AZADPAKISTAN2009
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 37,669
- Reaction score
- 68
- Country
- Location
Next Surprise will be unveiled at right moment
Ensured Nuclear Strike: Indian Ballistic Missile Defense and Pakistani Countermeasures
- Thread starter ghazi52
- Start date
There is really nothing to reveal - the Indian ABM "threat" was addressed almost 4-5 years ago.
Long story short - Dehli is very much vulnerable to multiple hits as are the Nicobar islands.
If X number of weapon systems are launched - then 98% of the weapon systems will hit regardless of S400's or AADs or PADs or THAADS.
Long story short - Dehli is very much vulnerable to multiple hits as are the Nicobar islands.
If X number of weapon systems are launched - then 98% of the weapon systems will hit regardless of S400's or AADs or PADs or THAADS.
White and Green with M/S
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2020
- Messages
- 7,946
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
And what about Raj Monkey @$$ fake troll expert, when we tested submarine launch cruise missiles in 2017
there is numbers of way that you can defeat enemy's BMD systems
ghazi52
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 102,833
- Reaction score
- 106
- Country
- Location
True.
truthfollower
BANNED
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2019
- Messages
- 1,841
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
Maximum flight time between possible Indian sites and major Pakistani cities(there are practically 4) is less than 15 minutes - and enough warheads on both sides that probability of killing all is nigh impossible.
The rest of your posts is best asked from the Indian state and military.
LeGenD
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,813
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
Pakistani ballistic missile arsenal (and cruise missile arsenal) are impressive with sufficient diversity and numbers to penetrate Indian defenses in the present (and foreseeable future).
1. Indian BMD experiments are lacking in transparency.
"Other countries are considerably less transparent about their test data. India has carried out at least 14 intercept tests aimed at either rockets or satellites. In five of these intercepts, it was unclear from available public information what the target was, beyond some sort of stand-in for a hostile missile. Most surprising of all is India’s assertion that only one of these 14 tests, the country’s first attempt at intercepting a satellite in March, was unsuccessful. By comparison, many of the early U.S. system tests were publicly reported as failures (such as the aforementioned first six THAAD tests). The single observed failure with India is also interesting in that India attempted to conceal it as a mere flight test instead of an intercept test. [7] That we do not observe a significant number of early failures with India’s systems suggests there may be quite a few earlier developmental tests which are not publicly acknowledged or known."
www.nti.org
2. Indian BMD network is not operational in the present.
theprint.in
Indians are looking forward to protect DELHI in the near future, and a BMD network for this city will be operational by the end of 2023.
Indians have deployed sophisticated BMD tracking systems in province of Rajasthan near Pakistan. These are within reach of PAF just in case.
Indian BMD tests are isolated live-fire events with lack of integration between AAD and PAD interceptor types thus far (Dr. Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan).
Credible BMD capability is very expensive (and challenging) to develop and deploy in substantial numbers.
- - - - -
Indians have developed and tested following BMD-capable interceptors by now.
Indian AAD interceptor = reliable*
One-stage rocket (solid-fueled)
Endo- atmospheric Terminal phase (15 KM - 25 KM)
www.thedefensepost.com
*This interceptor type provide limited intercept possibilites against SRBM-class targets and MRBM-class targets in the MACH (3 - 8) velocity bracket and Terminal phase of flight.
- - -
Indian Akash interceptor = unreliable
One-stage rocket (solid-fueled)
Endo- atmospheric Terminal phase (15 KM - 25 KM)
NOTE: India tested a new variant of Akash interceptor (Akash NG) in 2021 but did not provide evidence of its reportedly successful intercept. Relevant footage are rather jingoism pieces.
- - -
Indian PAD interceptor (Pradyumna) = unreliable
Two-stage rocket (2nd stage is liquid-fueled*)
Exo- atmospheric Terminal phase (50 KM - 80 KM)
*This is a shortcoming:
"As liquid rocket fuel corrodes fuel tanks when stored for long time, the PAD could not be on standby 24/7. Instead, it would need to be gassed up during a period of crisis in anticipation of trouble. This is less than ideal for a weapon intended to defend against an attack which might come at any moment." - Dr. Zafar Nawaz Jaspal
NOTE: Pradyumna to be replaced with more capable PDV interceptor for PAD.
Indian PAD interceptors including PDV are not reliable for BMD engagements above 80 KM altitudes (Dr. Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan).
- - -
Indian PDV MK-II interceptor (significantly improved PDV) = insufficient testing
3-stage rocket (solid-fueled)
Exo- atmospheric Midcourse phase (LEO ASAT capability demonstrated in a test in 2019)
Details in following publication:
- - - - -
Following statements in (thread) article are corrected nevertheless.
"While most BMD systems are ground-based, the Americans have developed the Aegis Defense System which is a ship-based missile defense system and is a mid-course interceptor for medium range missiles, although the ship must be in the right azimuth, range and location."
Correction: AEGIS can develop Fire Solution(s) for ICBM class target(s) as well and intercept(s) can be achieved with SM-3 Block IIA interceptor type.
"But, even the best interception missiles available today in the world have only a 52% chance of interception. The American NORAD command therefore advises firing 3-4 interceptors for every ballistic warhead heading its way. Even still, the effectiveness of these systems is debatable even after the US has spent over half a trillion dollars and 40+ years trying."
Correction: Bush administration approved deployment of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) network in homeland with experimental technologies aimed to provide intercept possibilities against ICBM-class targets in 2004. These technologies are being transformed into capable tools with incremental updates in low-risk operational conditions. These technologies approached desired performance levels in 2014, and subsequent tests were successful. This is why target intercept statistics of GMD are skewed.
GMD network components are under development in fact.
https://insidedefense.com/daily-new...t-lrdr-configuration-2-support-space-missions
NORAD does not specify salvo requirements. Two-shot salvo might be sufficient for some ICBM-class targets, but others might necessitate a larger salvo to counter each.
- - -
BMD intercept possibilities are shaped by interceptor types* and operational capacity of networks in use (battery configurations + quality of radar systems + cues from other assets); some networks might be much better developed than the others.
*Different types of interceptors are designed to defeat different types of ballistic missiles. For example, THAAD is far more capable than Patriot against MRBM-class targets.
LINK: https://slideplayer.com/slide/17019425/
"Flight Experiment THAAD-01 (FET-01; formerly FTT-15), a developmental test, tested against a complex medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) re-entry vehicle (RV) at a low endo-atmospheric altitude. This test used the same hardware and software configurations as in FTT-18."
US is attempting to integrate THAAD and Patriot to create robust theater BMD network(s) nevertheless.
"Both these Indian BMD systems employ hit-to-kill interception would have less than 30 seconds (less than 18 in case of the Ashwin) to track and fire at tens of Pakistani decoys and warheads travelling at Mach 20+ speeds."
Correction: Ballistic missile PENAIDS work in exo- atmospheric conditions to complicate Midcourse phase intercept possibilities; they are useless in Terminal phase endo- atmospheric conditions due to forces of friction. Indian PAD is unreliable anyways (see above).
MRBMs and IRBMs exceeding MACH 20 ???
(a) Peak velocity of any ballistic missile will vary according to following considerations:
1. Number of propellants
2. Specifications of each propellant
3. Gross mass of payload
4. Trajectory
LGM-30 Minuteman III ICBM for reference:
Stage 1 - Thiokol (M-55E1) Solid-fueled
Thrust Vac = 935 kN
Burn time = 60 sec
Stage 2 - Aerojet-General (SR-19-AJ-1) Solid-fueled
Thrust Vac = 268 kN
Burn time = 66 sec
Stage 3 - Aerojet-General (SR-73-AJ-1) Solid-fueled
Thrust Vac = 156 kN
Burn time = 61 sec
Stage PBS - Rocketdyne RS-14 liquid-fueled
Thurst Vac = 1.4 kN
This ICBM can attain peak velocity in the MACH (23 - 24) bracket.
Peak velocity in the MACH (10 - 11) bracket is realistic for advanced MRBMs*
Peak velocity in the MACH (13 - 15) bracket is realistic for advanced IRBMs*
*Faster designs might be possible for either class subject to conditions (a) but MACH 20+ is unrealistic.
"This system is present with Pakistan in the form of the Ababeel MIRV nuclear missile (MIRV Ababeel bus consists of three standard warheads of 500 kg each or 5 warheads of 300 kg or 8 maximum warheads weighing 185 kg) making Pakistan the only country in South Asia to have this capability."
Correction: Ababeel MRBM was tested in 2017 but nothing afterwards. Let us see.
1. Indian BMD experiments are lacking in transparency.
"Other countries are considerably less transparent about their test data. India has carried out at least 14 intercept tests aimed at either rockets or satellites. In five of these intercepts, it was unclear from available public information what the target was, beyond some sort of stand-in for a hostile missile. Most surprising of all is India’s assertion that only one of these 14 tests, the country’s first attempt at intercepting a satellite in March, was unsuccessful. By comparison, many of the early U.S. system tests were publicly reported as failures (such as the aforementioned first six THAAD tests). The single observed failure with India is also interesting in that India attempted to conceal it as a mere flight test instead of an intercept test. [7] That we do not observe a significant number of early failures with India’s systems suggests there may be quite a few earlier developmental tests which are not publicly acknowledged or known."
The Global Missile Defense Race: Strong Test Records and Poor Operational Performance
At least 26 countries possess, or are pursuing, missile defense systems despite their questionable combat efficacy. (CNS)
2. Indian BMD network is not operational in the present.
India’s ballistic missile shield ready, IAF & DRDO to seek govt nod to protect Delhi
BMD programme envisaged for Delhi. This, along with the Russian S-400 Triumf air defence system, aims to secure India from all kinds of incoming missiles.
theprint.in
Indians are looking forward to protect DELHI in the near future, and a BMD network for this city will be operational by the end of 2023.
Indians have deployed sophisticated BMD tracking systems in province of Rajasthan near Pakistan. These are within reach of PAF just in case.
Indian BMD tests are isolated live-fire events with lack of integration between AAD and PAD interceptor types thus far (Dr. Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan).
Credible BMD capability is very expensive (and challenging) to develop and deploy in substantial numbers.
- - - - -
Indians have developed and tested following BMD-capable interceptors by now.
Indian AAD interceptor = reliable*
One-stage rocket (solid-fueled)
Endo- atmospheric Terminal phase (15 KM - 25 KM)
India's Advanced Air Defence missile destroys target ballistic missile in test
India's indigenously developed Advanced Air Defence missile system successfully intercepted a target ballistic missile
www.thedefensepost.com
India’s Advanced Air Defense Interceptor Shoots Down Ballistic Missile Target in Test
In a first, the AAD interceptor successfully sought out and destroyed its target amid multiple electronically simulated dummy warheads used as decoys.
thediplomat.com
*This interceptor type provide limited intercept possibilites against SRBM-class targets and MRBM-class targets in the MACH (3 - 8) velocity bracket and Terminal phase of flight.
- - -
Indian Akash interceptor = unreliable
One-stage rocket (solid-fueled)
Endo- atmospheric Terminal phase (15 KM - 25 KM)
NOTE: India tested a new variant of Akash interceptor (Akash NG) in 2021 but did not provide evidence of its reportedly successful intercept. Relevant footage are rather jingoism pieces.
- - -
Indian PAD interceptor (Pradyumna) = unreliable
Two-stage rocket (2nd stage is liquid-fueled*)
Exo- atmospheric Terminal phase (50 KM - 80 KM)
*This is a shortcoming:
"As liquid rocket fuel corrodes fuel tanks when stored for long time, the PAD could not be on standby 24/7. Instead, it would need to be gassed up during a period of crisis in anticipation of trouble. This is less than ideal for a weapon intended to defend against an attack which might come at any moment." - Dr. Zafar Nawaz Jaspal
NOTE: Pradyumna to be replaced with more capable PDV interceptor for PAD.
Indian PAD interceptors including PDV are not reliable for BMD engagements above 80 KM altitudes (Dr. Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan).
- - -
Indian PDV MK-II interceptor (significantly improved PDV) = insufficient testing
3-stage rocket (solid-fueled)
Exo- atmospheric Midcourse phase (LEO ASAT capability demonstrated in a test in 2019)
Details in following publication:
- - - - -
Following statements in (thread) article are corrected nevertheless.
"While most BMD systems are ground-based, the Americans have developed the Aegis Defense System which is a ship-based missile defense system and is a mid-course interceptor for medium range missiles, although the ship must be in the right azimuth, range and location."
Correction: AEGIS can develop Fire Solution(s) for ICBM class target(s) as well and intercept(s) can be achieved with SM-3 Block IIA interceptor type.
"But, even the best interception missiles available today in the world have only a 52% chance of interception. The American NORAD command therefore advises firing 3-4 interceptors for every ballistic warhead heading its way. Even still, the effectiveness of these systems is debatable even after the US has spent over half a trillion dollars and 40+ years trying."
Correction: Bush administration approved deployment of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) network in homeland with experimental technologies aimed to provide intercept possibilities against ICBM-class targets in 2004. These technologies are being transformed into capable tools with incremental updates in low-risk operational conditions. These technologies approached desired performance levels in 2014, and subsequent tests were successful. This is why target intercept statistics of GMD are skewed.
GMD network components are under development in fact.
Boeing: GMD team installs silos, vaults in Fort Greely, Alaska
Strike while it’s hot: GMD team installs 17 silos, vaults in Fort Greely, Alaska in 2020.
www.boeing.com
https://insidedefense.com/daily-new...t-lrdr-configuration-2-support-space-missions
Contracts Awarded for Next Generation Interceptor Program
The Defense Department awarded two contracts to Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. and Lockheed Martin Corp. in support of the Next Generation Interceptor program.
www.defense.gov
NORAD does not specify salvo requirements. Two-shot salvo might be sufficient for some ICBM-class targets, but others might necessitate a larger salvo to counter each.
- - -
BMD intercept possibilities are shaped by interceptor types* and operational capacity of networks in use (battery configurations + quality of radar systems + cues from other assets); some networks might be much better developed than the others.
*Different types of interceptors are designed to defeat different types of ballistic missiles. For example, THAAD is far more capable than Patriot against MRBM-class targets.
LINK: https://slideplayer.com/slide/17019425/
"Flight Experiment THAAD-01 (FET-01; formerly FTT-15), a developmental test, tested against a complex medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) re-entry vehicle (RV) at a low endo-atmospheric altitude. This test used the same hardware and software configurations as in FTT-18."
US is attempting to integrate THAAD and Patriot to create robust theater BMD network(s) nevertheless.
"Both these Indian BMD systems employ hit-to-kill interception would have less than 30 seconds (less than 18 in case of the Ashwin) to track and fire at tens of Pakistani decoys and warheads travelling at Mach 20+ speeds."
Correction: Ballistic missile PENAIDS work in exo- atmospheric conditions to complicate Midcourse phase intercept possibilities; they are useless in Terminal phase endo- atmospheric conditions due to forces of friction. Indian PAD is unreliable anyways (see above).
MRBMs and IRBMs exceeding MACH 20 ???
(a) Peak velocity of any ballistic missile will vary according to following considerations:
1. Number of propellants
2. Specifications of each propellant
3. Gross mass of payload
4. Trajectory
LGM-30 Minuteman III ICBM for reference:
Stage 1 - Thiokol (M-55E1) Solid-fueled
Thrust Vac = 935 kN
Burn time = 60 sec
Stage 2 - Aerojet-General (SR-19-AJ-1) Solid-fueled
Thrust Vac = 268 kN
Burn time = 66 sec
Stage 3 - Aerojet-General (SR-73-AJ-1) Solid-fueled
Thrust Vac = 156 kN
Burn time = 61 sec
Stage PBS - Rocketdyne RS-14 liquid-fueled
Thurst Vac = 1.4 kN
This ICBM can attain peak velocity in the MACH (23 - 24) bracket.
Peak velocity in the MACH (10 - 11) bracket is realistic for advanced MRBMs*
Peak velocity in the MACH (13 - 15) bracket is realistic for advanced IRBMs*
*Faster designs might be possible for either class subject to conditions (a) but MACH 20+ is unrealistic.
"This system is present with Pakistan in the form of the Ababeel MIRV nuclear missile (MIRV Ababeel bus consists of three standard warheads of 500 kg each or 5 warheads of 300 kg or 8 maximum warheads weighing 185 kg) making Pakistan the only country in South Asia to have this capability."
Correction: Ababeel MRBM was tested in 2017 but nothing afterwards. Let us see.
ghazi52
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 102,833
- Reaction score
- 106
- Country
- Location
Changing Security Dynamic of South Asia After Nuclearization
By Admin PSF
Introduction
South Asia is one of the most critical and sensitive regions of the World regarding conflicts. There are eight countries in this region, India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Maldives. All these countries are directly or indirectly involved in some sort of conflicts. Among them, Pakistan and India are arch-rivals since their independence in 1947. This region is facing many traditional and non-traditional security threats. Two countries in this region have nuclear weapons while two others are present in the neighborhood of this region.
Background
“As long as the world is constituted as it is, every country will have to devise and use the latest devices for its protection. I have no doubt India will develop their scientific researchers and I hope Indian scientists will use atomic force for constructive purposes. But if India is threatened, she will inevitably try to defend herself by all means at her disposal.”
(Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, Former Prime Minister of India)
“We (Pakistan) will eat grass, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own (Atom bomb) …. We have no other choice!”
(Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Former Prime Minister of Pakistan)
These are the two statements by the former head of states of India and Pakistan regarding Nuclearization. Pakistan and India are two arch-rivals since their independence from British colonialism. These statements also show the quest for nuclearization by both states. India did her first nuclear explosion in 1974 starting an era of nuclearization in this region. Those nuclear tests changed the entire security dynamic of south Asia. Although, India claimed that those were for peaceful purposes and named them as Smiling Buddha & Peaceful Nuclear Explosions (PNE). Then again in 1998, India and Pakistan both counties did nuclear explosions. On 11 and 13 may, India did Nuclear explosions and then Pakistan followed suit to balance the Indian superiority in South Asia.
For India, Nuclear Weapons are a symbol of pride, prestige, and great power. India is following normative model While for Pakistan, Nuclear Weapon means to deter Indian Aggression and maintains the balance of power in South Asia. Pakistan is following the security model because it is facing security threats from India on eastern borders. Motivation behind the nuclear program is the key element when analyzing the policies of a country toward peace.
Nuclearization of South Asia changed the entire security dynamics of South Asia. After nuclearization of this region, impacts can be concluded by 3 main events.
Kargil War.
Twin Peak Crisis.
Pulwama Attack and Balakot Strike.
Effects of Nuclearization
After the nuclearization of South Asia, the region did not witness any all-out full-scale war despite some serious border tensions. Nuclear Weapons bring strategic stability in the region. The US and Russia played a major role in designing the policies in South Asia. Indo-Russian and Indo-US defense deals have disturbed the strategic stability in south Asia. On the other hand, China has a very significant role in defining Pakistan’s security policy. We witnessed doctrinal shifts in both countries due to Nuclearization.
Nuclear weapons are very helpful for preventing major wars. This theory already observed during the Cold War era. During the cold war era, the US and Soviet Union had the highest numbers of nuclear weapons, but this prevented them from any full-scale direct war. Cuban Missile Crisis was also solved due to the presence of nuclear weapons. Both countries maintained their strategic deterrence. Now for India, Nuclear Weapon is a symbol of global power while for Pakistan it is just for deterrence. Pakistan and India both are non-signatory of NPT and CTBT.
To counter Indian Conventional Superiority, Pakistan came up with the idea of “Full Spectrum Deterrence (FSD)” and “Minimum Credible Deterrence”. But according to Lt Gen (R) Naeem Khalid Lodhi, Pakistan still lacks full spectrum deterrence despite having nuclear bombs. After the nuclearization of this region, the region witnessed many doctrinal shifts, based on acquisition of many new modern and advanced weapon systems. From Su-30 MKI to S-400 BMD systems, all came after the nuclearization. India introduced weapons which disturbed the balance of power in the region. Now India has introduced another one -Anti-Satellite weapons in the region. While Pakistan introduced MRIV technology.
Arms Race
On the other hand, an era of new arms race also started with this nuclearization in this region. Failure of Indian Armed forces during twin peak crisis gave birth to another doctrine known as “Cold Start Doctrine”. Indian Army took 3 weeks to mobilization to western border. Before twin peak crisis, Indian Army was following SunderJi Doctrine. But during twin peak crisis, Indian Army was unable to mobilize swiftly.
Hence, in 2004, Indian policy makers came up with the idea of “Cold Start Doctrine”. To implement new doctrine, Indian army required new weapons and tactics. For that Indian Military is spending billions of dollars to undergo the modernization process. Then again in 2017-18, Indian Military revised its war fighting plans and published new doctrine with the title of Land Warfare Doctrine. As I said earlier, these doctrines started an arms race between countries.
Both countries are facing the worst economic crisis but still both are spending huge amounts of money on their defense. More than 1 billion people are living below the poverty line. According to SIPRI, during 2013-17 India was the largest arms importer in the world. Besides manufacturing at HAL, DRDO, India is also buying arms from US, France, Israel, and Russia. Political stability in both countries is also in very bad shape. On one side Pakistan is dealing with dozens of internal issues including poverty, lack of education etc. while on the other hand there is growing border tensions with India and Afghanistan. Indian Government is also having similar problems. After nuclearization, both countries are spending huge amounts of money on defense which is not a good sign for both countries as well as the region. SAARC is also having issues due to this rivalry between India and Pakistan.
Conclusion
Nuclear Weapons are very helpful in preventing major or full-fledged wars, but they pave the way for Arms Race. Both countries are competing in the terms of Conventional as well as Nuclear Arms. Indo-Pak relations have a major role in South Asian Geo-politics. SAARC failed due to Indo-Pak relations. Under these circumstances both Pakistan and India must go for disarmament and arms control.
By Admin PSF
Introduction
South Asia is one of the most critical and sensitive regions of the World regarding conflicts. There are eight countries in this region, India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Maldives. All these countries are directly or indirectly involved in some sort of conflicts. Among them, Pakistan and India are arch-rivals since their independence in 1947. This region is facing many traditional and non-traditional security threats. Two countries in this region have nuclear weapons while two others are present in the neighborhood of this region.
