Dillinger
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 6,103
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
@Sigmund Freud IF you're arp then you'll be able to make sense out of the following post by me- IF you're unable to though then its 
for you.
for you.I would have to concur with your post. Most people are blindsiding the fact that in operational use a ballistic missile that is meant to cover China must be able to do so from all viable points in India, specially in the case of an article like the Agni-5 which is road mobile (unlike the previous Agni iterations where their rail-mobility would have restricted the flexibility of launch point options RELATIVELY). A road-mobile missile becomes specifically deadly if it indeed can target the intended enemy nation (in its entirety) from the length and breadth of our nation- in case that is not possible then the utility of said missile is somewhat reduced. Now one can always argue that the real range of a missile like the Agni-5 is dependent upon many factors including the payload that it is carrying BUT in a situation as dire as a nuclear exchange - the only kind of situation which would actually necessitate the real usage of such a weapon- you really want to be able to utilize the maximum throw-weight of your missiles. Lets be clear that not being able to hit say Harbin from Thiruvananthapuram if its loaded to its maximum payload (the distance between the two is 6292.7 Kilometers / 3395.5 Nautical Miles) does not make the Agni-5 any less potent in absolute terms BUT it does put a certain limit on the flexibility of the system in relative terms (AND WHEN THE STAKES ARE AS HIGH AS NUCLEAR WAR YOU REALLY WANT EVERY BIT OF POSSIBLE ADVANTAGE ON YOUR SIDE)- however marginal that limit maybe. So if we build upon the previous point- ideally you want MAXIMUM flexibility and options which will enhance the survivability of the delivery system assets. Not to mention in the case of our opponent choosing to engage in a comprehensive counter-force strike on us the further our assets are from the launch points of the missiles of the opponent the greater the window of opportunity for them to either be launched in reciprocal action or for them to be moved away from harm. So practically speaking a road-mobile A-5 which has a max disclosed range of 5500KM with its max. payload (max. payload becomes very relevant if you intend to arm the missile with MIRVs and decoys to protect said MIRVs against ABM systems) is the first step but an effective step nonetheless and one which increases the potential of our deterrence BUT we will need to increase the range of our ballistic missiles in concert with the development of functional MIRV systems.
When we move into the area of SLBMs then range becomes even more vital. The whole point of a SSBN is that its supposed to lay low and strike from far away, a nuclear submarine should not be forced to just loiter in the pond because of a limitation in the range of the ballistic missiles that comprise its strike package. The larger the operational area from where a SSBN can effectively target the opponent the harder it is for the opponent to track and/or kill it. The Americans are really that formidable not because of their super-carriers but rather because an Ohio class Submarine can target any of the major countries such as China or Russia from any corner of the world with overwhelming force- something that the Russians can still do but to a severely restricted level and something the Chinese still cannot do practically since they still do not have anything like the Typhoon class or Ohio class SSBN (although its just a matter of a few years till they bridge that gap to the FULL EXTENT). For our future SSBN force to be effective against a potential nuclear enemy they must be able to strike said enemy over a spectrum of all possible targets from an appreciable distance. For a SLBM to be truly effective it must really cross the 6000KM range. The K-15 and the initial K-4 variants are only fully optimal against a target like Pakistan. The PN cannot fan into an area extending 3000KM from their coastline and commit sufficient resources to hunt down an Arihant class sub specifically because they lack a nuclear hunter-killer sub and because the behemoth that the Indian navy is (in comparison) would be standing in the way. This would provide an Arihant sub with a relatively impenetrable zone from where to fire upon a target in Pakistan provided that they are using the K-4 while the utilization of the K-15 would require it to get dangerously close to Pakistani territorial waters. Again the advantage is relative, in both cases the Arihant could do its job and do it with a high probability of success BUT in the latter scenario with the K-15 the chances of success would be less in relative terms. In the case of the PRC even the K-4 AND its follow on version which also seems to be dubbed the K-4 (with a length of 12 meters rather than the 10 meter length of the initial K-4, a new SSBN class will probably be required to house the 2nd K-4 version due to its length) would both prove to be less than ideal with the max. range on the final K-4 iteration only reaching 5000KM. A completely effective system would require an SLBM that can hit from 6000-8000KM away. The range of such SLBMs should only be restricted by any potential technological limit or practical considerations (from cost-benefit to operational viability) rather than political expediency. Remember that if the US is bound to frown upon us for testing a 8000KM land based BM (THE REASON THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE PROPPING UP TO ARGUE THAT INDIA REALLY SHOULDN'T) then trust me they shall be EVEN MORE PISSED about an operational 6000KM SLBM in our hands since the latter would be far more damaging even to them in any unlikely scenario which would see us strike at them- case in point being that statically a sub with a 6K range SLBM has a higher chance of evading their massive navy and positioning itself in international waters from where it could launch at them- that is to say that a submarine can get close enough to do so relatively speaking while a 8K land based BM would pose no threat to them at all since it JUST CANNOT BE RE-POSITIONED OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL BOUNDARY OF OUR NATION.
Last edited by a moderator:
