adnan Faruqi

IceCold said:


> *Pakistans economy maybe fragile or whatever you may want to call it, but it isnt going to remain the same forever. *Fact is we are constantly developing and upgrading our strategic assets and that is not happening without money. Make no mistake about it if we need to develop such a system arranging funds would not be an issue.



How ur so sure of that??? The miracles don't happen over night. And it take decades to build good economy that too when u have every ingredient of it.


----------



## ice_man

kingofkings said:


> Firstly lean English it's Pakistan and India ( not pakistan and india ) if intentional at least hav some respect for ur nation.
> 
> Secondly Wow so after you have ur salvo of missiles and according to your logic our ABM will be dried our leaving us nothing but open our umbrellas and wonder ????
> 
> 
> AHH WAT THE HELL you can even notify us so that we could turn off our radars, airborne warning systems, quick reaction systems, active satellite systems and all the systems costing billions of $, 'cause U came up with such a mind blowin brilliant plan.
> 
> Grow up kid.



 GOray chalaygayay lekin tumhay chor gayaay! it doesn't matter if i write india or pakistan with capital or not. 

and comment only if you understand. Ask your army men no missile shield is 100% capable of defense some missiels will eventually get through! it is not a BLOODY wall ask your army men before commenting!


----------



## Storm Force

iCEMAN.

How can Russia provide the indian ABM system WHEN they dont have one THEMSELVES.

This is a indengious programme developed by indians FOR india 

just like the ARIHANT nuke sub & the AGNI FIVE ICMB. 

However the indians are JOINTLY devloping FGFA fighter project and the BRAHMOS cruise missles HYPER SONIC version


----------



## ice_man

Storm Force said:


> iCEMAN.
> 
> How can Russia provide the indian ABM system WHEN they dont have one THEMSELVES.
> 
> This is a indengious programme developed by indians FOR india
> 
> just like the ARIHANT nuke sub & the AGNI FIVE ICMB.
> 
> However the indians are JOINTLY devloping FGFA fighter project and the BRAHMOS cruise missles HYPER SONIC version




are you serios!! RUSSIA HAS an ABM! S-300PMU-2 please tell me you heard of it!

Soviet A-35 anti-ballistic missile system, designed to protect Moscow. was deployed in 71!


----------



## DARKY

ice_man said:


> are you serios!! RUSSIA HAS an ABM! S-300PMU-2 please tell me you heard of it!
> 
> Soviet A-35 anti-ballistic missile system, designed to protect Moscow. was deployed in 71!



Yes Russians have very good Anti-ballistic and air-defense system available but their anti-ballistic missile system are not as accurate and hence use Nuclear warhead in proximity fuse mode... while Indian Anti-ballistic missiles use the direct hit and proximity-fuse aswell for different layers... certain advancements are also there over Russian system such gimbaled warhead.

The Electronics(solid state) used on Indian system are much better than any Russian or Chinese Anti-missile or aircraft system... and can perform much better tracking upto much longer ranges and cannot be jammed... yes there has been Israeli assistance with the electronics part... and thats mutual.



The SC said:


> Even my donkey knows better!



That can be seen.. demonstration not required.


----------



## DMLA

According to the latest interview if Dr. Saraswat, The Indian BDM system requires 4 interceptors (2 PAD's and 2AAD's) for a kill probability of ~99.5 % for intermediate missiles of upto 2000 km range. It is quite clear that the armed forces (IAF) and DRDO have mutually agreed on the requirement for a new exo-atmospheric interceptor to tide over the limitations of the PAD (as it was a modified prithvi missile with inherent limitations). Therefore the phase 1 operationalization of Indian BMD is still a few years away. However, we can expect AAD's to be operationalized as an interim first step towards a robust Pakistan specific BMD. From what I understand, a single launcher carries 6 AAD interceptors and a battery should have about 4 to 6 launchers (as is the norm with air defence units). If we assume 2 to 4 batteries for a city like Delhi, we are talking about > 96 AAD interceptors. Once PDV is inducted (sometime after 2015) and phase 1 becomes operational, the system should have commensurate number of PDV's as per the operational scenarios. This translates to the ability to target more than 20 incoming intermediate range missiles overall. Therefore Pakistan would have to launch atleast 20 to have a reasonable certainty of getting through Delhi's defences.

However, looking at India's plans for its BMD, it seems that is will be based on a two tiered system with phase 2 planned for testing from next year. If that's the case, it would make sense for India to have short range (current) LRTR's and associated missile batteries deployed to counter the Pakistani threat while the longer range LRTR (currently under development) and phase 2 batteries deployed against the Chinese threats. While the radars will in all likelihood be placed closer to the borders, India it seems has a long way to go with phase 1 deployment for major cities (atleast 2018), phase 2 deployment of major cities (atleast 2024) with an integrated air defence network comprising newly inducted air defense radars (both aerial and ground based). Pakistani planners have atleast 6 years to develop adequate countermeasures to try and blunt the Indian BMD. The best way is to increase missile range so as to have DT missile which have a higher speed and also fly at relatively low altitudes ( < 50 km) to make interception difficult. Another method to look into are MIRV's ofcourse with dummy warheads which would seriously blunt Indian BMD. I am sure Pakistan would be already developing such systems though from the available pictures and some videos of Pakistani missile launches, Pakistan is yet to test MIRV capability.


----------



## paritosh

DARKY said:


> Yes Russians have very good Anti-ballistic and air-defense system available but their anti-ballistic missile system are not as accurate and hence use Nuclear warhead in proximity fuse mode... while Indian Anti-ballistic missiles use the direct hit and proximity-fuse aswell for different layers... certain advancements are also there over Russian system such gimbaled warhead.
> 
> The Electronics(solid state) used on Indian system are much better than any Russian or Chinese Anti-missile or aircraft system... and can perform much better tracking upto much longer ranges and cannot be jammed... yes there has been Israeli assistance with the electronics part... and thats mutual.
> 
> 
> 
> That can be seen.. demonstration not required.




and what is the source of this super secret information??
did you team-up with assanage on this?


the fact is that no system can prevent a MAD scenario when the warring nations are next-door neighbors...if the missiles had to travel thousands of kms...it'd have been easier shooting them down...
you have to detect a missile launch and need significant time to prep your own ABM shayBMs...India has tested the ABMS in the most ideal of scenarios possible...a bloody simulation!!!
this ABM deal imo is for show and propaganda...just as the nukes of the 2 countires...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

paritosh said:


> and what is the source of this super secret information??
> did you team-up with assanage on this?
> 
> 
> the fact is that no system can prevent a MAD scenario when the warring nations are next-door neighbors...if the missiles had to travel thousands of kms...it'd have been easier shooting them down...
> you have to detect a missile launch and need significant time to prep your own ABM shayBMs...India has tested the ABMS in the most ideal of scenarios possible...a bloody simulation!!!
> this ABM deal imo is for show and propaganda...just as the nukes of the 2 countires...



What ever I told can found any where if you take time and search.

Ballistic missiles do travel 1000s of Km.. (for gaining a decent RE velocity)... If you are talking about scud type missiles.. you can see what happened in Iraq...

Thats precisely why 1500km LRTR has been made along with the 800km(earlier version)... aswell as a 4000km X-band LRTR(under development).. Including Airborne detection and tracking aswell as satellite network.

Many nations are spending billions on anti-ballistic missile program... India is not alone in the race... Mutual Assured destruction is only possible when you have enough Nuclear arsenal... to destroy a country as big as India you would require at least 10000 nukes(of various yield)... for a country like China or US one would further require 20000-30000...

In the end I would leave for you to decide.. If you still stick with the propaganda theory of yours.. then consider ABM as a counter propaganda for the nuke propaganda of other party and one's nuke propaganda as the advantage in propaganda war.



paritosh said:


> and what is the source of this super secret information??
> did you team-up with assanage on this?
> 
> 
> the fact is that no system can prevent a MAD scenario when the warring nations are next-door neighbors...if the missiles had to travel thousands of kms...it'd have been easier shooting them down...
> you have to detect a missile launch and need significant time to prep your own ABM shayBMs...India has tested the ABMS in the most ideal of scenarios possible...a bloody simulation!!!
> this ABM deal imo is for show and propaganda...just as the nukes of the 2 countires...



What ever I told can found any where if you take time and search.

Ballistic missiles do travel 1000s of Km.. (for gaining a decent RE velocity)... If you are talking about scud type missiles.. you can see what happened in Iraq...

Thats precisely why 1500km LRTR has been made along with the 800km(earlier version)... aswell as a 4000km X-band LRTR(under development).. Including Airborne detection and tracking aswell as satellite network.

Many nations are spending billions on anti-ballistic missile program... India is not alone in the race... Mutual Assured destruction is only possible when you have enough Nuclear arsenal... to destroy a country as big as India you would require at least 10000 nukes(of various yield)... for a country like China or US one would further require 20000-30000...

In the end I would leave for you to decide.. If you still stick with the propaganda theory of yours.. then consider ABM as a counter propaganda for the nuke propaganda of other party and one's nuke propaganda as the advantage in propaganda war.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Rubbish a excahnge of 100 nucleur warheads would permanently alter earth's ecosystem.massive starvation,billions will lose their lives no matter where the explosions will take place.The physical destruction of the places isn't the only havoc created by nukes but also the aftermath.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## deckingraj

paritosh said:


> and what is the source of this super secret information??
> did you team-up with assanage on this?
> 
> 
> the fact is that no system can prevent a MAD scenario when the warring nations are next-door neighbors...if the missiles had to travel thousands of kms...it'd have been easier shooting them down...
> you have to detect a missile launch and need significant time to prep your own ABM shayBMs...India has tested the ABMS in the most ideal of scenarios possible...a bloody simulation!!!
> this ABM deal imo is for show and propaganda...just as the nukes of the 2 countires...



Lot of money has been spent on this system...In fact the first phase is very much Pakistan centric...Only they will unleash BM of 2000-2500KM range towards us...I would say we should have some faith in our scientific community....Not sure why people think few minutes is too little time to detect a missile and shoot it down??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bratva

deckingraj said:


> Lot of money has been spent on this system...In fact the first phase is very much Pakistan centric...Only they will unleash BM of 2000-2500KM range towards us...I would say we should have some faith in our scientific community....Not sure why people think few minutes is too little time to detect a missile and shoot it down??




ABM Tests were done in ideal conditions. BM path was known. Now under realistic scenario. When a medium range Ballistic missile travelling with 8-10 mach speed going to hit it's target at 1000 Km range, 8-10 mach = 10,000-12,000 KM/Hour. which means it requires 3-6 minutes to hit a target. How can ABM react so quick and so fast unless it's processing it with speed of super computer?


----------



## DARKY

mafiya said:


> ABM Tests were done in ideal conditions. BM path was known. Now under realistic scenario. When a medium range Ballistic missile travelling with 8-10 mach speed going to hit it's target at 1000 Km range, 8-10 mach = 10,000-12,000 KM/Hour. which means it requires 3-6 minutes to hit a target. How can ABM react so quick and so fast unless it's processing it with speed of super computer?



... 5-6 minutes would be spent in the boost phase itself... and the longest phase...i.e. midcourse phase takes even longer... I don't understand why do you post nonsense without even knowing about what you people are posting.. atleast you can ask no one will kill you here for that... here go through and this is for all the noobs who think ballistic missile travel as they travel in their cars..
U.S. Missile Defense Programs at a Glance | Arms Control Association
and your alarm button would process much faster than that.. forget about supercomputers.... you people are funny.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

India tested an ICBM, Pakistan tested an ABM Shaheen-1A, since Pakistan goes most of the time for the most cost effective solution, that was the most reasonable and logical response.
600 million for an ICBM vs at most 6 million for a few ABMs for each Indian ICBM.


----------



## dott

The SC said:


> India tested an ICBM, Pakistan tested an *ABM* Shaheen-1A, since Pakistan goes most of the time for the most cost effective solution, that was the most reasonable and logical response.
> 600 million for an ICBM vs at most 6 million for a few ABMs for each Indian ICBM.



how was shaheen an abm??


----------



## The SC

...Think!!!


----------



## IceCold

Adnan Faruqi said:


> How ur so sure of that??? The miracles don't happen over night. And it take decades to build good economy that too when u have every ingredient of it.



Because its common sense, something you Indians lack specially when talking about Pakistan(no offense meant). And it does not take decades but few years of stability and good governance, Take Musharaf tenure for example. Next year is election year and we will get rid of Zardari and his league of extra ordinary gentle thugs.


----------



## deckingraj

mafiya said:


> *ABM Tests were done in ideal conditions. BM path was known*. Now under realistic scenario. When a medium range Ballistic missile travelling with 8-10 mach speed going to hit it's target at 1000 Km range, 8-10 mach = 10,000-12,000 KM/Hour. which means it requires 3-6 minutes to hit a target. How can ABM react so quick and so fast unless it's processing it with speed of super computer?



Darky has already corrected some of the glitches..I will point out to even basic one...

a) Who told you that BM path was known??? Think about it what kind of a ABM system is this when we test it only on the known BM path??? Do you think our Scientific fraternity is so dumb that they are expecting enemy to first tell us the path of its BM??? Think about it.... Listen a new system is tested in phases. This is true for any system and has nothing to do with ABM system....I am not sure but you might be confused with initial tests where there might be some news about know BM path.

b) Secondly any tests are done in ideal conditions when you are testing the technology...That doesn't mean they are inducted just based on those ideal conditions...And once inducted they still keep on testing those systems naming the tests as User Trials...

b/w ABM doesn't mean that Pakistan is now screwed. However ABM has made your life a few notches harder as far as maintaining parity with Indian missile might. As an adversary i will be happy for you to ignore the real threat of ABM system....



IceCold said:


> Because its common sense, something you Indians lack specially when talking about Pakistan(no offense meant). And it does not take decades but few years of stability and good governance, Take Musharaf tenure for example. Next year is election year and we will get rid of Zardari and his league of extra ordinary gentle thugs.



He is actually right....China did their economy u term is terms of policies in early 80's....Look how long it took before people start acknowledging their economic might??? India started there's in 1991...again it took us over a decade before people started looking at us...Still we have a long path to follow....Pakistan is no exception....A new govt. or and old govt. will not bring in massive change(since there is no magic wand) unless and until stability returns back to Pakistan....Not saying things can't be fixed but expecting once a new govt. comes things will change dramatically might be a little too optimistic....However in the end - Nothing is impossible...so good luck....



The SC said:


> ...Think!!!


How about you helping us out?? For a starter enlighten us that why would we use our so called ICBM on Pakistan??


----------



## IceCold

deckingraj said:


> He is actually right....China did their economy u term is terms of policies in early 80's....Look how long it took before people start acknowledging their economic might??? India started there's in 1991...again it took us over a decade before people started looking at us...Still we have a long path to follow....Pakistan is no exception....A new govt. or and old govt. will not bring in massive change(since there is no magic wand) unless and until stability returns back to Pakistan....Not saying things can't be fixed but expecting once a new govt. comes things will change dramatically might be a little too optimistic....However in the end - Nothing is impossible...so good luck....



We don't need massive change because that comes with time but enough change to bring us back on track as was the case previously during Musharafs time. My point was specifically about fueling our defense requirements, because every time we say something, Indians are the 1st ones to jump and say hey where is the money, your economy is in shackles. So my post was specifically targeted towards that audience. A new government will definitely bring in the change because good governance & stability are the two key elements if you wish to see your economy set in the right direction and those are not achievable without a better government. That is why my focal point was the government. Today Pakistan is ruled by a bunch of thugs literally who have neither the vision nor the desire to see Pakistan making progress of any sort.


----------



## LeGenD

DARKY said:


> to destroy a country as big as India you would require at least 10000 nukes(of various yield)... for a country like China or US one would further require 20000-30000...


Who fed you this nonsense?


----------



## deckingraj

IceCold said:


> We don't need massive change because that comes with time but enough change to bring us back on track as was the case previously during Musharafs time. My point was specifically about fueling our defense requirements, because every time we say something, Indians are the 1st ones to jump and say hey where is the money, your economy is in shackles. So my post was specifically targeted towards that audience. A new government will definitely bring in the change because good governance & stability are the two key elements if you wish to see your economy set in the right direction and those are not achievable without a better government. That is why my focal point was the government. Today Pakistan is ruled by a bunch of thugs literally who have neither the vision nor the desire to see Pakistan making progress of any sort.



I see...yes i am in agreement with your post...as long as you know that it takes time before economy comes back on its feet....



LeGenD said:


> Who fed you this nonsense?


look it depends upon what you mean by destruction...


----------



## DARKY

LeGenD said:


> Who fed you this nonsense?



Do you know how big is the geographical assets of a big country like India/China/US.... and the resources it has ?.. with 2-3 nukes you can only make a loosing army surrender... with 50-100 you can create problems for a well standing over a million force and somehow make them scatter and force them take time to regroup... but once they regroup you are gone...a your whole civilization would be wiped out in no time.

Again to completely wipe out an enemy as big as India Pakistan would require about 10000 nuclear with various yields and various types... and a variety to delivery platforms like strategic bombers, BM(both rail & road), SLBM, SSBN, and all launched at once... 2-3 would just add fuel to fire and attract a much lethal response in case....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rajnikant

Asim Aquil said:


> The Indian ABM is a cash pit aimed to help corrupt people stockpile money. Pakistan needs to ignore it.


this mindset of an enemy is the best defense (will help in surprise offence)...one can get..thx


----------



## Pak47

How will you counter Saheen 1A, with reports that radar can't track it?


----------



## deckingraj

Pak47 said:


> How will you counter Saheen 1A, with reports that radar can't track it?



Well if radars can't track it then there is no way it can be countered...though haven't heard of a stealth BM so far....mind throwing some light on it???


----------



## The SC

> How about you helping us out?? For a starter enlighten us that why would we use our so called ICBM on Pakistan??



Just in case!


----------



## Laughing_soldier

Asim Aquil said:


> The Indian ABM is a cash pit aimed to help corrupt people stockpile money. Pakistan needs to ignore it.


 
The Indian nuclear submarine, aircraft carriers, fifth generation fighters, SLBM are alo cash pit aimed to help corrupt people stockpile money. Pakistan needs to ignore it.



But you can't. 



Pak47 said:


> How will you counter Saheen 1A, with reports that radar can't track it?



Why radar cannot track it? Where did you hear that?


----------



## Laughing_soldier

mafiya said:


> ABM Tests were done in ideal conditions. BM path was known. Now under realistic scenario. When a medium range Ballistic missile travelling with 8-10 mach speed going to hit it's target at 1000 Km range, 8-10 mach = 10,000-12,000 KM/Hour. which means it requires 3-6 minutes to hit a target. How can ABM react so quick and so fast unless it's processing it with speed of super computer?



It was not ideal condition. It was realistic warlike condition.

the target launched at 10:10 and destroyed at 10:15, think how fast the procesing power and reaction time is.... 

A few minutes after the &#8216;hostile&#8217; missile, a modified surface-to-surface Prithvi, took off at *10.10* a.m. from Launch Complex-3 at Chandipur, the interceptor missile, Advanced Air Defence (AAD), was fired from the Wheeler Island. As the target missile climbed to a height about 100 km and began descending at rapid speed, the interceptor travelling at supersonic speed homed on to the target and smashed it to smithereens around *10.15* a.m. at a 15-km altitude in the endo-atmosphere.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2878400.ece?homepage=true




*The Mission Control Centre for the AAD interceptor trial held on 10th February 2012 was deployed in Master-Slave configuration at DRDO Hyderabad and Wheeler Island, Orissa to ensure high availability with built in fault tolerance at each location.

The Mission Control Centre of the Indian BMD programme is one of the most advanced, automated net-centric Command and Control systems in the world.

The Master MCC located more than a thousand kilometer away at Hyderabad from the Missile test range, received the target data in real time from multiple weapon system radars. The complete Air Situation Picture during the BMD trial was provided to the MCC commander using advanced data fusion and target classification techniques.

After the classification of the target as an enemy Ballistic missile, Mission Control Centre issued engagement orders to the AAD Launch Centre located at Wheeler island in Dhamra.

The complete engagement sequence from target detection to destruction was controlled by Mission Control Centre in net-centric mode of operation. The interceptor missile lifted off from Wheeler island destroying the target at an altitude of 15 km.

The AAD Trial has successfully demonstrated complete functionality in deployment configuration of Mission Control Centre for the Ballistic Missile Defence Programme. 

The Hindu : News / National : Interceptor scores a direct hit on target missile

The two launches - that of the attacker missile and of the interceptor - took place independently and they were controlled by radars at different places in the country and by the Mission Control Centre and the Launch Control Centre. Fifteen computers stationed at Hyderabad, Balasore, Chandipur, Konark, Puri, Wheeler Island and so on worked in unison and made the mission a complete success. &#8220;We saw the fragments of the target missile forming a track on the computer screen, confirming that the target was destroyed,&#8221; said Dr. Saraswat, who is also Director-General of DRDO.

Mr. Chander, DRDO's Chief Controller for missiles and strategic systems, called it &#8220;an excellent interception&#8221; and that &#8220;the entire interception was automated with radars tracking the incoming target missile.&#8221; While the Launch Control Centre was situated in the Wheeler Island, the Mission Control Centre was situated a few &#8220;thousands of kilometers away from the launch point&#8221; of the attacker missile, he claimed.

D.S. Reddy, Programme Director, BMD programme, said the success of the interception proved that India had graduated &#8220;from the experimental mode to the deployment mode&#8221; of its interceptors. While the target missile belonged to 600 km range class, the interceptor missile was capable of taking on missiles which had a range of 2,000 km. &#8220;We met all the objectives we had as part of the mission and we have demonstrated to the user [the Army] whatever we were claiming,&#8221; Mr. Reddy said. *


----------



## ice_man

so 33 pages later and we have no answer or a proper discussion! and like most threads this one is going nowhere!!


----------



## DARKY

deckingraj said:


> Well if radars can't track it then there is no way it can be countered...though haven't heard of a stealth BM so far....mind throwing some light on it???



Our LRTR are designed to tarck a 0.1m2 RCS missile from 1000km or a cricket ball upto 1400km... although If its somehow invisible on Radar.. there are Infra-red based tracking and guidance system...Its another thing we haven't done much in this regard.. US BMD shield also has Infra red based Ground based and satellite tracking system which can track extreme heat signatures such as BM launch and RE.. with much ease... as a matter of fact they(Satellites) have also been able to detect house fires in US.

Space-Based Infrared System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS)

Our Next target after successful Induction of both phases of BMD should be Space and Ground based IR tracking system.. which can used as a secondary backup measure in case of High energy Electronic Attacks by enemy on our LRTRs.


----------



## deckingraj

DARKY said:


> Our LRTR are designed to tarck a 0.1m2 RCS missile from 1000km or a cricket ball upto 1400km... although If its somehow invisible on Radar.. there are Infra-red based tracking and guidance system...Its another thing we haven't done much in this regard.. US BMD shield also has Infra red based Ground based and satellite tracking system which can track extreme heat signatures such as BM launch and RE.. with much ease... as a matter of fact they(Satellites) have also been able to detect house fires in US.
> 
> Space-Based Infrared System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS)
> 
> Our Next target after successful Induction of both phases of BMD should be Space and Ground based IR tracking system.. which can used as a secondary backup measure in case of High energy Electronic Attacks by enemy on our LRTRs.



 ... i was just checking if he knows what he is talking about...anyhow thanks for the info...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Black Widow

What is ballistic missile? 

throw a stone in air , that ballistic path, and the missile follows this ballistic path is ballistic missile. reference for ballistic path: physics, class 12 written by H C verma. 

now when i throw stone in air it has some speed, when it reaches the top, its speed become 0, at decsend, it aquire speed due to free fall. 

some one said here BM has speed of machine 10so it can travel in 3 min. kid no, mach10 is speed when it touches ground.at top of its flight path verticle velocity was 0km/hrs. 

the projectile travel max dist if it is projected at 45 degree angle.


----------



## The SC

Laughing_soldier said:


> It was not ideal condition. It was realistic warlike condition.
> 
> the target launched at 10:10 and destroyed at 10:15, think how fast the procesing power and reaction time is....
> 
> A few minutes after the &#8216;hostile&#8217; missile, a modified surface-to-surface Prithvi, took off at *10.10* a.m. from Launch Complex-3 at Chandipur, the interceptor missile, Advanced Air Defence (AAD), was fired from the Wheeler Island. As the target missile climbed to a height about 100 km and began descending at rapid speed, the interceptor travelling at supersonic speed homed on to the target and smashed it to smithereens around *10.15* a.m. at a 15-km altitude in the endo-atmosphere.
> 
> http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2878400.ece?homepage=true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Mission Control Centre for the AAD interceptor trial held on 10th February 2012 was deployed in Master-Slave configuration at DRDO Hyderabad and Wheeler Island, Orissa to ensure high availability with built in fault tolerance at each location.
> 
> The Mission Control Centre of the Indian BMD programme is one of the most advanced, automated net-centric Command and Control systems in the world.
> 
> The Master MCC located more than a thousand kilometer away at Hyderabad from the Missile test range, received the target data in real time from multiple weapon system radars. The complete Air Situation Picture during the BMD trial was provided to the MCC commander using advanced data fusion and target classification techniques.
> 
> After the classification of the target as an enemy Ballistic missile, Mission Control Centre issued engagement orders to the AAD Launch Centre located at Wheeler island in Dhamra.
> 
> The complete engagement sequence from target detection to destruction was controlled by Mission Control Centre in net-centric mode of operation. The interceptor missile lifted off from Wheeler island destroying the target at an altitude of 15 km.
> 
> The AAD Trial has successfully demonstrated complete functionality in deployment configuration of Mission Control Centre for the Ballistic Missile Defence Programme.
> 
> The Hindu : News / National : Interceptor scores a direct hit on target missile
> 
> The two launches - that of the attacker missile and of the interceptor - took place independently and they were controlled by radars at different places in the country and by the Mission Control Centre and the Launch Control Centre. Fifteen computers stationed at Hyderabad, Balasore, Chandipur, Konark, Puri, Wheeler Island and so on worked in unison and made the mission a complete success. &#8220;We saw the fragments of the target missile forming a track on the computer screen, confirming that the target was destroyed,&#8221; said Dr. Saraswat, who is also Director-General of DRDO.
> 
> Mr. Chander, DRDO's Chief Controller for missiles and strategic systems, called it &#8220;an excellent interception&#8221; and that &#8220;the entire interception was automated with radars tracking the incoming target missile.&#8221; While the Launch Control Centre was situated in the Wheeler Island, the Mission Control Centre was situated a few &#8220;thousands of kilometers away from the launch point&#8221; of the attacker missile, he claimed.
> 
> D.S. Reddy, Programme Director, BMD programme, said the success of the interception proved that India had graduated &#8220;from the experimental mode to the deployment mode&#8221; of its interceptors. While the target missile belonged to 600 km range class, the interceptor missile was capable of taking on missiles which had a range of 2,000 km. &#8220;We met all the objectives we had as part of the mission and we have demonstrated to the user [the Army] whatever we were claiming,&#8221; Mr. Reddy said. *




If the ballistic missile you have intercepted would have had a nuclear war head, wouldn't that have made it a kind of EMP over India's territory.



Laughing_soldier said:


> It was not ideal condition. It was realistic warlike condition.
> 
> the target launched at 10:10 and destroyed at 10:15, think how fast the procesing power and reaction time is....
> 
> A few minutes after the hostile missile, a modified surface-to-surface Prithvi, took off at *10.10* a.m. from Launch Complex-3 at Chandipur, the interceptor missile, Advanced Air Defence (AAD), was fired from the Wheeler Island. As the target missile climbed to a height about 100 km and began descending at rapid speed, the interceptor travelling at supersonic speed homed on to the target and smashed it to smithereens around *10.15* a.m. at a 15-km altitude in the endo-atmosphere.
> 
> The Hindu : News / National : Interceptor scores a direct hit on target missile
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Mission Control Centre for the AAD interceptor trial held on 10th February 2012 was deployed in Master-Slave configuration at DRDO Hyderabad and Wheeler Island, Orissa to ensure high availability with built in fault tolerance at each location.
> 
> The Mission Control Centre of the Indian BMD programme is one of the most advanced, automated net-centric Command and Control systems in the world.
> 
> The Master MCC located more than a thousand kilometer away at Hyderabad from the Missile test range, received the target data in real time from multiple weapon system radars. The complete Air Situation Picture during the BMD trial was provided to the MCC commander using advanced data fusion and target classification techniques.
> 
> After the classification of the target as an enemy Ballistic missile, Mission Control Centre issued engagement orders to the AAD Launch Centre located at Wheeler island in Dhamra.
> 
> The complete engagement sequence from target detection to destruction was controlled by Mission Control Centre in net-centric mode of operation. The interceptor missile lifted off from Wheeler island destroying the target at an altitude of 15 km.
> 
> The AAD Trial has successfully demonstrated complete functionality in deployment configuration of Mission Control Centre for the Ballistic Missile Defence Programme.
> 
> The Hindu : News / National : Interceptor scores a direct hit on target missile
> 
> The two launches - that of the attacker missile and of the interceptor - took place independently and they were controlled by radars at different places in the country and by the Mission Control Centre and the Launch Control Centre. Fifteen computers stationed at Hyderabad, Balasore, Chandipur, Konark, Puri, Wheeler Island and so on worked in unison and made the mission a complete success. We saw the fragments of the target missile forming a track on the computer screen, confirming that the target was destroyed, said Dr. Saraswat, who is also Director-General of DRDO.
> 
> Mr. Chander, DRDO's Chief Controller for missiles and strategic systems, called it an excellent interception and that the entire interception was automated with radars tracking the incoming target missile. While the Launch Control Centre was situated in the Wheeler Island, the Mission Control Centre was situated a few thousands of kilometers away from the launch point of the attacker missile, he claimed.
> 
> D.S. Reddy, Programme Director, BMD programme, said the success of the interception proved that India had graduated from the experimental mode to the deployment mode of its interceptors. While the target missile belonged to 600 km range class, the interceptor missile was capable of taking on missiles which had a range of 2,000 km. We met all the objectives we had as part of the mission and we have demonstrated to the user [the Army] whatever we were claiming, Mr. Reddy said. *




If the ballistic missile you have intercepted would have had a nuclear war head, wouldn't that have made it a kind of EMP over India's territory.


----------



## ares

The SC said:


> If the ballistic missile you have intercepted would have had a nuclear war head, wouldn't that have made it a kind of EMP over India's territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the ballistic missile you have intercepted would have had a nuclear war head, wouldn't that have made it a kind of EMP over India's territory.



It will if the nuclear warhead goes off..but mostly force of impact of the kill vehicle/ warhead explosion obliterates the warhead meaning chain reaction does not get started ..infact to Hit to kill vehicles have the ability to completely atomizes the warhead.

Even if nuclear warhead does go off ...at that altitude ..it is incapable of doing significant damage on ground..on the other hand EMP generated will knock down the electronics/power supply for hundred of miles..but still much better than the alternative.


----------



## The SC

It is true, but still dangerous I mean.
and to tell you another truth, even the US and Russia couldn't count much on their ABMs, and seeked alternatives which we all know have failed too.
So, the main thing is to avoid war; India in my personal opinion has the inherent right to self-defence, since anyone who wants peace prepares for war. But please Indian friends, stop bragging about virtual achievements in defence and start bragging about real scientific, socio-economic and human mind advancements. since talk of war will bring nothing positive to India.
I appreciate your insight ares


----------



## jamshaid56us

well well well, What about if an atomic bomb is detonated over indian space or some kilometers above Dehli????? The world is spending more money on stealth technology rather than any so called Missile Defence System, everybody knows the secrets of Indian ABM and Pakistan know how to fail your strategy. what if hundreds of missiles are comming towards Dehli???? 

Pakistan is working on stealth missile technology and its cruise missiles showed the teraing hugging capabilities and radar counter measures. Improvements are on their way. Pakistan successfully carried the second phase of its missile arsenal development program and improved the capabilities of its missiles and in some cases introduced new sub category ( like Shaheen 1A etc.). 

Shaheen Missile series is a real threat for india because of its high speed, some years ago a defence analyst of America said that 3-5 patriot missiles must be launched togather than there is a probability to intercept Shaheen Missile.

In a recent military exercise last mont Pakistan successfully tested the Anti tank LASER weapon to disable a Tank, the news was breaked by a local private media with a video, but than probably security agencies prohibbeted them and other channels to report this news. Because Pakistan always hold a strategy of obscuring its Secret weapons. 

this technology can be used to disable incomming missiles, aircrafts etc. this technology can bust any MDS.

I'm not starting a controversy but only stating facts.


----------



## jamshaid56us

here is a glimpse of the news.


----------



## jamshaid56us

This Video is answer to Indian ABM system

Babur Cruise Missile






RAAD Cruise Missile






Babur Cruise Missile have almost same specifications of US Tomahawk cruise missile. It can carry traditional as well as nuclear warheads, it has terrain hugging and radar avoiding capabilities, it can not be detected by radar, the jet engine has low noise which makes it really stealthy. The most important thing is the PIN POINT ACCURACY.

Beside this stealth missile technology there are other ways to fail ABM systems, this first way is to trigger false radar alram by the use of elctronic countermeasures, it can be done by launching false targets in the air, every radar avoiding technique an be used to blind radar.

if the radar fails to detect incomming target or locked down the wrong target the ABM system fails.

Second way is to launch more missiles toward target than the capability of ABMS, thats where every Missile Defence Systems really fails. You can not rely on these MDS 100%, these are just conventional tactics to release tenshion on Public level, while in reality they can only be used agaisnt a terrorist missile attack (if they have capability to launch one  ) or limited missile attack. For a full scale War its a junk thing.

And the most reliable way to fail Indian Missile Defence System is to Launch 100's of missiles togather or A Babur Cruise Missile , All Pakistani Missiles are FAF, Fire and Forget, Once it is launched it has pin point accuracy.

Pakistan Zindabad

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The SC

India's ABM system is a Myth, even the US and Russia had/have nuclear warheads to counter the ballistic missiles, showing how desperate they were in countering a missile attack.


----------



## KRAIT

The SC said:


> India's ABM system is a Myth, even the US and Russia had/have nuclear warheads to counter the ballistic missiles, showing how desperate they were in countering a missile attack.


Nuclear warheads for countering the ballistic missiles.......

Seriously dude, do you know how ABM works and its components.


----------



## Pak47

deckingraj said:


> Well if radars can't track it then there is no way it can be countered...though haven't heard of a stealth BM so far....mind throwing some light on it???



Yeah, there are multiple sources for this claim.. Ill just quote Wiki.. to begin. 

" On 25th April 2012, the ISPR revealed more information about the missile. The missile weight is approximately 10,000 kg, slightly heavier than its predecessor and can carry either a single 1000kg warhead or be MIRVed with between 3 to 5 nuclear warheads weighing between 200-300 kg each.[11] In addition, the Shaheen IA primarily contains sophisticated automated refueling and advanced stealth technology features that were not present in its previous version to avoid detections from radars. Even Pakistani radars could not track the missile after it was launched. All three Shaheen missiles, Shaheen I, Shaheen 1A and Shaheen II are reportedly equipped with the latest PSAC (Post-Separation Attitude Correction) system."


----------



## airuah

Pak47 said:


> Yeah, there are multiple sources for this claim.. Ill just quote Wiki.. to begin.
> 
> " On 25th April 2012, the ISPR revealed more information about the missile. The missile weight is approximately 10,000 kg, slightly heavier than its predecessor and can carry either a single 1000kg warhead or be MIRVed with between 3 to 5 nuclear warheads weighing between 200-300 kg each.[11] In addition, the Shaheen IA primarily contains sophisticated automated refueling and advanced stealth technology features that were not present in its previous version to avoid detections from radars. Even Pakistani radars could not track the missile after it was launched. All three Shaheen missiles, Shaheen I, Shaheen 1A and Shaheen II are reportedly equipped with the latest PSAC (Post-Separation Attitude Correction) system."



if your Radar did not track the missile- how did you know the missiles success and its trajectory?---and there may be a fault with your radars ----since when you test a missile, radars are positioned in such a way to track it since you know its path.....

and what is automated refueling?


----------



## The Deterrent

KRAIT said:


> Nuclear warheads for countering the ballistic missiles.......
> 
> Seriously dude, do you know how ABM works and its components.



Yes KRAIT, thats true. Early US and Russian ABMs used low-yield nuclear weapons as warheads to overcome accuracy issues.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## KRAIT

AhaseebA said:


> Yes KRAIT, thats true. Early US and Russian ABMs used low-yield nuclear weapons as warheads to overcome accuracy issues.


Kindly provide link if you can. Cheers.


----------



## The Deterrent

airuah said:


> if your Radar did not track the missile- how did you know the missiles success and its trajectory?---and there may be a fault with your radars ----since when you test a missile, radars are positioned in such a way to track it since you know its path.....
> 
> and what is automated refueling?



Most of these claims are bullcrap-propaganda-journalism. Either it is the fault of the journalists (who tried to spice things up) or we have some idiots sitting in the ISPR.

MIRVs on Shaheen-1? ---Not possible...the diametre is too less.
Automated refueling?-----My understanding is that the "Re-lifing" (replacing the solid fuel every couple of years) of this Alpha version is much convenient to do.
Stealth and Radar tracking?--- Totally illogical. Any ballistic missile of that calibre can easily be tracked after launch. Perhaps the Re-entry Vehicle has some degree of stealth (which sounds absurd, because the RAM would just burn up during re-entry).


----------



## The Deterrent

KRAIT said:


> Kindly provide link if you can. Cheers.



The Russians probably still use nuclear warheads in ABMs for intercepting ICBMs.
A-35 anti-ballistic missile system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Americans instead used the EMP burst in form of X-rays generated by a thermonuclear weapon to disable incoming missiles in earlier systems.
LIM-49 Spartan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jamshaid56us

Ohhhhh C'mon guys. discuss the specs than your own ideas, I answered the thread in my last post, but I think indians always close eyes when reality came infront of them...... its a challenge to all indians tell me

most of the Pakistani Missile Arsenal is hypersonic, means have speed between mach 5 to 10.
India's all ABM systems cant exceed mach 5

then how can you say you successfuly countered our ballistic missiles?
second if you carefuly read my last post you will find all the ways to counter ABMS.


----------



## IND151

jamshaid56us said:


> Ohhhhh C'mon guys. discuss the specs than your own ideas, I answered the thread in my last post, but I think indians always close eyes when reality came infront of them...... its a challenge to all indians tell me
> 
> most of the Pakistani Missile Arsenal is hypersonic, means have speed between mach 5 to 10.
> India's all ABM systems cant exceed mach 5
> 
> then how can you say you successfuly countered our ballistic missiles?
> second if you carefuly read my last post you will find all the ways to counter ABMS.





> most of the Pakistani Missile Arsenal is hypersonic, means have speed between mach 5 to 10.



you are referring to speed of RV

speed of RV of MRBMs is 8 to 10 Mach

current Indian interceptors can engage missiles having range up to 2000 KM and we are planning new interceptor which can engage missiles with range up to 5000 KM

thus we already have interceptor to engage Shaeen and Ghauri and new interceptor will ensure that we can engage Shaheen 2 too


----------



## illusion8

jamshaid56us said:


> Ohhhhh C'mon guys. discuss the specs than your own ideas, I answered the thread in my last post, but I think indians always close eyes when reality came infront of them...... its a challenge to all indians tell me
> 
> *most of the Pakistani Missile Arsenal is hypersonic, means have speed between mach 5 to 10.*



This is news to me, I don't think it's that high even at terminal velocity. Which missile are you talking about?