Background
“As long as the world is constituted as it is, every country will have to devise and use the latest devices for its protection. I have no doubt India will develop their scientific researchers and I hope Indian scientists will use atomic force for constructive purposes. But if India is threatened, she will inevitably try to defend herself by all means at her disposal.”
(Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, Former Prime Minister of India)
“We (Pakistan) will eat grass, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own (Atom bomb) …. We have no other choice!”
(Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Former Prime Minister of Pakistan)
These are the two statements by the former head of states of India and Pakistan regarding Nuclearization. Pakistan and India are two arch-rivals since their independence from British colonialism. These statements also show the quest for nuclearization by both states. India did her first nuclear explosion in 1974 starting an era of nuclearization in this region. Those nuclear tests changed the entire security dynamic of south Asia. Although, India claimed that those were for peaceful purposes and named them as Smiling Buddha & Peaceful Nuclear Explosions (PNE). Then again in 1998, India and Pakistan both counties did nuclear explosions. On 11 and 13 may, India did Nuclear explosions and then Pakistan followed suit to balance the Indian superiority in South Asia.
For India, Nuclear Weapons are a symbol of pride, prestige, and great power. India is following normative model While for Pakistan, Nuclear Weapon means to deter Indian Aggression and maintains the balance of power in South Asia. Pakistan is following the security model because it is facing security threats from India on eastern borders. Motivation behind the nuclear program is the key element when analyzing the policies of a country toward peace.
Nuclearization of South Asia changed the entire security dynamics of South Asia. After nuclearization of this region, impacts can be concluded by 3 main events.
Kargil War.
Twin Peak Crisis.
Pulwama Attack and Balakot Strike.
Effects of Nuclearization
After the nuclearization of South Asia, the region did not witness any all-out full-scale war despite some serious border tensions. Nuclear Weapons bring strategic stability in the region. The US and Russia played a major role in designing the policies in South Asia. Indo-Russian and Indo-US defense deals have disturbed the strategic stability in south Asia. On the other hand, China has a very significant role in defining Pakistan’s security policy. We witnessed doctrinal shifts in both countries due to Nuclearization.
Nuclear weapons are very helpful for preventing major wars. This theory already observed during the Cold War era. During the cold war era, the US and Soviet Union had the highest numbers of nuclear weapons, but this prevented them from any full-scale direct war. Cuban Missile Crisis was also solved due to the presence of nuclear weapons. Both countries maintained their strategic deterrence. Now for India, Nuclear Weapon is a symbol of global power while for Pakistan it is just for deterrence. Pakistan and India both are non-signatory of NPT and CTBT.
To counter Indian Conventional Superiority, Pakistan came up with the idea of “Full Spectrum Deterrence (FSD)” and “Minimum Credible Deterrence”. But according to Lt Gen (R) Naeem Khalid Lodhi, Pakistan still lacks full spectrum deterrence despite having nuclear bombs. After the nuclearization of this region, the region witnessed many doctrinal shifts, based on acquisition of many new modern and advanced weapon systems. From Su-30 MKI to S-400 BMD systems, all came after the nuclearization. India introduced weapons which disturbed the balance of power in the region. Now India has introduced another one -Anti-Satellite weapons in the region. While Pakistan introduced MRIV technology.
Arms Race
On the other hand, an era of new arms race also started with this nuclearization in this region. Failure of Indian Armed forces during twin peak crisis gave birth to another doctrine known as “Cold Start Doctrine”. Indian Army took 3 weeks to mobilization to western border. Before twin peak crisis, Indian Army was following SunderJi Doctrine. But during twin peak crisis, Indian Army was unable to mobilize swiftly.
Hence, in 2004, Indian policy makers came up with the idea of “Cold Start Doctrine”. To implement new doctrine, Indian army required new weapons and tactics. For that Indian Military is spending billions of dollars to undergo the modernization process. Then again in 2017-18, Indian Military revised its war fighting plans and published new doctrine with the title of Land Warfare Doctrine. As I said earlier, these doctrines started an arms race between countries.
Both countries are facing the worst economic crisis but still both are spending huge amounts of money on their defense. More than 1 billion people are living below the poverty line. According to SIPRI, during 2013-17 India was the largest arms importer in the world. Besides manufacturing at HAL, DRDO, India is also buying arms from US, France, Israel, and Russia. Political stability in both countries is also in very bad shape. On one side Pakistan is dealing with dozens of internal issues including poverty, lack of education etc. while on the other hand there is growing border tensions with India and Afghanistan. Indian Government is also having similar problems. After nuclearization, both countries are spending huge amounts of money on defense which is not a good sign for both countries as well as the region. SAARC is also having issues due to this rivalry between India and Pakistan.
Conclusion
Nuclear Weapons are very helpful in preventing major or full-fledged wars, but they pave the way for Arms Race. Both countries are competing in the terms of Conventional as well as Nuclear Arms. Indo-Pak relations have a major role in South Asian Geo-politics. SAARC failed due to Indo-Pak relations. Under these circumstances both Pakistan and India must go for disarmament and arms control.
Believe me, this myth is going to be more worse than the Phalcon AWACS, SU30MKI as mini AWACS and the recent and most devastating, which the world observe with sorrow 'India is pharmacy of the world'.
Ground realities, usually harsh than dreams.
After all the BS about their ABM, they ended up buying S400 as their ABM was total crap.Pakistani ballistic missile arsenal (and cruise missile arsenal) are impressive with sufficient diversity and numbers to penetrate Indian defenses in the present (and foreseeable future).
1. Indian BMD experiments are lacking in transparency.
"Other countries are considerably less transparent about their test data. India has carried out at least 14 intercept tests aimed at either rockets or satellites. In five of these intercepts, it was unclear from available public information what the target was, beyond some sort of stand-in for a hostile missile. Most surprising of all is India’s assertion that only one of these 14 tests, the country’s first attempt at intercepting a satellite in March, was unsuccessful. By comparison, many of the early U.S. system tests were publicly reported as failures (such as the aforementioned first six THAAD tests). The single observed failure with India is also interesting in that India attempted to conceal it as a mere flight test instead of an intercept test. [7] That we do not observe a significant number of early failures with India’s systems suggests there may be quite a few earlier developmental tests which are not publicly acknowledged or known."
The Global Missile Defense Race: Strong Test Records and Poor Operational Performance
At least 26 countries possess, or are pursuing, missile defense systems despite their questionable combat efficacy. (CNS)
2. Indian BMD network is not operational in the present.
India’s ballistic missile shield ready, IAF & DRDO to seek govt nod to protect Delhi
BMD programme envisaged for Delhi. This, along with the Russian S-400 Triumf air defence system, aims to secure India from all kinds of incoming missiles.
Indians are looking forward to protect DELHI in the near future, and a BMD network for this city will be operational by the end of 2023.
Indians have deployed sophisticated BMD tracking systems in province of Rajasthan near Pakistan. These are within reach of PAF just in case.
Indian BMD tests are isolated live-fire events with lack of integration between AAD and PAD interceptor types thus far (Dr. Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan).
Credible BMD capability is very expensive (and challenging) to develop and deploy in substantial numbers.
- - - - -
Indians have developed and tested following BMD-capable interceptors by now.
Indian AAD interceptor = reliable*
One-stage rocket (solid-fueled)
Endo- atmospheric Terminal phase (15 KM - 25 KM)
India's Advanced Air Defence missile destroys target ballistic missile in test
India's indigenously developed Advanced Air Defence missile system successfully intercepted a target ballistic missile
India’s Advanced Air Defense Interceptor Shoots Down Ballistic Missile Target in Test
In a first, the AAD interceptor successfully sought out and destroyed its target amid multiple electronically simulated dummy warheads used as decoys.thediplomat.com
*This interceptor type provide limited intercept possibilites against SRBM-class targets and MRBM-class targets in the MACH (3 - 8) velocity bracket and Terminal phase of flight.
- - -
Indian Akash interceptor = unreliable
One-stage rocket (solid-fueled)
Endo- atmospheric Terminal phase (15 KM - 25 KM)
NOTE: India tested a new variant of Akash interceptor (Akash NG) in 2021 but did not provide evidence of its reportedly successful intercept. Relevant footage are rather jingoism pieces.
- - -
Indian PAD interceptor (Pradyumna) = unreliable
Two-stage rocket (2nd stage is liquid-fueled*)
Exo- atmospheric Terminal phase (50 KM - 80 KM)
*This is a shortcoming:
"As liquid rocket fuel corrodes fuel tanks when stored for long time, the PAD could not be on standby 24/7. Instead, it would need to be gassed up during a period of crisis in anticipation of trouble. This is less than ideal for a weapon intended to defend against an attack which might come at any moment." - Dr. Zafar Nawaz Jaspal
NOTE: Pradyumna to be replaced with more capable PDV interceptor for PAD.
Indian PAD interceptors including PDV are not reliable for BMD engagements above 80 KM altitudes (Dr. Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan).
- - -
Indian PDV MK-II interceptor (significantly improved PDV) = insufficient testing
3-stage rocket (solid-fueled)
Exo- atmospheric Midcourse phase (LEO ASAT capability demonstrated in a test in 2019)
Details in following publication:
- - - - -
Following statements in (thread) article are corrected nevertheless.
"While most BMD systems are ground-based, the Americans have developed the Aegis Defense System which is a ship-based missile defense system and is a mid-course interceptor for medium range missiles, although the ship must be in the right azimuth, range and location."
Correction: AEGIS can develop Fire Solution(s) for ICBM class target(s) as well and intercept(s) can be achieved with SM-3 Block IIA interceptor type.
"But, even the best interception missiles available today in the world have only a 52% chance of interception. The American NORAD command therefore advises firing 3-4 interceptors for every ballistic warhead heading its way. Even still, the effectiveness of these systems is debatable even after the US has spent over half a trillion dollars and 40+ years trying."
Correction: Bush administration approved deployment of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) network in homeland with experimental technologies aimed to provide intercept possibilities against ICBM-class targets in 2004. These technologies are being transformed into capable tools with incremental updates in low-risk operational conditions. These technologies approached desired performance levels in 2014, and subsequent tests were successful. This is why target intercept statistics of GMD are skewed.
GMD network components are under development in fact.
Boeing: GMD team installs silos, vaults in Fort Greely, Alaska
Strike while it’s hot: GMD team installs 17 silos, vaults in Fort Greely, Alaska in 2020.www.boeing.com
https://insidedefense.com/daily-new...t-lrdr-configuration-2-support-space-missions
Contracts Awarded for Next Generation Interceptor Program
The Defense Department awarded two contracts to Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. and Lockheed Martin Corp. in support of the Next Generation Interceptor program.www.defense.gov
NORAD does not specify salvo requirements. Two-shot salvo might be sufficient for some ICBM-class targets, but others might necessitate a larger salvo to counter each.
- - -
BMD intercept possibilities are shaped by interceptor types* and operational capacity of networks in use (battery configurations + quality of radar systems + cues from other assets); some networks might be much better developed than the others.
*Different types of interceptors are designed to defeat different types of ballistic missiles. For example, THAAD is far more capable than Patriot against MRBM-class targets.
LINK: https://slideplayer.com/slide/17019425/
"Flight Experiment THAAD-01 (FET-01; formerly FTT-15), a developmental test, tested against a complex medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) re-entry vehicle (RV) at a low endo-atmospheric altitude. This test used the same hardware and software configurations as in FTT-18."
US is attempting to integrate THAAD and Patriot to create robust theater BMD network(s) nevertheless.
"Both these Indian BMD systems employ hit-to-kill interception would have less than 30 seconds (less than 18 in case of the Ashwin) to track and fire at tens of Pakistani decoys and warheads travelling at Mach 20+ speeds."
Correction: Ballistic missile PENAIDS work in exo- atmospheric conditions to complicate Midcourse phase intercept possibilities; they are useless in Terminal phase endo- atmospheric conditions due to forces of friction. Indian PAD is unreliable anyways (see above).
MRBMs and IRBMs exceeding MACH 20 ???
(a) Peak velocity of any ballistic missile will vary according to following considerations:
1. Number of propellants
2. Specifications of each propellant
3. Gross mass of payload
4. Trajectory
LGM-30 Minuteman III ICBM for reference:
Stage 1 - Thiokol (M-55E1) Solid-fueled
Thrust Vac = 935 kN
Burn time = 60 sec
Stage 2 - Aerojet-General (SR-19-AJ-1) Solid-fueled
Thrust Vac = 268 kN
Burn time = 66 sec
Stage 3 - Aerojet-General (SR-73-AJ-1) Solid-fueled
Thrust Vac = 156 kN
Burn time = 61 sec
Stage PBS - Rocketdyne RS-14 liquid-fueled
Thurst Vac = 1.4 kN
This ICBM can attain peak velocity in the MACH (23 - 24) bracket.
Peak velocity in the MACH (10 - 11) bracket is realistic for advanced MRBMs*
Peak velocity in the MACH (13 - 15) bracket is realistic for advanced IRBMs*
*Faster designs might be possible for either class subject to conditions (a) but MACH 20+ is unrealistic.
"This system is present with Pakistan in the form of the Ababeel MIRV nuclear missile (MIRV Ababeel bus consists of three standard warheads of 500 kg each or 5 warheads of 300 kg or 8 maximum warheads weighing 185 kg) making Pakistan the only country in South Asia to have this capability."
Correction: Ababeel MRBM was tested in 2017 but nothing afterwards. Let us see.
Similar threads
- Article
