Pakistan Expresses Concern over BMD Test by India

[MimophantSlayer]

Any bmd can give only limited protection the decades and billions spent on it can be countered by counter measure costing millions and taking few years like MIRV decoys chaff ground based jammers using own awacs as jammers Even modified fm radio transmitter can be used to emit false signals to confuse enemies radar thus making interception less likely
So on economic of scale bmd isn't much reliable

Debatable.

Agreed, it costs more for the defense but it is not the 20th century where countries would have to go into treaties because they felt the cost-exchange ratio of BMD systems were a bit too expensive to maintain.
It is after all the 21st century and evolution in high tech guidance systems and other crucial subsystems have led to incredible successes in BMD especially post 1999 and it will only keep getting better.
Which is why America pulled out of the almost 30 year old ABM treaty.

You are infering that it costs more, but it doesn't matter, countries are still going forward with R&D of ABMs because it is worth the cost.
Also, the cost exchange ratio has improved drastically for the newer systems available today.

MIRVs are really old tech and Ballistic missiles haven't really been reinvented per se.
It was only natural that ABMs would catch up, what really is surprising is the majority of the catching up was done post 2000.
No wonder every other country is delving into BMD, as we can guess it is going to achieve parity.

Also, BMD radars of today are big badass AESA radars which are extremely resistant to jamming.
India uses the Swordfish long range AESA radar for ballistic missile defence.
It can track missiles upto 800km and its range is being uprated to 1500km as we speak.

I think you are confusing BMD radars with less advanced radars.


Also, there are different means of tracking ballistic missiles, like the US SBIRS network of satellites containing IR sensors meant specifically for early detection of ballistic missiles.
I am guessing after phase 2 of IBMDP something like the SBIRS network might be pursued on a regional basis.

Pakistan is not very far from India which means Indian ABMs have a good chance of boost phase interception.

So on economic of scale bmd isn't much reliable

It is more reliable than it was a few decades ago and continuously pursuing it and improving it will eventually bring down the costs.

After all, countries like China, US, Russia, Israel and India continue to pursue it, there must be some logic to it.

This is stated policy but even Western analyst agree that if tnw r used against Indian forces
India is less likely to use strategic nukes as our retaliatory strike on there cities would cost more losses on Indian owing to higher concentration of Indian cities and Pak having 2-3 nukes per Indian mega City

You can never really guess what kind of military planners may be at the helm of things hence western nations back away from TNWs they know there is a very legitimate chance that BMs will be used aa retaliation and the same can be said for India and pak.
Both our countries might be sabre rattling but only India is trying to boil it down to a conventional war by defusing pak's nuke threat.

Also, it depends on which western analyst you are listening to.
Some say otherwise.

Pakistan would need more nukes for a large country like India, while India doesn't.

Also, the very purpose of some of these defensive systems are so that systems like TNWs become redundant.

If mortars can be tracked and engaged, how far off can TNWs be.

Or we can always see it like the way it probably is, a pakistani nuclear bluff i.e.

We may have more to lose, you on the other hand have everything to lose.

And even uusa ABM have interception rate in 50% range

Not true.

 

[khanmubashir]

Debatable.

Agreed, it costs more for the defense but it is not the 20th century where countries would have to go into treaties because they felt the cost-exchange ratio of BMD systems were a bit too expensive to maintain.
It is after all the 21st century and evolution in high tech guidance systems and other crucial subsystems have led to incredible successes in BMD especially post 1999 and it will only keep getting better.
Which is why America pulled out of the almost 30 year old ABM treaty.

You are infering that it costs more, but it doesn't matter, countries are still going forward with R&D of ABMs because it is worth the cost.
Also, the cost exchange ratio has improved drastically for the newer systems available today.

MIRVs are really old tech and Ballistic missiles haven't really been reinvented per se.
It was only natural that ABMs would catch up, what really is surprising is the majority of the catching up was done post 2000.
No wonder every other country is delving into BMD, as we can guess it is going to achieve parity.

Also, BMD radars of today are big badass AESA radars which are extremely resistant to jamming.
India uses the Swordfish long range AESA radar for ballistic missile defence.
It can track missiles upto 800km and its range is being uprated to 1500km as we speak.

I think you are confusing BMD radars with less advanced radars.


Also, there are different means of tracking ballistic missiles, like the US SBIRS network of satellites containing IR sensors meant specifically for early detection of ballistic missiles.
I am guessing after phase 2 of IBMDP something like the SBIRS network might be pursued on a regional basis.

Pakistan is not very far from India which means Indian ABMs have a good chance of boost phase interception.



It is more reliable than it was a few decades ago and continuously pursuing it and improving it will eventually bring down the costs.

After all, countries like China, US, Russia, Israel and India continue to pursue it, there must be some logic to it.




You can never really guess what kind of military planners may be at the helm of things hence western nations back away from TNWs they know there is a very legitimate chance that BMs will be used aa retaliation and the same can be said for India and pak.
Both our countries might be sabre rattling but only India is trying to boil it down to a conventional war by defusing pak's nuke threat.

Also, it depends on which western analyst you are listening to.
Some say otherwise.

Pakistan would need more nukes for a large country like India, while India doesn't.