----------



## DARIUS

jamshaid56us said:


> Ohhhhh C'mon guys. discuss the specs than your own ideas, I answered the thread in my last post, but I think indians always close eyes when reality came infront of them...... its a challenge to all indians tell me
> 
> most of the Pakistani Missile Arsenal is hypersonic, means have speed between mach 5 to 10.
> India's all ABM systems cant exceed mach 5
> 
> then how can you say you successfuly countered our ballistic missiles?
> second if you carefuly read my last post you will find all the ways to counter ABMS.


I guess even the Pak Army doesn't know this!!Please go and inform them!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Viper0011.

KRAIT said:


> Kindly provide link if you can. Cheers.


 
The most authentic way to shut down all internal systems that are encapsulated within an object traveling at higher speeds....is to use the EMP. You knock down EVERYTHING if that happens. The US is using certain EMP based weapons to knock out incoming missiles. 

Once a trajectory is displaced within the guided system and the communication interrupted, you've confused the internal guidance system all the way and have shut it down for even a few seconds. When the systems come back, everything is lost. These are machines, not human beings that they can realize I am on the wrong street. So even if you didn't get a direct hit, you've pushed the missile through an internal failure by knocking out it's electronics guidance and detonation system to a lala land vs. the target


----------



## Dazzler

illusion8 said:


> This is news to me, I don't think it's that high even at terminal velocity. Which missile are you talking about?



I m not sure whether Ghauri series is as fast as shaheen series neither will i call any of our missiles as hypersonic, but they are surely in high supersonic category. Shaheen series in particular, is quite nifty.



orangzaib said:


> The most authentic way to shut down all internal systems that are encapsulated within an object traveling at higher speeds....is to use the EMP. You knock down EVERYTHING if that happens. The US is using certain EMP based weapons to knock out incoming missiles.
> 
> Once a trajectory is displaced within the guided system and the communication interrupted, you've confused the internal guidance system all the way and have shut it down for even a few seconds. When the systems come back, everything is lost. These are machines, not human beings that they can realize I am on the wrong street. So even if you didn't get a direct hit, you've pushed the missile through an internal failure by knocking out it's electronics guidance and detonation system to a lala land vs. the target



There is a long road to travel when it comes to EMP based precision counter BM system simply, as you mentioned, it shuts everything including the missile electronics, contributing in a horrible scenario for its users as well. The incoming threat might miss the target, but the users will also have to hold their breath till then, for they are also sitting blind.


----------



## Viper0011.

nabil_05 said:


> There is a long road to travel when it comes to EMP based precision counter BM system simply, as you mentioned, it shuts everything including the missile electronics, contributing in a horrible scenario for its users as well. The incoming threat might miss the target, but the users will also have to hold their breath till then, for they are also sitting blind.



This is a very limited and short burst of EMP or Kinetic energy. It is not a mass produced EMP as others were discussing earlier. Those are old designs. Now you have devices that can produce small jolts of EMP, close to a target, it would knock it out for a few seconds and that's it. People sitting on radar won't see the whole radar going down. Just a blip for a few secs on the screen at the impact point


----------



## EzioAltaïr

orangzaib said:


> This is a very limited and short burst of EMP or Kinetic energy. It is not a mass produced EMP as others were discussing earlier. Those are old designs. Now you have devices that can produce small jolts of EMP, close to a target, it would knock it out for a few seconds and that's it. People sitting on radar won't see the whole radar going down. Just a blip for a few secs on the screen at the impact point



The most interesting way to deliver an EMP is an exo-atmospheric nuclear explosion. A well timed nuclear explosion can fry all electronic systems in a country.


----------



## KRAIT

EzioAltaïr;3408949 said:


> The most interesting way to deliver an EMP is an exo-atmospheric nuclear explosion. A well timed nuclear explosion can fry all electronic systems in a country.


I think they already have EMP resistant technology as it may have been thought through/ Laser one looks more promising, which only US has succeeded. Nuclear explosion does generate EMP, but frying the electronics doesn't mean anything as the area of destruction is already destroyed. Exo-Atmospheric is one of the good chance of neutralizing.


----------



## Lisa Beebe

I think India and Pakistan had resumed the new phase of talks in March, 2009 which were the first structured bilateral talks.


----------



## Gessler

nabil_05 said:


> I m not sure whether Ghauri series is as fast as shaheen series neither will i call any of our missiles as hypersonic, but they are surely in high supersonic category. Shaheen series in particular, is quite nifty.



High supersonic could mean > 4-5 Mach at terminal stage. You're gonna need much faster missiles
if in case you're planning to fool BMD by taking any advantage of their reaction time. China's DF-21D
carrier-killer can reach Mach 10, India's Agni-V can hit Mach 24 which is very high-hypersonic.


----------



## mautkimaut

joncena said:


> Conventional Stop Ballistic Blast Engineering (such as Patriot Missiles etc) cannot be definitely effective in the Indo-Pak movies due to amazingly brief trip varies. With the wide variety of nuke likely multi-range and level missiles on both aspects and relatively amazingly brief varies to main concentrate on places, the missiles will in all probability hot even before the ABMT power supply stock up energy stock up properly secured, complete and launch.




Dude you massacred English..


----------



## Safriz

USMAN ANSARI | Comments A
A FILED UNDER Features
Special Report ADS BY PULSE 360 AdChoices ISLAMABAD - In response to India's pursuit of missile defenses, Pakistan
has expanded its countermeasure efforts, primarily through
development of maneuvering re-entry vehicles. The Army Strategic
Forces Command, which controls Pakistan's ballistic missiles, has since
at least 2004 said it wanted to develop such warheads; analysts now
believe these are in service. Mansoor Ahmed, lecturer at the Department of Defence and Strategic
Studies at Islamabad's Quaid-e-Azam University, said that in addition
to maneuverable warheads, multiple independently targetable re-
entry vehicles (MIRVs) may be developed to stay ahead of India's
"multilayered ballistic-missile defense system" and potential future
countermeasures. "This, coupled with submarine-launched, nuclear-tipped cruise missiles,
would ensure the survivability of its nuclear deterrent and enhance the
effectiveness of its missile force that can beat any Indian defenses," he
said. When asked about the threat posed by India's anti-ballistic missile
(ABM) program, Harsh Pant, reader of international relations at the
Defence Studies Department, King's College London, said it depended
on the capability India eventually acquired. "Many in India see an Indian missile defense capability as the only
effective way to counter what they consider as Pakistan's 'nuclear
blackmail,'" he said. He cited the ongoing conflict in Kashmir, the 1999 Kargil conflict and
the November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks as examples.Strategic
Disadvantage These incidents "demonstrated for many the inability of
India to come up with an appropriate response to the stability-
instability paradox operating on the subcontinent that has put India at
a strategic disadvantage vis-à-vis Pakistan." He further explained, "A missile defense system would help India blunt
Pakistan's 'first use' nuclear force posture that had led Pakistan to
believe that it had inhibited India from launching a conventional attack
against it for fear of its escalation to the nuclear level. With a missile
defense system in place, India would be able to restore the status quo
ante, thereby making a conventional military option against Pakistan potent again."Such a missile defense system and a second-strike
capability "would enhance the uncertainties of India's potential
adversaries, regardless of the degree of effectiveness of missile
interception, and would act as a disincentive to their resort to nuclear
weapons," he said. Asked whether Pakistan's countermeasures would be effective against
such ABM systems, Pant replied, "most definitely." He said, "According to various reports, Pakistan has been developing
MIRV capability for the Shaheen-II ballistic missiles and [the] Shaheen-
III missile is under development." He also explained there was a further danger for India in Pakistan's
countermeasure efforts. "Although the current capability of Pakistani missiles is built around
radar seekers, the integration of re-entry vehicles would make these
extremely potent and defeat the anti-ballistic missile defense systems.
This would be especially true of Indian aircraft carriers that would
become extremely vulnerable," he said. While measures to maintain the credibility of the land-based arm of
the deterrent may prove to be adequate, the security of the future sea-
based arm of the nuclear triad is not as clear-cut. Analysts have for years speculated that the Navy will equip its
submarines with a variant of the Babur cruise missile armed with a
nuclear warhead. However, whether a cruise-missile-based arm of the
nuclear triad at sea would be effective and survivable in the face of
Indian air defenses is uncertain. The Soviet Union developed a counter to the BGM-109 Tomahawk
nearly 30 years ago in the form of the MiG-31 Foxhound, which had a
powerful look down/shoot down radar and a potent missile system.
The Indian Air Force claims its Su-30MKI Flanker has similar capabilities. When this was put to analyst Usman Shabbir of the Pakistan Military
Consortium think tank, he said the interception of cruise missiles is not
so simple."I think Babur will form the sea-based arm of the Pakistani
nuclear deterrent" he said, "but the problem in targeting subsonic
cruise missiles is that they are harder to detect due to their lower radar
cross-signature, low-level navigation, and use of waypoints to circumvent more secure and heavily defended areas." "By the time you detect them, there is not much time left to vector
aircraft for interception." However, Shabbir conceded it would be possible for an airborne
interceptor to shoot down a missile like Babur. "An aircraft already on
[patrol] might be lucky to pick it up on its own radar well in advance [if
looking in the correct direction], or vectored to it by ground-based
radar." View Comments | Share your thoughts » MORE IN FEATURES Small Software Engineering Firms Struggle To Fill Jobs

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Safriz

KRAIT said:


> I think they already have EMP resistant technology as it may have been thought through/ Laser one looks more promising, which only US has succeeded. Nuclear explosion does generate EMP, but frying the electronics doesn't mean anything as the area of destruction is already destroyed. Exo-Atmospheric is one of the good chance of neutralizing.



All missile defence systems must be multi layered....
EMP alone may not do..
A faraday cage is used to save electronics from EMP induced current....But it doesnt look like indian or Pakistani missiles carry EMP counter measures.
EMP may not be succesful even if the vehicle doesnt carry faraday cage..
So a second and third layer of missile defence will be needed..


----------



## Safriz

Reminds me of my own two year old thread..
My first ever on PDF

www.defence.pk/forums/pakistan-strategic-forces/71224-should-pakistan-go-emp-burst-devices-jamming-technologies.html


----------



## JF_17_Thunder

I think Pakistan should also look into making its own Anti Cruise/Anti Ballistic missile shield. And it won't be difficult as we have anza 3 in process, which can be enhanced to do the job


----------



## Mitro

The Future of Missile Is Hybersonic Cruise Missile Which Can be used to over come any ABM SYstem.
America,Russia And China are in Race to develop this missile .US is currently Leading But China and Russia are not behind Especially China.

The Chinese have reportedly showed significant interest in HCV technology, with research and development work occurring at a number of centers, including the Qian Xuesen National Engineering Science Experiment Base in Beijing&#8217;s Huairou district. News emerged in 2007 &#8212; three years after the launch of the X-51A program &#8212; that Chinese scientists were planning to test scramjet models capable of reaching Mach 5.6 speed at a new wind tunnel in Beijing. According to Chinese media earlier this year, Chinese scientists may also have built a wind tunnel capable of testing supersonic devices at Mach 9.

THese country will be able to produce a hybersonic cruise missile with speed 6Mach - 9Mach in 5 - 10 years and will change the way we fight the war with global strike weapons .

No Abm System is 100% Accurate American,chinese,russian and specially DRDO crap ABM system ,Drdo every other day comes up with new weapon system today "ANTI Radiation Missile" .

So take it easy guys if every thing works out it will take atleast 10 years to implement it .and by that time we all will see pakistan Hybersonic Cruise missile which will make AAD ,PAD Absolute.

So for me No war Only Peace .


----------



## naseem shah

On 25th April 2012, the ISPR revealed more information about the missile. The missile weight is approximately 10,000 kg, slightly heavier than its predecessor and can carry either a single 1000kg warhead or be MIRved with between 3 to 5 nuclear warheads weighing between 200-300 kg each. In addition, the Shaheen IA primarily contains sophisticated automated refueling and advanced stealth technology features that were not present in its previous version to avoid detections from radars. Even Pakistani radars could not track the missile after it was launched. All three Shaheen missiles, Shaheen I and Shaheen 1A are reportedly equipped with the latest PSAC (Post-Separation Attitude Correction) system. This is a unique feature which consists of small thrusters that can adjust the warhead trajectory for greater accuracy and evading anti-ballistic missile defence systems.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Deterrent

naseem shah said:


> On 25th April 2012, the ISPR revealed more information about the missile. The missile weight is approximately 10,000 kg, slightly heavier than its predecessor and can carry either a single 1000kg warhead or be MIRved with between 3 to 5 nuclear warheads weighing between 200-300 kg each. In addition, the Shaheen IA primarily contains sophisticated automated refueling and advanced stealth technology features that were not present in its previous version to avoid detections from radars. Even Pakistani radars could not track the missile after it was launched.



Oh God, not again.


----------



## Iggy

naseem shah said:


> On 25th April 2012, the ISPR revealed more information about the missile. The missile weight is approximately 10,000 kg, slightly heavier than its predecessor and can carry either a single 1000kg warhead or be MIRved with between 3 to 5 nuclear warheads weighing between 200-300 kg each. In addition, the Shaheen IA primarily contains sophisticated automated refueling and advanced stealth technology features that were not present in its previous version to avoid detections from radars. *Even Pakistani radars could not track the missile after it was launched*. All three Shaheen missiles, Shaheen I and Shaheen 1A are reportedly equipped with the latest PSAC (Post-Separation Attitude Correction) system. This is a unique feature which consists of small thrusters that can adjust the warhead trajectory for greater accuracy and evading anti-ballistic missile defence systems.



So you are basicaly saying that you wont be able to know where the missile is heading after it is launched??


----------



## naseem shah

seiko said:


> So you are basicaly saying that you wont be able to know where the missile is heading after it is launched??


we know that it will hit its target


----------



## Babbar-Khalsa

Aeronaut said:


> Pakistan wont be building such tech on its own , Chinese would be interested too. Indian Capital is well in the range of Babur CM - no worries about New dehli & Indian defenses.



Same if true for every city of Pakistan.....every inch of Pakistan is under India's reach. if there is a war....only people living deep below the earth will survive.


----------



## trident2010

BMD is still need to improve and need more time to develop. Until all the technologies for BMD is developed, thoroughly tested and deployed, one should make all the planning as they are not there. Too risky to rely on under developed BMD.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Iggy

naseem shah said:


> we know that it will hit its target



How?? with the help of a sorcerror?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## naseem shah

seiko said:


> How?? with the help of a sorcerror?



it is not an indian missile that it will do so


----------



## Iggy

naseem shah said:


> it is not an indian missile that it will do so



You are correct, our missiles can tracked by our radars

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## naseem shah

seiko said:


> You are correct, our missiles can tracked by our radars



and your missiles are also tracked by enemy radars as well


----------



## kurup

naseem shah said:


> and your missiles are also tracked by enemy radars as well



As long as our enemy doesnot have a credible ABM that is not a problem.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## trident2010

Its the number game. India having credible ABM, Pakistan increases the number of missiles and India again increases ABM deployment, so on and so forth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## REHAN NIAZI FALCON

Babbar-Khalsa said:


> Same if true for every city of Pakistan.....every inch of Pakistan is under India's reach. if there is a war....only people living deep below the earth will survive.



so is your country.............. india too will die  ,


----------



## Sarjen

REHAN NIAZI FALCON said:


> so is your country.............. india too will die  ,



that's why we've ABM , what u have? a big 0 .... anyway the part u say that ur missiles can cover entire India is q big lie from ur government, as it always says to fool the pakistanis,.... and don't u even try to talk about shaheenIII , the test was a big flop, nuts and bolts flow through its test and somehow PAK government managed to cover it from public as always.....tell me when was the last time Pakistan tested its missiles publicly or openly accepted the failures...?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Deterrent

Sarjen said:


> that's why we've ABM , what u have? a big 0 .... anyway the part u say that ur missiles can cover entire India is q big lie from ur government, as it always says to fool the pakistanis,.... *and don't u even try to talk about shaheenIII , the test was a big flop, nuts and bolts flow through its test and somehow PAK government managed to cover it from public as always*.....tell me when was the last time Pakistan tested its missiles publicly or openly accepted the failures...?



That was Ghauri. Shaheen-III is yet to be tested.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GURU DUTT

naseem shah said:


> and your missiles are also tracked by enemy radars as well



werll there is a hell lot of diff between the 80's era land based radars of Pakistan and the latest of russian , french , american and israelies fielded by the indians + we have a very good Sat - coverage over head aswell and not to forget the periodikk and latest inputs we get from your's & owr friends aswell and one more thing we have the AA missile supiriorty over you aswell and in a very large numbers onli a fool will think of going to war in such a seanario with india cause what you have we have a very good knowledge about about us well you havent even seen the tip of the ice berg

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vsdoc

@GURU DUTT - sirji kaise ho? daaru shaaru tabiyat shabiyat beebi sheebi?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GURU DUTT

vsdoc said:


> @GURU DUTT - sirji kaise ho? daaru shaaru tabiyat shabiyat beebi sheebi?



Hello doc i was going to give up hope to see you again just a few days back a member was talkin about you and your love for long drives on your bullet bi god ki kassam usee din chote bhai ki bullet pe madam ko long drive per leke gaya thaa rahi baat daaru ki to akele peene me mazaa nahi aata aap aa gaye ho to baat ab banegi  .............. 

Cheers Doc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## naseem shah

kurup said:


> As long as our enemy doesnot have a credible ABM that is not a problem.



no one has credible ABM


----------



## GURU DUTT

naseem shah said:


> no one has credible ABM



Wrong Answer unlike Pakistan we have a fairli large no's of Indian Made , Russian and israeli ones and very soon US ones aswell for Navy


----------



## naseem shah

GURU DUTT said:


> Wrong Answer unlike Pakistan we have a fairli large no's of Indian Made , Russian and israeli ones and very soon US ones aswell for Navy



&#8220;How can an ABM system intercept a ballistic missile that is travelling at several kilometres per second? Look at the US history of ABM systems development; they have all consistently failed tests in operational conditions. They only hit targets in coordinated and orchestrated tests, when one knows where the target is coming from. But in realistic conditions, even contemporary US systems have failed,&#8221; avers Karnad.


----------



## Darth Vader

mayankmatador said:


> best one is pray for mercy from us and give us back our land



U r land ? does this land belong to your dad ?


----------



## acid rain

naseem shah said:


> &#8220;How can an ABM system intercept a ballistic missile that is travelling at several kilometres per second? Look at the US history of ABM systems development; they have all consistently failed tests in operational conditions. They only hit targets in coordinated and orchestrated tests, when one knows where the target is coming from. But in realistic conditions, even contemporary US systems have failed,&#8221; avers Karnad.



ABM systems are a work in progress, Indian ABM system as the rest is a multi layered one with PAD, AAD & PDV and is exclusively meant to intersect ballistic missiles. Almost all tests have been a success with probably hundreds more to go.


----------



## Kinetic

New interceptor test at around 200 km above earth on the offing..... target IRBM ICBM....


----------



## GURU DUTT

naseem shah said:


> &#8220;How can an ABM system intercept a ballistic missile that is travelling at several kilometres per second? Look at the US history of ABM systems development; they have all consistently failed tests in operational conditions. They only hit targets in coordinated and orchestrated tests, when one knows where the target is coming from. But in realistic conditions, even contemporary US systems have failed,&#8221; avers Karnad.



well thats where Constant upgradation and hard work comes in it is not nesessacarry if things dint work owt now they wont in the future but i guess you wont understand that ....and thats the main diff, between loosers and winners Got itt !!!!


----------



## --,-'{@

shahzadasweet said:


> U r land ? does this land belong to your dad ?



of course yes. dad then dad's dad then dad's dad's dad n thn great grand dad's land is our land. who the fak are u? 

n stop begging us to quit OUR LAND.


----------



## naseem shah

GURU DUTT said:


> well thats where Constant upgradation and hard work comes in it is not nesessacarry if things dint work owt now they wont in the future but i guess you wont understand that ....and thats the main diff, between loosers and winners Got itt !!!!


idiot it isnt my statement its a statement from an indian


----------



## LiberalAtheist

Either develop MIRV's or simply (and cheaper) make twice as many missiles as their defenses, remember an ABM's cost is thrice that of a ballistic missile


----------



## acid rain

LiberalAtheist said:


> Either develop MIRV's or simply (and cheaper) make twice as many missiles as their defenses, remember an ABM's cost is thrice that of a ballistic missile



making more missiles without knowing how many will be intercepted is a direct success of an ABM system, when u know very well that the window of opportunity is very small by the time you are decimated in retaliation.


----------



## GURU DUTT

naseem shah said:


> *idiot *it isnt my statement its a statement from an indian



ha ha ha ha ha wow Look Who's Talking


----------



## acid rain

naseem shah said:


> it isnt my statement its a statement from an indian



It's a statement from an Indian while simultaneously India is continueing to go ahead with the ABM system, what does that tell you?


----------



## Darth Vader

-- said:


> of course yes. dad then dad's dad then dad's dad's dad n thn great grand dad's land is our land. who the fak are u?
> 
> n stop begging us to quit OUR LAND.



am the 1 whos great grandfathers Ruled Ur land Now Sht de F up slave


----------



## GURU DUTT

shahzadasweet said:


> am the 1 whos great grandfathers Ruled Ur land Now Sht de F up slave



he he he wah kya baria baat ki ye baat aur hai ki aaj inhee ke Friends not masters inkee ...khair jane do bura maan jaoge


----------



## Babbar-Khalsa

REHAN NIAZI FALCON said:


> so is your country.............. india too will die  ,



We both agree that a mutual destruction will happen......what do you want ?


----------



## The Deterrent

@nuclearpak , @ANTIBODY , @Aeronaut ... requesting cleanup.


----------



## Safriz

Pakistan's Shaheen 1A and Shaheen 2 have "MARV" capability and can dodge ABM.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Deterrent

Safriz said:


> Pakistan's Shaheen 1A and Shaheen 2 have "MARV" capability and can dodge ABM.



No bro, thats not true...at least not for Shaheen 2. Shaheen-1A may have it, but it is very unlikely.


----------



## Safriz

AhaseebA said:


> No bro, thats not true...at least not for Shaheen 2. Shaheen-1A may have it, but it is very unlikely.



1A fins can change trajectory post boost...same goes for Shaheen 2 via sideways rocket motors...
ABM works on predicted trajectory..if that changes,the ABM loses effectiveness.

1 A can be related to Pershing II which had counter ABM capabilities via fins..
same goes for Ghaznavi..probably.


----------



## The Deterrent

Safriz said:


> 1A fins can change trajectory post boost...same goes for Shaheen 2 via sideways rocket motors...
> ABM works on predicted trajectory..if that changes,the ABM loses effectiveness.



1A has fins?? 

That is IF they are thrusters. See if they are, the whole system they are attached to will detach just after the course correction. Moreover, the re-entring warhead is spinning at a considerably high velocity, so any kind of thruster cannot work in this case.
Shaheen 2 currently does not have any capability to avoid capable ABMs. Shaheen 3 will be better.


----------



## Safriz

AhaseebA said:


> 1A has fins??










AhaseebA said:


> That is IF they are thrusters. See if they are, the whole system they are attached to will detach just after the course correction. Moreover, the re-entring warhead is spinning at a considerably high velocity, so any kind of thruster cannot work in this case.
> Shaheen 2 currently does not have any capability to avoid capable ABMs. Shaheen 3 will be better.



Yes..the thrusters detach after course correction / Trajectory change


----------



## The Deterrent

Safriz said:


>



Thats the Shaheen-1 version 1. Not the Shaheen-1 Alpha, which was first flight tested last year.



> Yes..the thrusters detach after course correction / Trajectory change



So they cannot alter the course or alter and recover the course after the course correction, which occurs just after the boost phase, when the missile is still gaining altitude.


----------



## Safriz

Shaheen series is speculated to have Radar scene correlation capability...Some American commenters say so,probably based on their own satellite or radar based observation of the shaheen series test launches.



> On 25th April 2012, the ISPR revealed more information about the missile. The missile weight is approximately 10,000 kg, slightly heavier than its predecessor and can carry either a single 1000kg warhead or be MIRVed with between 3 to 5 nuclear warheads weighing between 200-300 kg each.[9] In addition, the Shaheen IA primarily contains sophisticated automated refueling and advanced stealth technology features that were not present in its previous version to avoid detections from radars. Even Pakistani radars could not track the missile after it was launched. All three Shaheen missiles, Shaheen I, Shaheen 1A and Shaheen II are reportedly equipped with the latest PSAC (Post-Separation Attitude Correction) system. This is a unique feature which consists of small thrusters that can adjust the warhead trajectory for greater accuracy and evading anti-ballistic missile defence systems. The features of the missile could also serve as a testbed of features which could be implemented on the yet to be deployed Shaheen III which could potentially have a range of 4500km
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...aded-shaheen-1a-missile-40.html#ixzz2KtDMtAd5





AhaseebA said:


> Thats the Shaheen-1 version 1. Not the Shaheen-1 Alpha, which was first flight tested last year.



Yes,i confused between the two..Shaheen 1A has greater range and goes much higher and into much thinner atmosphere where fins wont work,so rocket motors remain the only option to steer the warhead assembly and that is widely used in other missile systems as counter ABm in addition to Course correction.





AhaseebA said:


> So they cannot alter the course or alter and recover the course after the course correction, which occurs just after the boost phase, when the missile is still gaining altitude.


----------



## The Deterrent

Safriz said:


> Shaheen series is speculated to have Radar scene correlation capability...Some American commenters say so,probably based on their own satellite or radar based observation of the shaheen series test launches.



No bro, we don't have any technology like that. F*ck the Americans, they think that Shaheen-1 was based on M-9/DF-15. 


> Yes,i confused between the two..Shaheen 1A has greater range and goes much higher and into much thinner atmosphere where fins wont work,so rocket motors remain the only option to steer the warhead assembly and that is widely used in other missile systems as counter ABm in addition to Course correction.



I think that the only ABM evasion Shaheen-1A offers is much higher speed in its class (compared to Ghauri) and a depressed trajectory.


----------



## Safriz

> What Pakistan did : The re-entry vehicle carried by the Shaheen-2 missile has a mass of 1250 kg, which
> includes the mass of a nuclear warhead and a terminal guidance system.This re-entry
> vehicle is unlike that of the Shaheen-1 (which has four moving delta control fins at the
> rear) and has small liquid-propellant side thrust motors, which are used to orientate
> the re-entry vehicle before and during re-entry to improve accuracy by providing
> stabilization during the terminal phase. This can also be used to fly evasive maneuvers and change the trajectory several times during the terminal phase, making it
> immensely problematic for existing anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defense systems to
> successfully intercept the missile. The re-entry vehicle is also stated to utilize a satellite
> guidance system to provide updates on its position, further improving its accuracy
> and reducing the CEP.


 @AhaseebA ...

You said this yourself... My observation isnt wrong....apperantly 

Shaheen 2 does have side thrusters and can change course many times to Avoid Indian ABM


----------



## The Deterrent

Safriz said:


> @AhaseebA ...
> 
> You said this yourself... My observation isnt wrong....apperantly
> 
> Shaheen 2 does have side thrusters and can change course many times to Avoid Indian ABM



I took the info from the same wiki, and blindly believed it...was perhaps a bit of a fanboy back then.
The truth is Shaheen-II has no wonders, other than it can very effectively correct its course after boost phase. For the rest of the flight, it is just a spinning warhead following a ballistic trajectory. It doesn't even have the claimed range of 2500km, rather it can strike to a maximum 2000km with standard payload (1000kg).

The improvements are going to arrive soon, in form of Shaheen-III.


----------



## Safriz

AhaseebA said:


> I took the info from the same wiki, and blindly believed it...was perhaps a bit of a fanboy back then.
> The truth is Shaheen-II has no wonders, other than it can very effectively correct its course after boost phase. For the rest of the flight, it is just a spinning warhead following a ballistic trajectory. It doesn't even have the claimed range of 2500km, rather it can strike to a maximum 2000km with standard payload (1000kg).
> 
> The improvements are going to arrive soon, in form of Shaheen-III.



Any source???


----------



## Immanuel

I think currently all of Pakistani Ballistic missiles have no counters against Indian ABM which can hit out at decent altitudes of around 80 km. The only problem for the short term could be numbers but once employed in a larger scale, the Indian ABM in phase 1 and eventually phase 2 will make pretty much Pakistani arsenal useless. Key is to deploy it in numbers.


----------



## The Deterrent

Immanuel said:


> I think currently all of Pakistani Ballistic missiles have no counters against Indian ABM which can hit out at decent altitudes of around 80 km. The only problem for the short term could be numbers but once employed in a larger scale, the Indian ABM in phase 1 and eventually phase 2 will make pretty much Pakistani arsenal useless. Key is to deploy it in numbers.



And if you recall, CURRENTLY India hasn't deployed any ABMs (except the rumored S-300PMU). 
They can easily be countered by using countermeasures (chaff/balloons) and MIRVs. Additionally, sheer numbers and Quasi-ballisitc missiles can also be the troublemakers.


----------



## Viper0011.

Immanuel said:


> I think currently all of Pakistani Ballistic missiles have no counters against Indian ABM which can hit out at decent altitudes of around 80 km. The only problem for the short term could be numbers but once employed in a larger scale, the Indian ABM in phase 1 and eventually phase 2 will make pretty much Pakistani arsenal useless. Key is to deploy it in numbers.



Just so you know, there is NO ABM system in the world that can be claimed as your post represents India's to be....that it'll leave the other side's arsenal 'useless'. That's a crazy thought and I hope both of you guys don't get into a war due to such macho-ism. 

It's very hard to overwhelm human brain circuits. But it's just expensive and time consuming to come up with solutions to overwhelm sensor circuits!!


----------



## Immanuel

Actually offcourse no ABM system is fool proof which is why often ABM ans SAM trails include dual shots at a single target. Currently, indeed the ABM still has to be deployed in adequate numbers and once it is, India should be able to guarantee 98% safety which is pretty much rendering the entire Ballistic missiles force of Pakistan useless.

Ballistic missiles are expensive and with Pakistan with severe financial problems its going no where to have an expensive arms race (India always had, will andwill always continue to have an over arching strategic and tactical superiority over Pakistan. Quasi ballistic missiles (Nasr I assume) are pretty stupid weapons IMO. Actually Nasr is by far the most thoughtless missile copied by Pakistan yet, to use this missile even in a conventional sense on day one would require India to have a nuclear reponse, this short range abomination of a missile is Pakistan's suicide pill of its own making. Why not keep nuclear weapons separate. Atleast India has some clarity, I hate it that Prithvi can be used for conventional uses as well (since now a prithvi launch can be percieved as a nuke launch) and I hope it can taken out of service, firstly because its old (though more than capable of hitting its target), it best serves as a target missile. For the rest I hope Agni series remain the only missiles capable of nuclear strike. Even Sagarika/shaurya missiles should be purely conventional. Makes it easier to know when the stakes are being upped, however, if Pakistani radars do pick up a Agni lauch, well then its good bye Pakistan. 

Best is for Pakistan to give up its nuclear weapons, they will only be the reason for its destruction. India has little intentions beyond the LOC, if it wasn't for Pakistani Army's and ISI backed constant hostilities, India would remain rather quiet on the Pakistani front.

I think there is no point for Pakistan in fighting it anymore.


----------



## turebi.ge

interesing


----------



## vsdave2302

China will provide Hypersonic Missile to Pakistan?


China can only produce Junk. So many missile and Plane are produced but none of them are world class. I have not seen any world class Chinese item. No car, no 2 wheeler nor even a wrist watch or even a pencil cell.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

vsdave2302 said:


> China will provide Hypersonic Missile to Pakistan?
> 
> 
> China can only produce Junk. So many missile and Plane are produced but none of them are world class. I have not seen any world class Chinese item. No car, no 2 wheeler nor even a wrist watch or even a pencil cell.





first go through the whole chinese section and then talk 
use gooogle search about china 
you dont even know what are you talking about


----------



## acid rain

The simple method would be to overwhelm it with MIRVED missiles.


----------



## acid rain

Immanuel said:


> Actually offcourse no ABM system is fool proof which is why often ABM ans SAM trails include dual shots at a single target. Currently, indeed the ABM still has to be deployed in adequate numbers and once it is, India should be able to guarantee 98% safety which is pretty much rendering the entire Ballistic missiles force of Pakistan useless.
> 
> Ballistic missiles are expensive and with Pakistan with severe financial problems its going no where to have an expensive arms race (India always had, will andwill always continue to have an over arching strategic and tactical superiority over Pakistan. Quasi ballistic missiles (Nasr I assume) are pretty stupid weapons IMO. Actually Nasr is by far the most thoughtless missile copied by Pakistan yet, to use this missile even in a conventional sense on day one would require India to have a nuclear reponse, this short range abomination of a missile is Pakistan's suicide pill of its own making. Why not keep nuclear weapons separate. Atleast India has some clarity, I hate it that Prithvi can be used for conventional uses as well (since now a prithvi launch can be percieved as a nuke launch) and I hope it can taken out of service, firstly because its old (though more than capable of hitting its target), it best serves as a target missile. For the rest I hope Agni series remain the only missiles capable of nuclear strike. Even Sagarika/shaurya missiles should be purely conventional. Makes it easier to know when the stakes are being upped, however, if Pakistani radars do pick up a Agni lauch, well then its good bye Pakistan.
> 
> Best is for Pakistan to give up its nuclear weapons, they will only be the reason for its destruction. India has little intentions beyond the LOC, if it wasn't for Pakistani Army's and ISI backed constant hostilities, India would remain rather quiet on the Pakistani front.
> 
> I think there is no point for Pakistan in fighting it anymore.



LOL, I think you convinced them, Pakistan will give up their nuke and missile program now.


----------



## muse

India have an ABM system? Really?


----------



## gslv mk3

muse said:


> India have an ABM system? Really?



India does not even exist,then how would we have an ABM system


----------



## Kompromat

muse said:


> India have an ABM system? Really?



Supposedly under development.


----------



## gslv mk3

Aeronaut said:


> *Supposedly* under development.



I didnt get that...Most of info about R&D are in public domain..PDV (which can intercept 5000km range missile)test would be in this year and 2 new interceptors are under development


----------



## muse

Parity no Bueno -- Apparently much to learn from the US


----------



## SirHatesALot

Fire more missiles very effective to counter any ABM.


----------



## gslv mk3




----------



## INDIC

muse said:


> India have an ABM system? Really?



Two layers of missile defence system already developed, third layer will be against cruise missiles.



Aeronaut said:


> Supposedly under development.



Two layers missile defence system already developed by India. Now, the focus is on countering the cruise missile as the third layer of missile defence system.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## muse

And here are those silly Americans still messing about with their star wars things

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

muse said:


> India have an ABM system? Really?


----------



## Kompromat

muse said:


> And here are those silly Americans still messing about with their star wars things



Especially when they don't even have an indigenous surface to air missile system,except a Russian rip off, which has failed miserably. Indian ABM capability is highly doubtful, though they do make tall claims as they have been making about other white elephants they have created in past 30 years.



INDIC said:


>



A newswire indeed is a credible evidence. 

FYI, Even the US doesn't have a missile shield yet, THAAD and other patriot based interceptors are still under development. Stop making tall claims before you actually deliver.


----------



## muse

I hope Indian friends can help out the US:

*US missile defense test fails: Pentagon*
July 06, 2013 - Updated 647 PKT

WASHINGTON: America's missile defense system failed on Friday in a test over the Pacific, with an interceptor failing to hit an incoming ballistic missile, the Pentagon said.

The miss represented yet another setback for the costly ground-based interceptors, which have not had a successful test result since 2008.

The test's objective was to have an interceptor, launched from Vandenberg air base in California, knock out a long-range ballistic missile fired from a US military test site at Kwajalein atoll in the Marshall Islands.

But "an intercept was not achieved," US Missile Defense Agency spokesman Richard Lehner said in a brief statement.

"Program officials will conduct an extensive review to determine the cause or causes of any anomalies which may have prevented a successful intercept," it said.

The anti-missile weapon has run into repeated technical problems, with tests delayed after two failures in 2010.
The United States has 30 of the ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, at a cost of about $34 billion.

They are supposed to counter the potential threat posed by North Korea, which has tried to develop long-range ballistic missiles.
The Pentagon wants to deploy an additional 14 ground-based interceptors to bases in Alaska, at a cost of about $1 billion, also in response to what Washington deems a growing threat from North Korea.

Some lawmakers also are pushing to open a new missile defense site on the country's East Coast, in case Iran or other adversaries obtain long-range missiles.

Critics of the missile defense program are sure to seize on the test result as further proof that the system faces insurmountable technical hurdles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gslv mk3

Aeronaut said:


> Especially when they don't even have an indigenous surface to air missile system,except a Russian rip off, which has failed miserably. Indian ABM capability is highly doubtful, though they do make tall claims as they have been making about other white elephants they have created in past 30 years.



even the mods are trolling...

How is Akash a Russian Ripoff..how??Next year we are going to test even a 1000km range ramjet supersonic cruise missile and Scramjet engine is also tested on ground,and you think India doesnt have capability to build one for Akash
Indian BMD is Highly doubtful..Why..Coz it was built by India?
white elephants we have created in past 30 years?
Which one ?Agni V,Shaurya QBM,K 15 SLBM,Brahmos,Arihant,Sy sats or SLVs(I guess you know what they are)?



muse said:


> I hope Indian friends can help out the US:.



We have our own R & D departments..unlike Pakistan who have to Run to China,even to launch a small satellite

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Oldman1

Aeronaut said:


> Especially when they don't even have an indigenous surface to air missile system,except a Russian rip off, which has failed miserably. Indian ABM capability is highly doubtful, though they do make tall claims as they have been making about other white elephants they have created in past 30 years.
> 
> 
> 
> A newswire indeed is a credible evidence.
> 
> FYI, Even the US doesn't have a missile shield yet, THAAD and other patriot based interceptors are still under development. Stop making tall claims before you actually deliver.



We already have some limited capability of a missile shield. They even deployed one nearby when North Korea was threatening the U.S.



muse said:


> I hope Indian friends can help out the US:
> 
> *US missile defense test fails: Pentagon*
> July 06, 2013 - Updated 647 PKT
> 
> WASHINGTON: America's missile defense system failed on Friday in a test over the Pacific, with an interceptor failing to hit an incoming ballistic missile, the Pentagon said.
> 
> The miss represented yet another setback for the costly ground-based interceptors, which have not had a successful test result since 2008.
> 
> The test's objective was to have an interceptor, launched from Vandenberg air base in California, knock out a long-range ballistic missile fired from a US military test site at Kwajalein atoll in the Marshall Islands.
> 
> But "an intercept was not achieved," US Missile Defense Agency spokesman Richard Lehner said in a brief statement.
> 
> "Program officials will conduct an extensive review to determine the cause or causes of any anomalies which may have prevented a successful intercept," it said.
> 
> The anti-missile weapon has run into repeated technical problems, with tests delayed after two failures in 2010.
> The United States has 30 of the ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, at a cost of about $34 billion.
> 
> They are supposed to counter the potential threat posed by North Korea, which has tried to develop long-range ballistic missiles.
> The Pentagon wants to deploy an additional 14 ground-based interceptors to bases in Alaska, at a cost of about $1 billion, also in response to what Washington deems a growing threat from North Korea.
> 
> Some lawmakers also are pushing to open a new missile defense site on the country's East Coast, in case Iran or other adversaries obtain long-range missiles.
> 
> Critics of the missile defense program are sure to seize on the test result as further proof that the system faces insurmountable technical hurdles.



You never know.

New Missile Interceptor Test Successful - February 12, 2013 - YouTube

Japan Tests SM-3 Ballistic Missile Interceptor - YouTube

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

Aeronaut said:


> A newswire indeed is a credible evidence.
> 
> FYI, Even the *US doesn't have a missile shield yet*, THAAD and other patriot based interceptors are still under development. Stop making tall claims before you actually deliver.



THAAD is already deployed in Guam and Hawaii, missile defence are not always 100% effective. 

Missile defence systems deployed to counter North Korea threats: interactive | World news | guardian.co.uk


> In response to the increasingly bellicose rhetoric emanating from Pyongyang, three missile defence systems - Aegis, Patriot and Thaad - are being rushed into place to protect the region against any possible North Korean missile launches


----------



## Kompromat

gslv mk3 said:


> even the mods are trolling...
> 
> How is Akash a Russian Ripoff..how??
> Indian BMD is Highly doubtful?
> white elephants we have created in past 30 years?
> Which one ?Agni V,Shaurya QBM,K 15 SLBM,Brahmos,Arihant,Sy sats or SLVs(I guess you know what they are)?
> 
> 
> 
> We have our own R & D departments..unlike Pakistan who have to Run to China,even to launch a small satellite



Truth is hurtful. Yes Akash = SA-6 Ripp off.

You don't even have a SAM developed out of your local R&D, claiming to have an ABM which established states like the US,Germany,Russia,Israel,China are still struggling to build, is a ludicrous tall claim, come back when you have concrete evidence instead of stupid tabloid TV reports and jingoistic articles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/06/us/missile-defense-interceptor-misses-target-in-test.html


----------



## Kompromat

INDIC said:


> THAAD is already deployed in Guam and Hawaii, missile defence are not always 100% effective.
> 
> Missile defence systems deployed to counter North Korea threats: interactive | World news | guardian.co.uk



If you decide to use your brain, you'll understand that THAAD is useless if its not part of the overall defense shield,its hardly anything more than a Kinetic energy surface to air missile without full ABM shield integration. If your theory is to be applied than why not just build a few hundred batteries of PAC-III and leave them in the desert along with THAAD to intercept missiles. If it was as simple as this, the US would already have it deployed.

There is NO country out there that has a completely deployed, and operational ABM shield.


----------



## INDIC

Aeronaut said:


> Especially when they don't even have an indigenous surface to air missile system,except a Russian rip off, which has failed miserably. Indian ABM capability is highly doubtful, though they do make tall claims as they have been making about other *white elephants* they have created in past 30 years.
> .



If you remember one was the recent failure of Hatf-5 after the numbers of successful tests who's heavy pieces fell over Daddu village in your Sindh province. Your Hatf series are still not reliable.

?Mysterious metal objects? in Dadu fell from Hatf V missile: ISPR - DAWN.COM



Aeronaut said:


> If you decide to use your brain, you'll understand that THAAD is useless if its not part of the overall defense shield,its hardly anything more than a Kinetic energy surface to air missile without full ABM shield integration. If your theory is to be applied than why not just build a few hundred batteries of PAC-III and leave them in the desert along with THAAD to intercept missiles. If it was as simple as this, the US would already have it deployed.
> 
> There is NO country out there that has a completely deployed, and operational ABM shield.



I never claimed missile defence system are 100% effective, it will need years to be a near 100% effective missile defence system.


----------



## Kompromat

@Oldman1 I was talking about India not the US.

The US ABM defense system is not fully operational yet, the US forces rely on Patriots,THAAD and Ageis destroyer. I believe it will happen in, time. For India, a country that still imports assault rifles and pistols, that doesn't have a domestic R&D SAM not even an indigenous MANPAD, claiming to already have a two stage ABM is just ludicrous. Most of their newswire is meant for propaganda and public consumption. The fact is that we have no concrete evidence of India's proven ability to intercept fighter jets by its own technology using SAMs, let along Ballistic missiles.



INDIC said:


> If you remember one was the recent failure of Hatf-5 after the numbers of successful tests who's heavy pieces fell over Daddu village in your Sindh province. Your Hatf series are still not reliable.
> 
> ?Mysterious metal objects? in Dadu fell from Hatf V missile: ISPR - DAWN.COM



Yea, that makes you feel good doesn't it...one of a kind failed test of old liquid fuel ghauri. That still doesn't explain any of my points.



> I never claimed missile defence system are 100% effective, it will need years to be an near 100% effective missile defence system.




Who is talking about "effectiveness", i am talking about "availability".


----------



## gslv mk3

Aeronaut said:


> Truth is hurtful. Yes Akash = SA-6 Ripp off.
> 
> You don't even have a SAM developed out of your local R&D, claiming to have an ABM which established states like the US,Germany,Russia,Israel,China are still struggling to build, is a ludicrous tall claim, come back when you have concrete evidence instead of stupid tabloid TV reports and jingoistic articles.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/06/us/missile-defense-interceptor-misses-target-in-test.html



Yes the truth really hurts,especially when India is ahead in every field related to Missile technology-from egines to the electronics and Pakistani members usually love to claim that ''they are far ahead of India in missile technology''

So they usually come and critisize Indian missiles like Agni V,K15,shaurya and the BMD system while they cannot even build anything close

Now,You are claiming that we cannot build a SAM?Heck We can even put a probe on the surface of the moon and Develop an ICBM

As for the BMD system-We have already developed the interceptors,And the past tests were successful-and you claim that we cannot even build a SAM 







For SA 6 and Akash

RADAR

Akash SAM

a Battery Level Radar - the Rajendra, and a Command post (Battery Control Centre). Two batteries are deployed as a Squadron (Air Force), while up to four form an Akash Group (Army configuration). In both configurations, an extra Group Control Centre (GCC) is added, which acts as the Command and Control HQ of the Squadron or Group. Based on a single mobile platform, GCC establishes links with Battery Control Centres and conducts air defense operations in coordination with air defense set up in a zone of operations. For early warning, the GCC relies on the Central Acquisition Radar. However, individual batteries can also be deployed with the cheaper, 2-D BSR (Battery Surveillance Radar) with a range of over 100 km.

SA6 Gainful

SURN 1S91 vehicle included two radar station - a target acquisition and distribution radar 1S11 and a continuous wave illuminator 1S31, in addition to an IFF interrogator and an optical channel. The acquisition range of the radar was reported as 50 km (31 mi) for the Phantom II type target.

Engagement

AKASH SAM 
Each Akash battery can engage up to four targets simultaneously. Each battery has four launchers with three missiles each, with each Rajendra able to guide eight missiles in total, with a maximum of two missiles per target. Up to a maximum of four targets can be engaged simultaneously by a typical battery with a single Rajendra if one (or two) missile is allotted per target. A single Akash missile has an 88% Probability of kill. Two missiles can be fired, five seconds apart, to raise the Probability of Kill to 98.5%

SA6- Gainful
It can only guide one or two missiles to a single target at any time. The missile is initially command guided with terminal semi active radar homing (SARH), with target illumination provided by the "Straight Flush" radar. Detonation is via either the impact or proximity fuze

Configuration:

Akash SAM:
An Akash battery comprises four 3D phased array radars and four launchers with three missiles each, all of which are interlinked. Each radar is able to track 16 targets simultaneously and control a launcher with 3 missiles. Hence it is reported to be able to detect 100 and track 64 targets and simultaneously attack any 8 of those targets at one time. The Akash system is comparable to the Patriot system, but unlike the Patriot, Akash is fully mobile and capable of protecting a moving convoy of vehicles

SA6-Gainful:
Each 2K12 battery consists of a number of similar tracked vehicles, one of which carries the 1S91 (SURN vehicle, NATO designation "Straight Flush") 25 kW G/H band radar (range 75 km/47 miles) equipped with a continuous wave illuminator, in addition to an optical sight. The battery usually also includes four triple-missile transporter erector launchers (TELs) and four trucks each carrying three spare missiles and a crane

MISSILE:

Akash SAM:
Akash is a surface-to-air missile with an intercept range of 30 km.[2] It has a launch weight of 720 kg, a diameter of 35 cm and a length of 5.78 metres. Akash flies at supersonic speed, reaching around Mach 2.5. It can reach an altitude of 18 km and can be fired from both tracked and wheeled platforms.[2] An on-board guidance system coupled with an actuator system makes the missile maneuverable up to 15g loads and a tail chase capability for end game engagemen

SA6-Gainful:
The fairly large missiles have an effective range of 4&#8211;24 km (2.5&#8211;15 miles) and an effective altitude of 50&#8211;14000 m (164&#8211;45,931 ft). The missile weighs 599 kg (1321 lb) and the warhead weighs 56 kg (123 lb). Top missile speed is approx. Mach 2.8. The combined propulsion system 9D16K included solid fuel rocket motor which, when burned out, forms the combustion chamber for a ramjet


thanks to @sandy_3126

Now you might think India is backward in Ramjet Propulsion..Check this out

testing in 2014






*Now Scramjets*

engine undergoing testing






Both DRDO and ISRO are going to test their Scramjets in 2014...

Yes we did reverse engineered a SAM,that was back in 1980s,we reverse engineered SA 2 and That was called Project Devil......Even back then we had the capability to make SLVs...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

^That is why i said "supposedly under development", as we haven't seen anything concrete yet,except CGI's and tall claims.


----------



## gslv mk3

Aeronaut said:


> [MENTION=39728]
> The US ABM defense system is not fully operational yet, the US forces rely on Patriots,THAAD and Ageis destroyer. I believe it will happen in, time. *For India, a country that still imports assault rifles and pistols, that doesn't have a domestic R&D SAM not even an indigenous MANPAD, claiming to already have a two stage ABM is just ludicrous. The fact is that we have no concrete evidence of India's proven ability to intercept fighter jets by its own technology using SAMs, let along Ballistic missiles.*



About assualt rifles,pistols-http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/172935-made-india-military-weapons-support-systems.html

Now for SAMs-http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/38312-indian-army-considering-several-akash-missile-squadrons.html

Seriously?A country that can make these???
















Now lets talk about a country,that doesnt even have an Indigenous car manufacturing firm,an indigenous trainer aircraft,cannot build and launch a proper satellite,A country that didnt have a A supercomputer till 2012,a cyclotron...Now..Lets checkout its claims of having advanced Missile technology as compared to India...


----------



## Kompromat

^

* India still IMPORTS small arms. Most of what you have shown is Russian clones, not Indian R&D and they are so cheap that Indian army won't have them.

* Even N.Korea can launch long range missiles, Iran can launch space rockets...that is no big deal. 

* We are talking about "missile interceptors" not "ballistic missiles."...which you don't have.

Stick to the topic and stop bringing Pakistan in, no one is discussing Pakistan.


----------



## gslv mk3

Aeronaut said:


> ^That is why i said "supposedly under development", as we haven't seen anything concrete yet,except CGI's and tall claims.



again,seriously??











The PADE (Prithvi Air Defence Exercise) was conducted on November 2006 in which a PAD missile successfully intercepted a modified Prithvi-II Missile

On 6 December 2007, AAD successfully intercepted a modified Prithvi-II missile

On March 6, 2009 DRDO carried out a second successful test of the PAD interceptor missile. 

On 15 March 2010, AAD interceptor missile test from the Orissa coast on Monday was aborted, as the target missile deviated from its path and plunged into the sea.

On 26 July 2010, AAD was successfully test-fired from the Integrated Test Range (ITR)

On March 6, 2011 DRDO successfully test-fired interceptor missile from Advanced Air Defence(AAD) which destroyed a 'hostile' target ballistic missile,

On 10 February 2012, AAD was again successfully test-fired from Wheeler Island off the state coast 

On 23 November 2012, India again successfully testfired its home-made supersonic Advanced Air Defense (AAD) interceptor missile 
*
About Long Range Supersonic Cruise missile,We have already tested the Scramjet on ground,so dont worry about Ramjet powered cruise missile*


----------



## gslv mk3

> * India still IMPORTS small arms. Most of what you have shown is Russian clones, not Indian R&D and they are so cheap that Indian army won't have them.



How many of them?What about INSAS,Trichy and the like?



> * Even N.Korea can launch long range missiles, Iran can launch space rockets...that is no big deal.



I usually clutch my belly and laugh my head off,when Pakistani Members try to belittle India's achievement in space by stating ''Even Iran can Launch a satellite''

Yeah Iran can launch a 50 kg satellite to LEO,Indias capability is going to be 10 tonne to LEO by 2014..Also We send moon and mars missions,build and Launch satellites for european customers,Have Asias largest solid Rocket booster,one of largest Liquid fuel engines,And is developing an engine as powerful as Space shuttle main engine..We also have one of worlds largest constellations of Remote sensing satellites.

If India wanted to build an 'Jugaad' ICBM like North Korea,we could have done that back in the 80s

These are proofs of India's advancement in propulsion,electronics etc..Now in what field does India lack??



> * We are talking about "missile interceptors" not "ballistic missiles."...which you don't have.



pls click that link about Akash-Akash has entered service after passing Indian Army's tests-And you think it is not capable enough??3000 missiles are already build,and it is in service from 2009..And you think we doesnt have domestic R & D in SAMs?

Now This thread is about 'How can Pakistan counter India&#8217;s ABM system?' and you want me to stop bringing Pakistan in??

Now manufacturing MANPADs and Assualt rifles are not the pinnacle of technological advancement..


----------



## Kompromat

Talking about tall claims again, where is the footage of the interceptor destroying the target in a high altitude terminal stage?
What am i supposed to learn about Indian ABM from "launch pictures"?


----------



## INDIC

Aeronaut said:


> @Oldman1 I was talking about India not the US.
> 
> The US ABM defense system is not fully operational yet, the US forces rely on Patriots,THAAD and Ageis destroyer. I believe it will happen in, time. For India, a country that still imports assault rifles and pistols, that doesn't have a domestic R&D SAM not even an indigenous MANPAD, claiming to already have a two stage ABM is just ludicrous. Most of their newswire is meant for propaganda and public consumption. The fact is that we have no concrete evidence of India's proven ability to intercept fighter jets by its own technology using SAMs, let along Ballistic missiles.
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, that makes you feel good doesn't it...one of a kind failed test of old liquid fuel ghauri. That still doesn't explain any of my points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is talking about "effectiveness", i am talking about "availability".



I only see speculations in your comments and also you trying to belittle American progress in missile defence system to the level to strengthen your speculations.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gslv mk3

Aeronaut said:


> Talking about tall claims again, where is the* footage of the interceptor destroying the target *in a high altitude terminal stage?
> *What am i supposed to learn about Indian ABM from "launch pictures*"?



That they arent CGIs..I have also posted the history of testing..from 2006 to 2012

just for you

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

Aeronaut said:


> Talking about tall claims again, where is the footage of the interceptor destroying the target in a high altitude terminal stage?
> What am i supposed to learn about Indian ABM from "launch pictures"?



You have an atom bomb in 1987 without a test. Was it too a tall claim before 1998. Infact, instead of laughing at India, all of your defence programs are assisted by China, not even a single case where Pakistanis did it themselves, we are not in the same page. Even Chinese fulfill their technological needs from Russia, now they are buying Sukhoi-35 from Russia.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gslv mk3

India cannot manufacture MANPADs (though we can manufacture a SAM like Akash) so our BMD is not going to work!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

Your video says, that it has a maximum range of 2000kms. ..... just epic !


----------



## gslv mk3

Aeronaut said:


> Your video says, that it has a maximum range of 2000kms.  ..... just epic !



South Asian Media as usual


----------



## ares

Aeronaut said:


> Talking about tall claims again, where is the footage of the interceptor destroying the target in a high altitude terminal stage?
> What am i supposed to learn about Indian ABM from "launch pictures"?



Interception video from 23rd Nov 2012 test.






Same interception seen through infrared camera.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Black Widow

Aeronaut said:


> ^
> 
> * India still IMPORTS small arms. Most of what you have shown is Russian clones, not Indian R&D and they are so cheap that Indian army won't have them.
> 
> * Even N.Korea can launch long range missiles, Iran can launch space rockets...that is no big deal.
> 
> * We are talking about "missile interceptors" not "ballistic missiles."...which you don't have.
> 
> Stick to the topic and stop bringing Pakistan in, no one is discussing Pakistan.








Kya Mod , aap bhi????

US missile defense is based on kinetic kill (@Gambit will confirm it). The Failure in USA term means..
a) the killer missile has not hit the center of target.
b) If the missile Hits top or bottom of target it is considered failure. 

There was a famous picture on this topic..

Indian system is based on proximity kill, our definition of success is "Killer missile blast off in close proximity of target" 


Successful Kinetic kill

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## skysthelimit

Black Widow said:


> Kya Mod , aap bhi????
> 
> US missile defense is based on kinetic kill (@Gambit will confirm it). The Failure in USA term means..
> a) the killer missile has not hit the center of target.
> b) If the missile Hits top or bottom of target it is considered failure.
> 
> There was a famous picture on this topic..
> 
> Indian system is based on proximity kill, our definition of success is "Killer missile blast off in close proximity of target"
> 
> 
> Successful Kinetic kill



To add to that - Indian ABM uses Gimballed Directional Warheads to increase proximity kill probability.

And defeating Indian or any ABM system is very easy - lanch more missiles than there are ABMs.

From Tom Clancy's excellent Red Strom Rising - 



> Aegis was state of the art, the best SAM system yet devised, but it had one major weakness: missile cruiser USS Ticonderoga carried only *ninety-six* SM-2 surface-to-air missiles; there were *one hundred forty* incoming AS-6 Kingfish. The computer had not been programmed to think about that.


----------



## Kompromat

@ares I don't see the altitude in your video.


----------



## ares

Aeronaut said:


> @ares I don't see the altitude in your video.



That was an AAD interception. Typical AAD interception takes place in lower stratosphere b/w 15-30 Km height from sea level.
This particular interception took place, at an altitude of 15 Kms.



> "At around 12.52 hours, the interceptor hit the target missile successfully* at an altitude of about 15 kilometres*," DRDO spokesman Ravi Kumar Gupta told PTI.
> 
> India successfully test fires supersonic interceptor missile | NDTV.com



As far as not being able to see the missile altitude in the video, isn't that obvious?


----------



## Nuclear Spirit

Hypersonic technology is a virtual overkill. In India-Pakistan terms it wont make much of a difference in time as the distance is already very less. however it would damage the deterrence stability of the region by either side having to make their nukes on an assertive control.


----------



## rockstar08

Aeronaut said:


> Your video says, that it has a maximum range of 2000kms. ..... just epic !




that means they can destroy our missiles and planes just after they take off ?  
i dont think any of pak air base or missile spot will be far than 2000km !!


----------



## illusion8

rockstar08 said:


> that means they can destroy our missiles and planes just after they take off ?
> i dont think any of pak air base or missile spot will be far than 2000km !!



The range here does not mean what you think it means..

It means that the ABM system can detect missiles and intercept missiles which have a target range of around 2000 KMs, any interception needs tracking - this particular system can track and kill incoming missiles which have a range of upto 2000kms.


----------



## rockstar08

illusion8 said:


> The range here does not mean what you think it means..
> 
> It means that the ABM system can detect missiles and intercept missiles which have a target range of around 2000 KMs, any interception needs tracking - this particular system can track and kill incoming missiles which have a range of upto 2000kms.





well i dont much knowledge on this but , can this system hit multiple targets , if yes so what is the accuracy ? last night i read that only israel and USA have few ABM with high accuracy rate ...!


----------



## illusion8

rockstar08 said:


> well i dont much knowledge on this but , can this system hit multiple targets , if yes so what is the accuracy ? last night i read that only israel and USA have few ABM with high accuracy rate ...!



ABM systems are complicated in their nature as in - they incorporate sats, radars, Awacs for monitoring and trajectory, velocity and directional calculations, plus ideal ABM systems are multi layered like India wants a two layered or a three layered anti BM system.

Accuracy is quite good if it's against a solitary target, but multiple launches might overload the system and will bring down the accuracy - but then it all boils down to preventing the maximum possible warheads from impact. 

The US and Israel declare an accuracy rate of 50% right now - but compared to India's ABM system theirs is in a much advanced stage covering threats perceptions of cruise missiles, ICBMs, multiple warheads (MIRV's) and even unguided rockets.


----------



## rockstar08

illusion8 said:


> ABM systems are complicated in their nature as in - they incorporate sats, radars, Awacs for monitoring and trajectory, velocity and directional calculations, plus ideal ABM systems are multi layered like India wants a two layered or a three layered anti BM system.
> 
> Accuracy is quite good if it's against a solitary target, but multiple launches might overload the system and will bring down the accuracy - but then it all boils down to preventing the maximum possible warheads from impact.
> 
> The US and Israel declare an accuracy rate of 50% right now - but compared to India's ABM system theirs is in a much advanced stage covering threats perceptions of cruise missiles, ICBMs, multiple warheads (MIRV's) and even unguided rockets.





but dont you think there must be a way to avoid ABM systems ? if not than why USA, Russia , China or India etc are still testing BM and CM with more range and payload ......
one more question i have here , that can a SAM be used as ABM ? or SAM is only capable of hitting planes !?


----------



## rockstar08

illusion8 said:


> ABM systems are complicated in their nature as in - they incorporate sats, radars, Awacs for monitoring and trajectory, velocity and directional calculations, plus ideal ABM systems are multi layered like India wants a two layered or a three layered anti BM system.
> 
> Accuracy is quite good if it's against a solitary target, but multiple launches might overload the system and will bring down the accuracy - but then it all boils down to preventing the maximum possible warheads from impact.
> 
> The US and Israel declare an accuracy rate of 50% right now - but compared to India's ABM system theirs is in a much advanced stage covering threats perceptions of cruise missiles, ICBMs, multiple warheads (MIRV's) and even unguided rockets.





but dont you think there must be a way to avoid ABM systems ? if not than why USA, Russia , China or India etc are still testing BM and CM with more range and payload ......
one more question i have here , that can a SAM be used as ABM ? or SAM is only capable of hitting planes !?


self delete ...


----------



## illusion8

rockstar08 said:


> but dont you think there must be a way to avoid ABM systems ? if not than why USA, Russia , China or India etc are still testing BM and CM with more range and payload ......
> one more question i have here , that can a SAM be used as ABM ? or SAM is only capable of hitting planes !?



As I said ABM is a whole system, 

As for using SAM's against incoming BM's - logically speaking even a well targeted huge rock can take down a BM - but then the probability of that happening is a billion or more to one hence non practical. 

Countries are developing CM's and BM's because they are the weapons - similar to swords and arrows in a battlefield while ABM is a shield - both have their places and both are useful in their own respects, having shields in the battlefield does not mean that there are zero fatalities but shields provide you with some protection coverage to part of your body that's important.

Countries with large areas cannot deploy ABM's to cover their entire mass but deploy them to cover their most vital parts - as in cities or installations.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rockstar08

illusion8 said:


> As I said ABM is a whole system,
> 
> As for using SAM's against incoming BM's - logically speaking even a well targeted huge rock can take down a BM - but then the probability of that happening is a billion or more to one hence non practical.
> 
> Countries are developing CM's and BM's because they are the weapons - similar to swords and arrows in a battlefield while ABM is a shield - both have their places and both are useful in their own respects, having shields in the battlefield does not mean that there are zero fatalities but shields provide you with some protection coverage to part of your body that's important.
> 
> Countries with large areas cannot deploy ABM's to cover their entire mass but deploy them to cover their most vital parts - as in cities or installations.





ok thanks for this explanation


----------



## Comrade

I don't know why this discussion has gone beyond 40 pages on this forum regarding ABM systems of India.
I have not read it all but the fact regarding ABM is that there is no such thing as 100% safe execution of Anti ballistic system, it&#8217;s an experimental technology and even if a 100% success is achieved still this field of weapons is useless investment for Indians. The reasons it&#8217;s useless for India is the very close proximity of Pakistan and Indian strategic targets.
You don&#8217;t even have a minute to prep the ABM system to protect New Delhi, when a solid fueled Shaheen ballistic missiles is launched because it&#8217;ll reach New Delhi in approximately 3 menutes if launched from Wahga Border.
If Babur Cruise missile is launched with nuclear weapons onboard Indian authorities will get the news when it&#8217;ll be telecasted as breaking news on Indian TV&#8230;lol
If launched from a sub in the Indian ocean it&#8217;ll not even be telecasted as a breaking news because more then half of India will be gone within seconds.
And don&#8217;t underestimate the world&#8217;s best pilots in the cockpits of fighter planes carrying the sh.it to the nearest Indian target.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PoKeMon

Aeronaut said:


> ^
> 
> * India still IMPORTS small arms. Most of what you have shown is Russian clones, not Indian R&D and they are so cheap that Indian army won't have them.
> 
> * Even N.Korea can launch long range missiles, Iran can launch space rockets...that is no big deal.
> 
> * We are talking about "missile interceptors" not "ballistic missiles."...which you don't have.
> 
> Stick to the topic and stop bringing Pakistan in, no one is discussing Pakistan.


 @Aeronaut  

You want us to focus on reinventing the wheel?

We have a limited budget and stronger enemies. We have to intelligently invest our money in R&D with limited manpower and resource. We have to prioritize our needs and thats why instead of wasting our resource in small arms, we are investing in high end technology. Small arms are available in the market with TOT but no one is going to share with you ABM or space technology.

Even pakistan dont have any credible industry, heck you dont have any automobile, then how come it succeed in producing nukes?


----------



## PoKeMon

@Dreamreaper

Course change can only help when its done just when ABM is launched. If ABM radar control system gets sufficient time to recalculate trajectory, it is of no use.

Not sure how many times your missile can do so.


----------



## MULUBJA

Pak can develop smart warhead. A warhead that will change the direction if it see an ABM approaching it. But the warhead should once again be back on its original path.


----------



## sovcomflot

illusion8 said:


> As I said ABM is a whole system,
> 
> As for using SAM's against incoming BM's - logically speaking even a well targeted huge rock can take down a BM - but then the probability of that happening is a billion or more to one hence non practical.
> 
> Countries are developing CM's and BM's because they are the weapons - similar to swords and arrows in a battlefield while ABM is a shield - both have their places and both are useful in their own respects, having shields in the battlefield does not mean that there are zero fatalities but shields provide you with some protection coverage to part of your body that's important.
> 
> Countries with large areas cannot deploy ABM's to cover their entire mass but deploy them to cover their most vital parts - as in cities or installations.



Put a tactical nuclear warhead(100 ton-5kt TNT equivalent) on that SAM ,then see .It will be a lot more effective than you think.


----------



## sovcomflot

MULUBJA said:


> Pak can develop smart warhead. A warhead that will change the direction if it see an ABM approaching it. But the warhead should once again be back on its original path.



Already exists on Topol-M ,Yars and Iskander Missile.


----------



## MULUBJA

sovcomflot said:


> Already exists on Topol-M ,Yars and Iskander Missile.



I am talking about Pakistan.

I doubt it exist in Iskender. Iskender like K 15 has some tactical maneuvers in its terminal phase so it it is very difficult to intercept. But certainly it do not have Smart warhead. One of the reason being it is tactical missile unlike Topol-M.


----------



## sovcomflot

MULUBJA said:


> I am talking about Pakistan.
> 
> I doubt it exist in Iskender. Iskender like K 15 has some tactical maneuvers in its terminal phase so it it is very difficult to intercept. But certainly it do not have Smart warhead. One of the reason being it is tactical missile unlike Topol-M.



Iskander is quasi ballistic missile and it does perform evasive maneuvers in the final phase.Also ,its actual range is a lot more than what is officially told . Some sources say iskander-m is 500 km ,some even say its capable of over 1000 km .


----------



## MULUBJA

sovcomflot said:


> Iskander is quasi ballistic missile and it does perform evasive maneuvers in the final phase.Also ,its actual range is a lot more than what is officially told . Some sources say iskander-m is 500 km ,some even say its capable of over 1000 km .



True but not smart warhead.

I think india should buy some. I am sure our enemy will be scarred.

I think that shaurya has same features.


----------



## kurup

MULUBJA said:


> True but not smart warhead.
> 
> I think india should buy some. I am sure our enemy will be scarred.
> 
> I think that shaurya has same features.



There is no reason to buy Iskander when we already have the shaurya .


----------



## MULUBJA

kurup said:


> There is no reason to buy Iskander when we already have the shaurya .



Yes,

Now India has master the art of maneuvering the warhead before it reach target. Even our oldest prithvi are now tested for terminal maneuvers before it bangs on target. Brahmos have broken all the records of maneuvers. Shaurya and Whole K series are well known for their terminal maneuvers in last phase. Certainly even best BMD will find it very hard to intercept these missiles. 

Now even complex multi target missiles are on the card. We should master the art of maneuvering the Planes also to make them highly agile.


----------



## sovcomflot

MULUBJA said:


> Yes,
> 
> Now India has master the art of maneuvering the warhead before it reach target. Even our oldest prithvi are now tested for terminal maneuvers before it bangs on target. Brahmos have broken all the records of maneuvers. Shaurya and Whole K series are well known for their terminal maneuvers in last phase. Certainly even best BMD will find it very hard to intercept these missiles.
> 
> Now even complex multi target missiles are on the card. We should master the art of maneuvering the Planes also to make them highly agile.



Unless the BMD is using tactical nuclear warheads ,yes I would partly agree with you. I think though S-400 and S-500 might have capabilities we don't know about.


----------



## illusion8

sovcomflot said:


> Put a tactical nuclear warhead(100 ton-5kt TNT equivalent) on that SAM ,then see .It will be a lot more effective than you think.





This is stupid at so many levels that it's not worth replying to..

hone ko tho kuch bhi ho saktha hai - 2 -3 suicide bombers ucchaal do aur incoming warhead ke saamne button press kar ke phat jayenge.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MULUBJA

sovcomflot said:


> Unless the BMD is using tactical nuclear warheads ,yes I would partly agree with you. I think though S-400 and S-500 might have capabilities we don't know about.



I do not think that S 400 can intercept Brahmos or K series but S500 can. We have to watch and wait till S 500 arrives.


----------



## MULUBJA

sovcomflot said:


> I think S-400 can .Its got a lot of capability.But there were reports that Russian military intercepted the Chelyabinsk meteor whose speed was 30 km/s or 108,000 km/h ,though EMERCOM started denying it later and there was some sort of cover up with some russian scientists claiming that aliens shot down meteor.



S 400 may be a very capable system but these missiles flays at a very low altitude and change direction very frequently. 

If they were pure ballistic missiles, S400 can certainly intercept. My two cent.


----------



## sovcomflot

MULUBJA said:


> S 400 may be a very capable system but these missiles flays at a very low altitude at and change direction very frequently.
> If they were pure ballistic missiles, S400 can certainly intercept.



yaar ,you never know. S-400 is capable of going hypersonic at extremely low altitudes also ,if some of the data is right.And if russians can intercept and destroy a 30 km/second or 108,000 km/h meteor ,then destroying supersonic cruise missiles is not much for them. Chelyabinsk city is very near to the Chelyabinsk-40/70 (underground nuclear city) and the massive russian yamantau mountain deep earth underground city of the Russian military.


----------



## MULUBJA

sovcomflot said:


> yaar ,you never know. S-400 is capable of going hypersonic at extremely low altitudes also ,if some of the data is right.And if russians can intercept and destroy a 30 km/second or 108,000 km/h meteor ,then destroying supersonic cruise missiles is not much for them. Chelyabinsk city is very near to the Chelyabinsk-40/70 (underground nuclear city) and the massive russian yamantau mountain deep earth underground city of the Russian military.



Ok,

I thought it may be equivalent to Arrow II may not be able to intercept Hypersonic and supersonic low flying missiles. But if it can, Good for us.
I heard that we have buy some S 400 in 2007.


----------



## sovcomflot

illusion8 said:


> Read what you posted dumbf@ck and what I was replying to.
> 
> 1. You think Pakistan has those tactical nukes, and 2. You are mixing up on SAM's and ABM's - you think Pakistan has ABM systems?





> As I said ABM is a whole system,
> 
> As for using SAM's against incoming BM's - logically speaking even a well targeted huge rock can take down a BM - but then the probability of that happening is a billion or more to one hence non practical.
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...nter-india-s-abm-system-42.html#ixzz2h856LwqX



This was your post. As stated by me ,dual use 



> 1. You think Pakistan has those tactical nukes, and 2. You are mixing up on SAM's and ABM's - you think Pakistan has ABM systems?
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...nter-india-s-abm-system-43.html#ixzz2h85TT0aP



I was not refering to pakistan but to your post on SAM's vs BM

If you were careful to read you would realise that russians modified their SAM's and ABM's with tactical nukes to effectively intercept BM's like Samuel Cohen advocated since the 60's.Cheap and highly effective .

But I guess some people lack civil sense .


----------



## sovcomflot

MULUBJA said:


> Ok,
> 
> I thought it may be equivalent to Arrow II may not be able to intercept Hypersonic and supersonic low flying missiles. But if it can, Good for us.
> I heard that we have buy some S 400 in 2007.



Do you know what is the terminal phase speed of the Trident SLBM?


----------



## illusion8

sovcomflot said:


> This was your post. As stated by me ,dual use
> 
> 
> 
> I was not refering to pakistan but to your post on SAM's vs BM
> 
> If you were careful to read you would realise that russians modified their SAM's and ABM's with tactical nukes to effectively intercept BM's like Samuel Cohen advocated since the 60's.Cheap and highly effective .
> 
> But I guess some people lack civil sense .



Re read my post again - I said anything's possible - one can throw a huge rock at an incoming BM warhead too but it depends on the probability of it intercepting it.- it would depend on how many countries truly have tactical nukes and have mated it to their local area SAMs and the possibility of someone detonating one over their own territory to intercept a BM warhead. Now report this post too...******


----------



## MULUBJA

sovcomflot said:


> Do you know what is the terminal phase speed of the Trident SLBM?



Do not compare Quasi ballistic and pure Ballistic missile.

It should be more than Mach 20 at least.


----------



## sovcomflot

illusion8 said:


> Re read my post again - I said anything's possible - one can throw a huge rock at an incoming BM warhead too but it depends on the probability of it intercepting it.- it would depend on how many countries truly have tactical nukes and have mated it to their local area SAMs and the possibility of someone detonating one over their own territory to intercept a BM warhead. Now report this post too...******



Yes for an high altitude interception. Read what nuclear scientists like Samuel Cohen,Edward Teller have to say on this.Much more effective .And you were discussing on SAM to intercept BM's.



> Do not compare Quasi ballistic and pure Ballistic missile.
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4850862#ixzz2h8AlYUEf



Even for quasi ballistic ,ABM/SAM nuclear missile would generate nuclear blast force and the X-ray output generated would destroy the incoming quasi ballistic missile or damage it to be rendered ineffective.So you do not need pin point accuracy like the KKV missile nonsense which is a big failure. 

I think India should implement something like this for ABM system.Could effectively help against Chinese ICBMs



> It should be more than Mach 20 at least.
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4850862#ixzz2h8BFw4DV



Mach 32.


----------



## Ra'ad

sovcomflot said:


> Put a tactical nuclear warhead(100 ton-5kt TNT equivalent) on that SAM ,then see .It will be a lot more effective than you think.



Effective against whom, if i may ask? In my opinion, that'll only save your foes their nukes :/

The fact is, as most military guys know, that nukes are triggered in the air (and not on ground) for maximum effect. I doubt any country would use a 'nuke SAM' simply because it kills the purpose of the SAM. Even if the SAM doesn't do much material damage on the ground, at least it'll spread radioactive particles over own country. So neither India, nor Pakistan would go for that option.


----------



## Alpha1

1.MIRVs
2. Stealthy terrain hugging cruise missles thats what we need!


----------



## EMERCOM

Ra'ad said:


> Effective against whom, if i may ask? In my opinion, that'll only save your foes their nukes :/
> 
> The fact is, as most military guys know, that nukes are triggered in the air (and not on ground) for maximum effect. I doubt any country would use a 'nuke SAM' simply because it kills the purpose of the SAM. Even if the SAM doesn't do much material damage on the ground, at least it'll spread radioactive particles over own country. So neither India, nor Pakistan would go for that option.



A low yield nuke at med and high altitude is not a problem.You should refer to Soviet nuclear X-ray high altitude blast tests of 60's. The soviets found it to be extremely effective for potential ABM uses.



Alpha1 said:


> 1.MIRVs
> 2. Stealthy terrain hugging cruise missles thats what we need!



babur is already there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Alpha1

EMERCOM said:


> A low yield nuke at med and high altitude is not a problem.You should refer to Soviet nuclear X-ray high altitude blast tests of 60's. The soviets found it to be extremely effective for potential ABM uses.


yes, but A Nuclear EMP generated by high altitude blasts can send a large area back to the stone age 


> babur is already there.


Yes, so is Ra'ad


----------



## Ra'ad

EMERCOM said:


> A low yield nuke at med and high altitude is not a problem.You should refer to Soviet nuclear X-ray high altitude blast tests of 60's. The soviets found it to be extremely effective for potential ABM uses.



But wouldn't that be spilling nuclear dust over ones own country? Checked wiki only (high-altitude nuclear explosion)

The article mentions that nuclear radiation spreads much faster in the upper atmosphere actually. Although i agree that its better than getting completely nuked out, but then it only becomes feasible if the incoming missiles are nuclear icbms. Not conventional missiles, not planes.


----------



## Pakistanisage

The cheapest way is to build low cost decoys and overwhelm the Indian ABM system.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## EMERCOM

Alpha1 said:


> yes, but A Nuclear EMP generated by high altitude blasts can send a large area back to the stone age
> 
> Yes, so is Ra'ad



That is when the ABM nukes are in 5 mt megaton range like the SPARTAN enhanced radiation type. If in low kiloton or sub kiloton range you will not face this problem.



Ra'ad said:


> But wouldn't that be spilling nuclear dust over ones own country? Checked wiki only (high-altitude nuclear explosion)
> 
> The article mentions that nuclear radiation spreads much faster in the upper atmosphere actually. Although i agree that its better than getting completely nuked out, but then it only becomes feasible if the incoming missiles are nuclear icbms. Not conventional missiles, not planes.



Nuclear fallout is much cleaner and has less half life compared to radiological particles of fukushima type disaster. According to nuclear scientists ,fukushima's plutonium is in the jetstream and can potentially kill humanity. But humanity still lives. Nuclear fallout is overrated. 

Not a wonder that Edward Teller and Samuel Cohen was huge advocate of nuclear ABM.Very cheap and very effective compared to conventional methods.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Alpha1

EMERCOM said:


> That is when the ABM nukes are in 5 mt megaton range like the SPARTAN enhanced radiation type. If in low kiloton or sub kiloton range you will not face this problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear fallout is much cleaner and has less half life compared to radiological particles of fukushima type disaster. According to nuclear scientists ,fukushima's plutonium is in the jetstream and can potentially kill humanity. But humanity still lives. Nuclear fallout is overrated.
> 
> Not a wonder that Edward Teller and Samuel Cohen was huge advocate of nuclear ABM.Very cheap and very effective compared to conventional methods.


So the Idea here is to Explode a sub-kiloton Nuclear device in close proximity to the BM in the upper atmosphere to destroy it or disable it by the EMP generated by the Nuclear explosion????


----------



## The Deterrent

Alpha1 said:


> So the Idea here is to Explode a sub-kiloton Nuclear device in close proximity to the BM in the upper atmosphere to destroy it or disable it by the EMP generated by the Nuclear explosion????



The idea here is to use just the explosive power of the tactical nuclear warhead, which would be many many times more than that of a conventional ABM warhead (explosive fragmentation). The EMP generated would be lesser, plus the warheads are shielded against EMPs.


----------



## Alpha1

AhaseebA said:


> The EMP generated would be lesser, plus the warheads are shielded against EMPs.


That's odd because what I have heard is that Hardly anything that can be shielded against a *Nuclear*-EMP


----------



## sovcomflot

AhaseebA said:


> The idea here is to use just the explosive power of the tactical nuclear warhead, which would be many many times more than that of a conventional ABM warhead (explosive fragmentation). The EMP generated would be lesser, plus the warheads are shielded against EMPs.



Explosive power,X-ray Flux output,neutron Flux output,Heat.



Alpha1 said:


> That's odd because what I have heard is that Hardly anything that can be shielded against a *Nuclear*-EMP



It is easy to harden against EMP, though much harder to shield against NarrowBand HPM weapons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TheNoob

counter measures over counter measures.
this thing will never end xD


----------



## trident2010

The problem in overwhelming enemy's ABM is the increase of missile launches with decoys to overrun the ABM systems. Ballistic missiles are very expensive and if one has to say double the number of launches at enemy with ABM, it put tremendous strain on the economy and they have to do it for each and every target. If by luck ABM manages to neutralise 100% of non-decoy warheads, all the missiles are wasted. Therefore, having reliable ABM is a big asset in one's arsenal since it brings the permutations and combinations in the mind of the aggressor.


----------



## rockstarIN

Everybody is talking only about Pak Missiles Vs Indian ABM. What about a PAF strategy to tackle Indian ABM, say in an IAF air base strike?


----------



## MarkusS

how about avoiding all that shit and start peaceful co existance?


----------



## The Deterrent

trident2010 said:


> The problem in overwhelming enemy's ABM is the increase of missile launches with decoys to overrun the ABM systems. Ballistic missiles are very expensive and if one has to say double the number of launches at enemy with ABM, it put tremendous strain on the economy and they have to do it for each and every target. If by luck ABM manages to neutralise 100% of non-decoy warheads, all the missiles are wasted. Therefore, having reliable ABM is a big asset in one's arsenal since it brings the permutations and combinations in the mind of the aggressor.



That is a very lame attempt (no personal offence intended) to declare ABMs as a reliable and feasible means of countering ballistic missiles.

BMs are not as costly as you seem to imply. A country capable of maintaining the 12th-strongest military with spending 2.5% of GDP on its armed forces can certainly increase the number of ballistic missiles in its inventory, or develop ones with countermeasures and multiple warheads with relative ease. On the other hand, a SM-3 Block-IIA interceptor of the AEGIS BMD (a mature system) costs around $20 million. 
And since ABMs can't and won't be deployed in _all _target areas, the attack has to be saturated in the defended regions only. Moreover, an initial saturated attack against the stationary radars (LRTR) can disable the BMD for the period of the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## trident2010

AhaseebA said:


> That is a very lame attempt (no personal offence intended) to declare ABMs as a reliable and feasible means of countering ballistic missiles.
> 
> BMs are not as costly as you seem to imply. A country capable of maintaining the 12th-strongest military with spending 2.5% of GDP on its armed forces can certainly increase the number of ballistic missiles in its inventory, or develop ones with countermeasures and multiple warheads with relative ease. On the other hand, a SM-3 Block-IIA interceptor of the AEGIS BMD (a mature system) costs around $20 million.
> And since ABMs can't and won't be deployed in _all _target areas, the attack has to be saturated in the defended regions only. Moreover, an initial saturated attack against the stationary radars (LRTR) can disable the BMD for the period of the war.



Yes it is true that BMD is not cheap itself however, having a reliable ABM means more investment has to be done by aggressor in the long term. Increasing BMs does not stops there. There are maintenance, storage and other costs such as MRVs are involved in it. May be in our lifetime we won't see the active use of ABM, however aggressor always have to maintain the no. to reach the saturation point. This would not be the case if there was no ABM present. 
And there is no way one can tell how many BMs are needed to saturate ABM at one target as there is always a possibility that ABM will neutralise all the non-decoy missiles. And as the ABM has layered configuration, it increases its chance to nullify the BMs. In nutshell ABM will have very adverse effect on aggressor in term of planning a first attack and in the mean time it gives more time to the country with ABM to bear the brunt of first attack and retaliate with the aim of taking out most of the offensive capability of the aggressor.


----------



## The Deterrent

trident2010 said:


> Yes it is true that BMD is not cheap itself however, having a reliable ABM means more investment has to be done by aggressor in the long term. Increasing BMs does not stops there. There are maintenance, storage and other costs such as MRVs are involved in it. May be in our lifetime we won't see the active use of ABM, however aggressor always have to maintain the no. to reach the saturation point. This would not be the case if there was no ABM present.
> And there is no way one can tell how many BMs are needed to saturate ABM at one target as there is always a possibility that ABM will neutralise all the non-decoy missiles. And as the ABM has layered configuration, it increases its chance to nullify the BMs. In nutshell ABM will have very adverse effect on aggressor in term of planning a first attack and in the mean time it gives more time to the country with ABM to bear the brunt of first attack and retaliate with the aim of taking out most of the offensive capability of the aggressor.



Developing a reliable BMD=Spending $Billions upon Billions. 
All additional costs of BMs are tiny relative to the ones used up in the development and production setup. 
You should go through the earlier posts of this thread (if you haven't already) and see the criticism on the Israeli and US BMDs by their own countrymen.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Contrarian

AhaseebA said:


> Developing a reliable BMD=Spending $Billions upon Billions.
> All additional costs of BMs are tiny relative to the ones used up in the development and production setup.
> You should go through the earlier posts of this thread (if you haven't already) and see the criticism on the Israeli and US BMDs by their own countrymen.


You are missing the larger picture..and by a good margin.

ABM right now may not be as reliable or cheap as required. But it is an evolving technology.
This is exactly the criticisms that SAM's got during the initial stages of their development. That an entire missile used to stop another missile or ordinance coming your way is far more costly - multiple times - than the ordinance itself. And that SAM is not even reliable.

Today, you understand that any air war is already half lost if you dont have adequate SAM coverage. You know how expensive they are, and countries that dont manufacture them have to import them at excruciating costs - example - Pakistan still cannot afford to put up good SAM's in any decent numbers. SPADA et all are mid level(SR to MR) SAM's. The couple of Chinese SAM's(literally) that Pakistan possesses are in no numbers to make even an iota of difference.

Now, ABM is at that same stage. India is one of the select few countries capable of developing it. We are developing it right now.While right now it might be expensive and not as reliable as say SAM's are..

However in one decade or a maximum of two, the ABM technology would be cheap, the missiles even cheaper, their reliability as high as modern SAM's like Barak or S-400. The rules of war would have changed again, with ABM's becoming as requisite as SAM's are today.

And at that time, countries like Pakistan would again have to buy such (watered down)systems from abroad, while India would be exporting it to the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

The real impact of BMD is psychological.

It will increase the uncertainty in the mind of enemy and reduce the number of targets it can plan drastically.

Like UK pointed all its missiles only on Moscow after their BMD system was deployed.


----------



## The Deterrent

Contrarian said:


> You are missing the larger picture..and by a good margin.
> 
> ABM right now may not be as reliable or cheap as required. But it is an evolving technology.
> This is exactly the criticisms that SAM's got during the initial stages of their development. That an entire missile used to stop another missile or ordinance coming your way is far more costly - multiple times - than the ordinance itself. And that SAM is not even reliable.
> 
> Today, you understand that any air war is already half lost if you dont have adequate SAM coverage. You know how expensive they are, and countries that dont manufacture them have to import them at excruciating costs - example - Pakistan still cannot afford to put up good SAM's in any decent numbers. SPADA et all are mid level(SR to MR) SAM's. The couple of Chinese SAM's(literally) that Pakistan possesses are in no numbers to make even an iota of difference.
> 
> Now, ABM is at that same stage. India is one of the select few countries capable of developing it. We are developing it right now.While right now it might be expensive and not as reliable as say SAM's are..
> 
> However in one decade or a maximum of two, the ABM technology would be cheap, the missiles even cheaper, their reliability as high as modern SAM's like Barak or S-400. The rules of war would have changed again, with ABM's becoming as requisite as SAM's are today.
> 
> And at that time, countries like Pakistan would again have to buy such (watered down)systems from abroad, while India would be exporting it to the world.



I agree to the analogy you provided, but see the other side of the story too. What I'm saying is that developing countermeasures against ABMs are and will remain cheaper, simply because of the complexity of the problem involved. Just like tank armor vs. antitank warheads developments, this process too will never stop, and there will be always a counter developed for everything. 

BMDs can best be used for protection against rogue states and unauthorized/accidental launches.


----------



## Contrarian

AhaseebA said:


> I agree to the analogy you provided, but see the other side of the story too. What I'm saying is that developing countermeasures against ABMs are and will remain cheaper, simply because of the complexity of the problem involved. Just like tank armor vs. antitank warheads developments, this process too will never stop, and there will be always a counter developed for everything.
> BMDs can best be used for protection against rogue states and unauthorized/accidental launches.


Yes, they would remain cheaper. The question is - by _how_ much. If there is a small difference between the costs of an evolved BM and an evolved ABM as opposed to the massive gulf in price right now, then those who field the ABM would have won a huge lead.

ABM in itself is not everything, just like SAM's are not everything. They have to be supplemented by having the ability to launch BM's of your own on short notice and the required range. One without the other is a major handicap and initself not a winning combination.

The enemy can always use sustained saturation strikes to overwhelm even the best of SAM's like S-400, Aegis/SS/Aster. But..

The point here is three fold:
1. You force your opponent to keep upgrading and adding to his missile set just to be able to achieve what he already could before one party fielded the SAM/ABM.

2. Economics. The weaker party gets the shaft as a SAM/ABM system forces the opponent to upgrade/add and spend and keep spending. How long do you think he can keep matching? If he diverts funding from some other sector, that sector gets weakened. Ultimately becoming a geometric progression in inability to match the spending.

3. It gives time for your own forces to react and attack the enemy source. How long do you think it would take a determined and technologically sophisticated opponent- with their own satellite systems- to track down the source of BM's being launched against it. Minutes!

Your BM's give you that window by holding off an attack for a duation, within which you can attack and destroy the opposing BM stocks.

You make two assumptions:
You presume that ABM's would always be as costly as they are now. You are wrong, they would be drastically cheaper by another decade.
You presume that newer generation BM's designed to challenge ABM systems would be marginally more expensive than current BM's. You are again wrong. Please check out how much Bulava is costing Russia.

For an accurate effect of installing a comprehensive ABM system, please read the analysis or account of the effect of Soviet/Russia installing SAM's and the consequences of that on UK/France and their nuclear deterrence capability/cost against the Soviet's. You would be _very_ surprised. This is particularly with regard to UK and their role responsibility in case of war.

This was one of the reasons why US down the line also cancelled their treaty on not having Anti-Ballistic Missile systems with Russia. There were very cold clear calculations which led to that decision.

This is a promising field, failure to invest now in this technology would have consequences a decade down the line.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rockstar08

i would prefer more range CM and specially Naval versions ...


----------



## The Deterrent

@Contrarian there are a couple of assumptions on your end too. I guess we'll have to wait for a decade to see the situation then for ourselves.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KRAIT

Don't fire the missiles at the first place.


----------



## hkdas

AhaseebA said:


> Developing a reliable BMD=Spending $Billions upon Billions.
> All additional costs of BMs are tiny relative to the ones used up in the development and production setup.
> You should go through the earlier posts of this thread (if you haven't already) and see the criticism on the Israeli and US BMDs by their own countrymen.



those who criticism on the Israeli and US BMDs are fools. anti-ballistic missiles are the big brother of anit- aircraft missiles. it is always better to have a defense system against missiles than no missile defense systems.


----------



## FaujHistorian

DrSomnath999 said:


> 1.Pakistan would develop , multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs)& maneuverable warheads[/COLOR] through SHAHEEN3 BM & also future BM




Nah. 

We ain't got no money for that. 

Our best weapon against Indian weapons is to remain peaceful and remain focused on our own development. Be good global citizens just like Chinese industrial workers, S. Korean workers, Taiwanese workers. 


etc. 


etc. 



etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Deterrent

hkdas said:


> those who criticism on the Israeli and US BMDs are fools. anti-ballistic missiles are the big brother of anit- aircraft missiles. it is always better to have a defense system against missiles than no missile defense systems.



They have solid arguments for criticism.
Of course it is better, IF you can afford it and IF you are not planning to use it as a shield against an relatively mature nuclear and missile power. BMDs are extremely useful at stopping unauthorized/accidental/limited launches though, or ones by rogue states.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hkdas

FaujHistorian said:


> Nah.
> 
> We ain't got no money for that.
> 
> Our best weapon against Indian weapons is to remain peaceful and remain focused on our own development. Be good global citizens just like Chinese industrial workers, S. Korean workers, Taiwanese workers.
> 
> 
> etc.
> 
> 
> etc.
> 
> 
> 
> etc.



if you are really like that then you don't have the enemy india... only an *Allie india... *

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## indiatester

@KRAIT @AhaseebA , A general question. What if the delivery mechanism is by hand? I mean there are enough points on the border that are easy enough for someone determined to slip across.
How are these scenarios taken into consideration? Just a MAD response?


----------



## hkdas

AhaseebA said:


> They have solid arguments for criticism.
> Of course it is better, IF you can afford it and IF you are not planning to use it as a shield against an relatively mature nuclear and missile power. BMDs are extremely useful at stopping unauthorized/accidental/limited launches though, or ones by rogue states.


for a democratic country life of citizens are more valuable than any other thing


----------



## FaujHistorian

hkdas said:


> if you are really like that then you don't have the enemy india... only an *Allie india... *




For a moment I thought you have written 

--- you don't have the enemy india... only an *Alice india... *

hahaha


Yeah. I agree with some caveats.


----------



## KRAIT

indiatester said:


> @KRAIT @AhaseebA , A general question. What if the delivery mechanism is by hand? I mean there are enough points on the border that are easy enough for someone determined to slip across. How are these scenarios taken into consideration? Just a MAD response?


Read this.

The Soviet Way Of War And The Failure Of Ballistic Missile Defense - Forbes

Good analysis of why BMD is not that effective.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The Deterrent

indiatester said:


> @KRAIT @AhaseebA , A general question. What if the delivery mechanism is by hand? I mean there are enough points on the border that are easy enough for someone determined to slip across.
> How are these scenarios taken into consideration? Just a MAD response?



You mean something along the lines of ADM (Atomic Demolition Munition)? That was a nuke designed by US to be delivered in a backpack by 2 persons.

Say something like that happens in India (terrorist nuke). India will have to wait and investigate all possibilities before retaliating against any country. _The Sum of All Fears _is the exact movie to watch for this scenario.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FaujHistorian

hkdas said:


> for a democratic country life of citizens are more valuable than any other thing




Now that both countries in question are dhoom-cratic or follow demo-krazy,

It is important to note that any big bombs or missiles used by one will hurt its own people. 

I tell that to my fellow Pakistanis

Any nuclear war between India and Pakistan will utterly destroy the fertile planes of Punjab (Indian and Pakistani) and then Sindh. 

This in turn will render the bread basket of both INdian and Pakistan, useless for Oh perhaps 2 thousand 5 hundred Years. 

Resulting famine, and long term death and destruction in the two countries will be so massive, that the whole region will become begging bowl carrier. 


Who knows may be the survivors will immigrate to Bangladesh and Burma and to Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. 



Hope you get the point.


----------



## The Deterrent

KRAIT said:


> Read this.
> 
> The Soviet Way Of War And The Failure Of Ballistic Missile Defense - Forbes
> 
> Good analysis of why BMD is not that effective.



Thats exactly what I've been saying all along. The cost involved is too high and the countermeasures are too easy to develop, for the foreseeable future.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## indiatester

AhaseebA said:


> You mean something along the lines of ADM (Atomic Demolition Munition)? That was a nuke designed by US to be delivered in a backpack by 2 persons.
> 
> Say something like that happens in India (terrorist nuke). India will have to wait and investigate all possibilities before retaliating against any country. _The Sum of All Fears _is the exact movie to watch for this scenario.


I have watched it!
Unfortunately there is no real defence against such attacks other than hope/believe that the makers of the weapons are super good people who will not let them fall into the hands of the bad guys.



KRAIT said:


> Read this.
> 
> The Soviet Way Of War And The Failure Of Ballistic Missile Defense - Forbes
> 
> Good analysis of why BMD is not that effective.



What purpose does a BMD serve then?


----------



## KRAIT

indiatester said:


> I have watched it!
> Unfortunately there is no real defence against such attacks other than hope/believe that the makers of the weapons are super good people who will not let them fall into the hands of the bad guys.
> What purpose does a BMD serve then?


It just reflects a country's potential in advance technology and act as deterrence. 
Also gives sense of relief to citizens.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Deterrent

indiatester said:


> I have watched it!
> Unfortunately there is no real defence against such attacks other than hope/believe that the makers of the weapons are super good people who will not let them fall into the hands of the bad guys.



Exactly. No country will ever allow monitoring of their nukes and there is no way to reliably keep track of them. The best option is to keep tight security checks for radioactive materials. 
You should also watch the documentary _Countdown to Zero_, it shows how easy it is for somebody with enough resources to make something like that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Alpha1

indiatester said:


> What purpose does a BMD serve then?


A BMD is still better than NO BMD... 
needs more explanation?


----------



## Icewolf

ABM and BMD are not super effective and cannot handle multiple missiles.... 

That's how..


----------



## illusion8

Icewolf said:


> ABM and BMD are not super effective and cannot handle multiple missiles....
> 
> That's how..



The Nov 2012 test of India's BMD had a real missile and a simulated dud one launched simultaneously - the BMD picked up the real one and went on to destroy it and then it followed on to pick the second one and destroy that too.

India's BMD will feature a three tier layout in the near future to counter multiple threats including low flying cruise missiles and rockets.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Icewolf

illusion8 said:


> The Nov 2012 test of India's BMD had a real missile and a simulated dud one launched simultaneously - the BMD picked up the real one and went on to destroy it and then it followed on to pick the second one and destroy that too.
> 
> India's BMD will feature a three tier layout in the near future to counter multiple threats including low flying cruise missiles and rockets.



Most of Indian BMD test failed. 
As I said, BMD are not super effective.


----------



## illusion8

Icewolf said:


> Most of Indian BMD test failed.
> As I said, BMD are not super effective.



Only one failed out of eight - the rest were resounding successes.


----------



## Icewolf

illusion8 said:


> Only one failed out of eight - the rest were resounding successes.



Oh please. We all know Indian Armys ventures "resounding successes"....
Take one look at Tejas or Arjun.....


----------



## Ra'ad

@AhaseebA nice siggy! 
I'm am too a fan, of the man. And the series of course.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## indiatester

Alpha1 said:


> A BMD is still better than NO BMD...
> needs more explanation?


More like wearing chainmail armour when the opponent has a machine gun


----------



## acid rain

indiatester said:


> More like wearing chainmail armour when the opponent has a machine gun



More like wearing a bullet proof vest and ballistic helmets in a gun fight while your opponent is running in naked.



Icewolf said:


> Oh please. We all know Indian Armys ventures "resounding successes"....
> Take one look at Tejas or Arjun.....



Equate an apple with an apple not with a siri paya.
Equate BMD with agni, prahaar, K15, pslv, prithvi etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## drunken-monke

Icewolf said:


> Oh please. We all know Indian Armys ventures "resounding successes"....
> Take one look at Tejas or Arjun.....


And whats wrong with those products...
Tejas is good enough to be point defense fighter with IOC 2... Manufacturing ongoing... Arjun under manufacturing... Does your word matter when Tejas would fire derby/R73 on PAF jet..
Not a single accident during development phase of Tejas.. Isn't that a accomplishment.. Go and ask @Oscar , he will tell you how good is Tejas... Am not saying that its God's gift to aviation, but its a product even PAF will respect as an opponent...
Ignorance is bliss my friend....



indiatester said:


> More like wearing chainmail armour when the opponent has a machine gun


So make it platemail Armour.. simple

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## saikumar

KRAIT said:


> It just reflects a country's potential in advance technology and act as deterrence.
> Also gives sense of relief to citizens.


 right bro


----------



## bloo

Icewolf said:


> Oh please. We all know Indian Armys ventures "resounding successes"....
> Take one look at Tejas or Arjun.....



Say that when you have even an ounce of an ability to even think of making ABMs.


----------



## Alpha1

indiatester said:


> More like wearing chainmail armour when the opponent has a machine gun


make that plate mail armour 


acid rain said:


> More like wearing a bullet proof vest and ballistic helmets in a gun fight while your opponent is running in naked.


doesn't matter because both have RPGs. imagine



illusion8 said:


> Only one failed out of eight - the rest were resounding successes.





illusion8 said:


> The Nov 2012 test of India's BMD had a real missile and a simulated dud one launched simultaneously - the BMD picked up the real one and went on to destroy it and then it followed on to pick the second one and destroy that too.


the location of launch was known and the dimensions of the real warhead, pray do tell will this info be available in a real life nuclear exchange? and there won't be just two warheads


----------



## acid rain

Alpha1 said:


> make that plate mail armour
> 
> doesn't matter because both have RPGs. imagine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the location of launch was known and the dimensions of the real warhead, pray do tell will this info be available in a real life nuclear exchange? and there won't be just two warheads



You most likely did not get the context of my post.


----------



## illusion8

Alpha1 said:


> the location of launch was known and the dimensions of the real warhead, pray do tell will this info be available in a real life nuclear exchange? and there won't be just two warheads



Why do you think it is necessary to know the exact location of the launch?


----------



## Alpha1

illusion8 said:


> Why do you think it is necessary to know the exact location of the launch?


It's important not cumpulsory as The location of launch and the target location determine the flight path and intercept angle between the missile and the interceptor. If this is not know It becomes comparitively difficult for the BMD to intercept. (lets not get into complex physics)
In testing safety restrictions etc limit the flight path of both interceptor and target Ballistic missile to a predictable point


----------



## illusion8

Alpha1 said:


> It's important not cumpulsory as The location of launch and the target location determine the flight path and intercept angle between the missile and the interceptor. If this is not know It becomes comparitively difficult for the BMD to intercept. (lets not get into complex physics)
> In testing safety restrictions etc limit the flight path of both interceptor and target Ballistic missile to a predictable point



I'll make it simple for you to understand..

A BMD system consists of phased array radars that continually scans a sector of the sky for approaching objects. It characterizes them and, either automatically or via manual intervention, launches one or two interceptors against the missile. The interceptor itself is tracked by the radar and steering commands are automatically generated and transmitted in order to intercept the warhead within the atmosphere in the case of endo atmospheric intercepts and over the atmosphere in case of exo atmospheric intercepts. So it is not imperative to pin point to exact location of the incoming missile, when the missile enters the radar's theater - the radar tracks the missiles and determines the trajectory, velocity and type of missile and simultaneously it also guides one of more intercepting missiles.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gslv mk3

Icewolf said:


> *Most* of Indian BMD test failed.
> As I said, BMD are not super effective.



Most?Only one test was aborted-Because target missile deviated off course.


----------



## Ra'ad

You counter an ABM with AABM.
And you counter an AABM with an AAABM.
And an AAABM with an AAAABM. Pretty simple.


----------



## Alpha1

gslv mk3 said:


> Most?Only one test was aborted-Because target missile deviated off course.


It deviated of cource and the Interceptor was unable to intercept.
Imagine a scenario where the cource of the missile is not know, multiple missiles, with MIRVs countermeasures deployed then calculate the chances of success


illusion8 said:


> I'll make it simple for you to understand..
> 
> A BMD system consists of phased array radars that continually scans a sector of the sky for approaching objects. *It characterizes them and, either automatically or via manual intervention*



Both prone to error incase of a real life scenario.
And as you may know there is little room for error



> launches one or two interceptors against the missile. The *interceptor itself is tracked by the radar and steering commands are automatically generated and transmitted in order to intercept the warhead *within the atmosphere in the case of endo atmospheric intercepts and over the atmosphere in case of exo atmospheric intercepts. *So it is not imperative to pin point to exact location of the incoming missile, when the missile enters the radar's theater - the radar tracks the missiles and determines the trajectory, velocity and type of missile and simultaneously it also guides one of more intercepting missiles.*


Do you know to what little extent (angle) interceptor can maneouver given the high speed of the missile . Interception angle is very narrow. So it is Important to have some idea of the flight path of the BM, so location is relevant also A ballistic missiles speed and altitude leave little room for error by the defender,


----------



## gslv mk3

Alpha1 said:


> off course.
> It deviated of cource and the Interceptor *was unable to intercept*.
> Imagine a scenario where the cource of the missile is not know, multiple missiles, with MIRVs countermeasures deployed then calculate the chances of success



It was not unable to intercept,it wasn't even launched,the launch was aborted immediately

About the next part



> Pointing out that in a missile threat scenario, defensive action has to be super fast, and accordingly, the Interception system is fully automated, requiring no human intervention.
> 
> “Under the present system, the interceptor missiles are on ‘Hot Stand-by mode’ and can take-off within 120 seconds of the detection of the incoming missile by the tracking radars,” he said adding that it automatically keeps track of the target and calculates the best possible point to destroy it.


Dr Saraswat said that the new seeker in the Interceptor enabled the missile to match the maneuvers of a hostile missile – like the zig zag movement of the Russian Topol missile.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## illusion8

Alpha1 said:


> It deviated of cource and the Interceptor was unable to intercept.
> Imagine a scenario where the cource of the missile is not know, multiple missiles, with MIRVs countermeasures deployed then calculate the chances of success
> 
> 
> So it is Important to have some idea of the flight path of the BM, ,





> Do you know to what little extent (angle) interceptor can maneouver given the high speed of the missile, Interception angle is very narrow.



The interceptors will have a ring laser gyro-based inertial navigation sensor which will provide mid course corrections and trajectory shaping aided by terminal guidance sensors. The endo atmospheric interceptors will have a maneuverability of 2 G while the exo atmospheric interceptors will have a maneuverability of 30 G's.




> Both prone to error incase of a real life scenario.
> And as you may know there is little room for error





OK, let me give you a lesson on what is a BMD system - I'll keep it simple and brief.

A BMD is a system consisting of the following.

1. A early warning system - consists of AEW&C's, a satellite based missile monitoring system (MSS).

2. A layered air defence command, control and communications network. (e.g. IACCCS)

3. A host of LRTR's - long range tracking phased array radars of upto 1500 km's. (e.g. Greenpine, Swordfish)

4. A host of LRSR's - long range surveillance radars.

5. A host of multi-functional fire-control radars (MFCR).

6. The interceptor vehicles - Endo and Exo (several batteries).

7. A battle management, command, control, communications and intelligence center.

Once the hostile BM launch is detected through sats or aew&c's, the target vectors are coordinated by the SATCOM to the LRTR's to acquire the targets. The transporter - erector - launcher's of the interceptor missiles are activated on "hot stand mode", simultaneously the MFCR's take over and calculate the interception range, velocity, trajectory and distance. The interceptors are fired and the MFCR's along with inertial guidance systems on the interceptors guide the interceptors towards the targets.



> so location is relevant also A ballistic missiles speed and altitude leave little room for error by the defender



Interception range will be from a few meters to 200 KM's high altitude, the speed of the interceptors range from mach 5 to mach 11.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Alpha1

illusion8 said:


> Once the hostile BM launch is detected through sats or aew&c's,


It takes very little time for it to reach a point where the infrared early-warning satellites can detect the hot exhaust from its engines. yes, yes... I read the ABC  .
*Several *sattelites detect the rocket, *they can crudely track it *in three dimensions by stereo-viewing. However, the satellites can only see the hot exhaust from the rocket's engines, so their* tracking ends abruptly *when the engines shut down.



> the target vectors are coordinated by the SATCOM to the LRTR's to acquire the targets. The transporter - erector - launcher's of the interceptor missiles are activated on "hot stand mode", simultaneously the MFCR's take over and calculate the interception range, velocity, trajectory and distance. The interceptors are fired and the MFCR's along with inertial guidance systems guide the interceptors towards the targets.



after few minutes of engine shutdown the rocket's upper stage and the just released warhead and decoys rise above the horizon, where they can be tracked by these radars. 
These radar systems originally planned for this task operate on a very short wavelength, which allows them to identify objects to an accuracy of 10 to 15 centimeters from a thousand kilometer away. This makes it possible to observe distinct reflections from different surfaces -- even the seams on an object as it tumbles through space. The spacing and intensity of these signals, and the way their echoes vary as the orientation of a target object changes, can in some circumstances be used to determine which object is a warhead and which a decoy.
But
we could alter the reflections from decoys and warheads by covering surfaces and seams with wires, metal foil or radar-absorbing materials. we will deploy decoys and warheads close together and in multiple clusters. Under these conditions, even if the radar could initially identify a warhead among all the decoys, it can't track it accurately enough to predict the relative locations of the different objects when the kill vehicle encountered them. radar will be unable to reliably sort out warheads from swarm of decoys.

How will the kill vehicle will identify warheads?
reply in detail so I can reply




The fact is countermeasures for BMD are far more easily developed


----------



## illusion8

Alpha1 said:


> It takes very little time for it to reach a point where the infrared early-warning satellites can detect the hot exhaust from its engines. yes, yes... I read the ABC  .
> *Several *sattelites detect the rocket, *they can crudely track it *in three dimensions by stereo-viewing. However, the satellites can only see the hot exhaust from the rocket's engines, so their* tracking ends abruptly *when the engines shut down.
> 
> 
> 
> after few minutes of engine shutdown the rocket's upper stage and the just released warhead and decoys rise above the horizon, where they can be tracked by these radars.
> These radar systems originally planned for this task operate on a very short wavelength, which allows them to identify objects to an accuracy of 10 to 15 centimeters from a thousand kilometer away. This makes it possible to observe distinct reflections from different surfaces -- even the seams on an object as it tumbles through space. The spacing and intensity of these signals, and the way their echoes vary as the orientation of a target object changes, can in some circumstances be used to determine which object is a warhead and which a decoy.
> But
> we could alter the reflections from decoys and warheads by covering surfaces and seams with wires, metal foil or radar-absorbing materials. we will deploy decoys and warheads close together and in multiple clusters. Under these conditions, even if the radar could initially identify a warhead among all the decoys, it can't track it accurately enough to predict the relative locations of the different objects when the kill vehicle encountered them. radar will be unable to reliably sort out warheads from swarm of decoys.
> 
> How will the kill vehicle will identify warheads?
> reply in detail so I can reply
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is countermeasures for BMD are far more easily developed



The problem I am facing in answering you is you are jumping from one place to the other..

Initially you started with "the launch location is crucial" bit, which I proved that is not necessary to which you came up with the errors in detection and intercepting range, height and deviation angle to which I answered you and now you are talking about decoys and counter measures.

I would appreciate if you complete a discussion fully before jumping on to the next one and confusing it.

One answer to your multiple decoys (???) (like how, I'll explain it when you come up with how will you launch multiple decoys in close formation and clusters) is an LRTR system can track 200 objects at any given time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## illusion8

> It takes very little time for it to reach a point where the infrared early-warning satellites can detect the hot exhaust from its engines. yes, yes... I read the ABC  .
> *Several *sattelites detect the rocket, *they can crudely track it *in three dimensions by stereo-viewing. However, the satellites can only see the hot exhaust from the rocket's engines, so their* tracking ends abruptly *when the engines shut down.



The time duration of the engine burning depends on the type of missile and its stages, the tracking part is done by the radars and not dependent on the sats or the aew&c's - these just pass on the target vectors to the battle and air defense management network.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Alpha1

History of Russia's Anti-ballistic Missile (ABM) System (2002) | Union of Concerned Scientists

Despite the improvements, US military and intelligence reports say the Moscow system would still be relatively easy to defeat. The Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Strategic and Theater Nuclear Forces told the House Armed Services Committee in 1987 that although the Soviets had spent over 10 years and billions of dollars developing an ABM system, the United States could penetrate it with a small number of Minuteman ICBMs equipped with "highly effective chaff and decoys," he went on to say that, "if the Soviets should deploy more advanced or proliferated defenses we have new penetration aids as counters."2 The Department of Defense has said that the Soviet system is no more advanced than was the US Safeguard system, which was developed in the early 1970's, but deactivated as soon as it was deployed in 1975 because of its military ineffectiveness and high cost.3 A 1989 report on Soviet Military Power also concluded that "with only 100 interceptor missiles, the system can be saturated, and with only the single Pillbox radar at Pushkino providing support to these missiles, the system is highly vulnerable to suppression."

How Effective Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense is Against Countermeasures? - Defense Update - Military Technology & Defense News

While the US administration openly stated confidence in its Ground Based Interceptors (GBI), research analysts from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) warn that such weapons may not be sufficient to protect from a deliberate attack launched by North Korea, since the current level of missile defensetechnology has not matured yet to the level enabling the defense systems to engage realistic-complex targets, or discriminate between real decoys and real warheads.

David Wright, co-director and senior scientist at UCS say it is likely that the US will face a ‘reactive enemy’ that will be able to develop and deploy decoys and other countermeasures to make it more difficult for U.S. defenses to defeat such missiles.“None of the intercept tests conducted so far of the U.S. ground-based or ship-based systems has included realistic countermeasures that you should expect in a real-world attack from North Korea.” Wright stressed, “The Pentagon still doesn’t know how to solve this problem… That’s why the large difference in technical sophistication between the U.S. and North Korea does not automatically tip the balance in favor of the U.S. in this challenge.”

“People frequently downplay the countermeasures issue, in part because it makes the problem so difficult. But unfortunately it is real.” Wright concludes, “The bottom line is that it makes no sense to add interceptors and/or an east-coast deployment site until the system has been shown to be effective against a real-world threat.”

Understanding the Extraordinary Cost of Missile Defense | RAND

Missile defense is a tough challenge, both technically and operationally. It was difficult enough when interceptors carried nuclear weapons and had a kill radius measured in hundreds of meters or even kilometers. But hit-to-kill requires precision that is measured in tens of centimeters and microseconds. It is especially challenging for national missile defense because there is very low tolerance for leakers, warheads that slip through the defense. Nearly everyone underestimates the breadth of the effort that will be required to field effective missile defenses. This does not necessarily mean that the job cannot be done, just that a program must fully account for all the challenges for it to be successful (assuming, of course, that the program is technically feasible to begin with). The technical challenges of missile defense amplify the effects of politically driven proposals and compressed schedules.

The British Government has been happy to allow US Radar installations to be based on British soil to feed into the US ABM system. The MOD seems to see ABM defences as too expensive and of too little ability to make any difference other than giving false assurance to the public. Given that the USA has spent $120 billion on ABM systems since the 1980's and achieved very little in terms of capability it is not hard to see why the MOD has this view.

Report Critiques U.S. Missile Defense | Arms Control Association

Arguing that the U.S.-based ballistic missile interceptor system is “very expensive” but has “limited effectiveness” against potential attacks from Iran, a September report by the independent National Research Council recommends replacing the current system with a revamped but largely similar system and expanding it by adding a new site in an East Coast state.

The panel of experts said, however, that its proposed system might not be effective against likely threats, saying “it depends” on how the United States and potential attackers design their systems and how much they know about each other’s technology.

The expert panel considered alternatives to midcourse interception, such as striking enemy missiles while still in their early “boost” phase, but found these options impractical. A missile’s boost phase is simply too short—just a few minutes—for an interceptor to reach it in time, the report said. Moreover, airborne lasers would have to fly near enemy airspace and would be vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire, while space-based interceptors would require hundreds of satellites and cost as much as $500 billion over 20 years, the experts estimated.

The midcourse approach provides significantly more time for the intercept, but has its own drawbacks, according to the report. Most notably, it must confront the “discrimination problem” of telling the difference between real warheads and decoys, also known as countermeasures.

One of the main conclusions of the report is that no practical missile defense system “can avoid the need for midcourse discrimination,” which “must be addressed far more seriously if reasonable confidence is to be achieved.” Until that reality is accepted, they say, “there will be no end to the poorly thought[-]out schemes proposing to avoid the need for midcourse discrimination.”

The report finds that, “at some point, countermeasures of various kinds should be expected.” Initial decoys may be unintentional, such as debris from the booster rocket that would be traveling along with warheads through space. Yet, “as threat sophistication increases, the defense is likely to have to deal with purposeful countermeasures,” that adversaries may use to “frustrate U.S. defenses.”

At the same time, the report says that it is not clear if its own proposed system would be effective against decoys. On this central question, the panel says that its plan “offers the greatest potential for effective discrimination” but “it is by no means a certain solution” and “there is no unequivocal answer” to the question of whether missile defense can work against countermeasures.

Many experts say that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) never has conducted tests against realistic countermeasures, in part because the systems have had enough trouble against targets without decoys and in part because planners assume that countries such as Iran and North Korea would not initially deploy countermeasures on their missiles. The report said the MDA has canceled research programs that would try to deal with countermeasures and that the committee “could not find anyone at MDA” who could explain much of the past research in this area.

The report, called “Making Sense of Ballistic Missile Defense: An Assessment of Concepts and Systems for U.S. Boost-Phase Missile Defense in Comparison to Other Alternatives,” is sharply critical of the current 30-interceptor system deployed on the West Coast, which it describes as “fragile” and ineffective against “any but the most primitive attacks.”

The system was first deployed in 2004 by President George W. Bush “before its development was complete in order to meet what was considered an urgent need to get a system deployed quickly,” according to the report.

Main US anti-ballistic missile defence system appears to have less than a 50:50 chance of an interception - Hyperbola

The US Missile Defence Agency has admitted that its latest test of its anti-ballistic missile interceptor missile failed to strike its target. The test of the Ground-based Midcourse Defence System missile occured on 5 July. It involved launching a target “ballistic” missile from the Kwajelein Atoll launch site in the Pacific followed by the launch intereptor missile carrying an upgraded (Capability Enhancement 1) Exoatrmospheric Kill Vehicle from the Vandenberg Air Force base in California. Unfortunately the planned interception and destruction of the target missile failed to take place.

This was the third failure in a row of the system which is designed to protect the continental United States of America from a limited hostile missile attack using the interceptors based at Fort Greely, Alaska. The previous two failures were in 2010.

Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "Failure to Launch?"

Despite the congratulatory announcement, the US-NATO plan has many critics. At the forefront of the criticism are the questions of whether the extremely expensive (around $12-15 billion per year) missile defense shield will be effective enough to warrant the high price tag. Others question if the allied countries are currently under the threat of a missile attack, and if not, whether the vast network of anti-ballistic missile defense systems will unnecessarily strain relations between Russia and the West and potentially create a strategically unstable climate.

Given the potential risks of missile defense development, BMD appears to be an extremely expensive and unproven form of security. Conversely, if a true ballistic missile threat presented itself in the absence of NATO’s current missile defense initiatives, the time required to develop a capable anti-missile system would put the West at a significant strategic disadvantage. These factors beg the questions: how close to perfect is useful? How much treasure are NATO allies willing to exhaust for relative success?


