bloo
SENIOR MEMBER
![](/styles/default/xenforo/ranks/ltcommander.jpg)
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 2,516
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
This has everything to do with being a not so huge a country and vastly varying trajectories.This hasn't got anything to do with being a huge country and vastly varying trajectories here , North Korea isn't close - has a lower land area and very few launch positions known to the Yanks sitting next to Pyongyang in Seoul , even then the U.S. experts are warning about the threats originating from it and pointing out the vulnerabilities in their shields . I read what you posted without taking the limitations into account just fine , suffice to say that Indians are more confident and have some false sense of security in their yet-to-be-operational ABM than the other more advanced nations working on it for a long time and claiming to overcome problems which the analysts say - are yet to be conquered by the ballistic defense technology . If the longer distance and a relatively large time window compensates for the advanced missiles equipped with robust countermeasures then the shorter distances and the small time window in our case will compensate for the relatively modest missile technology with few countermeasures , fair to say that ? Apply the same logic here . I do not know what is hard to understand that simulated tests do not take into account , a lot many variables , which will not be predetermined/set by the Indian scientists in a war scenario , this has got more to do than just speed and size , what about the trajectory , launch time/place , its type , chaff's , decoys and the maneuverable vehicle etc ? There's a time constraint imposed by the shorter distances too then there's the cost of the interceptors and their effectiveness , you are claiming a very high value of successful intercept probability ( 99.8 % official Indian claim ) than what the world's best have managed (50 % - even that most of their own defense analysts call as exaggerated and being conducted under controlled conditions ) which makes one think that the tests are being conducted carefully with a lot of variables being controlled extensively .
I can understand the initial testing phase through which the BMD is going through now , but where was I wrong when I said that it would take still a decade or two to be deployed significantly ? If you aren't ready for counter measures , pray tell me what are you testing against ? By the time you get it operational , the adversary would have had it deployed . Here you are only talking about Pakistan which started work on MIRV in 2004 and keeps information under tight wraps , what about the other enemy which has it all deployed already ? How do you plan to counter that ? This stopping the missile before it reaches its highest point is well easier said than done , there's no practical example from what I am seeing here where a MIRVed missile is intercepted . I am not aware of India possessing any such infrared system in space , does it exist or that is a future plan which hasn't materialized until now ? Actually , he's not the only one claiming the fifty percent success rate , I have seen a couple of sources which all claim the same thing , maybe its after even the new " discriminating technology " since well the author clearly declares that no countermeasures were used by the offense .
Actually , that is a good example . I am not overestimating the capabilities on my side since North Korea doesn't have any counter measures properly deployed like Pakistan and not underestimating the enemy . Even then , the equation is not quite good . The costs are high for interceptors since I doubt that only a single one can be used and with MIRV in the mix , its going to be high than that of the defense . Well , every interceptor test sets variables , what do you mean by " you dont know that " ? The tests are always rigged since there are too many variables to consider and one can only anticipate so much @gambit if you will please explain the " setting the rules " for the test .
Conditions changed dramatically in 1970 with the introduction of Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) warheads. Suddenly each launcher was throwing not one warhead, but several. These would spread out in space, ensuring that a single interceptor would be needed for each warhead. This simply added to the need to have several interceptors for each warhead in order to provide geographical coverage. Now it was clear that an ABM system would always be many times more expensive than the ICBMs they defended against. In summary, the MIRV made ABM economically ineffective, and practically non-workable.
Anti-ballistic missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And I was referring to Pakistan not NKorea.
The article you posted mentions the failure of ground based interceptors which means distance is the key factor unlike in India-Pakistan arena.
Detection over large distances may provide time for engagement but it also puts lot of strain in continuous detection, as per the link I provided, and space based IR satellite systems are one such counter to it.
Pakistan has no second strike capability which means any BM strike will be ground based, continuous vigilance by satellites are already in place and a multifaceted missile strike therefore is not possible thus too many varying trajectories won't be there either.
What about speed and size?"will capture the signature of any missile launch activities happening in a radius of 6,000 kilometers. This signature will be transmitted to a central control unit which would initiate [the] necessary counter-mechanism."
"Given their strategic position, we can even have exclusive facility to monitor a country or a particular region," the insiders said. "Given the GSATs' capability to map anything to a resolution of one meter, we will be able to capture the slightest of movements or even heat signatures."
India to Tap Satellites as Missile Sensors | Global Security Newswire | NTI
A moving object's speed can easily be detected and determined in a radar.
And if by speed you mean maneuverability then it has been noted that BMs can't swerve like HOBS missiles they run the risk of disintegrating in mid air because of the speed, thus MaRV can occur only to a certain point. And the interceptors are not on a tail chase that they need to worry about being outrun, its a head on collision and the Indian ABMs are not kinetic hit to kill, they use proximity charge warhead that can penetrate thick steel and cause damage with a high hit [repeat hit] density. The missile just needs to get close enough to the target.
And what about the trajectory, even a MaRV warhead won't do crazy maneuvers like you think it will do, and as I said before the 6th BMD test showed the ABM killing a maneuverable warhead.
False sense of security?
You are the one over estimating yourself, thinking MIRV as an easy fix when in fact you are taking for granted that it is already developed by Pakistan, when it is not, unless ofcourse you have a link that proves otherwise.
As of now, for Pakistan's projected capability our BMD seems sufficient.
I'm not saying that we have all the answers but we are getting there.
PDV when ready will be able to engage a target at over 150km that is before a BM can engage its counter measures.
As for the intercept probability, what's hard to believe? The eight tests have proven so.
Its so easy for you to believe the failure reports the DRDO makes public whereas the successes just goes over your head, we had a long discussion about this on the Babur thread too.
As for time constrain because of short distance, the prithvi target missile followed the trajectory of a 1500km with a high Mach speed and was struck by the AAD at the right time. If the radar detects and the program reconfigures the launcher, then time is of no issue.
When did I say you were wrong? It probably will take a decade or so for the complete protection that everyone is looking to achieve.
We are not ready for every countermeasure but we are getting there.
As for what have we already tested against:
- A MaRV warhead has been successfully destroyed.
- Multiple engagement scenario where two BMs were simultaneously tracked, engaged and were successfully destroyed, the numbers will eventually increase in the coming tests.
- And high altitude killer test will happen either this month or the next which will have a dual IR and active radar seeker so as to differentiate between chaffs and the real warhead.
As for being operational:
The phase-1 is complete and will be set in place around 2014-2015 it could have happened by now only the red-tapery needs to be dealt with.
The phase 2 may take some time.
Oh come on that's bull. If Pakistan had something so potent it would have been out there, its either in development or not there at all.
We'll see if striking BM's in its apogee is easy or no in a month or two.
No, India has no such system but there are plans in place.
If we only take the SBIRS result alongside the PAC-3 and THAAD, the tests have been more successful than the with ground based radars.
When did Pakistan openly deployed countermeasure?????
Yes please explain what those variables are?
The very purpose of these scientists is to take in those variables and you seem to know more than them, please enlighten me.
Things are never black and white as you probably think they are, there is always a shade of grey, nothing is absolute.
Today there's a counter to BM tomorrow there won't be and the day after it will again be in place and so on and so forth.
Last edited: