Missile deterrent

[Gazzi]

I would like to enquire and discuss with members, what if Pakistan, instead of buying the F-16s from the US, or even if it can manage to build short range guided missiles, something like the new Chinese guided missile batteries, which apparantly are cheap to manufacture.

Recently Venezuela anounced purchasing thousands of missiles from Russia, and as always the North Koreans have thousand, some numbers estimate hundred of thousands of short range missiles to launch and cause a sheer catashtrophe in South Korea.

With this in light what would be a more deterrent then lining Pakistan's LOC with short range tactical missiles numbering hundreds of thousands.

No matter what kind of SAMs India comes up with they can never neutralise this sort of attack. It will make India think hundred times over and would take off a huge burden from Pakistan of continiously worrying of an attack as the consequences of such would be disastorous for India. Especially if the missiles are guided to target in Infrastructure.

Oh, and please guys, I don't mean to show how high and mighty Pakistan is to India or vis versa, just wish to discuss with members of its advantages and disadvantages, not get into a slanging match please.

 

[pak-yes]

hmmm good idea.well i think that aircrafts can defend and attack while missiles only attack.

Experts pls shed some light on the idea.

 

[Moorkh]

i would say its a bad idea

we can take the example of nazi germany developing the V2. a miracle weapon for its time. yet it did not change the direction the war was fought in.

1)a missile is a one shot weapon. once used it is used up. an aircraft however will be able to come back, load up and go about creating mayhem again. so the total munitions delivered will be more at a lower cost. the missiles are costly too.

2)there is the second point about collateral damage.
when an aircraft goes in to strike a target, it gets real time information about the target and its ability to hit it with little collateral damage is great.
a missile on the other hand will depend on information which will be old and which can not be verified in real time unless you have something/someone at the spot. a difference 0f 50m in the recorded location will cause mission failure.
and what if the difference in 50m means it falls into some residential area?

3)here i have assumed that the missiles will be launched at static targets like factories and airbases (not a bad assumption i hope)
the missiles will be hopelessly useless against mobile targets which the aircraft can target and attack.

4)for the fourth point lets assume that one warhead can destroy everything in a 100m radius(exaggeration) . (plz dont shout at me about pt 2)
how many warheads will be required to cause "unacceptable damage" ?
nukes destroy everything in a radius of lets say 10km(underestimation). then you will need 100 warheads to wreak as much damage as a nuke. pakistan has 40 nukes as deterrence. so it will need 4000 such warheads assuming the target govt is not scared of the after effects of a nuke. mantaining 4k such warheads along with their delivery systems (missiles, missile launchers, c&c etc) will be much greater than the costs for aircraft which can deliver the warheads at lower costs.

5)the fuel etc of a missile degrades pretty fast. atleast the solid fuels. so while they are not being used missiles still have a short shelf life
an aircraft on the other hand suffers little damage if not used (peace time) .
i am not too sure about this point. someone more enlightened than me please help

the missiles will have the following advantages -
1) they can be spread over a larger area making it difficult to be neutralised.
2) thay can be launched from places where aircraft can not be based
3) chances of being intercepted are fewer compared to aircraft

 

[gambit]

I would like to enquire and discuss with members, what if Pakistan, instead of buying the F-16s from the US, or even if it can manage to build short range guided missiles, something like the new Chinese guided missile batteries, which apparantly are cheap to manufacture.

Recently Venezuela anounced purchasing thousands of missiles from Russia, and as always the North Koreans have thousand, some numbers estimate hundred of thousands of short range missiles to launch and cause a sheer catashtrophe in South Korea.

With this in light what would be a more deterrent then lining Pakistan's LOC with short range tactical missiles numbering hundreds of thousands.

No matter what kind of SAMs India comes up with they can never neutralise this sort of attack. It will make India think hundred times over and would take off a huge burden from Pakistan of continiously worrying of an attack as the consequences of such would be disastorous for India. Especially if the missiles are guided to target in Infrastructure.

Oh, and please guys, I don't mean to show how high and mighty Pakistan is to India or vis versa, just wish to discuss with members of its advantages and disadvantages, not get into a slanging match please.

Understand that missiles are essentially throwaway weapons. The warhead is a throwaway portion of the weapon. That is a given. But with missiles you are throwing away the launch vehicles as well. The odds of successful destruction of enemy resources is par with attacks by manned aircrafts. But look at it this way -- you are throwing away the aircraft with the sortie. The short term math will yield immediate savings of missiles over manned aircrafts. But you cannot test missiles the same way you could conduct war games to refine your defense. Every missile test is a destructive one and you have to build a new weapon to replace the one you just throwaway. You have to do the long term math and create a defense that have a balance of both types of weapons.

 

[BATMAN]

surface to surface missiles can not effectively target moving objects like soldiers and guns.
In case of loss of communication with ground or electronics measure missile can be deceived but it is not easy to defeat a manned craft.
But suerly the evolving drones technology, is envisaged to take over manned crafts.
In case of