Special Commentary: Indias Missile Defence by Amit Gupta

While Indian scientists have expressed confidence in the system and claimed it has a 90% accuracy level, impartial observers tend to be more sceptical. The best anti-missile systems tend to have an accuracy rate of 70% and that statistic can also be challenged (Broad and Sanger, 2013). The most common complaint against anti-missile defences is that they cannot distinguish between real missiles and decoys thus, invariably, letting some actual warheads in and causing damage. Moreover, as Brigadier Arun Sahgal has pointed out, the missile shield would require round the clock online connectivity, uninterrupted power supply, and associated systems that even at the best of times, are unreliable in India (Bedi, 2012).

Read it and then discuss , how practical and effective is the thing you are talking about , currently in development phase when the world power's have this to say about their own developed advanced systems , in which billions of dollars and tremendous sources were poured and yet nothing substantial was obtained , they have reservations about North Korea and Iran's capabilities even .

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
2


----------



## gslv mk3

Alpha1 said:


> Special Commentary: Indias Missile Defence by Amit Gupta
> 
> While Indian scientists have expressed confidence in the system and claimed it has a 90% accuracy level, impartial observers tend to be more sceptical. The best anti-missile systems tend to have an accuracy rate of 70% and that statistic can also be challenged (Broad and Sanger, 2013). The most common complaint against anti-missile defences is that they cannot distinguish between real missiles and decoys thus, invariably, letting some actual warheads in and causing damage. Moreover, as Brigadier Arun Sahgal has pointed out, the missile shield would require round the clock online connectivity, uninterrupted power supply, and associated systems that* even at the best of times, are unreliable in India* (Bedi, 2012).
> 
> Read it and then discuss , how practical and effective is the thing you are talking about , currently in development phase when the world power's have this to say about their own developed advanced systems , in which billions of dollars and tremendous sources were poured and yet nothing substantial was obtained , they have reservations about North Korea and Iran's capabilities even .



*
Plain Bull Sh!t!!!*


----------



## Alpha1

gslv mk3 said:


> *Plain Bull Sh!t!!!*


If you could highlight the part which you think is bullshyt , I would be able to reply you


----------



## PWFI

mayankmatador said:


> best one is pray for mercy from us and give us back our land


Résultats Google Recherche d'images correspondant à http://tobkes.othellomaster.com/images/2006/middle-finger.jpg
If you want more tell me!


----------



## Alpha1

Defending cities will be even more difficult fo the BMD 
Cities are targeted with multiple Warheads (airburst) in concentration ,





Harder to intercept because of obvious reasons , some we even discussed earlier
@Secur @illusion8 @gslv mk3


----------



## gslv mk3

Alpha1 said:


> If you could highlight the part which you think is bullshyt , I would be able to reply you



This...
'' the missile shield would require round the clock online connectivity, uninterrupted power supply, and associated systems that* even at the best of times, are unreliable in India ''
*
And lets see Pakistan testing MRVs before discussing the scenario described in #712

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Alpha1

gslv mk3 said:


> scenario described in #712


let me elaborate it :
"The accumulated impact of weapons in urban areas (countervalue targets), where boundaries for significant damage produced by one weapon overlap and intrude into the area of damage of others is not normally discussed. Thus, the potential devastation from this type of attack is significantly* understated*. No serious modeling or analysis of this type of problem is associated with discussions in the open literature." * [1]*
A single 20 Kt nuclear weapon would produce *8.04* square miles of *3+ psi destruction*.






From this we can easily calculate that detonating eight individual 20 Kt weapons would produce 64 square miles of 3+ psi destruction [64.3=8x8.04]. This is the same area of 3+ psi destruction that would occur upon detonating one 475 Kt thermonuclear weapon.





Inshort Pakistan can deal a lot of damage by nuclear devices of even trivial yeilds

*[1]* Life After Nuclear War, Arthur Katz in 1982 wrote [p. 29]:



@Secur @FaujHistorian @RAMPAGE @illusion8

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FaujHistorian

^^

@Alpha1 duck and cover

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## illusion8

gslv mk3 said:


> This...
> '' the missile shield would require round the clock online connectivity, uninterrupted power supply, and associated systems that* even at the best of times, are unreliable in India ''
> *
> And lets see Pakistan testing MRVs before discussing the scenario described in #712



This actually proves that the article is amateur - ish at best.



Alpha1 said:


> let me elaborate it :
> "The accumulated impact of weapons in urban areas (countervalue targets), where boundaries for significant damage produced by one weapon overlap and intrude into the area of damage of others is not normally discussed. Thus, the potential devastation from this type of attack is significantly* understated*. No serious modeling or analysis of this type of problem is associated with discussions in the open literature." * [1]*
> A single 20 Kt nuclear weapon would produce *8.04* square miles of *3+ psi destruction*.
> View attachment 13778
> 
> 
> 
> From this we can easily calculate that detonating eight individual 20 Kt weapons would produce 64 square miles of 3+ psi destruction [64.3=8x8.04]. This is the same area of 3+ psi destruction that would occur upon detonating one 475 Kt thermonuclear weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inshort Pakistan can deal a lot of damage by nuclear devices of even trivial yeilds
> 
> *[1]* Life After Nuclear War, Arthur Katz in 1982 wrote [p. 29]:
> 
> 
> 
> @Secur @FaujHistorian @RAMPAGE @illusion8



That's nice - wondering that the 8 missiles should have 0 cep to achieve that pattern.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Alpha1

illusion8 said:


> That's nice - wondering that the 8 missiles should have 0 cep to achieve that pattern.


0 CEP is not needed, a rough encirclement pattern will do too, interaction of forces and firestorms will cause great amount of destruction
10 , 50kt devices detonated as an airburst to maximise Blast effects over a counter value ( high population density urban area) 
will cause atleast as much destructions as a single 4 MT detonation.
btw this is like killing 2 birds with one stone. 
smaller multiple warheads not only have higher chances of evading BMD but they will also cause more destruction as compared to a single detonation of much larger yeild


----------



## Zarvan

Pakistan, to increase its defensive capabilities, has started preparing intercontinental missile with a range of 7000 kilometres.
According to sources, the intercontinental missile has a range of 7000 kilometres and is capable of hitting its target falling within its range. The missile can contain nuclear as well as traditional warheads. The missile has been termed a significant milestone for the defence of the country and is believed to strengthen the defence. According to sources, the missile would soon be test fired.
Taimur Intercontinental Ballistic Missile 7000 Km Range.
Timeline Photos - PakistaN Army(the best) | Facebook


----------



## Alpha1

Seriously??? ^^^^^
Facebook source?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Comrade

Plz stop wasting Indian tax payers money plz, this region is a poor region and use it to develop your inhabitants.
Peace,

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

DrSomnath999 said:


> 1.Pakistan would develop , multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs)& maneuverable warheads through SHAHEEN3 BM & also future BM
> 
> 
> 2.Pakistan would develop submarine launched cruise missile i.e Babur cruise missile & CJ-10k in their future chinese Type 39B submarine ,which would give them sea based nuke deterrence & would ensure the survivability of its nuclear deterrent
> 
> 
> 
> 3.Pakistan would produce more number of ballistic missiles & has increased production of nuclear fissile material like plutonium used for nuke bombs,so that it
> would overwhelm india ABM shield ,by firing more missiles towards india
> 
> 
> 4.Pakistan would use of decoys (e.g., lightweight mylar balloons which, until re-entry, will travel on an identical trajectory with the heavier warheads), use of ablative materials or reflective coatings which limit the damage of directed energy weapons, launches of numerous harmless missiles early in an attack which might cause the defender reveal his defenses and expend valuable resources
> 
> 5.Pakistan could acquire anti satellite weapon or jammers from chinato confuse indias satellites,which also play a key role in Indias anti ballistic missile shield
> 
> 
> 6.Pakistan would rely more on cruise missiles like stealthy RAAD & babur for nuke deterrent they are harder to detect due to their lower radar cross-signature, low-level navigation,and use of waypoints to circumvent more secure and heavily defended areas.
> 
> 
> 7.Pakistan would seek help from from Beijing for high-altitude and anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defenses through HQ-9/ FD2000 deal
> 
> 
> 8.Pakistan would target indias BMD Radar through long range anti radiation missile like brazilian MER-1 anti radiation missile
> 
> 9.Pakistan could pursue hypersonic missile technology if they are ready to afford it.
> 
> 10.Last but not least Pakistan could 1st strike ,as it fears if india 1st strike then their majority nuke detterent might be destroyed & rest if survive would be destroyed by indias ABM shield
> 
> *PLEASE NOTE*
> this are all my personal assumption ,well anyone having any better ideas apart from this can post
> REGARDS



I do have an idea, Apart from high tech, there is a very low tech (excluding the bombs) solution. Why not use some squadrons of donkey carried nuclear weapons, they can be used efficiently too, since they have a low profile, they are very stealthy, can go through undefended areas, follow a predefined terrain (mostly mountainous) and detonate their bombs if need be, with calculations for ground detonation similar to the yield of above ground one.
This is an option, like the fourth or fifth or sixth if you want, but it is still a deterrent option to be taken seriously.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

No ABM has worked efficiently yet, be it in Russia or in the USA, the best they had, had a 20 % rate of success and those were their claims, at least to justify the billions of dollars spent on their development.
The only claims that match the ones from India, come from Isael and it iron Dom, that proved to be unsuccessful against home made rockets, let alone cruise missiles or BM.
So, I do not know what to make of their claims.
last thing we've heard about the iron Dom is that it went berserk ( for what ever it thought it had detected) and fired missiles on own populated areas by mistake...automatically.


----------



## The SC

One can saturate the India's ABM shields with conventional home made rockets made on an industrial base, they will cost around 20$ for short range ones 50 $ for the medium ones and a 100$ for the longer range ones. So for a 100 $ million, Pakistan can send about 150 000 of those as a scare (Even if they have a grenade size explosif warhead, since the fact that they will explode would make the Indians react) and for saturation of the indian ABM and air defenses. Once all those targets get into action, it will be easy to identify them and eliminate them (if need be, since they won't have any missilles left for the real things), hence opening the doors for BM (coventionnal or nuclear) to be used with maximum kill probability, let us say 95%.


----------



## anonymus

The SC said:


> One can saturate the India's ABM shields with conventional home made rockets made on an industrial base, they will cost around 20$ for short range ones 50 $ for the medium ones and a 100$ for the longer range ones. So for a 100 $ million, Pakistan can send about 150 000 of those as a scare (Even if they have a grenade size explosif warhead, since the fact that they will explode would make the Indians react) and for saturation of the indian ABM and air defenses. Once all those targets get into action, it will be easy to identify them and eliminate them (if need be, since they won't have any missilles left for the real things), hence opening the doors for BM (coventionnal or nuclear) to be used with maximum kill probability, let us say 95%.




A perfect example of delusional thinking.

India is not Israel which is a 50 Km wide country. India is a subcontinent in itself and your puny grads would probably kill some villager's goat ( along with infuriating India ).

Any act of using rocket artillery from Pakistani side would be met by counter battery fire from Indian side rather than interception. Palestinians should be thankful to Israel as it does not bomb their rocket lobbing *** to oblivion which it could do under International laws.

This topic has also been discussed in another thread in which i have made detailed post




anonymus said:


> MIRV's have no relation to Missile defense.The only advantage a MIRV'd missile could have over NoN-MIRV'd is that it could carry countermeasures due its high payload characteristics.Number of warheads does not decide the efficiency of missile defense.It is decided by warhead characteristics.
> 
> MIRV'd missile is more suitable for surprise strike and second strike.
> 
> 
> 
> India does not enjoy degree of air superiority that would be required target missile in boost phase by the means that we have and technology has not reached a pointed where it could be done by any system by remaining within Indian border.






The Deterrent said:


> I suggest that you take a closer look at MIRVs ability to counter ABMs.
> 
> Number of warheads can defeat ABMs by simply outnumbering them. If , say, 10 ICBMs are launched at a state in US mainland, would it be easier to intercept 20 warheads or 100 (if each missile in the latter case is MIRVed with 5 warheads per missile)?
> The number of deployed ABMs in an area is limited, and can be further decreased by SEAD strikes.





anonymus said:


> The logic of overwhelming has major flaws.
> 
> 
> 1.A MIRV does not offer any extra advantage over non-MIRV warheads.A missile defense would have to do equal amount of work for x number of warheads,whether MIRV'd or not.3 warheads delivered by 3 missiles require equal resources to stop as 3 warheads delivered by 1 missile.Instead if coordinated,3 warhead on three missiles could outperform 3 warheads in 1 missile by approaching at different angles at same target.
> 
> 2.The advantage of MIRV'd missile lies in the fact that it reduces the number of missiles that need to be prepared for targeting. It has advantage in second strike scenarios as even few surviving missiles would be enough and in surprise strike scenarios where the reduction in number of missiles that need to be prepared would make surprise possible.That's why MIRV'd missiles are older than missile defense.
> 
> 3.The idea of overwhelming ABM's is grounded in argument that only few ABM's would per present per target since ABM vs BM is more of an competition based on economics rather than technology.It extends the same logic that is extended for futility of Iron Dome due to price differential but ignores an important point that the only missile that would have any practical chance of getting through an ABM would either has to be a decent MRBM fired in salvo(not some crappy rockets) or an ICBM class with ability to carry MIRV's (Every MIRV'd capable missile is an ICBM irrespective of what the country of origin is claiming).ABM's battery which itself consist of guided missiles when compare to multiple missiles (one on one comparison) or an advanced ICBM (many on one) would easily justify it's cost.Whether missile defense finally works would depend upon relative economic strength of adversaries.After initial sunk cost in R&D is written off,the ABM does not suffer from drawback on account of production cost vis a vis any other missile.A country able to afford 5 batteries would not have to pay 10 times for acquiring 50.
> 
> 4.Effect of SEAD strikes is highly doubtful,even bordering to impossible as most countries have their important cities far from border (only exception of south korea comes to my mind).If an adversary as sufficient airpower to penetrate that far,probably his country would not be nukes at all.





The Deterrent said:


> 1. Yes, speaking in terms of individual warhead capability, MIRVs don't. But they can overcome ABMs, if saturated in a particular area (then they would be simply MRVs, i.e. separate warheads but converged on the same target).
> No, ABMs can defeat missiles coming from any direction, difference of direction does not makes the interception difficult.
> 
> 2. Yes, the primary reason for developing MIRVs was to inflict maximum damage in a fist strike utilizing least possible missiles. In the second strike too, they can ensure complete annihilation.
> 
> 3. Yes, a limited number would be present, because all the targets cannot be defended equally. However I agree with you that MIRVed systems are somewhat equally expensive speaking in terms of individual economics. But don't you think that the countermeasures, which MIRVs deploy, make interception a whole lot difficult?
> 
> 4. Well PAF does have the capability, although it might not be pretty strong at the moment. We can potentially reduce the number of deployed ABMs by India in case of a war.









anonymus said:


> 1.I was not talking about difficulty in targeting a warhead due to some technical shortcoming of ABM but due to the fact that warheads released from a single missile destined for a single target would be bunched up together (warheads follow ballistic trajectories) while in case of multiple missiles they could approach from different directions thus providing tactical flexibility to targetter. In multiple missile scenario,first warhead may be used in high altitude airburst mode.While this may not knock down a modern radar as it is well shielded from Emp bursts,but it could temporarily blind it by creating an ion field from which other warheads could pass through (as ballistics warheads are not guided by electronics,there would be no effect of them,and nuclear explosion in upper atmosphere would not generate a shock wave as it is rarefied which would be strong enough to knock down nukes travelling at considerable distance.This is not possible in MIRV mode in which most of nukes would be travelling close to each other and one of them going off would destroy all of them.
> 
> 2.The whole premise of saturation of targets has many flaws.
> 
> a.One which i have highlighted earlier is that it assumes that missiles used in saturating target would be less costly than ABM missiles.This is fundamentally wrong.ABM has high price tag due to sunk cost it requires in R&D.Missile to Missile,an ICBM or MRBM is much costlier to produce than an interceptor missile.
> 
> b.It assumes that targets worthy of nuclear strike are dime a dozen.This is not the case.In most countries,if you have been able to save Tier I and Tier II cities,you have not only ensured your country's survival but your prosperity also.Example in India's case if you have been unable to target Delhi,Mumbai,Chennai,Banglore and Hyderabad,you have ensured that most of the manufacturing base and agricultural base(which is nuke-proof) has survived. Targeting cities like Lucknow may satisfy the bloodlust of some general but the effect that it would have not have much effect on ability of India to recover.A lot of Indian states do not even have a primate city.There is not target of value in state of Gujrat,Kerala,West Bengal or Haryana and Punjab concentrated enough to be targeted by nukes.Assets of these states are dispersed.Think of this from pakistani perspective. Would your government care for peshawar or quetta in case on all out nuclear war,if you theoretically have limited ABM batteries.
> 
> So the prospective targets would be heavily guarded,making the job of getting through an ABM shield difficult.
> 
> c.Countermeasures if applied would require additional weight hence reducing the number of warheads a MIRV'd missile could carry.Minutemen III and topol M could carry up to 6 warheads( maximum is in 12-15 range but for more than 6,the yield per warhead reduce into sub kiloton range making nukes practically useless as there are conventional bombs which have yield close to a kiloton) but could carry less than 3 with countermeasures .An normal MRBM would be unable to carry any countermeasures.Dummy warheads,Chaff and reflectors occupy space and have weight.An actively maneuvering warhead would require inbuilt supply of electrophile fluid which would would disperse ion field that is created around a warhead during reentry thus allowing it radar guided navigation thus increasing weight.Even after this effectiveness of countermeasures is doubted.US radars runs algorithm which could predict trajectory of all warheads thus separating dummy from rest.Radars could differentiate between warheads and chaff/balloons.It only needs a supercomputer powerful enough to run those algorithms which every country who has a missile defense including India has ability to construct. Maneuvering warhead is susceptible to ECM.Thus countermeasure which could be theoretically deployed only by MIRV'd missiles have their limitation.
> 
> 
> 3.Radars used with ABM would not be kept at border but deep inside the territory of targeted nation ,probably even close to the target(US is bulding radar facility in poland which is far away from russian border).Pakistan does not have capability to carry SEAD operations 500-600 Km from it's border.To attack a site in Delhi it has to go through the whole gauntlet of IAF and Air defense batteries which is out of pakistani capability.It would be much wiser to carry a one way mission to nuke delhi using nuke equipped planes than a SEAD mission whose efficacy in best case scenario would be doubtful.




Agni-VI all set to take shape | Page 3

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The SC

@anonymus

Anything entering Inda's space will make it react, be it 50 kms wide or a subcontinent.


----------



## anonymus

The SC said:


> @anonymus
> 
> Anything entering Inda's space will make it react, be it 50 kms wide or a subcontinent.




It would be met with counter artillery barrage.


----------



## Zhukov

Off topic but this India-Pakistan Crap scares shit out of me. 90% chances are there that if a nuclear war ever erupted that would be either between India-Pakistan or Nkorea-SKorea. Ironically both share common culture and traditions.
If Ever human beings will learn to come over there difference for safety of there generations........

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

anonymus said:


> It would be met with counter artillery barrage.


Counter-artillry barrage against rockets? it won't work. I am not talking about artillery here but hit and run tactics, it took Israelis counter artillery, commando units and air force to find one on ten firing posts and they were all too late, all they could destroy is an empty truck.
That is a lot of energy and resources to destroy an old truck worth 1000$.
Hope you get the point. No CSD and no war is possible with Pakistan, be it nuclear or conventional, so you better concentrate on your and their well being, since it is interrelated somehow.


----------



## anonymus

The SC said:


> Counter-artillry barrage against rockets? it won't work. I am not talking about artillery here but hit and run tactics, it took Israelis counter artillery, commando units and air force to find one on ten firing posts and they were all too late, all they could destroy is an empty truck.
> That is a lot of energy and resources to destroy an old truck worth 1000$.
> Hope you get the point. No CSD and no war is possible with Pakistan, be it nuclear or conventional, so you better concentrate on your and their well being, since it is interrelated somehow.




If you are stupid enough to think that India would not react with disproportionate force than i have nothing to say. Wish Pakistani generals think on similar lines.

BTW, Israel never used Artillery against Palestinians.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yeti

The first thing India would use is Brahmos which has pin point accuracy and is rapid, this will be used on key targets in Pakistan like power stations, airstrips, etc

There is nothing that Pakistan has that can stop Brahmos as it is like a bullet hitting a bullet.

Once Nirbhay becomes operational it will also be part of the 1st strike missiles we can launch on key targets.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Secret Service

Yeti said:


> The first thing India would use is Brahmos which has pin point accuracy and is rapid, this will be used on key targets in Pakistan like power stations, airstrips, etc
> 
> There is nothing that Pakistan has that can stop Brahmos as it is like a bullet hitting a bullet.
> 
> Once Nirbhay becomes operational it will also be part of the 1st strike missiles we can launch on key targets.


and there is no guarantee that anything can stop Babur/Nasr hitting targets in India if they are launched from different locations


----------



## Yeti

secretservice said:


> and there is no guarantee that anything can stop Babur/Nasr hitting targets in India if they are launched from different locations




Perhaps but we do have the Spyder system from Israel which will give it a good attempt.


----------



## The SC

Yeti said:


> Perhaps but we do have the Spyder system from Israel which will give it a good attempt.


You can have the whole of israeli tech, you won't prevail.
Here you can think to feel good, reality won't let you feel good, it is that simple.
You can use brahmos in another phase or while you are using it, the cheap rockets will be illuminating you point defenses and your ABM. No one said you can not hit, but you won't prevail or have the upper hand or whatever you like to think, since you will be softened first. And your blows will be weak, since your generals will be busy in defense rather than offense.
Remember that in WW2, it took The US, Russia and most of Europe and their colonies man power and energies to beat the Germans, not anyone of them could do it on its own, although they were much larger and 10 times more populous than Germany each.
That is a lesson you can meditate upon.


----------



## Yeti

The SC said:


> You can have the whole of israeli tech, you won't prevail.
> Here you can think to feel good, reality won't let you feel good, it is that simple.
> You can use brahmos in another phase or while you are using it, the cheap rockets will be illuminating you point defenses and your ABM. No one said you can not hit, but you won't prevail or have the upper hand or whatever you like to think, since you will be softened first. And your blows will be weak, since your generals will be busy in defense rather than offense.
> Remember that in WW2, it took The US, Russia and most of Europe and their colonies man power and energies to beat the Germans, not anyone of them could do it on its own, although they were much larger and 10 times more populous than Germany each.
> That is a lesson you can meditate upon.




Can't respond to this gibberish I thought you were here for a technical debate but all of what you said sounds childish and silly.
Yes I am well aware of WW2 and how the Germans got bogged down in the East, they bit more than they could chew but what does that mean on countering Brahmos? what do you have that can prevent it?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The SC

Yeti said:


> Can't respond to this gibberish I thought you were here for a technical debate but all of what you said sounds childish and silly.
> Yes I am well aware of WW2 and how the Germans got bogged down in the East, they bit more than they could chew but what does that mean on countering Brahmos? what do you have that can prevent it?



If I had the answer, do you really think I will give it to you? 
With whom do you think you are dealing with, a child minded person as yourself, projecting your gibberish mind.
Brahmos is a good soviet cruise missile, it will be dealt with in same manner as you think you can deal with pakistani tomahawk like cruise missiles.


----------



## Yeti

The SC said:


> If I had the answer, do you really think I will give it to you?
> With whom do you think you are dealing with, a child minded person as yourself, projecting your gibberish mind.
> Brahmos is a good soviet cruise missile, it will be dealt with in same manner as you think you can deal with pakistani tomahawk like cruise missiles.




Brahmos a good soviet cruise missile? lol you think it can not be modernised with computing power and new gen technology? do you think everything is static? stuck in 1960's era?

I know you have cruise missiles but we have th Spyder system which can be used against cruise missiles how good a job it will do? I can not answer most of this debate is arm chair stuff one can only know if it's been used and tested in a real life situation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Deterrent

For those considering Indian BMD as a means to stopping majority of an all-out Pakistani nuclear strike:


> _"On the suggestion that India’s Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) system would disturb military balance in the region, Saraswat said: “It is like any other weapon. When the number of fighter squadrons or tanks, is increased, it will also result in military imbalance.”
> But, since India has a policy of no first use of N-weapons, *we should have the capability to defend against a rogue N-attack. It must have the time to counter-attack and that is possible only with BMD, which can destroy an incoming missile, he added."*_



Oman Tribune - the edge of knowledge


----------



## OFarooq74

pakistan has cruise missiles which are harder to detect and


----------



## gslv mk3

The Deterrent said:


> For those considering Indian BMD as a means to stopping majority of an all-out Pakistani nuclear strike:
> 
> 
> Oman Tribune - the edge of knowledge



I didn't get it.


----------



## The Deterrent

gslv mk3 said:


> I didn't get it.


What I meant to convey was that Saraswat emphasized the role of BMD in preventing small-scale rogue N-attacks only. So BMD's role should not be presumed as in preventing an all-out attack.


----------



## Alfa-Fighter

The Deterrent said:


> What I meant to convey was that Saraswat emphasized the role of BMD in preventing small-scale rogue N-attacks only. So BMD's role should not be presumed as in preventing an all-out attack.



Well you have read the statement clearly " he clearly said , prevent initial attack and give time to launch counter attack" it is not that enemy will launch 100 nukes in one go .... if he fires 10-15 missiles we able to sop it and launch counter attack to stop another 85 lunch.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## NKVD

Alfa-Fighter said:


> Well you have read the statement clearly " he clearly said , prevent initial attack and give time to launch counter attack" it is not that enemy will launch 100 nukes in one go .... if he fires 10-15 missiles we able to sop it and launch counter attack to sop another 85 lunch.


By pakistan geographical limitations even 8-10 nukes are Enough for them,They don't posses second strike capibilities like Us

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Alfa-Fighter

Para_Medic said:


> With the recent posting of warheads in KSA i think it does.


KSA is not stupid enough that will ask India to nuke mecca and then end of KSA all together. No country will want its end. 

Especially when Iran is ready to Storm mecca.


----------



## hussain0216

Alfa-Fighter said:


> KSA is not stupid enough tPakistan even ll ask India to nuke mecca and then end of KSA all together. No country will want its are tend.
> 
> Especially when Iran is ready to Storm mecca.



Storm mecca???

Pakistan arsenal Is growing, it will go well beyond 200 war heads

As soon as Pakistan even deploys war heads all assets will be primed and ready to go, any nuclear attack on india will be made with the BMD and counter strike in mind


unless you are talking about war tommorrow then expect Pakistan to have well beyond 200 war heads and second strike capability


----------



## AUz

NKVD said:


> By pakistan geographical limitations even 8-10 nukes are Enough for them,They don't posses second strike capibilities like Us



Pakistan Air Force has stand-off nuclear weapons, Pakistani land forces have nuclear ballistic missiles based on MOBILE launchers, and Pakistan is integrating nuclear cruise-missiles on subs/ships.

Who told you we don't have second strike capability?


----------



## ares

AUz said:


> Who told you we don't have second strike





AUz said:


> Pakistan Air Force has stand-off nuclear weapons, Pakistani land forces have nuclear ballistic missiles based on MOBILE launchers, and Pakistan is integrating nuclear cruise-missiles on subs/ships.
> 
> Who told you we don't have second strike capability?



What platforms are you using to integrate nuclear cruise missiles on subs and ships..when was it last tested?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HariPrasad

The Deterrent said:


> What I meant to convey was that Saraswat emphasized the role of BMD in preventing small-scale rogue N-attacks only




This is funny. Small Scale rogue nuclear bombs are not meant to delivered by Missile.



OFarooq74 said:


> pakistan has cruise missiles which are harder to detect and




India is already working on the detecting cruise missile in early stage. We have the missiles which can easily shoot down cruise missile.


----------



## Alfa-Fighter

hussain0216 said:


> Storm mecca???
> 
> Pakistan arsenal Is growing, it will go well beyond 200 war heads
> 
> As soon as Pakistan even deploys war heads all assets will be primed and ready to go, any nuclear attack on india will be made with the BMD and counter strike in mind
> 
> 
> unless you are talking about war tommorrow then expect Pakistan to have well beyond 200 war heads and second strike capability



Well when Entire PAK is nuked and radiated, their wont be any second strike at all. 

The real second strike capability is only cakes from Subs armed with nukes. which India is building 2 ( one for PAK and One of China) 


Moreover India's Nuclear policy will be changed from NFU, As soon as India will see assembling or preparation of Nukes it will launch Nuclear strike first .



AUz said:


> Pakistan Air Force has stand-off nuclear weapons, Pakistani land forces have nuclear ballistic missiles based on MOBILE launchers, and Pakistan is integrating nuclear cruise-missiles on subs/ships.
> 
> Who told you we don't have second strike capability?


Nuclear Missiles or Plane won't able to launch in radiated environment . No nukes are integrated by PAK in Subs as of now, all the myth


----------



## danger007

hussain0216 said:


> Storm mecca???
> 
> Pakistan arsenal Is growing, it will go well beyond 200 war heads
> 
> As soon as Pakistan even deploys war heads all assets will be primed and ready to go, any nuclear attack on india will be made with the BMD and counter strike in mind
> 
> 
> unless you are talking about war tommorrow then expect Pakistan to have well beyond 200 war heads and second strike capability


so what... USSR got largest stockpile of nukes... but it didn't stopped their defeat... you don't have capabilities to launch 200 nukes...


----------



## hussain0216

Alfa-Fighter said:


> Well when Entire PAK is nuked and radiated, their wont be any second strike at all.
> 
> The real second strike capability is only cakes from Subs armed with nukes. which India is building 2 ( one for PAK and One of China)
> 
> 
> Moreover India's Nuclear policy will be changed from NFU, As soon as India will see assembling or preparation of Nukes it will launch Nuclear strike first .
> 
> 
> Nuclear Missiles or Plane won't able to launch in radiated environment . No nukes are integrated by PAK in Subs as of now, all the myth


 
Pak nuclear missiles will be integrated into pakistan subs, Pakistan will obtain 6 subs from China and has been working on a sub version of babur

Like I said unless you are going to launch an attack this very minute, expect Pakistan to have over 200 nuclear warheads

with land, air and sea based nuclear strike capability


----------



## NKVD

AUz said:


> Pakistan Air Force has stand-off nuclear weapons, Pakistani land forces have nuclear ballistic missiles based on MOBILE launchers, and Pakistan is integrating nuclear cruise-missiles on subs/ships.
> Who told you we don't have second strike capability?


All your stand off Nuclear warheads will be wipe out in the Selective Strategical Strikes due its geographical Limitations Not like India .SSBN's will give huge advantage too India in these Circumstances .Abm's are Also have factor in This


----------



## NKVD

AUz said:


> idiot, do you know ALL of Pakistani nukes?
> 
> Surgical strikes take time as well..as one location is hit, we will launch nuclear strikes on your shit hole.
> 
> Stop embarassing yourselves, hindus.
> 
> Go drink cow-piss.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## hussain0216

Indians seem to be confused, a nuclear war head is devastating but limited nuclear strike will only intially effect a limited area

so lets say india launches 10 nuclear warheads, the effects would be devastating in terms of people, and even india will get immense blowback from its own war heads, but this wouldnt destroy Pakistan nor stop Pakistan from launching its own missiles/warheads


Indians seems to be under the impression that any indian attack would leave Pakistan either completely destroyed or completely unable to fire back


----------



## NKVD

hussain0216 said:


> Indians seem to be confused, a nuclear war head is devastating but limited nuclear strike will only intially effect a limited area
> 
> so lets say india launches 10 nuclear warheads, the effects would be devastating in terms of people, and even india will get immense blowback from its own war heads, but this wouldnt destroy Pakistan nor stop Pakistan from launching its own missiles/warheads
> 
> 
> Indians seems to be under the impression that any indian attack would leave Pakistan either completely destroyed or completely unable to fire back


The confusion is with you India have possession of Thermonuclears Warheads Upto 200kt.only few Kt bomb In Hiroshima impacted so huge just think what thermonuclear warhead can Do as you have geographical Limitations and Don't posses Second medium of nuclear delivery like chinese have Eg SSBN. As If one medium is down Other Options are there aswell with US

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ares

AUz said:


> Are you fucking retard or just another defeated, embarrassed, and most of all--delusional--hindu indian?
> 
> You seem to think that when india will nuke Pakistan, Pakistan won't nuke india back. LOL.
> 
> During war-time, indian territory will be under our monitoring 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
> 
> If the war crosses a certain threshold, Pakistan will have all its nuclear-forces READY to fire...and as soon as a massive nuclear-strike is launched from india--and Pakistan AWACS/RADARs/Forces picked up even one hint of multiple nuclear missile launchings from india towards major Pakistani strategic centers/cities....
> 
> Guess what?
> 
> Pakistani nuclear forces will launch an *all-out* nuclear holocaust on your shit-hole called hindustan.
> 
> Stop mental masturbating.
> 
> You are nothing. You are weak, humiliated state. You were invaded, plundered, destroyed, humiliated, and ruled by Islamic peoples for CENTURIES.
> 
> Today, you are totally contained by us. You can't do shit..even though you are billion+ people nation. So sad.
> 
> Any war with us would mean a civilizational-suicide by you.



*NEXT time you decide to change the contents of post and tag me..I ll royally screw your happiness, where ever I find you!! *

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Alfa-Fighter

hussain0216 said:


> Pak nuclear missiles will be integrated into pakistan subs, Pakistan will obtain 6 subs from China and has been working on a sub version of babur
> 
> Like I said unless you are going to launch an attack this very minute, expect Pakistan to have over 200 nuclear warheads
> 
> with land, air and sea based nuclear strike capability


from last 6 years i am hearing Chinese subs .... please let me know when Chinese sub deal happens. Moreover . PAK you made let us , By that time India will have Effecting ABM system including cruse missile hit capability.



AUz said:


> Are you fucking retard or just another defeated, embarrassed, and most of all--delusional--hindu indian?
> 
> You seem to think that when india will nuke Pakistan, Pakistan won't nuke india back. LOL.
> 
> During war-time, indian territory will be under our monitoring 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
> 
> If the war crosses a certain threshold, Pakistan will have all its nuclear-forces READY to fire...and as soon as a massive nuclear-strike is launched from india--and Pakistan AWACS/RADARs/Forces picked up even one hint of multiple nuclear missile launchings from india towards major Pakistani strategic centers/cities....
> 
> Guess what?
> 
> Pakistani nuclear forces will launch an *all-out* nuclear holocaust on your shit-hole called hindustan.
> 
> Stop mental masturbating.
> 
> You are nothing. You are weak, humiliated state. You were invaded, plundered, destroyed, humiliated, and ruled by Islamic peoples for CENTURIES.
> 
> Today, you are totally contained by us. You can't do shit..even though you are billion+ people nation. So sad.
> 
> 
> Any war with us would mean a civilizational-suicide by you.


Self deleted........ you are not worth for replying also.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kṣamā

How Pakistan can counter India's ABM ?? Simple destroy all the BMs in PA and PLA inventory. The damn need for the thing goes away . . .


----------



## The Deterrent

Alfa-Fighter said:


> Well you have read the statement clearly " he clearly said , prevent initial attack and give time to launch counter attack" it is not that enemy will launch 100 nukes in one go .... if he fires 10-15 missiles we able to sop it and launch counter attack to stop another 85 lunch.


BMD is nothing like an "umbrella" spanning all over India. The initial attacks are always decapitation ones, aimed at command centres and missile/nuclear bases.
10-15 missiles? You must be kidding.



HariPrasad said:


> This is funny. Small Scale rogue nuclear bombs are not meant to delivered by Missile.


You can convey that to Dr. Saraswat. It is his assumption that _somehow_, a rogue splinter military unit would be able to launch a nuclear attack against India using ballistic missiles.



Alfa-Fighter said:


> Nuclear Missiles or Plane won't able to launch in radiated environment .

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Informant

Alfa-Fighter said:


> KSA is not stupid enough that will ask India to nuke mecca and then end of KSA all together. No country will want its end.
> 
> Especially when Iran is ready to Storm mecca.



Iran has no means to transport troops, no AirForce. Bangladesh AF would put them to shame.

@danger007 10 nukes are enough to make a country as big as India not remain a semblance of a country. You guys require 4 for us. No matter what missile shields you have, anti Ballistic shields are very very unreliable. In the end, once the bombs in the air, that's it. look at your watch and there goes the world in nuclear winter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Malghani

Inshalah Pakistan will do much better than this


----------



## HariPrasad

The Deterrent said:


> You can convey that to Dr. Saraswat. It is his assumption that somehow, a rogue splinter military unit would be able to launch a nuclear attack against India using ballistic missiles.




It is your assumption that it will be done using Missile. 

How ever if it does, It will give us an opportunity to retaliate as per our nuclear doctrine. It says that any nuclear attack will be responded with hune unacceptable damage to enemy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gslv mk3

Malghani said:


> Inshalah Pakistan will do much better than this



You will do what ?


----------



## SipahSalar

Cruise missiles easily negate ABM. But problem is that cruise missiles have a history of going off-route very often. That is the reason US has retired all nuclear capable cruise missiles. During Gulf War 1 and Gulf War 2, a lot of tomahawk missiles ended going way off waypoints and ending in friendly countries. If a cruise missile carrying nuclear missiles goes off route, it will spell disaster and also waste precious nuclear material.


----------



## CiciHoriOzK

I think tomahawk cruise missile with nuclear warhead retired


----------



## trident2010

The SC said:


> @anonymus
> 
> Anything entering Inda's space will make it react, be it 50 kms wide or a subcontinent.



I am sure ABMs would be active only after analysing its radar signature as BM, not small rockets as you suggest.



secretservice said:


> Nasr hitting targets in India



??


----------



## Ijaz Ahmad Zarrar

DrSomnath999 said:


> 1.Pakistan would develop , multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs)& maneuverable warheads through SHAHEEN3 BM & also future BM
> 
> 
> 2.Pakistan would develop submarine launched cruise missile i.e Babur cruise missile & CJ-10k in their future chinese Type 39B submarine ,which would give them sea based nuke deterrence & would ensure the survivability of its nuclear deterrent
> 
> 
> 
> 3.Pakistan would produce more number of ballistic missiles & has increased production of nuclear fissile material like plutonium used for nuke bombs,so that it
> would overwhelm india ABM shield ,by firing more missiles towards india
> 
> 
> 4.Pakistan would use of decoys (e.g., lightweight mylar balloons which, until re-entry, will travel on an identical trajectory with the heavier warheads), use of ablative materials or reflective coatings which limit the damage of directed energy weapons, launches of numerous harmless missiles early in an attack which might cause the defender reveal his defenses and expend valuable resources
> 
> 5.Pakistan could acquire anti satellite weapon or jammers from chinato confuse indias satellites,which also play a key role in Indias anti ballistic missile shield
> 
> 
> 6.Pakistan would rely more on cruise missiles like stealthy RAAD & babur for nuke deterrent they are harder to detect due to their lower radar cross-signature, low-level navigation,and use of waypoints to circumvent more secure and heavily defended areas.
> 
> 
> 7.Pakistan would seek help from from Beijing for high-altitude and anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defenses through HQ-9/ FD2000 deal
> 
> 
> 8.Pakistan would target indias BMD Radar through long range anti radiation missile like brazilian MER-1 anti radiation missile
> 
> 9.Pakistan could pursue hypersonic missile technology if they are ready to afford it.
> 
> 10.Last but not least Pakistan could 1st strike ,as it fears if india 1st strike then their majority nuke detterent might be destroyed & rest if survive would be destroyed by indias ABM shield
> 
> *PLEASE NOTE*
> this are all my personal assumption ,well anyone having any better ideas apart from this can post
> REGARDS


Informative one...


