India’s K-15 SLBM: Where Does It Stand? – Analysis

[shree835]

The successful underwater test firing of the K-15 Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) 28 January 2013 by the DRDO is a remarkable achievement, considering that only five countries possess this capability. The missile incorporates advanced technologies, which make it a reliable nuclear delivery system. The missile is to be integrated with the Indian SSBN INS Arihant, which can reportedly carry twelve such missiles.

Technical Analysis

The missile is reported to have attained an apogee of around 40 to 50 km, which is extremely depressed. This indicates two aspects. Firstly, the actual range of the missile is much more than the declared one. The range could be further increased by payload (one metric ton) trade-off. Secondly, this missile has a high probability of penetrating any missile defence system as it has some vital combinations: speed and a low trajectory. The low trajectory helps to avoid early radar detection and also may confuse the missile defence fire control algorithm from identifying it as a threat, while the hypersonic velocity reduces the reaction time of the defence systems.

The missile is reported to have achieved very high accuracy despite being launched in a relatively depressed trajectory. The underwater test launches conducted so far were done from a submerged pontoon at a depth of 50m simulating a submarine launch, which is similar to a launch from a pre-surveyed launch site on land. The geographical data fed to the Inertial Navigation System (INS) will be very precise, the only difference being that the missile had to take into count the hydrodynamics involved until it surfaces. The same missile, when launched from a SSBN on patrol, does not enjoy this advantage. Any navigational error in the SSBN navigation system will be transferred to the missiles’ onboard guidance system. This error is bound to compound as the missile travels over long distance, degrading its Circular Error Probable (CEP). This acquired error can be reduced to some extent, if in future, a GPS aided INS is used. A point to be noted here is that an error of few tens of meters does not matter much if the payload is a nuclear warhead.

Deterrence Value

The missile is reported to have a range of 700 km when launched in the conditions under which it has been tested so far. This limited range becomes a serious constraint. For example, this missile cannot reach Islamabad or Lahore even when the boat positions itself close to the Pakistani shore. The only major city that the boat can threaten from a safe distance is the port city of Karachi.

For strikes against China, the boat has to position itself inside the first island chain to get within striking distance of Shanghai. Worse, to reach within striking distance of Beijing, it has to operate in the Yellow Sea or Bohai Sea, which is close to one of the Peoples Liberation Army Navy’s (PLAN) bases, which is also a base for its submarine fleet. This will be a highly risky endeavour. Hence, as a sea based deterrent, this missile has relatively very limited value. The DRDO is also developing the K-4 SLBM that reportedly will have a maximum range of 3500km, which when deployed, will enable the submarine to operate from a longer distance to be within striking distance of the target and complete the triad in the real sense. India needs three SSBN platforms to maintain 24×7 presence of at least one submarine in the waters around China.

How does the ‘Sea based deterrence’ affect Pakistan’s nuclear equation?

Pakistan, for the past few years, has been increasing its nuclear arsenal with a focus on tactical nuclear weapons with an aim to deter any major Indian conventional offensive action. But the concept of tactical nuclear strike makes little sense because India would consider it a first strike even if it is used against Indian forces inside Pakistani territory. Hence, any Pakistani first strike ought to focus on Indian nuclear forces in an attempt to cripple India’s retaliatory capability. With the induction of sea based deterrence, this option for Pakistan could be seriously weakened. This development is bound to upset Pakistani nuclear strike calculations, and might force Pakistan to improve its Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW) capability.

The crucial point is whether India’s push towards deploying sea based deterrence will compel Pakistan to further increase its nuclear arsenal. Any increase in the nuclear arsenal beyond what Pakistan considers as required for minimum deterrence does not seem to serve any useful purpose, and this minimum deterrence estimation would have included the possibility of an Indian first strike. An increase would in no way be a counter to an Indian sea-based deterrent force. Besides, it will put an unnecessary burden on Pakistan’s already strained economy.

Conclusion

The K-15 is a good weapon in terms of technological sophistication. However, the missile’s range appears to be its only drawback even when launched in the minimum energy trajectory, where the range could be little above 1000 km. To have effective sea-based deterrence, the range of the delivery vehicle should at least be above 2000 km. Nevertheless, it is a good start and once effective sea based deterrence is in place, it certainly would tilt the balance in favour of India, at least within the subcontinent.

http://www.eurasiareview.com/04042013-indias-k-15-slbm-where-does-it-stand-analysis/

 

[selvan33]

yes its a good platform but not that much potent and K4 only going to be a true game changer in indian ocean region.

 

[Ayush]

Waiting for k-4 now..
K-15 is good for a start.

 

[Jason bourne]

Is k4 will be a quasi ballistic or pure ballistic missile ?

 

[narcon]

But the concept of tactical nuclear strike makes little sense because India would consider it a first strike even if it is used against Indian forces inside Pakistani territory.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...-where-does-stand-analysis.html#ixzz2PZ7OyLlK

Why would Pakistan trigger/ignite radio activity within its border, among its people?

Is k4 will be a quasi ballistic or pure ballistic missile ?

Pure ballistic missile.

 

[OrionHunter]

Why would Pakistan trigger/ignite radio activity within its border, among its people?

You don't seem to be aware of the fact that India's so called non existent 'cold start' doctrine has Pakistan thinking that Indian 'Unified Battle Groups' will have penetrated well within Pakistan territory before a Pakistani riposte is effective. To stop these battle groups in their tracks, Pakistan's doctrine envisages the use of tactical nukes. This could therefore be well within Pakistani territory after an Indian deep strike.

And the crunch point is that if Pakistan uses nukes even in its own territory against Indian forces, there will be massive nuclear retaliation by India with all the nuclear resources under its command according to India's nuclear doctrine. This translates to an all out nuclear conflagration in the sub-continent even if Pakistan uses just one tactical nuke!

The funniest part is that Pakistan has introduced tactical nukes in its arsenal based on a non existent Indian strategy!! Where the 'Cold Start doctrine' is concerned, the Indian Army chief had said: "There is nothing called 'Cold Start'. As part of our overall strategy we have a number of contingencies and options, depending on what the aggressor does, but our basic military posture is defensive. There is nothing like 'Cold Start'. But we have a 'proactive strategy' which takes steps in a proactive manner so that we can achieve our doctrines and strategies."

Former Indian defence minister Jaswant Singh has denied the existence of the doctrine, stating, "There is no Cold Start doctrine. No such thing. It was an off-the-cuff remark from a former chief of staff. I have been defense minister of the country. I should know."

So yes, as the saying goes, use of tactical nukes is a bad idea and serves little or no purpose. And that's the reason why no other country in the world has short range tactical nukes anymore. But the Pakistani military strategists think otherwise!

 

[Bhai Zakir]

Kalam - 4 (K4) is a first step followed by k4 (3500 kms) and k3.

 

[IND151]

The successful underwater test firing of the K-15 Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) 28 January 2013 by the DRDO is a remarkable achievement, considering that only five countries possess this capability. The missile incorporates advanced technologies, which make it a reliable nuclear delivery system. The missile is to be integrated with the Indian SSBN INS Arihant, which can reportedly carry twelve such missiles.

Technical Analysis

The missile is reported to have attained an apogee of around 40 to 50 km, which is extremely depressed. This indicates two aspects. Firstly, the actual range of the missile is much more than the declared one. The range could be further increased by payload (one metric ton) trade-off. Secondly, this missile has a high probability of penetrating any missile defence system as it has some vital combinations: speed and a low trajectory. The low trajectory helps to avoid early radar detection and also may confuse the missile defence fire control algorithm from identifying it as a threat, while the hypersonic velocity reduces the reaction time of the defence systems.

The missile is reported to have achieved very high accuracy despite being launched in a relatively depressed trajectory. The underwater test launches conducted so far were done from a submerged pontoon at a depth of 50m simulating a submarine launch, which is similar to a launch from a pre-surveyed launch site on land. The geographical data fed to the Inertial Navigation System (INS) will be very precise, the only difference being that the missile had to take into count the hydrodynamics involved until it surfaces. The same missile, when launched from a SSBN on patrol, does not enjoy this advantage. Any navigational error in the SSBN navigation system will be transferred to the missiles’ onboard guidance system. This error is bound to compound as the missile travels over long distance, degrading its Circular Error Probable (CEP). This acquired error can be reduced to some extent, if in future, a GPS aided INS is used. A point to be noted here is that an error of few tens of meters does not matter much if the payload is a nuclear warhead.

Deterrence Value

The missile is reported to have a range of 700 km when launched in the conditions under which it has been tested so far. This limited range becomes a serious constraint. For example, this missile cannot reach Islamabad or Lahore even when the boat positions itself close to the Pakistani shore. The only major city that the boat can threaten from a safe distance is the port city of Karachi.

For strikes against China, the boat has to position itself inside the first island chain to get within striking distance of Shanghai. Worse, to reach within striking distance of Beijing, it has to operate in the Yellow Sea or Bohai Sea, which is close to one of the Peoples Liberation Army Navy’s (PLAN) bases, which is also a base for its submarine fleet. This will be a highly risky endeavour. Hence, as a sea based deterrent, this missile has relatively very limited value. The DRDO is also developing the K-4 SLBM that reportedly will have a maximum range of 3500km, which when deployed, will enable the submarine to operate from a longer distance to be within striking distance of the target and complete the triad in the real sense. India needs three SSBN platforms to maintain 24×7 presence of at least one submarine in the waters around China.

How does the ‘Sea based deterrence’ affect Pakistan’s nuclear equation?

Pakistan, for the past few years, has been increasing its nuclear arsenal with a focus on tactical nuclear weapons with an aim to deter any major Indian conventional offensive action. But the concept of tactical nuclear strike makes little sense because India would consider it a first strike even if it is used against Indian forces inside Pakistani territory. Hence, any Pakistani first strike ought to focus on Indian nuclear forces in an attempt to cripple India’s retaliatory capability. With the induction of sea based deterrence, this option for Pakistan could be seriously weakened. This development is bound to upset Pakistani nuclear strike calculations, and might force Pakistan to improve its Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW) capability.

The crucial point is whether India’s push towards deploying sea based deterrence will compel Pakistan to further increase its nuclear arsenal. Any increase in the nuclear arsenal beyond what Pakistan considers as required for minimum deterrence does not seem to serve any useful purpose, and this minimum deterrence estimation would have included the possibility of an Indian first strike. An increase would in no way be a counter to an Indian sea-based deterrent force. Besides, it will put an unnecessary burden on Pakistan’s already strained economy.

Conclusion

The K-15 is a good weapon in terms of technological sophistication. However, the missile’s range appears to be its only drawback even when launched in the minimum energy trajectory, where the range could be little above 1000 km. To have effective sea-based deterrence, the range of the delivery vehicle should at least be above 2000 km. Nevertheless, it is a good start and once effective sea based deterrence is in place, it certainly would tilt the balance in favour of India, at least within the subcontinent.

India's K-15 SLBM: Where Does It Stand? - Analysis Eurasia Review | Eurasia Review

Thanks for info

BTW I think max range of K 4 is around 4,000 KM

 

[kurup]

Kalam - 4 (K4) is a first step followed by k4 (3500 kms) and k3.

 

[perplexed]

Kalam - 4 (K4) is a first step followed by k4 (3500 kms) and k3.

U should know this for a fact.. the missile is not called Kalam-4. As a mark of respect, the missile name has been given as the first letter of it's founder !

 

[Robinhood Pandey]

is k-15 a SLBM version of shaurya missile ?

 

[Hulk]

I am just sick of reading the actual range of missile is more. Too much rumor spreading for no reason. When building longer range missiles and boasting aboutt those projects, I do not think it is the case.

 

[Bratva]

You don't seem to be aware of the fact that India's so called non existent 'cold start' doctrine has Pakistan thinking that Indian 'Unified Battle Groups' will have penetrated well within Pakistan territory before a Pakistani riposte is effective. To stop these battle groups in their tracks, Pakistan's doctrine envisages the use of tactical nukes. This could therefore be well within Pakistani territory after an Indian deep strike.

And the crunch point is that if Pakistan uses nukes even in its own territory against Indian forces, there will be massive nuclear retaliation by India with all the nuclear resources under its command according to India's nuclear doctrine. This translates to an all out nuclear conflagration in the sub-continent even if Pakistan uses just one tactical nuke!

The funniest part is that Pakistan has introduced tactical nukes in its arsenal based on a non existent Indian strategy!! Where the 'Cold Start doctrine' is concerned, the Indian Army chief had said: "There is nothing called 'Cold Start'. As part of our overall strategy we have a number of contingencies and options, depending on what the aggressor does, but our basic military posture is defensive. There is nothing like 'Cold Start'. But we have a 'proactive strategy' which takes steps in a proactive manner so that we can achieve our doctrines and strategies."

Former Indian defence minister Jaswant Singh has denied the existence of the doctrine, stating, "There is no Cold Start doctrine. No such thing. It was an off-the-cuff remark from a former chief of staff. I have been defense minister of the country. I should know."

So yes, as the saying goes, use of tactical nukes is a bad idea and serves little or no purpose. And that's the reason why no other country in the world has short range tactical nukes anymore. But the Pakistani military strategists think otherwise!

Would India risk going nuclear when even Nukes are used in Pakistani territory? Instead of annihilating whole Bharat Mataa, India would be wise not to respond back until and unless nukes are used in an INDIAN TERRITORY.

"Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

 

[acetophenol]

Would India risk going nuclear when even Nukes are used in Pakistani territory? Instead of annihilating whole Bharat Mataa, India would be wise not to respond back until and unless nukes are used in an INDIAN TERRITORY.

"Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

It would be highly unlikely that India will use nukes if Pakistan uses nukes in their own territory,not because of the fear of retaliation,but because,it would've served the purpose. Also use of nukes by Pakistan on our troops inside Pak territory will make us free from our No First Use policy.

 

[illuminatidinesh]

Would India risk going nuclear when even Nukes are used in Pakistani territory? Instead of annihilating whole Bharat Mataa, India would be wise not to respond back until and unless nukes are used in an INDIAN TERRITORY.

"Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...-where-does-stand-analysis.html#ixzz2fi32gHoA

India should be wise not to retaliate and pakistan keep using nukes? Besides what makes u think that we will only give u limited strike? U know what i mean?