India too working on anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) : Drdo Chief

[Daedalus]

it would mean setting up sensors in international water i.e Malacca Straight

I was talking about locating a CBG on high seas from the beginning and not in narrow channels. In war time it could be very stupid on the part of the captain to venture near any shore or in narrow channels were this CBG can be located easily.
This is how the US has changed it strategy,

After spending the last decade placing an emphasis on building a fleet that could operate in shallow waters near coastlines, the U.S. Navy seems to have quickly changed its strategy over the past several months to focus on improving the capabilities of its deep sea fleet and developing anti-ballistic defenses.

Report: Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers | U.S. Naval Institute

I think you assume a direct hit by one missile. What if you launch 100 missiles and each have 3 warheads with fragmentation warhead ? The idea is to disable the carrier. Not sink it. However, once it is disable................

If and when you locate the CBG, swarm technique is the only method employed at present to cripple it, but that is with ASCMs and not ASBMs. These missiles are huge and very very expensive to build and maintain. One can may be launch like 10 missiles at a time, but 100 ballistic missiles at one go and that too just to take out a CBG. And there is also the point, that how will the enemy know if these missiles are carrying nuclear or conventional warhead?
There are lots of ways to counter a ASBM and In my opinion India should focus on that rather than trying to build ASBMs. The infrastructure alone could cost billions of dollars.

 

[sree45]

I think you assume a direct hit by one missile. What if you launch 100 missiles and each have 3 warheads with fragmentation warhead ? The idea is to disable the carrier. Not sink it. However, once it is disable................

100 missiles?? Jeez.. You can buy 2 carriers with that money..

 

[Mr.S.Singh]

I was talking about locating a CBG on high seas from the beginning and not in narrow channels. In war time it could be very stupid on the part of the captain to venture near any shore or in narrow channels were this CBG can be located easily.
This is how the US has changed it strategy,

Our imminent threat is chinese CBG, which would come down from straights along Indonesia, secondly Places around Andaman islands. Placing sensor along these area's give India freedom to detect ship's, infact signatures can be marked for chinese submarine too

As far as our west is concerned Gulf of aden is the only access to Indian ocean, apart from that any ship would have to come from around south africa

 

[Daedalus]

You my friend are not comprehending what im trying to explain here. Just having ground sensors wont do, you will need space based assets to guide the ballistic missile to the target as the target will be continuously on move. Please go through my post #22 again.
As i said earlier in response to nanyang, the infrastructure alone could cost billions of dollars if one wants such ASBM to be in active service. Why do you think the US and Russia havnt tried this, and even the chinese DF-21D havent been tested in land to sea mode.

Our imminent threat is chinese CBG, which would come down from straights along Indonesia, secondly Places around Andaman islands. Placing sensor along these area's give India freedom to detect ship's, infact signatures can be marked for chinese submarine too

As far as our west is concerned Gulf of aden is the only access to Indian ocean, apart from that any ship would have to come from around south africa

Then the best way to take out this detected CBG is by a swarm of hyopersonic cruise missiles (eg. Brahmos II) and not ASBM. A simultaneous attack from land, ship and air will overwhelm the CBGs defense system and these missiles will have a higher probability of hitting the target than a ballistic missile any given day.

 

[livingdead]

DRDO is also working on a missile that will destroy incoming asteroids

 

[Mr.S.Singh]

You my friend are not comprehending what im trying to explain here. Just having ground sensors wont do, you will need space based assets to guide the ballistic missile to the target as the target will be continuously on move. Please go through my post #22 again.
As i said earlier in response to nanyang, the infrastructure alone could cost billions of dollars if one wants such ASBM to be in active service. Why do you think the US and Russia havnt tried this, and even the chinese DF-21D havent been tested in land to sea mode.

Sir go to my original argument, i have said floating senors, along with listening stations, air surveillance and satellites post #24
I have been defending the same argument

Then the best way to take out this detected CBG is by a swarm of hyopersonic cruise missiles (eg. Brahmos II) and not ASBM. A simultaneous attack from land, ship and air will overwhelm the CBGs defense system and these missiles will have a higher probability of hitting the target than a ballistic missile any given day.