----------



## fatman17

Does IN have a ABM system deployed?


----------



## kurup

fatman17 said:


> Does IN have a ABM system deployed?



Nope .


----------



## Aitzaz Rai

Did Someone Say HAARP?


----------



## Sana Khan Asad

Will the 8 GRC bought for Coast Guards?


----------



## Atheria

NKVD said:


> All your stand off Nuclear warheads will be wipe out in the Selective Strategical Strikes due its geographical Limitations Not like India .SSBN's will give huge advantage too India in these Circumstances .Abm's are Also have factor in This


Did you forget Agosta 90bs are capable of firing N-tipped babur? one of out F-22p probably be retro-fitted with an Mk 41 VLS strike module , so we can have stand off babur cruise missiles on our surface fleet too




NKVD said:


> The confusion is with you India have possession of Thermonuclears Warheads Upto 200kt.only few Kt bomb In Hiroshima impacted so huge just think what thermonuclear warhead can Do as you have geographical Limitations and Don't posses Second medium of nuclear delivery like chinese have Eg SSBN. As If one medium is down Other Options are there aswell with US


you are touting that Pakistan has no capability after the Nuclear rain starts, which is hardly the case , with just 90 odd Nukes you expect your strategic forces to counter not only countervalue but counterforce targets too?
Should I call this confidence or delusion?


----------



## DrSomnath999

fatman17 said:


> Does IN have a ABM system deployed?


Hi

THe fact is IN doesnt need ABM system at the moment why?

becoz pakistan majority of BMs are land based not sea based 
plus pakistan plans to have a conventional sub with nuke cruise missile launch capabilty not nuke capable BMs

so urgent requirement for IN to have ABM capbilty is not there in regard to pakistan 

but for china we need to develop it badly 

1) they have nuclear subs with tremendous fire power of nuke BMs

2)they have AsBMs capabilty great threat to our carriers 



*CHEERS*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Immanuel

Atheria said:


> Did you forget Agosta 90bs are capable of firing N-tipped babur? one of out F-22p probably be retro-fitted with an Mk 41 VLS strike module , so we can have stand off babur cruise missiles on our surface fleet too
> you are touting that Pakistan has no capability after the Nuclear rain starts, which is hardly the case , with just 90 odd Nukes you expect your strategic forces to counter not only countervalue but counterforce targets too?
> Should I call this confidence or delusion?



And by what gutter logic are you determining that India which since day 1 had 5 times more fissile material, 4-5 times the capacity to produce weapons grade only has 90 warheads? Are you really that naïve to think that India which considers China a bigger threat for many decades now only have 90 warheads when to keep China in check we would need around 300+ warheads ? As per basic production figures of weapons grade material and strategic missile production rates of like Agni 1/2/3/4 and now Agni 5, we would have crossed 150 warheads as early 2004, 10 years down the line + added capacity in the mean time we are looking at India already having a minimum warhead count of over 300 warheads. At best real estimate we already have over 350 warheads. All these farticles from Washington think tanks only paints a naïve picture, anyways **** can believe in those figures, it only adds to the deception. Also to say China has only 300 warhead is joke, China already has over 1000+ or more.

Pakistan will not have much left once the nuke rain starts, India isn't concerned with this, post Cold Start Doctrine will overwhelm Pak in conventional way and crossing the nuke threshold will result in absolute destruction of Pak. Also, when such a conflict starts china will hide as they are not interested in an all out war with India.

All this friendship tunes with China are merely for show, when the war starts, China will not support Pak. Where was China during Kargil btw?


----------



## The SC

Immanuel said:


> And by what gutter logic are you determining that India which since day 1 had 5 times more fissile material, 4-5 times the capacity to produce weapons grade only has 90 warheads? Are you really that naïve to think that India which considers China a bigger threat for many decades now only have 90 warheads when to keep China in check we would need around 300+ warheads ? As per basic production figures of weapons grade material and strategic missile production rates of like Agni 1/2/3/4 and now Agni 5, we would have crossed 150 warheads as early 2004, 10 years down the line + added capacity in the mean time we are looking at India already having a minimum warhead count of over 300 warheads. At best real estimate we already have over 350 warheads. All these farticles from Washington think tanks only paints a naïve picture, anyways **** can believe in those figures, it only adds to the deception. Also to say China has only 300 warhead is joke, China already has over 1000+ or more.
> 
> Pakistan will not have much left once the nuke rain starts, India isn't concerned with this, post Cold Start Doctrine will overwhelm Pak in conventional way and crossing the nuke threshold will result in absolute destruction of Pak. Also, when such a conflict starts china will hide as they are not interested in an all out war with India.
> 
> All this friendship tunes with China are merely for show, when the war starts, China will not support Pak. Where was China during Kargil btw?


Actually India has enough fissile material to make around 2000 bombs, China made sure it is in par with India...plus Hydrogen bombs.
Remember that just 2 two nuclear bombs made japan surrender and sign an armistice. You can have a thousand nuclear bombs which real role is not to be nuclear bombed or deterrence.
And, if India has no ABM system yet, what is the purpose of this thread?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vsdave2302

DrSomnath999 said:


> 1.Pakistan would develop , multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs)& maneuverable warheads through SHAHEEN3 BM & also future BM
> 
> 
> 2.Pakistan would develop submarine launched cruise missile i.e Babur cruise missile & CJ-10k in their future chinese Type 39B submarine ,which would give them sea based nuke deterrence & would ensure the survivability of its nuclear deterrent
> 
> 
> 
> 3.Pakistan would produce more number of ballistic missiles & has increased production of nuclear fissile material like plutonium used for nuke bombs,so that it
> would overwhelm india ABM shield ,by firing more missiles towards india
> 
> 
> 4.Pakistan would use of decoys (e.g., lightweight mylar balloons which, until re-entry, will travel on an identical trajectory with the heavier warheads), use of ablative materials or reflective coatings which limit the damage of directed energy weapons, launches of numerous harmless missiles early in an attack which might cause the defender reveal his defenses and expend valuable resources
> 
> 5.Pakistan could acquire anti satellite weapon or jammers from chinato confuse indias satellites,which also play a key role in Indias anti ballistic missile shield
> 
> 
> 6.Pakistan would rely more on cruise missiles like stealthy RAAD & babur for nuke deterrent they are harder to detect due to their lower radar cross-signature, low-level navigation,and use of waypoints to circumvent more secure and heavily defended areas.
> 
> 
> 7.Pakistan would seek help from from Beijing for high-altitude and anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defenses through HQ-9/ FD2000 deal
> 
> 
> 8.Pakistan would target indias BMD Radar through long range anti radiation missile like brazilian MER-1 anti radiation missile
> 
> 9.Pakistan could pursue hypersonic missile technology if they are ready to afford it.
> 
> 10.Last but not least Pakistan could 1st strike ,as it fears if india 1st strike then their majority nuke detterent might be destroyed & rest if survive would be destroyed by indias ABM shield
> 
> *PLEASE NOTE*
> this are all my personal assumption ,well anyone having any better ideas apart from this can post
> REGARDS


 By the time pakistan develops above systems, India shall have High altitude interceptor , Laser and Kali 50000 or 10000 and Durga in place to shoot down any incoming missile.



fatman17 said:


> Does IN have a ABM system deployed?




Short range missile Yes.

Medium range missile No.



Sana Khan Asad said:


> Will the 8 GRC bought for Coast Guards?




Are you a lady?


----------



## Immanuel

The SC said:


> Actually India has enough fissile material to make around 2000 bombs, China made sure it is in par with India...plus Hydrogen bombs.
> Remember that just 2 two nuclear bombs made japan surrender and sign an armistice. You can have a thousand nuclear bombs which real role is not to be nuclear bombed or deterrence.
> And, if India has no ABM system yet, what is the purpose of this thread?



Atheria brings up N-tipped Babur, well Babur can be shot down, Akash/ Barak can shoot down such missiles. Also with Spyder ADS network coming up in numbers along with the Akash, the Babur will not be able to penetrate the defenses which only get more impregnable. Nasr and IRBMs need the Endo interceptors to be deployed widely which will happen soon enough.


----------



## انگریز

Marv is the way to go


----------



## Jaci

DrSomnath999 said:


> 1.Pakistan would develop , multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs)& maneuverable warheads through SHAHEEN3 BM & also future BM
> 
> 
> 2.Pakistan would develop submarine launched cruise missile i.e Babur cruise missile & CJ-10k in their future chinese Type 39B submarine ,which would give them sea based nuke deterrence & would ensure the survivability of its nuclear deterrent
> 
> 
> 
> 3.Pakistan would produce more number of ballistic missiles & has increased production of nuclear fissile material like plutonium used for nuke bombs,so that it
> would overwhelm india ABM shield ,by firing more missiles towards india
> 
> 
> 4.Pakistan would use of decoys (e.g., lightweight mylar balloons which, until re-entry, will travel on an identical trajectory with the heavier warheads), use of ablative materials or reflective coatings which limit the damage of directed energy weapons, launches of numerous harmless missiles early in an attack which might cause the defender reveal his defenses and expend valuable resources
> 
> 5.Pakistan could acquire anti satellite weapon or jammers from chinato confuse indias satellites,which also play a key role in Indias anti ballistic missile shield
> 
> 
> 6.Pakistan would rely more on cruise missiles like stealthy RAAD & babur for nuke deterrent they are harder to detect due to their lower radar cross-signature, low-level navigation,and use of waypoints to circumvent more secure and heavily defended areas.
> 
> 
> 7.Pakistan would seek help from from Beijing for high-altitude and anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defenses through HQ-9/ FD2000 deal
> 
> 
> 8.Pakistan would target indias BMD Radar through long range anti radiation missile like brazilian MER-1 anti radiation missile
> 
> 9.Pakistan could pursue hypersonic missile technology if they are ready to afford it.
> 
> 10.Last but not least Pakistan could 1st strike ,as it fears if india 1st strike then their majority nuke detterent might be destroyed & rest if survive would be destroyed by indias ABM shield
> 
> *PLEASE NOTE*
> this are all my personal assumption ,well anyone having any better ideas apart from this can post
> REGARDS


Its a good post and you have made some very good points but mirv is the most importent one and i dont think mirv is going to be available anytime soon.



انگریز said:


> Marv is the way to go



what is MARV?


----------



## kurup

Jaci said:


> what is MARV?



Maneuverable Re-entry Vehicle .

Maneuverable reentry vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Shan-e-ibrahim

by launching 50 missiles at once


----------



## zahidiqbalrana

technology compete technology... I hope we can do this


----------



## al_asad_al_mulk

zahidiqbalrana said:


> technology compete technology... I hope we can do this


Pakistan using depressed ballistic trajectory to avoid ABM system and as per now all of our missile have MARV so problem solved no need to worry about India inferior ABM tech.


----------



## parkour guy

Instead we can send ssg having laser designator to lock missile and anF16on its way to destroy the ABM ...
And we can send babar missile to destroy the target...I am sure one of my suggestions would work.


----------



## al_asad_al_mulk

parkour guy said:


> Instead we can send ssg having laser designator to lock missile and anF16on its way to destroy the ABM ...
> And we can send babar missile to destroy the target...I am sure one of my suggestions would work.


Quite interesting but now need to send anything before launching missiles bcaz nuclear strike should be a big secret to avoid strike from the enemy of same kind our missile can handle ABM. Further we have have ra'ad and babur to counter ABm system of any kind.


----------



## Hurshid Celebi

And SOM , I believe ?


----------



## Blue Marlin

Horus said:


> Technology is evolving fast , it just would be a matter of time when Pakistan would have high end - long range - super/hypersonic - Stealth cruise missiles carrying TNs with multiple erector launchpads to defeat the ABMs.
> 
> As for the Ballistic Missiles , new generation of them ones are in planning all over the world and the focus is on how to defeat the AMB and DEWs - CIWS etc. Pakistan surely will get its piece of the pie.


Did you know the shaheen 1A is already hypersonic !


----------



## MMG

Most of the information interesting... what is the magnitude of indian 1st strike capacity? and I think you forgot the role of PAF Bombers... the nukes launched from STEALTH 5th GEN Bombers could alway break through ABS. What bomber do pakistan posses at present?


----------



## al_asad_al_mulk

Sykox said:


> Most of the information interesting... what is the magnitude of indian 1st strike capacity? and I think you forgot the role of PAF Bombers... the nukes launched from STEALTH 5th GEN Bombers could alway break through ABS. What bomber do pakistan posses at present?


For nuclear Strike by Jets Pakistan have f-16 and Mirage 5 rose but after induction of JF-17 may be assign this role in 80s Pakistan practice toss bombing using F-16 and A-5.


----------



## MMG

Thanks for the info. F-16 are good but not very good as shown by the history and I thinks India too uses Mirage Bombers... I thinks those are reliable, decades old, fail safe any time you dont have anything else  ha ha... But yes JF-17 may change the game

I Believe countering JF-17 could be India's FGFA or PAKFA?


----------



## ZAC1

if pakistan lauch a missile and india ABM detects and destroys it ,i think an emp is going to be generated,all systems are then black out ,the following missiles from pakistan will work.this is what i think


----------



## Mrc

Cruise missile in initiall wave will destroy cities and abm protecting them....bm closely follow for a wipe out


----------



## ZAC1

there are alot of ways to defeat india's ABM tech


----------



## ZAC1

one atomic warhead blast 30 km from above the ground will blackout 70 % india the following missile will do the job .Emp

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Basel

blue marlin said:


> Did you know the shaheen 1A is already hypersonic !



If people remember Shaheen Missile was first tested as alternative of CMs as at that time Pakistan was not in possession of CM tech. It was not even a ballistic missile at that time, it was meant to be very fast missile with low to medium flying path.


----------



## shaheenmissile

Basel said:


> If people remember Shaheen Missile was first tested as alternative of CMs as at that time Pakistan was not in possession of CM tech. It was not even a ballistic missile at that time, it was meant to be very fast missile with low to medium flying path.


You should read about Ballistic and cruise missiles.

Definition of Cruise missile. A missile completing its course on engine power all the way. (Engine never shuts down)

Definition of Ballistic missile . A missile traveling on Ballistic path using initial push by engines and earth's gravity (Engine shuts down after some time.)


----------



## Basel

shaheenmissile said:


> You should read about Ballistic and cruise missiles.
> 
> Definition of Cruise missile. *A missile completing its course on engine power all the way. (Engine never shuts down)*
> 
> Definition of Ballistic missile . A missile traveling on Ballistic path using initial push by engines and earth's gravity (Engine shuts down after some time.)



I think you need to read about them instead of me because bold part just shows level of your knowledge.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pindi Boy



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## parkour guy

usama fiaz said:


> View attachment 256366


Pakistan getting aip submarines from china..and a report said that these submarines would be brought to karachi and assembled there and pakistan would fit it's own weapons onto to...so it makes clear that pakistan has sophisticated sea launched ballistic or guides missiles that will be used onto submarines.


----------



## Pindi Boy

View attachment 256366



parkour guy said:


> Pakistan getting aip submarines from china..and a report said that these submarines would be brought to karachi and assembled there and pakistan would fit it's own weapons onto to...so it makes clear that pakistan has sophisticated sea launched ballistic or guides missiles that will be used onto submarines.


i mean how will u defend our land from brahmos nirbhay and other


----------



## amardeep mishra

The Deterrent said:


> Aksah is India's first attempt on a SAM,and suddenly it becomes a tactical ABM.



Akash is not a tactical ABM for christ sake! It is as you correctly pointed out, India's first attempt at making a medium ranged SAM,and it shouldn't surprise that they tried to copy a proven design(or atleast parts of it)-SA6.
The guidance and control and control radar is entirely Indian dIndianigned right from DMPS(dual mode ferrite phase shifters) to TWT.
One of the requirements of ABM radar system is very high pulse repetition frequency- something that our rajendra lacks.Not to mention the fact that it's range is severely limited to just 100kms(after all it was designed more than 25 years back!). More recently designed Indian AESA radars have a range of 400kms against a 2m^2 RCS.
Lastly I'd like to point out that no country shares their painstaking research with any other country. For instance Russia never helped india overcome various types of Combustion instabilities that we were facing in the development of CE-12(India's first attempt at designing a cryogenic engine,circa 1987-gas generator cycle).
Umpteen number of problems crop up when one get down to design a system or even tinker it especially when that phenomenon is less known.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## shahriyar haq

Ww


amardeep mishra said:


> Akash is not a tactical ABM for christ sake! It is as you correctly pointed out, India's first attempt at making a medium ranged SAM,and it shouldn't surprise that they tried to copy a proven design(or atleast parts of it)-SA6.
> The guidance and control and control radar is entirely Indian dIndianigned right from DMPS(dual mode ferrite phase shifters) to TWT.
> One of the requirements of ABM radar system is very high pulse repetition frequency- something that our rajendra lacks.Not to mention the fact that it's range is severely limited to just 100kms(after all it was designed more than 25 years back!). More recently designed Indian AESA radars have a range of 400kms against a 2m^2 RCS.
> Lastly I'd like to point out that no country shares their painstaking research with any other country. For instance Russia never helped india overcome various types of Combustion instabilities that we were facing in the development of CE-12(India's first attempt at designing a cryogenic engine,circa 1987-gas generator cycle).
> Umpteen number of problems crop up when one get down to design a system or even tinker it especially when that phenomenon is less known.[/QUOTE

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amardeep mishra

One major factor is the lack of an active seeker in akash, it'll find it extremely difficult to intercept targets at anything more than perhaps mach 3! One OnereThatsason why it can never be used in ABM role.
PAD/AAD/PDV on other hand have active seekers(IIR and RF) that coupled with a very advanced radar- swordfish can intercept IRBMs and ICBMs

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## shahriyar haq

Pakistan will likely work on a number of options viz;MIRVs,decoys,SLBMs,or a hypersonic missile vehicle.Regardless of what it posses out of these, it will certainly develope the capabilities to ensure deterrence stability. In my opinion,ABMs achievement is that it has further led to arms race by jeopardising strategic stability.


----------



## zebra7

amardeep mishra said:


> One major factor is the lack of an active seeker in akash, it'll find it extremely difficult to intercept targets at anything more than perhaps mach 3! One OnereThatsason why it can never be used in ABM role.
> PAD/AAD/PDV on other hand have active seekers(IIR and RF) that coupled with a very advanced radar- swordfish can intercept IRBMs and ICBMs


Good but Akash can be deployed in the lower level and to intercept cruise missile. 
PAD/PDV don't you think its just a technology demostrator because it is using prithvi airframe.
Swordfish Radar how many have been bought and how many do you think is the requirement for the safegaurd of India and don't you think that they are just the targetting radar and not meant for the surveillance radar ?
When did PAD/AAD/PDV is operationally deployed ?


----------



## Muhammad Jabran

Great Informative


----------



## ice_man

what is the reaction time to of an ABM in a pakistan vs india scenario.

our land masses are joined unlike the soviet union and USA


----------



## HRK




----------



## crictimw

I think Pakistan should talk on table with India.


----------



## ghazi52



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## asimnabeel0

Indians have mastered the art of Farting without Fighting.


----------



## Cool_Soldier

That is very much clear, MIRV tech can counter ABM tech.
But to me issue is how Pakistan can counter enemy missiles as we do not have ABM Tech yet.

We can hit and we are ready to be hit.


----------



## GumNaam

the s400s and s300s could not intercept subsonic cruise missiles in Syria. the super duper thaad couldn't intercept north Korean missiles streaking through Japanese airspace. 

india's abm ain't gonna posse a problem. don't worry.


----------



## rocketman0409

asimnabeel0 said:


> Indians have mastered the art of Farting without Fighting.


 
who wants to fight when farting is enough 

On a serious note I don't think any sane person like me wants a war. i want development of our people, our country, people out of poverty. I want my children to have the best education and grow more than me and become good citizens and human beings. 

i would think even average pakistani also wants the same. The countries should reach a compromise on Kashmir and focus on development.

all people should understand that if 4 wars have not solved anything for Pakistani's, 5th one will also not solve any issue.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S.Y.A

rocketman0409 said:


> who wants to fight when farting is enough
> 
> On a serious note I don't think any sane person like me wants a war. i want development of our people, our country, people out of poverty. I want my children to have the best education and grow more than me and become good citizens and human beings.
> 
> i would think even average pakistani also wants the same. *The countries should reach a compromise on Kashmir and focus on development.*
> 
> all people should understand that if 4 wars have not solved anything for Pakistani's, 5th one will also not solve any issue.


and what does the average Indian feels about the said compromise? how should the matter be decided?


----------



## rocketman0409

rocketman0409 said:


> who wants to fight when farting is enough
> 
> On a serious note I don't think any sane person like me wants a war. i want development of our people, our country, people out of poverty. I want my children to have the best education and grow more than me and become good citizens and human beings.
> 
> i would think even average pakistani also wants the same. The countries should reach a compromise on Kashmir and focus on development.
> 
> all people should understand that if 4 wars have not solved anything for Pakistani's, 5th one will also not solve any issue.





S.Y.A said:


> and what does the average Indian feels about the said compromise? how should the matter be decided?



Yes I think many Indian's will be ok with some kind of compromise solution. but Pakistani establishment has to tone down it's confrontational attitude. The same is true for the Indian media and some right wing people as well, they have to look at Pakistan as a neighbour and not as a enemy.


----------



## Vijyes Yechury

GumNaam said:


> the s400s and s300s could not intercept subsonic cruise missiles in Syria. the super duper thaad couldn't intercept north Korean missiles streaking through Japanese airspace.
> 
> india's abm ain't gonna posse a problem. don't worry.



Japanese did not intercept the missile because it was flying way over japan and into the ocean. Ballistic missile at 300km+ height is difficult to intercept. Anti Ballistic missiles are point defense system.

Cruise missiles were not intercepted because USA had pre warned Russia of the missile and hence they ignored.

If there is one type of missile which is the easiest to intercept, it is subsonic cruise missile. They are damn slow and any SAM can intercept it with great accuracy. Interception of planes is easier.



rocketman0409 said:


> who wants to fight when farting is enough
> 
> On a serious note I don't think any sane person like me wants a war. i want development of our people, our country, people out of poverty. I want my children to have the best education and grow more than me and become good citizens and human beings.
> 
> i would think even average pakistani also wants the same. The countries should reach a compromise on Kashmir and focus on development.
> 
> all people should understand that if 4 wars have not solved anything for Pakistani's, 5th one will also not solve any issue.



You see, we don't need useless people who call themselves educated but do nothing good. If you are educated and are not involved in defence manufacturing, then for me you are a waste body who is wasting the resource of everyone else.

There are pretty much 3 choice -
1. Fight on my side against my enemy
2. Fight on my enemy's side against me
3. Fight against both me and my enemy by being enemies with both.

You will not be permitted to use the resources of the society and then backstab by acting in selfish manner as if only you and your family matter. You consume food, clothing and goods made by the society and you must pay back. If you don't stand for something, then your life is waste and it is better for everyone that you don't live at all. If you want your children's safety, you better destroy one side completely. You can only choose the side and not whether you want war or not.

The four wars were limited wars and not full scale war. So, don't draw unnecessary conclusions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rocketman0409

Vijyes Yechury said:


> Japanese did not intercept the missile because it was flying way over japan and into the ocean. Ballistic missile at 300km+ height is difficult to intercept. Anti Ballistic missiles are point defense system.
> 
> Cruise missiles were not intercepted because USA had pre warned Russia of the missile and hence they ignored.
> 
> If there is one type of missile which is the easiest to intercept, it is subsonic cruise missile. They are damn slow and any SAM can intercept it with great accuracy. Interception of planes is easier.
> 
> 
> 
> You see, we don't need useless people who call themselves educated but do nothing good. If you are educated and are not involved in defence manufacturing, then for me you are a waste body who is wasting the resource of everyone else.
> 
> There are pretty much 3 choice -
> 1. Fight on my side against my enemy
> 2. Fight on my enemy's side against me
> 3. Fight against both me and my enemy by being enemies with both.
> 
> You will not be permitted to use the resources of the society and then backstab by acting in selfish manner as if only you and your family matter. You consume food, clothing and goods made by the society and you must pay back. If you don't stand for something, then your life is waste and it is better for everyone that you don't live at all. If you want your children's safety, you better destroy one side completely. You can only choose the side and not whether you want war or not.
> 
> The four wars were limited wars and not full scale war. So, don't draw unnecessary conclusions.




Mr Yechury. I don't know what qualifies you to lecture me this. As a person i am free and have right to my opinions. 

For your information, My family background demonstrates illustrious service to nation. My father was part of India airforce (joined in 1960 at age of 17) and has fought three wars from frontline airbases in Jaisalmer. My uncle who retired as a colonel was part of the expeditionary force which captured siachin in the 1980s. I myself was qualified for SSB. If there is a real needed nobody is saying that they will no support the war effort. 

My opinion is simply that we have build enough deterrence, and strong economy to support a strong nation. Just because you keyboard warriors want to go to far, feel free to do it on internet 



rocketman0409 said:


> Mr Yechury. I don't know what qualifies you to lecture me this. As a person i am free and have right to my opinions.
> 
> For your information, My family background demonstrates illustrious service to nation. My father was part of India airforce (joined in 1960 at age of 17) and has fought three wars from frontline airbases like Bhuj,Jaisalmer and Jammu. My uncle who retired as a colonel was part of the expeditionary force which captured siachin in the 1980s. I myself was qualified for SSB. If there is a real needed nobody is saying that they will no support the war effort.
> 
> My opinion is simply that we have build enough deterrence, and strong economy to support a strong nation. Just because you keyboard warriors want to go to far, feel free to do it on internet

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hassan Guy

i think we need bigger bombs


----------



## Mrc

Hassan Guy said:


> i think we need bigger bombs




Ss 28 sermat (Satan 2) ... 40 mega tonnes in single missile enough to destroy France in a single hit
Russian answere to ABM... u just have to miss one...

I agree ... bigger bombs are one answer


----------



## Vijyes Yechury

rocketman0409 said:


> Mr Yechury. I don't know what qualifies you to lecture me this. As a person i am free and have right to my opinions.
> 
> For your information, My family background demonstrates illustrious service to nation. My father was part of India airforce (joined in 1960 at age of 17) and has fought three wars from frontline airbases in Jaisalmer. My uncle who retired as a colonel was part of the expeditionary force which captured siachin in the 1980s. I myself was qualified for SSB. If there is a real needed nobody is saying that they will no support the war effort.
> 
> My opinion is simply that we have build enough deterrence, and strong economy to support a strong nation. Just because you keyboard warriors want to go to far, feel free to do it on internet



As I told you, economy and education are for applying in real life. Your illustrious background is actually retarded one. You did not fight for a cause but for money.


----------



## rocketman0409

Vijyes Yechury said:


> As I told you, economy and education are for applying in real life. Your illustrious background is actually retarded one. You did not fight for a cause but for money.



I don't know what is your point, but i will leave it at that.....


----------



## ziaulislam

شاھین میزایل said:


> This thread should be closed now. Pakistan has already made Indian ABM irrelevant with Ababeel.


there is no functioning ABM anyway with India
unless it buys THAAD there is no counter measures
ababeel has even negated that


----------



## Vijyes Yechury

ziaulislam said:


> there is no functioning ABM anyway with India
> unless it buys THAAD there is no counter measures
> ababeel has even negated that



Making BMD involves decades of development and advanced radar, seekers etc. India will be capable of making them by 2025. India has completed phase 1 of BMD system and is now in phase 2. Phase 2 will be the real BMD system capable of intercepting most short range missiles and some medium range missiles. Ababeel can also be intercepted. The longer range ones are generally faster and hence difficult to intercept but not impossible.

Nevertheless, the babur missile has become a waste with the SAM systems like Akash, QRSAM, Barak-8 (which will soon get indigenous seeker and hence be completely indian). 

The ABABEEL launch is easily detected by surveillance as it is a big missile.


----------



## ziaulislam

Vijyes Yechury said:


> Making BMD involves decades of development and advanced radar, seekers etc. India will be capable of making them by 2025. India has completed phase 1 of BMD system and is now in phase 2. Phase 2 will be the real BMD system capable of intercepting most short range missiles and some medium range missiles. Ababeel can also be intercepted. The longer range ones are generally faster and hence difficult to intercept but not impossible.
> 
> Nevertheless, the babur missile has become a waste with the SAM systems like Akash, QRSAM, Barak-8 (which will soon get indigenous seeker and hence be completely indian).
> 
> The ABABEEL launch is easily detected by surveillance as it is a big missile.


it shows you dont even have fundamental understanding of blastic missles
please see some youtube videos on MRV 
everyone can see a launch thats not the point intercepting it is


----------



## Vijyes Yechury

ziaulislam said:


> it shows you dont even have fundamental understanding of blastic missles
> please see some youtube videos on MRV
> everyone can see a launch thats not the point intercepting it is



I never said that detection is same as interception. I just said that launching bog missiles will involve big preparation which can be seen by drones, satellite surveillance before it is launched.


----------



## dilpakistani

the best option is to launch relays first ... they will exhaust the ABM capability and then follow it with a barrage of missiles salvo. ABM ability even if fully implemented will be a false sense of security. We are not houtie tribes man who will fire one or two systems...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vijyes Yechury

dilpakistani said:


> the best option is to launch relays first ... they will exhaust the ABM capability and then follow it with a barrage of missiles salvo. ABM ability even if fully implemented will be a false sense of security. We are not houtie tribes man who will fire one or two systems...



I hope you understand that as soon as India detects even one launch, it will launch all its missiles at once. India has extensive radar surveillance that can extend to over 600km. A 2000 km radar is also in development. 

If your idea is to take out BMD system by firing decoys, that won't matter as India would have retaliated. BMD is only to stop a surprise attack to give enough time to react. Once surprise is lost, Pakistan won't be able to fire another missile before massive retaliation from India.

Why do you think you will be allowed to fire decoys, then fire next round of missiles? 

Also, ABM has lower range than a ballistic missile and hence one launcher can carry more ABM than BM. If Pakistan can get 100 BM firing transport erector launcher (which can fire one MRBM), India needs 20 BMD launcher that will fire 5 missiles each. Even here, BMD has advantages over BM.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dalit

An ABM system is virtually ineffective in the Pakistan India scenario.

Pakistan is prepared for all outcomes and continues to take appropriate measures to tackle them. Pakistan has adequate firepower to respond in a manner which will cut all limbs of the enemy. Everything else is just talk.



dilpakistani said:


> the best option is to launch relays first ... they will exhaust the ABM capability and then follow it with a barrage of missiles salvo. ABM ability even if fully implemented will be a false sense of security. We are not houtie tribes man who will fire one or two systems...



It is a false sense of security. Especially in the Pak India scenario. India can never meet the prerequisites needed for setting up an effective ABM system.

Having said that, we need to remain vigilant and continue to work on dismantling Indian designs. Just like the Cold Start doctrine was put to rest with the induction of Nasr. We need to bo innovative and put technology to good use.


----------



## BHarwana

countering ABM is very simple Pakistan should make unguided Ballistic missiles. Some thing like katyusha rocket of Hezbollah. Use these unguided rockets to serve as decoys for an actual strike. 
Secondly the most proven strategy against ABM comes from one of the poorest country in middle east Yemen. There is a big lesson to learn from Yemen like the way Yemeni Houthis used home made self destruct drones to attack ABM systems and then launch Ballistic missiles after wards.


----------



## Cookie Monster

Vijyes Yechury said:


> I hope you understand that as soon as India detects even one launch, it will launch all its missiles at once. India has extensive radar surveillance that can extend to over 600km. A 2000 km radar is also in development.
> 
> If your idea is to take out BMD system by firing decoys, that won't matter as India would have retaliated. BMD is only to stop a surprise attack to give enough time to react. Once surprise is lost, Pakistan won't be able to fire another missile before massive retaliation from India.
> 
> Why do you think you will be allowed to fire decoys, then fire next round of missiles?
> 
> Also, ABM has lower range than a ballistic missile and hence one launcher can carry more ABM than BM. If Pakistan can get 100 BM firing transport erector launcher (which can fire one MRBM), India needs 20 BMD launcher that will fire 5 missiles each. Even here, BMD has advantages over BM.


Dude quit talking about BMD systems like you know how they work. Look at the math u did...u think a BMD system's 20 launchers with 5 missiles each will take care of 100 incoming ballistic missiles? That's not how it works. First u r assuming a 100% success rate in hitting all of those...no BMD system in the world has that kind of a success rate. Secondly modern ballistic missiles have the capability(in view of BMD systems) to do maneuvers that makes it harder to predict their trajectory.

Last but not least as u claim in ur posts above that India can detect a missile at launch...that doesn't help India in any way. Once a missile is launched u have very little time to detect its trajectory and fire before it is able to reach the upper atmosphere and deploy its warhead for reentry. India's only chance is to destroy it upon reentry...and if the missile happens to be MIRV with decoys then the chance of successfully destroying the actual warheads lowers even more. The solution would be to launch multiple interceptors in order to try to get them all and with all those interceptor missiles u just successfully destroyed one MIRV ballistic missile...that's how saturation happens...there would be more targets(warheads) on the radar than the interceptors available.

As for ur claim that Babur has become a waste bcuz of BMD systems...all I can say is go read up on how BMD systems work. They are hardly effective against cruise missiles bcuz cruise missiles don't follow a predictable ballistic trajectory. Additionally Babur is designed to be stealthy and can travel in terrain hugging mode in which case the radar would most likely not be able to detect it against the background.

In conclusion it's good to have BMD systems as compared to not having them at all but to think that u r 100% safe now that u have them is idiotic. If worst comes to worst and a nuclear exchange does happen between India/Pak it would destroy both countries even with India's BMD capability.


----------



## Vijyes Yechury

BHarwana said:


> countering ABM is very simple Pakistan should make unguided Ballistic missiles. Some thing like katyusha rocket of Hezbollah. Use these unguided rockets to serve as decoys for an actual strike.
> Secondly the most proven strategy against ABM comes from one of the poorest country in middle east Yemen. There is a big lesson to learn from Yemen like the way Yemeni Houthis used home made self destruct drones to attack ABM systems and then launch Ballistic missiles after wards.



Most of the area is rural. Unguided ballistic missiles will end up in some field or forest and kill some cows and deers. 



Cookie Monster said:


> Dude quit talking about BMD systems like you know how they work. Look at the math u did...u think a BMD system's 20 launchers with 5 missiles each will take care of 100 incoming ballistic missiles? That's not how it works. First u r assuming a 100% success rate in hitting all of those...no BMD system in the world has that kind of a success rate. Secondly modern ballistic missiles have the capability(in view of BMD systems) to do maneuvers that makes it harder to predict their trajectory.
> 
> Last but not least as u claim in ur posts above that India can detect a missile at launch...that doesn't help India in any way. Once a missile is launched u have very little time to detect its trajectory and fire before it is able to reach the upper atmosphere and deploy its warhead for reentry. India's only chance is to destroy it upon reentry...and if the missile happens to be MIRV with decoys then the chance of successfully destroying the actual warheads lowers even more. The solution would be to launch multiple interceptors in order to try to get them all and with all those interceptor missiles u just successfully destroyed one MIRV ballistic missile...that's how saturation happens...there would be more targets(warheads) on the radar than the interceptors available.
> 
> As for ur claim that Babur has become a waste bcuz of BMD systems...all I can say is go read up on how BMD systems work. They are hardly effective against cruise missiles bcuz cruise missiles don't follow a predictable ballistic trajectory. Additionally Babur is designed to be stealthy and can travel in terrain hugging mode in which case the radar would most likely not be able to detect it against the background.
> 
> In conclusion it's good to have BMD systems as compared to not having them at all but to think that u r 100% safe now that u have them is idiotic. If worst comes to worst and a nuclear exchange does happen between India/Pak it would destroy both countries even with India's BMD capability.



First, let me clear the cruise missile part-
Babur is waste not becayse of BMD but because of SAM and BVRAAM. All subsonic cruise missiles are far inferior to an aeroplane which can travel at over 1Mach speed and can maneuver much more than a cruise missile. If a SAM can take out a plane, it can take out Babur with 5 times the ease. India had SAMs like Akash, BARAK-8, QRSAM and also has BVRAAM ASTRA to take out subsonic missiles like a plane takes down another plane.

Now, about Ballistic Missile -

Lets take a scenario- Pakistan launches 100 BM from lahore towards Delhi. India immediately detects the launch and before the missiles reach India, a massive counter attack will be launched. 

Next, people will be asked to go inside heavy concrete houses or buildings in the city to reduce damage. And jammers to jam the satellite signals of GPS, Beidou, Glonass and Galileo will be deployed extensively. Since Pakistan doesn't have access to military grade location and guidance system due to lack of satellite constellation, it won't be able to guide its missile in a jamproof manner

Next, the missile won't be intercepted in launch stage as there is too little time. But, India will then try to intercept in exo-atmosphere with theatre defence systems. Few will be destroyed while most will continue.

Finally, point defence BMD systems to attack the incoming missiles at reentry stage will be fired. The probability of success for short range missiles under 500km will be over 75% due to slower speed. But, for MRBM, it is about 50% or less. Generally, a BMD launcher can launch 4-5 missiles. Depending on the number of launchers available, the ratio of ABM to BM can vary. A large number of warheads will be neutralised while some will strike the targets.

Due to precautions taken of getting people inside the house, jamming the guidance and destroying over half the warheads, the damage is significantly reduced. On the other hand, immediate detection of launch and retaliation, Pakistan won't be able to fire a second wave.

Next, it comes down to who can withstand the damage of the first wave strike and still continue. This depends on technology levels to mass produce equipment to cover the losses and most importantly, food supply (India is food grain surplus and area under other crops like sugarcane, cotton, banana etc can be diverted into food grain production). So on....


----------



## $@rJen

Cookie Monster said:


> Dude quit talking about BMD systems like you know how they work. Look at the math u did...u think a BMD system's 20 launchers with 5 missiles each will take care of 100 incoming ballistic missiles? That's not how it works. First u r assuming a 100% success rate in hitting all of those...no BMD system in the world has that kind of a success rate. Secondly modern ballistic missiles have the capability(in view of BMD systems) to do maneuvers that makes it harder to predict their trajectory.
> 
> Last but not least as u claim in ur posts above that India can detect a missile at launch...that doesn't help India in any way. Once a missile is launched u have very little time to detect its trajectory and fire before it is able to reach the upper atmosphere and deploy its warhead for reentry. India's only chance is to destroy it upon reentry...and if the missile happens to be MIRV with decoys then the chance of successfully destroying the actual warheads lowers even more. The solution would be to launch multiple interceptors in order to try to get them all and with all those interceptor missiles u just successfully destroyed one MIRV ballistic missile...that's how saturation happens...there would be more targets(warheads) on the radar than the interceptors available.
> 
> As for ur claim that Babur has become a waste bcuz of BMD systems...all I can say is go read up on how BMD systems work. They are hardly effective against cruise missiles bcuz cruise missiles don't follow a predictable ballistic trajectory. Additionally Babur is designed to be stealthy and can travel in terrain hugging mode in which case the radar would most likely not be able to detect it against the background.
> 
> In conclusion it's good to have BMD systems as compared to not having them at all but to think that u r 100% safe now that u have them is idiotic. If worst comes to worst and a nuclear exchange does happen between India/Pak it would destroy both countries even with India's BMD capability.



Wow... Did you really say you're going to launch 100 BM in a Go??? 
I guess you did

Its time to get off the chair, take a rest from gaming


----------



## Vijyes Yechury

Some nuclear test results-










It shows that first strike of nuclear bombs are quite insignificant to destroy everything completely. So, more than just detonation of few warheads is needed for massive destruction.

Please note that Indians don't use wooden houses. Even the poor reside in some form of brick/mud houses. Wooden houses are bad for protection against bombs. Thanks to high population, wood is too costly in India and hence more and more people are giving up wooden houses or even houses with tile roof. I guess, it is same in Pakistan, Iran etc where wood is expensive.

Interestingly, USA people mostly use wooden houses and hence are more likely to suffer greater damage in nuclear strike. Japanese also suffered heavily in Hiroshima and Nagasaki due to wooden houses.


----------



## BHarwana

Vijyes Yechury said:


> Most of the area is rural. Unguided ballistic missiles will end up in some field or forest and kill some cows and deers.


ABM will always target in terminal phase thus it will never know which BM is guided or unguided. S-400 is designed for the terminal Phase so there is glitch that can be exploited lol. Noob


----------



## Cookie Monster

Vijyes Yechury said:


> First, let me clear the cruise missile part-
> Babur is waste not becayse of BMD but because of SAM and BVRAAM. All subsonic cruise missiles are far inferior to an aeroplane which can travel at over 1Mach speed and can maneuver much more than a cruise missile. If a SAM can take out a plane, it can take out Babur with 5 times the ease. India had SAMs like Akash, BARAK-8, QRSAM and also has BVRAAM ASTRA to take out subsonic missiles like a plane takes down another plane.


In order to take out a plane or an incoming missile with a SAM system u have to first detect it. Planes are a lot easier to detect for the radar bcuz they fly at higher altitudes. A stealth cruise missile that flies at subsonic speeds while flying low(in terrain hugging mode) is among one of the hardest things to detect for a radar. But in any case u r welcome to believe what u wish.


Vijyes Yechury said:


> Now, about Ballistic Missile -
> 
> Lets take a scenario- Pakistan launches 100 BM from lahore towards Delhi. India immediately detects the launch and before the missiles reach India, a massive counter attack will be launched.


U r wrong from the get go. Neither Pak nor India will fire just a 100 missiles on one city. This isn't a teaser trailer. Both countries know that they are nuclear powers. If it comes to exchanging blows in a nuclear event...they would both go all out in the first round bcuz they know what would be coming their way in response. Again...there wouldn't be a scenario where Pak fires a 100 missiles at Delhi and waits to see what happens next. Both countries will either not go nuclear in the event of a war or if they do then they will go all out in the very first attempt not expecting to survive the enemy's response.



Vijyes Yechury said:


> Next, people will be asked to go inside heavy concrete houses or buildings in the city to reduce damage. And jammers to jam the satellite signals of GPS, Beidou, Glonass and Galileo will be deployed extensively. Since Pakistan doesn't have access to military grade location and guidance system due to lack of satellite constellation, it won't be able to guide its missile in a jamproof manner


First, I highly doubt ur claims about India having such jamming capability to be able to jam multiple frequencies for all these systems like GPS, GLONASS, Beidou and Galileo. Do provide me with sources on which u r basing these claims.

Secondly if we entertain this utter BS...
Tell me how would India extend these Jammers' range throughout Pak territory? So unless India can accomplish that...on Pak's side the missile will operate just fine and Pak would be able to launch.

Or are u saying that these jammers would only be deployed on the Indian side to jam the targeting ability of incoming Pak missiles? In that case it will also wreak havoc on Indian systems in the jammed zones that use GPS/GLONASS(keep in mind that ur own system IRNSS wouldn't become operational until next year).

Also there is such a thing as inertial guidance/terrestrial guidance/celestial guidance/astro-inertial guidance etc. These types of guidance systems don't rely on any external input from other systems(like GPS) for positioning. For example celestial guidance/astro-inertial guidance is used in SLBMs(for second strike capability). In case of Pak, Babur can use terrestrial guidance like TERCOM(Terrain Contour Matching) and DSMAC(Digitized Scene-Mapping Area Correlator) along with inertial navigation.

Next time just keep it simple and don't invent things like jamming GPS signals without backing up ur claims.



Vijyes Yechury said:


> Next, and the missile won't be intercepted in launch stage as there is too little time. But, India will then try to intercept in exo-atmosphere with theatre defence systems. Few will be destroyed while most will continue.
> 
> Finally, point defence BMD systems to attack the incoming missiles at reentry stage will be fired. The probability of success for short range missiles under 500km will be over 75% due to slower speed. But, for MRBM, it is about 50% or less. Generally, a BMD launcher can launch 4-5 missiles. Depending on the number of launchers available, the ratio of ABM to BM can vary. A large number of warheads will be neutralised while some will strike the targets.
> 
> Due to precautions taken of getting people inside the house, jamming the guidance and destroying over half the warheads, the damage is significantly reduced. On the other hand, immediate detection of launch and retaliation, Pakistan won't be able to fire a *second wave*.


Again there would be no second wave from Pak nor a second wave from India. They would both go at it all at once bcuz they would know that there wouldn't be a second chance once the enemy responds with their missiles. U r probably getting confused here with the "second strike capability". That is a whole different thing. It doesn't mean a second wave of missiles after the first strike. It means that if by chance a country is caught off guard and all their land based missiles are destroyed by enemy's strike before they even had a chance to launch(preemptively)...they can still destroy their enemy from submarine based nuclear missiles. This is bcuz submarines are mobile and a lot harder to track. This capability is what is known as "second strike capability".


Vijyes Yechury said:


> Next, it comes down to who can withstand the damage of the first wave strike and still continue. This depends on technology levels to mass produce equipment to cover the losses and most importantly, food supply (India is food grain surplus and area under other crops like sugarcane, cotton, banana etc can be diverted into food grain production). So on....


 Nothing would grow in the entire region once a nuclear exchange happens. In fact it would adversely affect other countries' crop production as well. There was a study done that assumed just 100 Hiroshima sized bombs detonating in a nuclear exchange between India/Pak...u should read it to get an idea of how destructive that would be...and then imagine how many more nuclear weapons both countries have, which generally have bigger yields than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima

http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/fivemilliontonsofsmoke/

To sum it all up, either a nuclear war wouldn't happen between these two countries bcuz of the fears of MAD scenario. Or if it ever comes to that then both countries would go all out in the very first attempt holding nothing back. The results would be utter annihilation of the entire subcontinent regardless of if India has BMD or not. Those that wouldn't be immediately killed by the blast would suffer painfully from radiation sickness before dying. Others who survive even that would be forced to live in hell. There would be very little to no infrastructure, no electricity, lack of clean water and a shortage of food. In fact the food shortage would be so severe that the survivors would starve to death. No help will come from other countries bcuz they will also be facing food shortages and would be extra pissed at India/Pak for causing it.



sarjenprabhu said:


> Wow... Did you really say you're going to launch 100 BM in a Go???
> I guess you did
> 
> Its time to get off the chair, take a rest from gaming


Can u read or r u too stupid? I didn't say that...another low IQ Indian did. I was addressing his calculations. Here's a hint...try reading his post that I had quoted...I provided a link so u don't have to use ur pea brain
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/how-...ndias-abm-system.127894/page-56#post-10022610

 It's just one idiot after another.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vijyes Yechury

Cookie Monster said:


> In order to take out a plane or an incoming missile with a SAM system u have to first detect it. Planes are a lot easier to detect for the radar bcuz they fly at higher altitudes. A stealth cruise missile that flies at subsonic speeds while flying low(in terrain hugging mode) is among one of the hardest things to detect for a radar. But in any case u r welcome to believe what u wish.
> 
> U r wrong from the get go. Neither Pak nor India will fire just a 100 missiles on one city. This isn't a teaser trailer. Both countries know that they are nuclear powers. If it comes to exchanging blows in a nuclear event...they would both go all out in the first round bcuz they know what would be coming their way in response. Again...there wouldn't be a scenario where Pak fires a 100 missiles at Delhi and waits to see what happens next. Both countries will either not go nuclear in the event of a war or if they do then they will go all out in the very first attempt not expecting to survive the enemy's response.
> 
> 
> First, I highly doubt ur claims about India having such jamming capability to be able to jam multiple frequencies for all these systems like GPS, GLONASS, Beidou and Galileo. Do provide me with sources on which u r basing these claims.
> 
> Secondly if we entertain this utter BS...
> Tell me how would India extend these Jammers' range throughout Pak territory? So unless India can accomplish that...on Pak's side the missile will operate just fine and Pak would be able to launch.
> 
> Or are u saying that these jammers would only be deployed on the Indian side to jam the targeting ability of incoming Pak missiles? In that case it will also wreak havoc on Indian systems in the jammed zones that use GPS/GLONASS(keep in mind that ur own system IRNSS wouldn't become operational until next year).
> 
> Also there is such a thing as inertial guidance/terrestrial guidance/celestial guidance/astro-inertial guidance etc. These types of guidance systems don't rely on any external input from other systems(like GPS) for positioning. For example celestial guidance/astro-inertial guidance is used in SLBMs(for second strike capability). In case of Pak, Babur can use terrestrial guidance like TERCOM(Terrain Contour Matching) and DSMAC(Digitized Scene-Mapping Area Correlator) along with inertial navigation.
> 
> Next time just keep it simple and don't invent things like jamming GPS signals without backing up ur claims.
> 
> 
> Again there would be no second wave from Pak nor a second wave from India. They would both go at it all at once bcuz they would know that there wouldn't be a second chance once the enemy responds with their missiles. U r probably getting confused here with the "second strike capability". That is a whole different thing. It doesn't mean a second wave of missiles after the first strike. It means that if by chance a country is caught off guard and all their land based missiles are destroyed by enemy's strike before they even had a chance to launch(preemptively)...they can still destroy their enemy from submarine based nuclear missiles. This is bcuz submarines are mobile and a lot harder to track. This capability is what is known as "second strike capability".
> 
> Nothing would grow in the entire region once a nuclear exchange happens. In fact it would adversely affect other countries' crop production as well. There was a study done that assumed just 100 Hiroshima sized bombs detonating in a nuclear exchange between India/Pak...u should read it to get an idea of how destructive that would be...and then imagine how many more nuclear weapons both countries have, which generally have bigger yields than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima
> 
> To sum it all up, either a nuclear war wouldn't happen between these two countries bcuz of the fears of MAD scenario. Or if it ever comes to that then both countries would go all out in the very first attempt holding nothing back. The results would be utter annihilation of the entire subcontinent regardless of if India has BMD or not. Those that wouldn't be immediately killed by the blast would suffer painfully from radiation sickness before dying. Others who survive even that would be forced to live in hell. There would be very little to no infrastructure, no electricity, lack of clean water and a shortage of food. In fact the food shortage would be so severe that the survivors would starve to death. No help will come from other countries bcuz they will also be facing food shortages and would be extra pissed at India/Pak for causing it.
> 
> 
> Can u read or r u too stupid? I didn't say that...another low IQ Indian did. I was addressing his calculations. Here's a hint...try reading his post that I had quoted...I provided a link so u don't have to use ur pea brain
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/how-...ndias-abm-system.127894/page-56#post-10022610
> 
> It's just one idiot after another.



I will clarify about Babur once and for all -

All fighter planes can do what babur or any subsonic missile can do - fly low, fly high. Even JF17 can do that. That is also the reason why there is a big gap of several hundred metres without any construction or barrier at the border and extensive radar surveillance. The missile has to cross this gap and will be detected. Only way for a cruise missile to be undetected is by somehow vanishing or using tunnel to cross the bare border. Also, AWACS system fly high in the sky to watch over these kind of low flying objects. AWACS not only spot aerial high flying targets but also low flying ones. So, cruise missiles are a waste against SAMs. Since cruise missiles are slow, intercepting them will be very easy. So, forget using cruise missiles completely. Even HQ9 SAM can take out Indian Nirbhay missile. Cruise missiles are for SECOND wave strikes only and are very useful at that due to their accuracy under satellite guidance.

Next, Ballistic Missiles,

Yes, if there is a launch, it will be all out launch without regards to second wave. But, you are forgetting that the number of launchers that will be needed will be so huge that it will be impractical to use all missiles together. The number of missiles will always outnumber number of launchers. Also, I was countering the logic that decoys can be used to make the BMD run out if ABMs. This becomes impractical as it will unduly increase the pressure of launches. Many useless missiles have to be launched for decoy purpose which will be outright wasteful. That is why I spoke of second wave. 100 missiles per city is indeed all out war. 100 city for entire India is not what I said. I guess, you are the low IQ person to not understand it and abuse me!

Next, about jammers of satellite signals - any country can jam satellite signals easily over its territory and maybe even upto a few kilometres into neighbouring countries. India has more than a billion mobile phone users and several towers per square kilometre. Obviously, jamming a satellite signal is not an issue in today's world. It may use multiple transponders to jam all satellite signals, but it is easy. There are jamproof military grade signals available to counter just this but requires military satellite. India has IRNSS operational already. Only 1 satellite has lost its clocks but even then decent accuracy can be obtained.

Babur uses GPS. Terrain mapping is never fully accurate as distance traveled is hard to calculate. There is no wheel in babur to calculate the number of revolution and hence distance travelled. Brahmos missile had suffered disorientation similarly due to USA shutting down GPS on the day of test fire due to inaugural speech of Obama on that day

The ballistic missiles use satellite guidance or inertial guidance. Inertial guidance is highly inaccurate due to wind speed change, variable atmospheric density etc. Satellite signals can be jammed and satellite will only be capable of guiding the missile till it is in pakistani sky. Without satellite guidance, a missile merely becomes a rocket like the scud missile

Nuclear fallout is overstated. Nuclear bombs are not that great nor is it all destroying. Look how quickly Hiroshima was rebuilt. USA use tested over 250 bombs in open sky and with little effect. Also, look at the videos I posted in above comment about the effects of nuclear bombs. Nuclear bomb ia not all powerful. Even the radiation is not that great. Media simply overhyped it to avoid war and spread misinformation. The nuclear winter theory assumes that nuclear bomb will set everything on fire and cause massive smoke. Reality is that the shockwave carries 95% of energy while heat is only 5%. The shockwave will extinguish all the fire started by the heat blast. So, subcontinent will not be destroyed even if 10000 nukes of 100kT go off together


----------



## Cookie Monster

Vijyes Yechury said:


> I will clarify about Babur once and for all -
> 
> All fighter planes can do what babur or any subsonic missile can do - fly low, fly high. Even JF17 can do that. That is also the reason why there is a big gap of several hundred metres without any construction or barrier at the border and extensive radar surveillance. The missile has to cross this gap and will be detected. Only way for a cruise missile to be undetected is by somehow vanishing or using tunnel to cross the bare border. Also, AWACS system fly high in the sky to watch over these kind of low flying objects. AWACS not only spot aerial high flying targets but also low flying ones. So, cruise missiles are a waste against SAMs. Since cruise missiles are slow, intercepting them will be very easy. So, forget using cruise missiles completely. Even HQ9 SAM can take out Indian Nirbhay missile. Cruise missiles are for SECOND wave strikes only and are very useful at that due to their accuracy under satellite guidance.
> 
> Next, Ballistic Missiles,
> 
> Yes, if there is a launch, it will be all out launch without regards to second wave. But, you are forgetting that the number of launchers that will be needed will be so huge that it will be impractical to use all missiles together. The number of missiles will always outnumber number of launchers. Also, I was countering the logic that decoys can be used to make the BMD run out if ABMs. This becomes impractical as it will unduly increase the pressure of launches. Many useless missiles have to be launched for decoy purpose which will be outright wasteful. That is why I spoke of second wave. 100 missiles per city is indeed all out war. 100 city for entire India is not what I said. I guess, you are the low IQ person to not understand it and abuse me!
> 
> Next, about jammers of satellite signals - any country can jam satellite signals easily over its territory and maybe even upto a few kilometres into neighbouring countries. India has more than a billion mobile phone users and several towers per square kilometre. Obviously, jamming a satellite signal is not an issue in today's world. It may use multiple transponders to jam all satellite signals, but it is easy. There are jamproof military grade signals available to counter just this but requires military satellite. India has IRNSS operational already. Only 1 satellite has lost its clocks but even then decent accuracy can be obtained.
> 
> Babur uses GPS. Terrain mapping is never fully accurate as distance traveled is hard to calculate. There is no wheel in babur to calculate the number of revolution and hence distance travelled. Brahmos missile had suffered disorientation similarly due to USA shutting down GPS on the day of test fire due to inaugural speech of Obama on that day
> 
> The ballistic missiles use satellite guidance or inertial guidance. Inertial guidance is highly inaccurate due to wind speed change, variable atmospheric density etc. Satellite signals can be jammed and satellite will only be capable of guiding the missile till it is in pakistani sky. Without satellite guidance, a missile merely becomes a rocket like the scud missile
> 
> Nuclear fallout is overstated. Nuclear bombs are not that great nor is it all destroying. Look how quickly Hiroshima was rebuilt. USA use tested over 250 bombs in open sky and with little effect. Also, look at the videos I posted in above comment about the effects of nuclear bombs. Nuclear bomb ia not all powerful. Even the radiation is not that great. Media simply overhyped it to avoid war and spread misinformation. The nuclear winter theory assumes that nuclear bomb will set everything on fire and cause massive smoke. Reality is that the shockwave carries 95% of energy while heat is only 5%. The shockwave will extinguish all the fire started by the heat blast. So, subcontinent will not be destroyed even if 10000 nukes of 100kT go off together


So u keep talking about these jammers and yet u haven't provided a single link even though I asked...therefore I'm still not convinced.

As for IRNSS, unlike u I can provide sources to back up what I say. No IRNSS is not yet in use by the military. The satellites are there but the system doesn't become operational until 2018. This below is copied from wikipedia...
_"The constellation is already in orbit and system is expected to be operational from early 2018[5][6] after a system check.[7] NAVIC will provide two levels of service, the 'standard positioning service' will be open for civilian use, and a 'restricted service' (an encrypted one) for authorized users (including military)."_

Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Regional_Navigation_Satellite_System

Considering ur evaluation of the effects of nuclear bombs I'm assuming u didn't bother to read the study for which I provided a link. So I assume those researchers just wasted their time modeling(probably in a super computer) the effects of 100 Hiroshima sized nukes. They could've just simply asked u.

You can keep living in ur make believe world. I'm a chemist...I know exactly how nuclear reactions and radiation works. There is no use in preaching me this pseudoscience u believe in.


----------



## Vijyes Yechury

Cookie Monster said:


> So u keep talking about these jammers and yet u haven't provided a single link even though I asked...therefore I'm still not convinced.
> 
> As for IRNSS, unlike u I can provide sources to back up what I say. No IRNSS is not yet in use by the military. The satellites are there but the system doesn't become operational until 2018. This below is copied from wikipedia...
> 
> Considering ur evaluation of the effects of nuclear bombs I'm assuming u didn't bother to read the study for which I provided a link. So I assume those researchers just wasted their time modeling(probably in a super computer) the effects of 100 Hiroshima sized nukes. They could've just simply asked u.
> 
> You can keep living in ur make believe world. I'm a chemist...I know exactly how nuclear reactions and radiation works. There is no use in preaching me this pseudoscience u believe in.



If you had never known that GPS jammers existed, here is a link to show GPS jammers not only exist but also commercially available at throw away prices. You can order one for yourself and test it out -

URL link
bit.ly(/)2h9iRL2


----------



## sputnik

dilpakistani said:


> the best option is to launch relays first ... they will exhaust the ABM capability and then follow it with a barrage of missiles salvo. ABM ability even if fully implemented will be a false sense of security. We are not houtie tribes man who will fire one or two systems...


yes u are absolutely right about Indian ABM and ur Idea is right of how to make fool out of it. Now please live in "True sense of security" and get life. 
On 1 hand Pakistani post articles on daily basis regarding how Indian military tech & Equipment are Junk and Mard-E-momin can decipher us on any given day but on other hand worried about same military tech & equipment.


----------



## Cookie Monster

Vijyes Yechury said:


> If you had never known that GPS jammers existed, here is a link to show GPS jammers not only exist but also commercially available at throw away prices. You can order one for yourself and test it out -
> 
> URL link
> bit.ly(/)2h9iRL2


I didn't say they don't exist. I asked that u provide a source that shows the specific ability of Indian armed forces having such a capability. This means having the ability to cover Indian land mass with these jammers.

But nice attempt trying to get away with that by providing me with this commercial GPS jammer that only has a 16ft jamming radius. This doesn't prove squat about what u had claimed.

If linking a gizmodo article about a GPS jammer somehow means that Indian army has the capability to jam multiple frequencies(GPS, Beidou, etc) over such a large landmass. Then going by ur reasoning I can easily provide unrelated articles about 5th gen jets, which somehow would mean that PAF has 5th gen jets.


----------



## Vijyes Yechury

Cookie Monster said:


> I didn't say they don't exist. I asked that u provide a source that shows the specific ability of Indian armed forces having such a capability. This means having the ability to cover Indian land mass with these jammers.
> 
> But nice attempt trying to get away with that by providing me with this commercial GPS jammer that only has a 16ft jamming radius. This doesn't prove squat about what u had claimed.
> 
> If linking a gizmodo article about a GPS jammer somehow means that Indian army has the capability to jam multiple frequencies(GPS, Beidou, etc) over such a large landmass. Then going by ur reasoning I can easily provide unrelated articles about 5th gen jets, which somehow would mean that PAF has 5th gen jets.



India hasn't disclosed such abilities yet. But here are some examples of how iran, North Korea etc used GPS jammers and anti jamming guidance development by USA -

bit(.)ly/2zcskcX

North korean GPS jammer -

bbc(.)in/2iueKaG


----------



## khanmubashir

DrSomnath999 said:


> 1.Pakistan would develop , multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs)& maneuverable warheads through SHAHEEN3 BM & also future BM
> 
> 
> 2.Pakistan would develop submarine launched cruise missile i.e Babur cruise missile & CJ-10k in their future chinese Type 39B submarine ,which would give them sea based nuke deterrence & would ensure the survivability of its nuclear deterrent
> 
> 
> 
> 3.Pakistan would produce more number of ballistic missiles & has increased production of nuclear fissile material like plutonium used for nuke bombs,so that it
> would overwhelm india ABM shield ,by firing more missiles towards india
> 
> 
> 4.Pakistan would use of decoys (e.g., lightweight mylar balloons which, until re-entry, will travel on an identical trajectory with the heavier warheads), use of ablative materials or reflective coatings which limit the damage of directed energy weapons, launches of numerous harmless missiles early in an attack which might cause the defender reveal his defenses and expend valuable resources
> 
> 5.Pakistan could acquire anti satellite weapon or jammers from chinato confuse indias satellites,which also play a key role in Indias anti ballistic missile shield
> 
> 
> 6.Pakistan would rely more on cruise missiles like stealthy RAAD & babur for nuke deterrent they are harder to detect due to their lower radar cross-signature, low-level navigation,and use of waypoints to circumvent more secure and heavily defended areas.
> 
> 
> 7.Pakistan would seek help from from Beijing for high-altitude and anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defenses through HQ-9/ FD2000 deal
> 
> 
> 8.Pakistan would target indias BMD Radar through long range anti radiation missile like brazilian MER-1 anti radiation missile
> 
> 9.Pakistan could pursue hypersonic missile technology if they are ready to afford it.
> 
> 10.Last but not least Pakistan could 1st strike ,as it fears if india 1st strike then their majority nuke detterent might be destroyed & rest if survive would be destroyed by indias ABM shield
> 
> *PLEASE NOTE*
> this are all my personal assumption ,well anyone having any better ideas apart from this can post
> REGARDS


No
First abm r still unreliable even half of us ABM test failed that's without deploying counter measure from agressor missile so Indian ABM won't be a big issue and USA is thousands of km away from any hostile nuclear power but we r next door so kl chain won't be able to process before the missiles reach target in most cases and yes Pak is upgrading it's capabilities


----------



## Vijyes Yechury

khanmubashir said:


> No
> First abm r still unreliable even half of us ABM test failed that's without deploying counter measure from agressor missile so Indian ABM won't be a big issue and USA is thousands of km away from any hostile nuclear power but we r next door so kl chain won't be able to process before the missiles reach target in most cases and yes Pak is upgrading it's capabilities



You are just taking things in linear manner. After 1990s, there has been a massive change in supercomputing. Things have grown faster by tens of thousands of times. Calculations have fastened up so much that the rate of interception and seeker quality is bound to go up several folds. The 50% failure of US was prior to 2000 when the supercomputing started saturating. After 2000, interception rate has increased well.

Just look at iron dome of Israel. It intercepts 95% of the rockets with a single hit kill. It even calculates the path of the rocket and intercepts only those that are likely to fall on populated areas. This is because the missiles of Iron dome are much more expensive compared to the rockets.

Iron dome may sound simple to you, but considering that the rockets can fly a maximum for 15-20 seconds, at speed of 300m/s or mach 0.9. It has to be intercepted within first 7-8 seconds or less of flight before it crosses the iron dome barrier. So, Iron dome is capable of intercepting it in such short duration of time. This is what makes Iron dome significant in terms if interception technology.


----------



## khanmubashir

Vijyes Yechury said:


> You are just taking things in linear manner. After 1990s, there has been a massive change in supercomputing. Things have grown faster by tens of thousands of times. Calculations have fastened up so much that the rate of interception and seeker quality is bound to go up several folds. The 50% failure of US was prior to 2000 when the supercomputing started saturating. After 2000, interception rate has increased well.
> 
> Just look at iron dome of Israel. It intercepts 95% of the rockets with a single hit kill. It even calculates the path of the rocket and intercepts only those that are likely to fall on populated areas. This is because the missiles of Iron dome are much more expensive compared to the rockets.
> 
> Iron dome may sound simple to you, but considering that the rockets can fly a maximum for 15-20 seconds, at speed of 300m/s or mach 0.9. It has to be intercepted within first 7-8 seconds or less of flight before it crosses the iron dome barrier. So, Iron dome is capable of intercepting it in such short duration of time. This is what makes Iron dome significant in terms if interception technology.


Irondome is used to intercept subsonic home made rocket made of plumber pipes and sill USA ABM have success rate around 60% and there ABM develp budget is around 70 billions that's more than. Entire Indian defense budget and again u don't have American geographic advantage


----------



## Cookie Monster

Vijyes Yechury said:


> India hasn't disclosed such abilities yet. But here are some examples of how iran, North Korea etc used GPS jammers and anti jamming guidance development by USA -
> 
> bit(.)ly/2zcskcX
> 
> North korean GPS jammer -
> 
> bbc(.)in/2iueKaG


The first link isn't working. The second link had this to say
_"Four years ago, pilots on more than 300 commercial flights detected interference with their systems. Planes have back-ups, though, so no disaster happened."
_
They couldn't even successfully jam commercial GPS let alone military GPS signals. Thus far no damage has happened other than making it a bit inconvenient for these jets and other commercial GPS users.

Additionally u have again provided me with other country's examples...and I know u r again gonna come back with the excuse that u can't provide me with India's jamming capabilities bcuz those haven't been disclosed.

So ur whole argument about how a nuke war would happen between India/Pak rests on hypotheticals...

Well if we r gonna do hypotheticals then by that reasoning...
Pak has this secret anti jamming capability that hasn't been revealed yet...it would nullify India's Jamming capability...

Quit ur fantasies and come back to the real world. If u r going to analyze something then take into account cold hard facts...nothing else.


----------



## Vijyes Yechury

Cookie Monster said:


> The first link isn't working. The second link had this to say
> _"Four years ago, pilots on more than 300 commercial flights detected interference with their systems. Planes have back-ups, though, so no disaster happened."
> _
> They couldn't even successfully jam commercial GPS let alone military GPS signals. Thus far no damage has happened other than making it a bit inconvenient for these jets and other commercial GPS users.
> 
> Additionally u have again provided me with other country's examples...and I know u r again gonna come back with the excuse that u can't provide me with India's jamming capabilities bcuz those haven't been disclosed.
> 
> So ur whole argument about how a nuke war would happen between India/Pak rests on hypotheticals...
> 
> Well if we r gonna do hypotheticals then by that reasoning...
> Pak has this secret anti jamming capability that hasn't been revealed yet...it would nullify India's Jamming capability...
> 
> Quit ur fantasies and come back to the real world. If u r going to analyze something then take into account cold hard facts...nothing else.



See, there is a jamming technology and it is cheap. There is anti jamming technology too, but requires military grade signals from satellites. I don't know if India has either of them, but the ease with which they are made makes me believe that every single country, both India and Pakistan has or capable of having jamming technology. About anti-jamming signals, India has military grade satellite signals. Hence it is likely that India has them too. While pakistan doesn't have satellites and hence incapable of having them.


----------



## Cookie Monster

Vijyes Yechury said:


> See, there is a jamming technology and it is cheap. There is anti jamming technology too, but requires military grade signals from satellites. I don't know if India has either of them, but the ease with which they are made makes me believe that every single country, both India and Pakistan has or capable of having jamming technology. About anti-jamming signals, India has military grade satellite signals. Hence it is likely that India has them too. While pakistan doesn't have satellites and hence incapable of having them.


well since u r talking hypotheticals here then hypothetically Pak can have access to China's military version of Beidou system...

If China can help Pakistan with its nuclear program(an actual weapon of mass destruction) then giving access to a positioning system isn't that far fetched.

Like I said analyzing a situation in hypotheticals gets u nowhere bcuz for every one hypothetical Indian capability one can argue a hypothetical counter from Pak and vice versa.

Feel free to debate with me when u have something concrete. I have no interest in debating hypotheticals.


----------



## Falcon26

Vijyes Yechury said:


> Most of the area is rural. Unguided ballistic missiles will end up in some field or forest and kill some cows and deers.
> 
> 
> 
> First, let me clear the cruise missile part-
> Babur is waste not becayse of BMD but because of SAM and BVRAAM. All subsonic cruise missiles are far inferior to an aeroplane which can travel at over 1Mach speed and can maneuver much more than a cruise missile. If a SAM can take out a plane, it can take out Babur with 5 times the ease. India had SAMs like Akash, BARAK-8, QRSAM and also has BVRAAM ASTRA to take out subsonic missiles like a plane takes down another plane.
> 
> Now, about Ballistic Missile -
> 
> Lets take a scenario- Pakistan launches 100 BM from lahore towards Delhi. India immediately detects the launch and before the missiles reach India, a massive counter attack will be launched.
> 
> Next, people will be asked to go inside heavy concrete houses or buildings in the city to reduce damage. And jammers to jam the satellite signals of GPS, Beidou, Glonass and Galileo will be deployed extensively. Since Pakistan doesn't have access to military grade location and guidance system due to lack of satellite constellation, it won't be able to guide its missile in a jamproof manner
> 
> Next, the missile won't be intercepted in launch stage as there is too little time. But, India will then try to intercept in exo-atmosphere with theatre defence systems. Few will be destroyed while most will continue.
> 
> Finally, point defence BMD systems to attack the incoming missiles at reentry stage will be fired. The probability of success for short range missiles under 500km will be over 75% due to slower speed. But, for MRBM, it is about 50% or less. Generally, a BMD launcher can launch 4-5 missiles. Depending on the number of launchers available, the ratio of ABM to BM can vary. A large number of warheads will be neutralised while some will strike the targets.
> 
> Due to precautions taken of getting people inside the house, jamming the guidance and destroying over half the warheads, the damage is significantly reduced. On the other hand, immediate detection of launch and retaliation, Pakistan won't be able to fire a second wave.
> 
> Next, it comes down to who can withstand the damage of the first wave strike and still continue. This depends on technology levels to mass produce equipment to cover the losses and most importantly, food supply (India is food grain surplus and area under other crops like sugarcane, cotton, banana etc can be diverted into food grain production). So on....



You have gone full Bollywood...never go full Bollywood


----------



## Vijyes Yechury

Falcon26 said:


> You have gone full Bollywood...never go full Bollywood





I just explained the various stages. Some of this was practiced in USA civilian drills for nuclear eventuality and nuclear warhead stoppage. All these are real life techniques used.


----------



## LeGenD

Vijyes Yechury said:


> India hasn't disclosed such abilities yet. But here are some examples of how iran, North Korea etc used GPS jammers and anti jamming guidance development by USA -
> 
> bit(.)ly/2zcskcX
> 
> North korean GPS jammer -
> 
> bbc(.)in/2iueKaG


Both Iraq and Libya possessed GPS jamming and spoofing equipment. Need I say more? These tools can be useful in certain situations but their effectiveness is utterly questionable in a war-like scenario, particularly against military-grade assets with relevant safeguards and alternative sources of guidance.



khanmubashir said:


> Irondome is used to intercept subsonic home made rocket made of plumber pipes and sill USA ABM have success rate around 60% and there ABM develp budget is around 70 billions that's more than. Entire Indian defense budget and again u don't have American geographic advantage


PAC-3 system have 100% intercept record in the battlefield (or very close). THAAD is not battle-tested yet but it has performed remarkably in various tests; same with MEADS, SM-2, SM-3 and SM-6. GMD is also maturing in its role over time and not only has the capability to intercept ICBM class targets in the outer space but distinguish them from decoys at present.

Progress is remarkable in this spectrum of defense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sucha Kuggu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_jamming_and_deception


----------



## Vijyes Yechury

LeGenD said:


> Both Iraq and Libya possessed GPS jamming and spoofing equipment. Need I say more? These tools can be useful in certain situations but their effectiveness is utterly questionable in a war-like scenario, particularly against military-grade assets with relevant safeguards and alternative sources of guidance.



Exactly my point. Military grade signals need military grade satellites to give them. These signals are wideband, need high power and are encrypted to avoid others from accessing it or hacking into it. Does Pakistan have satellites? That is the point I wanted to convey. 

Thanks


----------



## war&peace

mayankmatador said:


> best one is pray for mercy from us and give us back our land


We won't give you land but paper rolled tightly just brace yourself.


----------



## Sanwal Abbasi

*A nuclear expert from Moscow says despite heavy investments in developing anti-ballistic missile systems, India may not be able to fully defend itself in a conflict from strikes by Pakistani missiles.*​
“Even in 10 years and with the huge budgets that India plans to spend on the development of nuclear weapons and capabilities, it is difficult to imagine it will be able to defend its territory from possible strikes from Pakistan in case of conflict,” said Petr Topychkanov, a senior researcher at the Carnegie Moscow Centre’s Non-Proliferation Programme.
Talking about ‘Non-Proliferation and Strategic Stability in South Asia: A Russian Perspective’ at the Strategic Vision Institute (SIV) which is an Islamabad-based think tank specialising in nuclear issues, Mr Topychkanov said that despite large-scale cooperation between India and Israel for the development of a ballistic missile defence system and Indian efforts for acquiring S-400 defence systems from Russia, “India is very far from developing any system that could effectively defend itself from a Pakistani missile

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vijyes Yechury

Sanwal Abbasi said:


> *A nuclear expert from Moscow says despite heavy investments in developing anti-ballistic missile systems, India may not be able to fully defend itself in a conflict from strikes by Pakistani missiles.*​
> “Even in 10 years and with the huge budgets that India plans to spend on the development of nuclear weapons and capabilities, it is difficult to imagine it will be able to defend its territory from possible strikes from Pakistan in case of conflict,” said Petr Topychkanov, a senior researcher at the Carnegie Moscow Centre’s Non-Proliferation Programme.
> Talking about ‘Non-Proliferation and Strategic Stability in South Asia: A Russian Perspective’ at the Strategic Vision Institute (SIV) which is an Islamabad-based think tank specialising in nuclear issues, Mr Topychkanov said that despite large-scale cooperation between India and Israel for the development of a ballistic missile defence system and Indian efforts for acquiring S-400 defence systems from Russia, “India is very far from developing any system that could effectively defend itself from a Pakistani missile


No country in the world can defend against all ballistic missiles. If that was possible, then USA would not be shouting at Iranian missile development. USA can defend only a few ballistic missiles mainly due to radars on pacific ocean which very few countries can make. USA is isolated from other countries and hence the long distance over which the ballistic missile has to travel and USA islands in pacific makes it slightly more easier for USA to intercept missiles. 

For normal countries without vast oceans isolating them, it is difficult to defend against ballistic missiles. Even USA will not be able to defend missile from Cuba or Mexico for that matter.

S400 is primarily a SAM, not BMD. So, S400 is not enough either. India is only trying to augment air defence as much as it can. The idea is to completely deny cruise missiles and aircrafts while partially defending against ballistic missiles


----------



## randomradio

Vijyes Yechury said:


> S400 is primarily a SAM, not BMD. So, S400 is not enough either. India is only trying to augment air defence as much as it can. The idea is to completely deny cruise missiles and aircrafts while partially defending against ballistic missiles



The S-400 is a SAM as well as BMD. The 40N6 can do everything the currently deployed THAAD can. It is capable of stopping all kinds of MRBMs that have ranges up to 3500Km and speeds up to 5Km/s.

So pretty much every Pak ballistic missile can be stopped by the S-400.


----------



## Sanwal Abbasi

randomradio said:


> The S-400 is a SAM as well as BMD. The 40N6 can do everything the currently deployed THAAD can. It is capable of stopping all kinds of MRBMs that have ranges up to 3500Km and speeds up to 5Km/s.
> 
> So pretty much every Pak ballistic missile can be stopped by the S-400.


*After U.S. Strikes Syrian Air Base, Russians Ask: 'Where Were Our Vaunted Air Defense Systems?' *


----------



## randomradio

Sanwal Abbasi said:


> *After U.S. Strikes Syrian Air Base, Russians Ask: 'Where Were Our Vaunted Air Defense Systems?' *



The Russians did not engage NATO.


----------



## Maarkhoor

randomradio said:


> So pretty much every Pak ballistic missile can be stopped by the S-400.


Ooh no we are doomed....by S-400 but wait ...where is S-400? did Uncle Sam allowed you to purchase it?  as soon as India confirm the order US will stop arms sale to India...which means you people are doomed not us


----------



## Vijyes Yechury

Sanwal Abbasi said:


> *After U.S. Strikes Syrian Air Base, Russians Ask: 'Where Were Our Vaunted Air Defense Systems?' *





Maarkhoor said:


> Ooh no we are doomed....by S-400 but wait ...where is S-400? did Uncle Sam allowed you to purchase it?  as soon as India confirm the order US will stop arms sale to India...which means you people are doomed not us


S400 can shoot down all cruise missiles and planes. Even Indian Akash missile can shoot down cruise missiles and planes.

