Can all 5 PN subs carry Babur SLCM?

[Shamsher1990]

can spot a fighter size target at over 250kms! So a cruise missile can be effectively detected in excess of more than 120kms! A detection of 120+kms against cruise missiles is a very healthy window to initiate counter fire via SAMs. Remember, the major challenge against low flying CMs is not interception but detection-- once detected, they can be taken care of by modern agile SAMs.

Thats true, this is because cruise missile cannot exactly defend itself against an income SAM. It has not radar or even maneuvering capability of fighter. Its just follows a path determined by its navigational system, if enough metal is in the path of the missile, its dead.

SLCM also have one more vulnerability. Unless they are launched close to coast, they spend sometime on the sea. Unlike ground clutter, 'sea surface clutter' is not as effective in hiding missile. So low flying, slow flying is not exactly the best tactic while SLCM is crusing above the sea. It can be intercepted there relatively more likely.

 

[amardeep mishra]

SLCM also have one more vulnerability. Unless they are launched close to coast, they spend sometime on the sea. Unlike ground clutter, 'sea surface clutter' is not as effective in hiding missile. So low flying, slow flying is not exactly the best tactic while SLCM is crusing above the sea. It can be intercepted there relatively more likely.

Thats absolutely true, however you're not taking into account other complications-- for instance "echo" returns. When a cruise missile flies very very low, then, the radar wave hit the CM but also the point just below the CM on the surface of sea- this extra point that reflects the radar wave is known as an echo. So a CM flying just above the ocean surface will have two returns, one from itself and another from the surface.
But there's no doubt that sea is very poor in hiding the CM, it is quite open and any decent look down radar with sea modes of operation can very very easily detect a SLCM.

 

[Shamsher1990]

Thats absolutely true, however you're not taking into account other complications-- for instance "echo" returns. When a cruise missile flies very very low, then, the radar wave hit the CM but also the point just below the CM on the surface of sea- this extra point that reflects the radar wave is known as an echo. So a CM flying just above the ocean surface will have two returns, one from itself and another from the surface.
But there's no doubt that sea is very poor in hiding the CM, it is quite open and any decent look down radar with sea modes of operation can very very easily detect a SLCM.

I wasn't aware of echo returns. That said a basic cross-correlation (actually it is closer to auto-correlation) analysis should in theory cancel that. The delay from echo coming from sea surface and that of a missile should be different. Meaning,

x(t) signal transmitted and y(t) signal received, x(t)(.)y(t-k) / (|x(t)| |y(t-k)|) will be close to 1 for a known k, dependent on height and attitude of the low down radar. any change in k will signify presence of a something else below the radar, above the sea surface. A cross(auto?)-correlation result delayed by a time window and fed in a differential amplifier will accommodate for this echo. That said, there may be very effective other ways too.

SLCM IMHO is poor solution if submarine is presence in India's backyard of water. ie Arabian sea or bay of bangal. India can deploy dedicated low-cost platform with look-down radars specifically aimed to detect SLCMs. Also it can keep anti-submarine defence patrol near its coast line with sono-bouys to deter approach of subs near the land. Lastly, given these are going to be conventional subs, their low endurance will force them to repeatedly revisit ports making observation via satellite a much viable option to detect them and keep a count of them.

Everyone forgets incase of US launched missiles, those missiles were having much longer range and were fired from US friendly waters without any coverage of hostile radars. Once they reached the land they were more immune to detection.

 

[amardeep mishra]

I wasn't aware of echo returns. That said a basic cross-correlation (actually it is closer to auto-correlation) analysis should in theory cancel that. The delay from echo coming from sea surface and that of a missile should be different. Meaning,

x(t) signal transmitted and y(t) signal received, x(t)(.)y(t-k) / (|x(t)| |y(t-k)|) will be close to 1 for a known k, dependent on height and attitude of the low down radar. any change in k will signify presence of a something else below the radar, above the sea surface. A cross(auto?)-correlation result delayed by a time window and fed in a differential amplifier will accommodate for this echo. That said, there may be very effective other ways too.

SLCM IMHO is poor solution if submarine is presence in India's backyard of water. ie Arabian sea or bay of bangal. India can deploy dedicated low-cost platform with look-down radars specifically aimed to detect SLCMs. Also it can keep anti-submarine defence patrol near its coast line with sono-bouys to deter approach of subs near the land. Lastly, given these are going to be conventional subs, their low endurance will force them to repeatedly revisit ports making observation via satellite a much viable option to detect them and keep a count of them.

Everyone forgets incase of US launched missiles, those missiles were having much longer range and were fired from US friendly waters without any coverage of hostile radars. Once they reached the land they were more immune to detection.

Hi @Shamsher1990
You are right, what you've explained above is general correlation of signals. In real systems, the echo is always correlated against the known signal and the time instant k at which the correlator hits maxima, the processor will know the presence of target. Range etc can be calculated based on the time difference. However when there's an echo very very close to the main pulse with characteristic similar to the main pulse, it gets very difficult for the processor to tell which one is real and which one is the reflected echo. This situation is roughly similar to range resolution cell-- i.e the cell in space within which aircrafts are indistinguishable by the radar-- i.e if two aircrafts are flying in the same cell, then it will be taken as one aircraft by the radar.

 

[Shamsher1990]

Hi @Shamsher1990
You are right, what you've explained above is general correlation of signals. In real systems, the echo is always correlated against the known signal and the time instant k at which the correlator hits maxima, the processor will know the presence of target. Range etc can be calculated based on the time difference. However when there's an echo very very close to the main pulse with characteristic similar to the main pulse, it gets very difficult for the processor to tell which one is real and which one is the reflected echo. This situation is roughly similar to range resolution cell-- i.e the cell in space within which aircrafts are indistinguishable by the radar-- i.e if two aircrafts are flying in the same cell, then it will be taken as one aircraft by the radar.

So is it possible to detect a target flying really close to sea surface then?

 

[Tipu7]

Plz stop asking these questions over and over again......

Q: Can all PN subs carry Babur SLCM?
A: No.

Q: Was Babur SLCM tested from any sub in PN current inventory?
A: No.

Q: Will S20 clones coming from China will be able to carry Babur SLCM?
A: Yes, at least 'some' of them.

Q: Is there any operational Babur SLCM equipped with nuclear warhead?
A: No.

Q: Why?
A: Because there is no need for it yet.

Q: Is Babur SLCM progress is frozen?
A: No, its in continuous development.

Q: Is Babur SLCM only nuclear option PN likely to get in near future?
A: No. More options are under development.

 

[amardeep mishra]

So is it possible to detect a target flying really close to sea surface then?

Hi @Shamsher1990
Indeed it should be possible. It is just that radar might have difficulty telling which one is real missile and which one is reflection. I am unfortunately not actively working on radars.

 

[syed_yusuf]

After the upgrade A90 Should be able to carry babur SLCM

 

[The Deterrent]

Even if lets say we could individually program the CMs, slide it into the tube, the firing mechanism of submarine should be able to flush it out of the tube without damaging the submarine or the missile.
It is precisely because of these two mentioned reasons that I believe firing a CM without properly interfacing the mission planner of CM with combat management system of submarine is nearly impossible. Look at the case of India, even after having bought the ToT of scorpene, and having built 6 at home and 6 more planned, French have not shared the source code of their combat management system, so in all likelihood, French wouldnt have shared the source code of their agosta-90 with Pakistan especially when Pakistani order was way smaller than India's financially.

Oh, the denial. My my my... time for some flashbacks from a year ago!

You're trying to convince the kind of people who are constantly deluded into believing that they have the requisite industrial research capacity to design and develop a SLCM. I mean for god sake you dont have to be an imagery expert to point out various anamolies(Like missile changing color,absence of any telemetry ship on the site where SLCM cleared water etc to name a few) in the video floated by ISPR.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/grap...-nuclear-deterrent.473033/page-6#post-9122017

Plz stop asking these questions over and over again......

Q: Can all PN subs carry Babur SLCM?
A: No.

Q: Was Babur SLCM tested from any sub in PN current inventory?
A: No.

Q: Will S20 clones coming from China will be able to carry Babur SLCM?
A: Yes, at least 'some' of them.

Q: Is there any operational Babur SLCM equipped with nuclear warhead?
A: No.

Q: Why?
A: Because there is no need for it yet.

Q: Is Babur SLCM progress is frozen?
A: No, its in continuous development.

Q: Is Babur SLCM only nuclear option PN likely to get in near future?
A: No. More options are under development.

Um kindly don't pretend to be an expert. 90B can and has launched Babur-3 SLCM.

 

[Tipu7]

Oh, the denial. My my my... time for some flashbacks from a year ago!

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/grap...-nuclear-deterrent.473033/page-6#post-9122017


Um kindly don't pretend to be an expert. 90B can and has launched Babur-3 SLCM.

Not in my knowledge. Was that successful?

 

[The Deterrent]

Not in my knowledge. Was that successful?

Yes. PN will declare possession of operational second strike capability when deemed necessary.

 

[v9s]

Yes. PN will declare possession of operational second strike capability when deemed necessary.

This is new. I was under the impression that we'd only managed launch off an underwater platform.

 

[Maarkhoor]

This is new. I was under the impression that we'd only managed launch off an underwater platform.

Why we would build a missile when we don't have platform to launch? ask yourself and get the answer.

 

[v9s]

Why we would build a missile when we don't have platform to launch? ask yourself and get the answer.

That's not what i'm implying. When Babur 3 was first tested, @The Deterrent was adamant that it was tested off an underwater platform and not the Agosta. This is the first time i'm aware that he has claimed it has been tested on Agosta.

 

[Maarkhoor]

That's not what i'm implying. When Babur 3 was first tested, @The Deterrent was adamant that it was tested off an underwater platform and not the Agosta. This is the first time i'm aware that he has claimed it has been tested on Agosta.

Tested successfully from sub....