The problem is range, 350 km means we rely on ship's to carry out this
ASBM gives us the liberty to fire from mainland (taking Agni V into account) gives us range of 5500kms

 

[Daedalus]

Sir go to my original argument, i have said floating senors, along with listening stations, air surveillance and satellites post #24
I have been defending the same argument

So we are on the same page here then (A) It will be a huge financial drain to put all these assets together and (B) It will be a time consuming affair, (C) The hit probability rate is also very low when compare to ASCMs.

The problem is range, 350 km means we rely on ship's to carry out this
ASBM gives us the liberty to fire from mainland (taking Agni V into account) gives us range of 5500kms

A CBG's combat radius is about 800-1000km, we can easily keep them as far back as 2000km away from our shores. And if they start launching offensive strike they will give away their position. How this can be done

China seeks to create a 1,000 mile buffer around its shores that will by and large keep American fighter aircraft and cruise missiles outside of striking range against strategic targets located on their mainland.
The pairing of the Tu-22M and a KH-32 type of missile gives China a relevant and well established area denial buffer of about 1,900 miles. Thus putting US Carrier Strike Groups outside of their offensive striking distance by a factor of two for their Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles and over a factor of three for the F/A-18E/F and F-35C Fleet.

When we are talking about range of the ASCM, you also have to take into account the range of the platform they will be on, like a ship (P-15B destroyer) or plane (Su-30MKI). This will greatly increase the ASCMs range.
Let me give a example of what im trying to say when i talk about the range of a CM.

The Tu-22M, loaded with two to three KH-32 (or similar) anti-shipping missiles, has a true combat radius of about 1,500 miles. The anti-ship missiles themselves have a range of around 300 miles (just like brahmos)for supersonic anti-ship variants and up to 1,500 miles for subsonic anti-ship cruise missile variants. For this piece we will only talk about the shorter ranged supersonic anti-ship missiles as they pose a much greater threat to American naval flotillas than the lumbering long range subsonic variety.

The Aviationist » Carrier Strike Group

For arguments sake, lets say India does induct these ASBMs in active service. During a hostile situation if we fire even one of the ballistic missile, how will the enemy know if this is conventionally armed or a nuclear tipped missile? Cause most ballistic missiles in today's world are nuclear. Is it worth launching a ballistic missile and open up for a nuclear confrontation over destroying a CBG which can be taken out more effectively using other methods, which I will point out again are far cheaper and easy to deploy than ASBM.

So what advantage does ASBM gives that cant be added in more time effective manner and with less money. If they did had any advantage then USA and Russia could have done it years ago.

 

[Gessler]

@Mr.S.Singh who is waiting, Work in progress already, but it will be easy to use if you have them.

Why didn'tcha wait for IAF to get the Phalcons before running for the Erieyes?

@Basel - To support an ASBM, you need a vast array of space-based assets such as targeting & tracking satellites
dedicated for the role, in both LEO and Geostationary orbits. Plus you need a network of ship-tracking radars, sonars
and sonobuoys etched all over the Ocean (your's hardly extend for a few km from your coast).

These kind of equipment & support assets are only available with US, Russia, China and increasingly India.

So please stop your stupid rants, you're making your Navy look more foolish than what it is now.

 

[Mr.S.Singh]

The Aviationist » Carrier Strike Group

For arguments sake, lets say India does induct these ASBMs in active service. During a hostile situation if we fire even one of the ballistic missile, how will the enemy know if this is conventionally armed or a nuclear tipped missile? Cause most ballistic missiles in today's world are nuclear. Is it worth launching a ballistic missile and open up for a nuclear confrontation over destroying a CBG which can be taken out more effectively using other methods, which I will point out again are far cheaper and easy to deploy than ASBM.

So what advantage does ASBM gives that cant be added in more time effective manner and with less money. If they did had any advantage then USA and Russia could have done it years ago.

Because sir we have a No-first strike option, enemy is aware of this fact
secondly none of CBG's carry ABM's and radar to intercept a BM, and probability of intercepting an BM at hypersonic speed is less
Why US and Russia haven't gone for CBG is because both hold a doctrine that if their CBG is attacked they will retaliate with nuclear strike, China on other hand has no first strike commitment as India
If DRDO is actually making one, it might be requirement of the armed forces, hard to say

 

[Daedalus]

Because sir we have a No-first strike option, enemy is aware of this fact
secondly none of CBG's carry ABM's and radar to intercept a BM, and probability of intercepting an BM at hypersonic speed is less
Why US and Russia haven't gone for CBG is because both hold a doctrine that if their CBG is attacked they will retaliate with nuclear strike, China on other hand has no first strike commitment as India
If DRDO is actually making one, it might be requirement of the armed forces, hard to say

A) NFS is not a written agreement between two countries, will you trust your enemy during a hostile situation and hope that the missile he has hurled towards you is conventional and not nuclear.

B) Your Second point contradicts your first one, by that logic China is insane in pursuing DF-21D cause if it attacks a CBG of any of these countries, it is sure to be retaliated with nuclear strikes. Anyway, that is not the reason for the big powers to not pursue ASBMs, Russia have tried and failed with its R-27K / SS-NX-13, worlds first ASBM. At the end this system was shelved by the russians. Both of them released that it was not feasible to sustain ASBMs and focused on countermeasure, which is what India should do.

C) You are not reading my posts thoroughly, in my post #22 I had marked in bold and high lighted in red [Its (DF-21D) general theme is slowing down the speed of the missile (less than Mach 5) as it gets closer to the target to maybe give the seeker more time to lock on to target and make unpredictable movements to penetrate defense.] So the missile is not going to be hypersonic (>mach 5.5). Best way to counter this missile is with a Electronic jamming like AN/SLQ-32 EWS, which most of the US ships have and hosts of other counter measure which likes of you and I will never know which goes on board the US's Aegis vessels. As simple as a smoke screen can hide the Vessel from a ballistic missile which relies on satellite based real time imagery to get to its target.

These more powerful lasers might, among other things, provide Navy surface ships with a terminal-defense capability against certain ballistic missiles, including China’s new anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM).

Chinese Anti-ship Missiles Could Be Countered By U.S Ship Based Lasers : Defense news

The U.S. arsenal has a variety of potential countermeasures, some of which I probably don’t even know about. The thing to keep in mind is that, in order for China to successfully attack a U.S. navy ship with a ballistic missile, it must first detect the ship, identify it as a U.S. warship of a type that it wishes to attack (e.g., an aircraft carrier), acquire a precise enough measurement of its location that a missile can be launched at it (i.e., a one-hour old satellite photograph is probably useless, as the ship could be 25 miles away from where it was when the picture was taken), and then provide mid-course updates to the missile. Finally, the warhead must lock onto and home in on the ship.

This complicated “kill chain” provides a number of opportunities to defeat the attack.

Behind the China Missile Hype | The Diplomat | Page 2

D) Im sorry to tell you this but most of DRDO's project are not asked or needed by the armed forces at all. Many of them are just for the purpose of tech demonstration. Less than 10% of the projects DRDO has worked on so far have been accepted by the forces.

 

[mike2000]

Chinese have gone MaRV way, do you think India won't ?

Geez, Is it everything that China does that India must also do? India should developed on its own path/terms. Not following China. Else it will be seen as a follower not a leader.
Do thing you know you really need, not because your bigger neighbour has done it. Geez Asians and ego.