S400 can't shoot down ballistic missiles. Also, India is not going to get S400 in large numbers. So, the indigenous weapons are the final resort. India can't stop all ballistic missile but the BMD system of India can stop most of the short range missiles of Pakistan


----------



## randomradio

Vijyes Yechury said:


> S400 can shoot down all cruise missiles and planes. Even Indian Akash missile can shoot down cruise missiles and planes.
> 
> S400 can't shoot down ballistic missiles. Also, India is not going to get S400 in large numbers. So, the indigenous weapons are the final resort. India can't stop all ballistic missile but the BMD system of India can stop most of the short range missiles of Pakistan



https://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-400.htm
_And the anti-missile capability of the system has been increased to the limits established by the ABM Treaty demarcation agreements -- it can intercept targets with velocities of up to 4.8 km/sec, corresponding to a ballistic missile range of 3,500 km._

https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/russia-inducts-new-s-400-missile-air-defense-system/
_One of the S-400’s new missiles is the so-called 40N6 SAM with an estimated operational range of 400 kilometers (248.5 miles) and an *altitude of up to 185 kilometers* (607,000 feet). The missile is reportedly capable of *exo-atmospheric interception of intermediate-range ballistic missile warheads* in their terminal phase. _


----------



## Vijyes Yechury

S400 is reportedly capable not designed for interception of ballistic missiles. One does not now for sure how accurate is the missile in intercepting ballistic missiles.

Also, ballistic missile are fast and can be used in a saturation attack. So, this can't be intercepted


randomradio said:


> https://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-400.htm
> _And the anti-missile capability of the system has been increased to the limits established by the ABM Treaty demarcation agreements -- it can intercept targets with velocities of up to 4.8 km/sec, corresponding to a ballistic missile range of 3,500 km._
> 
> https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/russia-inducts-new-s-400-missile-air-defense-system/
> _One of the S-400’s new missiles is the so-called 40N6 SAM with an estimated operational range of 400 kilometers (248.5 miles) and an *altitude of up to 185 kilometers* (607,000 feet). The missile is reportedly capable of *exo-atmospheric interception of intermediate-range ballistic missile warheads* in their terminal phase. _


----------



## randomradio

Vijyes Yechury said:


> S400 is reportedly capable not designed for interception of ballistic missiles. One does not now for sure how accurate is the missile in intercepting ballistic missiles.
> 
> Also, ballistic missile are fast and can be used in a saturation attack. So, this can't be intercepted



The S-400 can intercept any ballistic missile that is fired from 3500Km away. Whether it actually will stop Pakistani missiles is obviously not tested, but it has been tested against similar Russian test missiles.

The fact that the 40N6 can reach altitudes of 185Km is proof that it has been purpose designed to stop ballistic missiles using exo-atmospheric intercept. It's in the same class as THAAD and India's PDV.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## POPEYE-Sailor

there is no technology to detect this aircraft

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FuturePAF

1. First launch physical or cyber attacks on the C4ISR; especially the radars of the enemy
2. Launch missiles from unexpected areas (at sea with small but multiple SLBMs; similar to the Indian K-15)
3. Use higher thrust/energy rocket motors (using lighter carbon-fiber casings) to get the missile up to a high speed quickly, so the warhead can use the energy for terminal manuerving
4. launch decoys upon re-entry
5. finally use glide warheads that change direction multiple times upon re-entry

do this with a large enough number of missiles and it will overwhelm the enemy ABM systems, how many missiles can any system be expected to detect, track, and intercept when under such an attack.

p.s. the question is how can it be done, being able to afford this is a separate matter, so please don't use that as a reason this can't be done.


----------



## Fawadqasim1

More stealther airframes for our babur type cruse missiles. longer range mirved ballistic missiles with decoys

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fawadqasim1

Any news of good turbofans for our cruise @The Deterrent


----------



## Path-Finder

Supposedly meant for navy but seems like a great concept.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fawadqasim1

Path-Finder said:


> View attachment 504088
> 
> 
> Supposedly meant for navy but seems like a great concept.


Looks costly.


----------



## FuturePAF

randomradio said:


> The S-400 can intercept any ballistic missile that is fired from 3500Km away. Whether it actually will stop Pakistani missiles is obviously not tested, but it has been tested against similar Russian test missiles.
> 
> The fact that the 40N6 can reach altitudes of 185Km is proof that it has been purpose designed to stop ballistic missiles using exo-atmospheric intercept. It's in the same class as THAAD and India's PDV.



Some Limitations of the S-400 From an Indian Source
https://theprint.in/security/bustin...00-indias-latest-military-acquisition/130479/

First off all; the actual batteries can be targeted many ways. if based closed to the border; they can be struck with rocket artillery with some enhancements for more accuracy like this Korean system
http://defence-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/4783243_original-1024x665.jpg

engagements based on the above Indian article state are limited to 240 km out and an altitude of 27 km. A MARV warhead for the shorter range missiles or hypersonic gliding warheads that maneuver upon re-entry could overwhelm the missiles in a battery.
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d81d2c8a5c17382cabec8397180f5d99-c

Pakistan looks to be going for cruise missiles and enhancing the Shaheen III/Ababeel

If Pakistan changes the bus on the Ababeel and goes for the Chevaline Antelope/Impala decoy and warhead method, it would have two real warhead and 27 "hard" decoys; both exo-atmospheric and endo-atmospheric that follow the warhead(s) all the way to the target, along with chaff to confuse the enemy radar. how many s-400 missiles, and what ever system else lower down will be used up to counter just one missile. Pakistan would use at least dozens if not over a hundred such missiles in a strike, if the need to built them become nessecary.

http://www.loneflyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/chevaline.jpg
https://blog.firedrake.org/archive/2017/03/P1050680.jpg
http://www.loneflyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/minuteman.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevaline

As for Cruise Missiles, Pakistan can buy or build the GB-06, or Turkish Cruise missiles
https://quwa.org/2016/05/17/turkish-strike-arsenal/
http://chinesemilitaryreview.blogspot.com/2014/11/jf-17-thunder-to-armed-with-cm-102-anti.html
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YkXtArcu00c/VGiUBOohlfI/AAAAAAAAkjA/H6_7AB28qcQ/s1600/China+CM-102+air+to+surface+ARM+anti+radiation+missile+ZhuHai+Air+Show,+range+100km+7m+fc-1+JF-17+thunder+pakistan+j-10abcds+jh-10+fighter+jet+(4).jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1VMreTQMzVI/VGiUCFnnrtI/AAAAAAAAkjI/CpzHVIwss9o/s1600/China+CM-102+air+to+surface+ARM+anti+radiation+missile+ZhuHai+Air+Show,+range+100km+7m+fc-1+JF-17+thunder+pakistan+j-10abcds+jh-10+fighter+jet+(3).jpg

Finally, Pakistan can build and operate hundreds of drones (with RCS similar to the PAF aircraft) near the border on a regular basis alongside normal fighters during operations. How would the IAF know for sure what is a fighter and what is a drone from hundreds of miles away. would they want to waste their missiles on what could be a dummy target

This following system is something the PAF officially mentioned at the Royal Tatoo when it came with its C-130. 
https://defense-update.com/20170317_gremlins.html


----------



## BHarwana

Pakistan to developing a hypersonic missile for ABM was one of the suggestions in the new doctrine.


----------



## AsifIjaz

I dunno if its feasible but can we not make a missile with mirv capability with each warhead disintegrating into a dozen or so bombs a few kms above ground.. Launch 3 or 4 of these to an area if interest and the effect would be sort of a carpet bombing. Wont that help


----------



## Fawadqasim1

We need something which is fast i.e it doesn't give more than 10 minutes of warning. Which is relatively cheap and which can overwhelm and saturate a target within at least 300 to 500 kms.
@The Deterrent @BHarwana @CriticalThought
@Windjammer @MastanKhan


----------



## MastanKhan

Fawadqasim1 said:


> We need something which is fast i.e it doesn't give more than 10 minutes of warning. Which is relatively cheap and which can overwhelm and saturate a target within at least 300 to 500 kms.
> @The Deterrent @BHarwana @CriticalThought
> @Windjammer @MastanKhan



Hi,

Air launched CM's from over the water from heavy strike aircraft are the most unpredictable and most damaging weapons---.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## randomradio

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> Air launched CM's from over the water from heavy strike aircraft are the most unpredictable and most damaging weapons---.



The opposite.

You can expect air traffic over the Arabian Sea to be minimal during wartime, so there's nothing unpredictable about large aircraft running rampant over the sea.


----------



## Reichsmarschall

Any new update?


----------



## Cool_Soldier

This is the area ABM capability where Pakistan lack right now.
Until we have credible system to counter and to pose same threat we will remain under threat in this specific scenario.

But, it always happens in case of Pakistan and India.
In one area we get edge in other they get edge.
TIT for TAT


----------



## Indx-techs

Cool_Soldier said:


> But, it *always* happens in case of Pakistan and India.
> In *one area we get edge in other they get edge*.


Leave alone even "always", is there any specific area Pakistan having edge?

I have never seen Pak having any edge except "our army is braver than gangus" comments on forums. "Parity" between India and Pakistan is a hoax and only exists in FB comment wars but is so non existent that it even can't be explained.


----------



## Tipu7

Indx-techs said:


> Leave alone even "always", is there any specific area Pakistan having edge?
> 
> I have never seen Pak having any edge except "our army is braver than gangus" comments on forums. "Parity" between India and Pakistan is a hoax and only exists in FB comment wars but is so non existent that it even can't be explained.


Hoax exists on both sides. 
Once hoax like SU30MKI is the mini AWACS, Mig21 Bison can easily slay F15/16, PAF cannot use F16 against India, Spyder shield is unpenetrateable, our subs are black holes etc etc were very common. 
A combat of few minutes busted them all.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Fawadqasim1

Tipu7 said:


> Hoax exists on both sides.
> Once hoax like SU30MKI is the mini AWACS, Mig21 Bison can easily slay F15/16, PAF cannot use F16 against India, Spyder shield is unpenetrateable, our subs are black holes etc etc were very common.
> A combat of few minutes busted them all.


yes but we must not become complacent over such successes i fear this attitude


----------



## Cool_Soldier

Tipu7 said:


> Hoax exists on both sides.
> Once hoax like SU30MKI is the mini AWACS, Mig21 Bison can easily slay F15/16, PAF cannot use F16 against India, Spyder shield is unpenetrateable, our subs are black holes etc etc were very common.
> A combat of few minutes busted them all.


Totally biased answer dear,
Be mature and practical and then analysis scenario, you will find many things where both countries are having edge over each other,
I can mention many but I dont need to mention list,


----------



## Tipu7

Cool_Soldier said:


> Totally biased answer dear,
> Be mature and practical and then analysis scenario, you will find many things where both countries are having edge over each other,
> I can mention many but I dont need to mention list,





Tipu7 said:


> *Hoax exists on both sides*.
> Once hoax like SU30MKI is the mini AWACS, Mig21 Bison can easily slay F15/16, PAF cannot use F16 against India, Spyder shield is unpenetrateable, our subs are black holes etc etc were very common.
> A combat of few minutes busted them all.


----------



## Cool_Soldier

dear I responded to following memeber's stupid post not to your post

*Indx-techs
FULL MEMBER*


----------



## Indx-techs

Tipu7 said:


> Hoax exists on both sides.
> Once hoax like SU30MKI is the mini AWACS, Mig21 Bison can easily slay F15/16, PAF cannot use F16 against India, Spyder shield is unpenetrateable, our subs are black holes etc etc were very common.
> A combat of few minutes busted them all.


Hitting a straw man doesn't get you a counter argument.
India and Pakistan are a league apart and are just enemies, not rivials.


----------



## khanmubashir

XYON said:


> Land based Anti Ballistic Missile Technology (such as Patriot Missiles etc) cannot be fully effective in the Indo-Pak theater due to extremely short flight distances. With the number of nuke tipped multi-range and altitude missiles on both sides and relatively extremely short distances to prime target cities, the missiles will in all probability hot even before the ABMT batteries lock, load and launch.


With ew tactics in real world scenario the abm chain would be too late to intercept due to close proximity 
Same happened to Saudi patriots batteries in that refinery attack 
And to Russian s400 in Syria


----------



## Baibars_1260

khanmubashir said:


> With ew tactics in real world scenario the abm chain would be too late to intercept due to close proximity
> Same happened to Saudi patriots batteries in that refinery attack
> And to Russian s400 in Syria


The ABM chain also doesn't take into account a coastal attack from a 'Q' Ship or a suicide manned nuclear torpedo. Countries with juxtaposed territories are extremely vulnerable to ground threats. A truck born 20 kt nuclear device detonated on the Wagah border would send contamination as far as Jalandhar. At that point we would not really care what happens to Lahore. 
True protection from a nuclear strike is guaranteed not by ABM systems but either by MAD , regime change, or disarmament. If India believes it has security it will be tempted to launch a pre-emptive strike with very tragic results.


----------



## Mutakalim

Cool_Soldier said:


> This is the area ABM capability where Pakistan lack right now.
> Until we have credible system to counter and to pose same threat we will remain under threat in this specific scenario.
> 
> But, it always happens in case of Pakistan and India.
> In one area we get edge in other they get edge.
> TIT for TAT



Pakistan doesnt need comprehensive ABM capability. We can not compete with India Missile for Missile or in fact system to system. We just need to insure that our missiles reach the target with minimum interception. That will prove to be enough for ensuring deterrence.

Weapon systems are useless, if not employed in effective manner and if not dovetailed into overall strategic doctrine of the force.


----------



## Tumba

I dont think ABM which is entirely defensive capability that too deployed by a soft power like India should worry any if its adversaries reasons are simple:

* India will never initiate any attack
* India even if forced into war will never initiate Ballistic Missiles and specially the Nuke carrying ones
* India is very defensive in nature you can easily establish this connection by the no. Of strike corps we have basically 3 which has each just around 50k soldiers mountains strike corps are basically defensive corps so cant be counted.


----------



## PAR 5

Pakistan at this stage has no answer for the Indian S-400 ABM that will likely come online in 2021. All Pak Airborne assets including land based missiles are going to be in range of this system.


----------



## Zarvan

PAR 5 said:


> Pakistan at this stage has no answer for the Indian S-400 ABM that will likely come online in 2021. All Pak Airborne assets including land based missiles are going to be in range of this system.


S 400 and all the other Air Defence systems are over rated . This has been proven in every war and conflict in past few years. As for answering it. We have lot of answers including MIRV based ballistic missiles.


----------



## PAR 5

Zarvan said:


> S 400 and all the other Air Defence systems are over rated . This has been proven in every war and conflict in past few years. As for answering it. We have lot of answers including MIRV based ballistic missiles.



I can see the misguided & uninformed over optimism doling in your comment. We have NO ANSWERS. And unless you want to deliver the MIRV's by railways, it can be taken out by the S-400 as soon as the missile carrying it is launched and detected.


----------



## Zarvan

PAR 5 said:


> I can see the misguided & uninformed over optimism doling in your comment. We have NO ANSWERS. And unless you want to deliver the MIRV's by railways, it can be taken out by the S-400 as soon as the missile carrying it is launched and detected.


Yes we have no answers now happy. How many of these systems have actually worked in recent conflicts is quite obvious. I don't have to say it entire world has seen it. They have proven to be disaster but yes you feel free to live in a myth created by Russia. Results on ground say other wise.


----------



## vizier

Hypersonic cruise missiles and HGVs are current trends to bypass defenses. However as we all know we need quiet some time like a decade to develop such systems. Anti ship ballistic missiles are used by several countries and they have about 1500-2000 km range and they manuever to bypass ship abms. Maneuvering ballistic missiles are also an option like iskandar or similar systems. Mirv can also be effective. They need to put S400 close to your borders to take out your bms in boost phase which makes S400 vulnurable to be detected by drones,sar-optical-satellites,elint etc. and swarm attacked.


Another option is I think staying at the high supersonic range. That is using supersonic cruise missiles but with some improvements like reducing rcs. There is already developed technology from cold war decades ago which we can improve with some tweaks and using modern electronics so they can be effective today. 


For example the D-21 spy drone has a small size and looks very sleek and stealthy. It has mach 3-3.5 speed with a ramjet engine and about 5000km range. It has obvious resembelence to SR-71 and stealth was a consideration that was used on the design of SR-71 which was a spy plane as well. 









Air Force Wanted To Turn Skunk Works' Mach 3 Capable Recon Drone Into A Nuclear Bomber


The concept would have given the service a penetrating high-speed strike asset, something it is still interested in to this day.




www.thedrive.com












It was considered as a cruise missile later on but complicated air launch , carrying it over SR-71 and for similar reasons it was discarded or maybe it was not discarded and developed secretly later on. 

I think it still has cruise missile potential with some stealth, high speed and long range combination. It can be used for anti shipping as well as ground attack. A scaled down variant of this can be ground launched by rockets to high altitude(about 20km) and gain sufficient speed for ramjet to activate in my opinion with sufficient ranges like 1000-2000km or more. 

Ground launch of ramjet cruise missile by rocket assist example is below. It is an intercontinental cruise missile and scale is much higher ofcourse like a space shuttle. A miniature variant of this and with current long range drone technology plus a radar seeker on its nose for anti-shipping it can be used to bypass defenses in my opinion. 






Later on we can integrate long range hcms and hgvs but during that period these can be developed-integrated in a much shorter time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Maverick

Zarvan said:


> Yes we have no answers now happy. How many of these systems have actually worked in recent conflicts is quite obvious. I don't have to say it entire world has seen it. They have proven to be disaster but yes you feel free to live in a myth created by Russia. Results on ground say other wise.



so China and Turkey and India paid 5 billion each because,they are stupid right for s400 and Russia spent billions because,they are stupid..
in fact all.sams on land and in ships are useless. 
do you have any idea how many billions the likes of Israel are spending to develope s400 type ballistic missle defense shields. 

your comment sounds like surrender. we can't compete

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## GumNaam

The Maverick said:


> so China and Turkey and India paid 5 billion each because,they are stupid right.


hey...a false sense of security carries a hefty price of its own. having said that, I'm pretty sure China has something different planned for their S400s. what? I don't know...maybe install em on the SCS artificial islands...


----------



## The Maverick

GumNaam said:


> hey...a false sense of security carries a hefty price of its own. having said that, I'm pretty sure China has something different planned for their S400s. what? I don't know...maybe install em on the SCS artificial islands...



chinease are not stupid in fact very smart.
turkey is not stupid
Russia knows how to win wars they have done so for centuries 
forget India who let's say wasted 5 billion 

trust me they are smarter than pakistanis now that is a fact and if they spend billion s on s400 then they will.have looked at advantages and disadvantages and other options first .
China had option outside of s400.
turkey is NATO any system.it wanted 
usa offered India patriot and Israel.arrow system..
India chose s400 and it was not without due diligence. 
but you keep.telling yourself it does not work.. it will.calm.your nerves and anxiety

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

The Maverick said:


> so China and Turkey and India paid 5 billion each because,they are stupid right for s400 and Russia spent billions because,they are stupid..
> in fact all.sams on land and in ships are useless.
> do you have any idea how many billions the likes of Israel are spending to develope s400 type ballistic missle defense shields.
> 
> your comment sounds like surrender. we can't compete


They are not fully affective. Even Hamas third grade rockets manage to hit targets. Yes some are short down not all of them. Air Defence systems are good but not great. They don't give you full protection not even close.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Maverick

Zarvan said:


> They are not fully affective. Even Hamas third grade rockets manage to hit targets. Yes some are short down not all of them. Air Defence systems are good but not great. They don't give you full protection not even close.



tell that to Russia China turkey Israel.usa and the rest of the world that spend billions of dollars on sams radars tracking that Hamas rockets proved they don't work


----------



## ssethii

Zarvan said:


> They are not fully affective. Even Hamas third grade rockets manage to hit targets. Yes some are short down not all of them. Air Defence systems are good but not great. They don't give you full protection not even close.


some protection is always better than no protection. we should worry about our own missile shield as we have zero protection against any type of missiles as of today.


----------



## The Maverick

ssethii said:


> some protection is always better than no protection. we should worry about our own missile shield as we have zero protection against any type of missiles as of



it's not just interception
it's,the tracking ability
your awacs can be tracked at 400km by s400 and is slow moving target . s400 has a 200km missle with speed mach 15 your awacs will need to stay away from loc
It becomes next to useless in war for fear of being shot down
this,excludes,the threat of being shot down by Rafale meteore or r74 long range bvr on mki .
your air force cannot operate freely on a 200km radius of s400 there is,real danger
s400 was designed to take out f35 Rafale and typhoons of NATO.
what chance do pakistani 50 year old mirage have or 30 year old,f16 have answer far less,chance than usa f35 French Rafale. 
why because they are legacy strike platforms.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ssethii

The Maverick said:


> it's not just interception
> it's,the tracking ability
> your awacs can be tracked at 400km by s400 and is slow moving target . s400 has a 200km missle with speed mach 15 your awacs will need to stay away from loc
> It becomes next to useless in war for fear of being shot down
> this,excludes,the threat of being shot down by Rafale meteore or r74 long range bvr on mki .
> your air force cannot operate freely on a 200km radius of s400 there is,real danger
> s400 was designed to take out f35 Rafale and typhoons of NATO.
> what chance do pakistani 50 year old mirage have or 30 year old,f16 have answer far less,chance than usa f35 French Rafale.
> why because they are legacy strike platforms.


We faced all sorts of threats like that on 27 Feb too but that didn't stop us from executing the operation swift retort. In war, you face all sorts of threats but you plan accordingly to achieve your objectives minimizing your own damage.


----------



## arjunk

The Maverick said:


> it's not just interception
> it's,the tracking ability
> your awacs can be tracked at 400km by s400 and is slow moving target . s400 has a 200km missle with speed mach 15 your awacs will need to stay away from loc
> It becomes next to useless in war for fear of being shot down
> this,excludes,the threat of being shot down by Rafale meteore or r74 long range bvr on mki .
> your air force cannot operate freely on a 200km radius of s400 there is,real danger
> s400 was designed to take out f35 Rafale and typhoons of NATO.
> what chance do pakistani 50 year old mirage have or 30 year old,f16 have answer far less,chance than usa f35 French Rafale.
> why because they are legacy strike platforms.



S-400 cannot track fighter sized planes at medium-low altitudes, especially in the mountains of Kashmir. The actual range in Kashmir would be 50-100km depending on where the radar is placed.

Similarly, in Punjab and Sindh, S-400 will only be able to track fighter sized aircraft 100-150km. Only large, high flying AWACS will be picked up at such ranges. S-400 can therefore be easily taken out by a small plane with decent EW capability like JF-17 Block III using a SOW. However, the many SA-3 systems of India are the real headache for Pakistan since they are concentrated along the border in large numbers.


----------



## The Maverick

arjunk said:


> S-400 cannot track fighter sized planes at medium-low altitudes, especially in the mountains of Kashmir. The actual range in Kashmir would be 50-100km depending on where the radar is placed.
> 
> Similarly, in Punjab and Sindh, S-400 will only be able to track fighter sized aircraft 100-150km. Only large, high flying AWACS will be picked up at such ranges. S-400 can therefore be easily taken out by a small plane with decent EW capability like JF-17 Block III using a SOW. However, the many SA-3 systems of India are the real headache for Pakistan since they are concentrated along the border in large numbers.



Sam 3 lol lol 
buddy try
spyder
and akash 
sam 8 and 9 
Barak 8


----------



## Raj-Hindustani

arjunk said:


> S-400 cannot track fighter sized planes at medium-low altitudes, especially in the mountains of Kashmir. The actual range in Kashmir would be 50-100km depending on where the radar is placed.
> 
> Similarly, in Punjab and Sindh, S-400 will only be able to track fighter sized aircraft 100-150km. Only large, high flying AWACS will be picked up at such ranges. S-400 can therefore be easily taken out by a small plane with decent EW capability like JF-17 Block III using a SOW. However, the many SA-3 systems of India are the real headache for Pakistan since they are concentrated along the border in large numbers.



It is not a drama or serial. 

Even your best fighter F16 if even cross the border then multiple SAM systems will be facing not alone S400.


----------



## War Thunder

DrSomnath999 said:


> 1.Pakistan would develop , multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs)& maneuverable warheads through SHAHEEN3 BM & also future BM
> 
> 
> 2.Pakistan would develop submarine launched cruise missile i.e Babur cruise missile & CJ-10k in their future chinese Type 39B submarine ,which would give them sea based nuke deterrence & would ensure the survivability of its nuclear deterrent
> 
> 
> 
> 3.Pakistan would produce more number of ballistic missiles & has increased production of nuclear fissile material like plutonium used for nuke bombs,so that it
> would overwhelm india ABM shield ,by firing more missiles towards india
> 
> 
> 4.Pakistan would use of decoys (e.g., lightweight mylar balloons which, until re-entry, will travel on an identical trajectory with the heavier warheads), use of ablative materials or reflective coatings which limit the damage of directed energy weapons, launches of numerous harmless missiles early in an attack which might cause the defender reveal his defenses and expend valuable resources
> 
> 5.Pakistan could acquire anti satellite weapon or jammers from chinato confuse indias satellites,which also play a key role in Indias anti ballistic missile shield
> 
> 
> 6.Pakistan would rely more on cruise missiles like stealthy RAAD & babur for nuke deterrent they are harder to detect due to their lower radar cross-signature, low-level navigation,and use of waypoints to circumvent more secure and heavily defended areas.
> 
> 
> 7.Pakistan would seek help from from Beijing for high-altitude and anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defenses through HQ-9/ FD2000 deal
> 
> 
> 8.Pakistan would target indias BMD Radar through long range anti radiation missile like brazilian MER-1 anti radiation missile
> 
> 9.Pakistan could pursue hypersonic missile technology if they are ready to afford it.
> 
> 10.Last but not least Pakistan could 1st strike ,as it fears if india 1st strike then their majority nuke detterent might be destroyed & rest if survive would be destroyed by indias ABM shield
> 
> *PLEASE NOTE*
> this are all my personal assumption ,well anyone having any better ideas apart from this can post
> REGARDS




It takes 8 minutes to take out Delhi from Western borders of Pakistan.
Good luck with any missile shield.

A better question could be.
How many Indian missiles will the Indian ABM shield take out when launched?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## wasileo80

Just like Pakistan countered Asian Raptor and Rafale despite their tall claims. So have confidence on Men in uniform. They are there for a reason otherwise they could have join PDF and busy posting such threads like us that Pakistan have to purchase Eurofighter or Block 70 or this and that. So countering any IAF's move is always in sight of PAF and they are preparing day in day out for every thing IAF planned, acquired or in planning.


Raj-Hindustani said:


> It is not a drama or serial.
> 
> Even your best fighter F16 if even cross the border then multiple SAM systems will be facing not alone S400.


First MKI, then Rafale and now S400 to worship. Keep going.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Cool_Soldier

S 400 is threat for us but we are also going to add high Altitude and long range Air defence system this year. a true ABM shield needs to be inducted,


----------



## GumNaam

The Maverick said:


> chinease are not stupid in fact very smart.
> turkey is not stupid
> Russia knows how to win wars they have done so for centuries
> forget India who let's say wasted 5 billion
> 
> trust me they are smarter than pakistanis now that is a fact and if they spend billion s on s400 then they will.have looked at advantages and disadvantages and other options first .
> China had option outside of s400.
> turkey is NATO any system.it wanted
> usa offered India patriot and Israel.arrow system..
> India chose s400 and it was not without due diligence.
> but you keep.telling yourself it does not work.. it will.calm.your nerves and anxiety


end of the day the s400's score card stands at 0 to 5 with 5 successful american 5 isreali raids with 0 intercepts. as we saw on Feb 27th, if it gets to india, we can expect a negative score card with india shooting down its own aircrafts & missiles.  now you can make all the excuses you want.


----------



## Super Falcon

Hypersonic Missile will be game changer for us to counter S 400 BARAK 8 indian aircraft battle group etc


----------



## Raj-Hindustani

GumNaam said:


> end of the day the s400's score card stands at 0 to 5 with 5 successful american 5 isreali raids with 0 intercepts. as we saw on Feb 27th, if it gets to india, we can expect a negative score card with india shooting down its own aircrafts & missiles.  now you can make all the excuses you want.



Why you not suggested tk china and asked them to not waste their money..

Better really on only 2nd tyer missile defense system ( cheap copy) and sell to other countries... That missile would be called " Best" In the world.


----------



## SQ8

Raj-Hindustani said:


> Why you not suggested tk china and asked them to not waste their money..
> 
> Better really on only 2nd tyer missile defense system ( cheap copy) and sell to other countries... That missile would be called " Best" In the world.


The Chinese use it as a token and mostly related to range tests. They did the exact thing they did with the Su-35s; used them to benchmark what they were doing and found they are already ahead. Same with the S-400 although that doesn’t imply they have beaten the Russians in the SAM game.

However , the S-400s poor performance comes down to the operators rather than the system itself. They are still insanely deadly but just as with anything there are system limits.

The S-400 has limitations and weaknesses that Pakistan started working on the moment it was aware of the purchase and has overcome them from a BM perspective(at great expense) . The same goes for PAD and AAD - none of these “countermeasures” are unique to Pakistan and there was help used. Similar to Russian concepts against US BMD measures except the disadvantage any sides BMD has in the subcontinent is the small distance between any potential launch centers and key military targets and population centers.

What it has ensured is that India isn’t safe from nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future unless it invests and successfully creates the Reagan Era bluff of a “Star Wars” system. 

India can make statements for its citizens that its safe but they are similar to statements made by any country for the consumption of its population. 

Either way, the issue isn’t the use of nuclear weapons because both sides fear it but neutralizing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal doesn’t require BMD - it requires making its command and control ineffective and/or forcing economic ruin upon it in lieu of socio-political turmoil.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Raj-Hindustani

SQ8 said:


> The Chinese use it as a token and mostly related to range tests. They did the exact thing they did with the Su-35s; used them to benchmark what they were doing and found they are already ahead. Same with the S-400 although that doesn’t imply they have beaten the Russians in the SAM game.
> 
> However , the S-400s poor performance comes down to the operators rather than the system itself. They are still insanely deadly but just as with anything there are system limits.
> 
> The S-400 has limitations and weaknesses that Pakistan started working on the moment it was aware of the purchase and has overcome them from a BM perspective(at great expense) . The same goes for PAD and AAD - none of these “countermeasures” are unique to Pakistan and there was help used. Similar to Russian concepts against US BMD measures except the disadvantage any sides BMD has in the subcontinent is the small distance between any potential launch centers and key military targets and population centers.
> 
> What it has ensured is that India isn’t safe from nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future unless it invests and successfully creates the Reagan Era bluff of a “Star Wars” system.
> 
> India can make statements for its citizens that its safe but they are similar to statements made by any country for the consumption of its population.
> 
> Either way, the issue isn’t the use of nuclear weapons because both sides fear it but neutralizing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal doesn’t require BMD - it requires making its command and control ineffective and/or forcing economic ruin upon it in lieu of socio-political turmoil.



For me - AAD and PAD is best way to explain " Something better than nothing ".

These come with a high cost and now, it depends on you whatever want it or does not want it..

Reality is thag Pakistan can not afford such high cost defense equipments due to high cost. so for the counter sake of statement, pak army will always state that we have already planned or ready with "countermeasures"....

As it is expected because no country says that we don't have any countermeasures against the enemy equipment. Also, they always plan against it.

Adding - I am not saying that S400 Or air defense system is 100% foolproof.

But assuming that during the tense border situation, the air traffic will be closed.... Air defense system like S400 with other layer of defense systems starting from the international border.,.. Even it would not be a easy task.

It is not only that Pakistan drones, missiles or rockets will fly and directly going to target the S400 missiles... They have to skip the other missile defense systems as well...

The same way as I understand, India will not going to totally depends on s400... From border itself, Pakistan has to deal with barak 8 and akash missile defense systems.... It is will very challenging for pakistan if India will able to make layer of defense missile systems which is under work in progress


----------



## Cookie Monster

Raj-Hindustani said:


> For me - AAD and PAD is best way to explain " Something better than nothing ".
> 
> These come with a high cost and now, it depends on you whatever want it or does not want it..
> 
> Reality is thag Pakistan can not afford such high cost defense equipments due to high cost. so for the counter sake of statement, pak army will always state that we have already planned or ready with "countermeasures"....
> 
> As it is expected because no country says that we don't have any countermeasures against the enemy equipment. Also, they always plan against it.
> 
> Adding - I am not saying that S400 Or air defense system is 100% foolproof.
> 
> But assuming that during the tense border situation, the air traffic will be closed.... Air defense system like S400 with other layer of defense systems starting from the international border.,.. Even it would not be a easy task.
> 
> It is not only that Pakistan drones will fly and directly going to target the S400 missiles... They have to skip the other missile defense systems as well...
> 
> The same way as I understand, India will not going to totally depends on s400... From border itself, Pakistan has to deal with barak 8 and akash missile defense systems.... It is will very challenging for pakistan if India will able to make layer of defense missile systems which is under work in progress


While it is true that something is better than nothing but the fact remains...that it is much easier/cheaper/effective to develop offensive options when it comes to ballistic missiles...than defensive options...

This isn't India/Pakistan specific...it applies everywhere...and is even more true specially when the two nations are right next to each other(reducing the time to detect and counter a missile). There are plenty of studies done in the US military regarding cost/benefit analysis and the effectiveness of ABM systems...
...feel free to read those studies and u will see for urself. At the end of the day it just comes down to prioritization...
...do u wanna throw a ton of money developing a fancy system that shoots down 25 of the incoming 100 missiles? If so...what if the enemy just lobbed an extra 25 missiles for a much cheaper price than that fancy ABM system u acquired? What if the enemy developed MIRV or MaRV tech and introduced decoys? SEAD/DEAD abilities? Or in the near future swarms of drones?
...those at the top make that decision based on what they prioritize...
For a India/Pak scenario...since Pak only wants to have MAD in place...it will most likely continue to emphasize an offensive approach(as written above that it's usually cheaper)...nullifying India's defensive options just enough to ensure MAD bcuz for the most part...that's all that matters(as a deterrent).


----------



## Raj-Hindustani

Cookie Monster said:


> While it is true that something is better than nothing but the fact remains...that it is much easier/cheaper/effective to develop offensive options when it comes to ballistic missiles...than defensive options...
> 
> This isn't India/Pakistan specific...it applies everywhere...and is even more true specially when the two nations are right next to each other(reducing the time to detect and counter a missile). There are plenty of studies done in the US military regarding cost/benefit analysis and the effectiveness of ABM systems...
> ...feel free to read those studies and u will see for urself. At the end of the day it just comes down to prioritization...
> ...do u wanna throw a ton of money developing a fancy system that shoots down 25 of the incoming 100 missiles? If so...what if the enemy just lobbed an extra 25 missiles for a much cheaper price than that fancy ABM system u acquired? What if the enemy developed MIRV or MaRV tech and introduced decoys? SEAD/DEAD abilities? Or in the near future swarms of drones?
> ...those at the top make that decision based on what they prioritize...
> For a India/Pak scenario...since Pak only wants to have MAD in place...it will most likely continue to emphasize an offensive approach(as written above that it's usually cheaper)...nullifying India's defensive options just enough to ensure MAD bcuz for the most part...that's all that matters(as a deterrent).



Again you are just Referring about one S400 defense system.... But as I said, layer of defense systems...

One defense system can't be enough to defend any city.

Again, if you dont have PAD or AAD than enemy needs only one or two nuclear missiles to destroy.... But if you have effective defense systems than enemy needs to also expense on offensive weapons... Even than, no guarantee that it will be successful as totally depends on tactics, planning, execution and other factors......

A effective layer of defense systems would be always challenging for a enemy country.... It is the reason, most of the countries like USA, China, Russia, India and other few are working continuously on misst defense systems..... Even it is not 100% foolproof..


----------



## Cookie Monster

Raj-Hindustani said:


> Again you are just Referring about one S400 defense system.... But as I said, layer of defense systems...
> 
> One defense system can't be enough to defend any city.
> 
> Again, if you dot have PAD or AAD than enemy needs only one or two nuclear missiles to destroy.... But if you have effective defense systems than enemy needs to also expense on offensive weapons... Even than, no guarantee that it will be successful as totally depends on tactics, planning, execution and other factors......
> 
> A effective layer of defense systems would be always challenging for enemy country.... It is the reason, most of the countries like USA, China, Russia, India and other few are working continuously on misst defense systems..... Even it is not 100% foolproof..


I am not talking about just one system...India isn't exactly new in developing layered defense systems...many countries have already done this...which is why I said to read those studies already done on a cost/benefit analysis(the reason those studies were done is bcuz those countries embarked on that path)...
...countries like USA/Russia are not a good analogy for u to use for India/Pak case...US and Russia have huge land masses and are much further apart from each other giving more time for detection(of launch), additionally they have invested in systems that try to maximize this time by detecting the missile launch as early as possible...
...this timing is key to making the best use of any ABM system.

...as for u brushing off S400 as one system...and jumping on to the layered systems argument...S400 is technically a layered system as it is equipped with different types of missiles to engage at various ranges. Ideally u would want all ur ABM systems to be like that, where the network of radars and sensors all paint one cohesive picture of all friendly and hostile assets operating in an environment, track/prioritize target and fire control radar picks out the best solution(missile) to engage the chosen target. In not so ideal situations u r looking at all these "layered" systems not being integrated well...which will have a host of its own problems.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

Raj-Hindustani said:


> For me - AAD and PAD is best way to explain " Something better than nothing ".
> 
> These come with a high cost and now, it depends on you whatever want it or does not want it..
> 
> Reality is thag Pakistan can not afford such high cost defense equipments due to high cost. so for the counter sake of statement, pak army will always state that we have already planned or ready with "countermeasures"....
> 
> As it is expected because no country says that we don't have any countermeasures against the enemy equipment. Also, they always plan against it.
> 
> Adding - I am not saying that S400 Or air defense system is 100% foolproof.
> 
> But assuming that during the tense border situation, the air traffic will be closed.... Air defense system like S400 with other layer of defense systems starting from the international border.,.. Even it would not be a easy task.
> 
> It is not only that Pakistan drones, missiles or rockets will fly and directly going to target the S400 missiles... They have to skip the other missile defense systems as well...
> 
> The same way as I understand, India will not going to totally depends on s400... From border itself, Pakistan has to deal with barak 8 and akash missile defense systems.... It is will very challenging for pakistan if India will able to make layer of defense missile systems which is under work in progress


Absolutely, you should take a peek at the results we are seeing in our simulation of it especially against aircraft. But then also how some countermeasures are devastating AD on both Indian and Pakistani sides.

Losses of aircraft will be horrendous on both sides since Pakistan is equipping with HQ-9s and India with the LRSAM/MRSAM combo. Even with Jamming and decoys these systems exact a heavy price.

Swarms of drones will really be the only option to overwhelm systems. But the BMD aspect is even less effective due to the shorter distance (although Israel has a solution which India should look into)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shumaila Aziz

informative one



Cookie Monster said:


> I am not talking about just one system...India isn't exactly new in developing layered defense systems...many countries have already done this...which is why I said to read those studies already done on a cost/benefit analysis(the reason those studies were done is bcuz those countries embarked on that path)...
> ...countries like USA/Russia are not a good analogy for u to use for India/Pak case...US and Russia have huge land masses and are much further apart from each other giving more time for detection(of launch), additionally they have invested in systems that try to maximize this time by detecting the missile launch as early as possible...
> ...this timing is key to making the best use of any ABM system.
> 
> ...as for u brushing off S400 as one system...and jumping on to the layered systems argument...S400 is technically a layered system as it is equipped with different types of missiles to engage at various ranges. Ideally u would want all ur ABM systems to be like that, where the network of radars and sensors all paint one cohesive picture of all friendly and hostile assets operating in an environment, track/prioritize target and fire control radar picks out the best solution(missile) to engage the chosen target. In not so ideal situations u r looking at all these "layered" systems not being integrated well...which will have a host of its own problems.


yes your are right


----------