 

[Mr.S.Singh]

A) NFS is not a written agreement between two countries, will you trust your enemy during a hostile situation and hope that the missile he has hurled towards you is conventional and not nuclear.

well same can be said for Babur, which infact is a nuclear armed cruise missile
Chances of it being take as a nuclear threat in negligible since the attack would on on sea

B) Your Second point contradicts your first one, by that logic China is insane in pursuing DF-21D cause if it attacks a CBG of any of these countries, it is sure to be retaliated with nuclear strikes. Anyway, that is not the reason for the big powers to not pursue ASBMs, Russia have tried and failed with its R-27K / SS-NX-13, worlds first ASBM. At the end this system was shelved by the russians. Both of them released that it was not feasible to sustain ASBMs and focused on countermeasure, which is what India should do.

lets see how far DRDO takes it, too ambitious i agree

C) You are not reading my posts thoroughly, in my post #22 I had marked in bold and high lighted in red [Its (DF-21D) general theme is slowing down the speed of the missile (less than Mach 5) as it gets closer to the target to maybe give the seeker more time to lock on to target and make unpredictable movements to penetrate defense.] So the missile is not going to be hypersonic (>mach 5.5). Best way to counter this missile is with a Electronic jamming like AN/SLQ-32 EWS, which most of the US ships have and hosts of other counter measure which likes of you and I will never know which goes on board the US's Aegis vessels. As simple as a smoke screen can hide the Vessel from a ballistic missile which relies on satellite based real time imagery to get to its target.

Again its like stating that what use a fighter is, enemy EW suits would jam it
Firstly missiles would be exo-atmosphere (re-entry), its detection would primarily be next to impossible untill it has few seconds to impact. No CBG has a radar that can cover altitude of 60-70k Feet and above
IN would not solely rely on Satellite for detection (which again needs to be looked into) maybe onboard active navigation system and IIR imagery (A/C in a war scenario would have aircraft landing and taking off)

Chinese Anti-ship Missiles Could Be Countered By U.S Ship Based Lasers : Defense news

Behind the China Missile Hype | The Diplomat | Page 2

http://thediplomat.com/2012/01/behind-the-china-missile-hype/2/?all=true

Land based interception are a different game than sea based Interception of BM's, again even if somehow A/C has a powerfull radar to track the BM, what would be the response time ? The laser based defense system concentrates high-power laser on the target to take it down, would it have enough time ?
When we talk about MaRV, how many warhead can it successfully intercept ?

D) Im sorry to tell you this but most of DRDO's project are not asked or needed by the armed forces at all. Many of them are just for the purpose of tech demonstration. Less than 10% of the projects DRDO has worked on so far have been accepted by the forces.

Completely agree with you, but they are decent with BM's it does come late, but them make it

Geez, Is it everything that China does that India must also do? India should developed on its own path/terms. Not following China. Else it will be seen as a follower not a leader.
Do thing you know you really need, not because your bigger neighbour has done it. Geez Asians and ego.

its not about being a leader, clearly if you want to take out an CBG, you need to take out the destroyers and ASW ships along with the A/C, hence MaRV makes sense

 

[vsdave2302]

Thats too far fetched...

I believe it will be a shaped trejectory missile, land version of K4 having cruise trejectory in terminal Phase with Multiple warhead Like multitarget missile under development.

Geez, Is it everything that China does that India must also do? India should developed on its own path/terms. Not following China. Else it will be seen as a follower not a leader.
Do thing you know you really need, not because your bigger neighbour has done it. Geez Asians and ego.

No it is a need of Hour. We just declared doesn't mean that we are folloing china. Development would have started much early.

lets see how far DRDO takes it, too ambitious i agree

Dhanush ???

Here the key is long range. using Dhanus is a B/S idea. If you have to use upto 500 KM range missile, what is wrong with Brahmos. Brahmos can destroy any A/C career within 500 KM range with steep dive mode. K4 is only fit for this role.

 

[cirr]

I had read somewhere that it's very difficult to even find these CBGs on the move on high sea, forget about destroying them. And then even china till now havent test the DF-21D in land to sea configuration, they have test it in surface to surface mode. (correct me if im wrong).
Will try to find the source.

Wrong。

 

[Daedalus]

Wrong。

Correct me if im wrong.