Also, the very purpose of some of these defensive systems are so that systems like TNWs become redundant.

If mortars can be tracked and engaged, how far off can TNWs be.

Or we can always see it like the way it probably is, a pakistani nuclear bluff i.e.

We may have more to lose, you on the other hand have everything to lose.



Not true.
View attachment 445544

Those tests were done against old missile variants that had not fitted or aided with countermeasures
And even Russian haven't perfect a satellite based missile tracking system and USA satellite were so good they would have stopped infiltration at afpak border by now
And even aesa works on laws of physics so if multiple jammers due to our close proximity would be sending in false signals after years of analysis of your bmd radar emitted signals your chances of using your whole kill chain to properly track and intercept will be slim
Not to mention USA is no danger of air raids India at least it's northern part is
So if it comes to nuclear weapons Indian air servailance would already have gone through some damage in prior warfare
And won't be in mint condition as in testing conditions
FYI south Korea has withdraw from purchase of thaad citing it's expenses and less reliability against nkmissiles your bmd isn't as sophisticated as USA and our missile r more so then nk

 

[Basel]

Good move by Pakistan to show concerns it will provide reason to test more missiles.

And also provide reason to start our BMD program in future too.

 

[jetray]

Oh come on, I am sure our interceptors would go blind as the Pakistani missiles come installed with evasive maneuvers such as the salsa, somersault and Trapeze to name a few. Why do they have to worry?

Damn. you forget the original one, chinese kung-fu.

 

[Kopa Shamsu]

Debatable.

Agreed, it costs more for the defense but it is not the 20th century where countries would have to go into treaties because they felt the cost-exchange ratio of BMD systems were a bit too expensive to maintain.
It is after all the 21st century and evolution in high tech guidance systems and other crucial subsystems have led to incredible successes in BMD especially post 1999 and it will only keep getting better.
Which is why America pulled out of the almost 30 year old ABM treaty.

You are infering that it costs more, but it doesn't matter, countries are still going forward with R&D of ABMs because it is worth the cost.
Also, the cost exchange ratio has improved drastically for the newer systems available today.

MIRVs are really old tech and Ballistic missiles haven't really been reinvented per se.
It was only natural that ABMs would catch up, what really is surprising is the majority of the catching up was done post 2000.
No wonder every other country is delving into BMD, as we can guess it is going to achieve parity.

Also, BMD radars of today are big badass AESA radars which are extremely resistant to jamming.
India uses the Swordfish long range AESA radar for ballistic missile defence.
It can track missiles upto 800km and its range is being uprated to 1500km as we speak.

I think you are confusing BMD radars with less advanced radars.


Also, there are different means of tracking ballistic missiles, like the US SBIRS network of satellites containing IR sensors meant specifically for early detection of ballistic missiles.
I am guessing after phase 2 of IBMDP something like the SBIRS network might be pursued on a regional basis.

Pakistan is not very far from India which means Indian ABMs have a good chance of boost phase interception.



It is more reliable than it was a few decades ago and continuously pursuing it and improving it will eventually bring down the costs.

After all, countries like China, US, Russia, Israel and India continue to pursue it, there must be some logic to it.




You can never really guess what kind of military planners may be at the helm of things hence western nations back away from TNWs they know there is a very legitimate chance that BMs will be used aa retaliation and the same can be said for India and pak.
Both our countries might be sabre rattling but only India is trying to boil it down to a conventional war by defusing pak's nuke threat.

Also, it depends on which western analyst you are listening to.
Some say otherwise.

Pakistan would need more nukes for a large country like India, while India doesn't.

Also, the very purpose of some of these defensive systems are so that systems like TNWs become redundant.

If mortars can be tracked and engaged, how far off can TNWs be.

Or we can always see it like the way it probably is, a pakistani nuclear bluff i.e.

We may have more to lose, you on the other hand have everything to lose.



Not true.
View attachment 445544

nice theory you have put there brah,but i am not so sure about being "old technology" cause kind of world's oldest technology(nuclear) is most elusive and powerful till date and i don't think anything that is gonna replace it in power.
btw it was never about development of BMD or inventing bad a*s radar,the BMD theory doesn't hold because simple physics rule it can't reverse and it doesn't hold in economic ratio.It is not rocket science to figure out how to confuse an interceptor,forget jamming.
in short its not possible to have a effective BMD unless you totally give up developing missile tech,with a little study and lower cost anyone can easily find out way to penetrate it unless you cover every square inch of your country with radar and interceptor,good luck with that.
oh by the way,the last picture you have posted,you really should go through details of those test before assuming it a success.specially the conditions and the missiles they used to intercept.Why do you think kim has launched a missile 3AM at night?
I was,am and will be always against stealth and BMD tech because it is simply waste of money.who want to waste money is of course upto them

 

[Super Falcon]

Pakistan should also consider BMD now rather than focusing only on one aspect

 

[Safriz]

This is a defensive missile used to track and target incoming hostile weapons systems. Why do pakistanis need to be concerned about something which isn't offensive!

potentially it can nullify our strategic balance and MAD

Pakistan should also consider BMD now rather than focusing only on one aspect

NOP,TOO EXPENSIVE AND LOW CHANCE OF ACTUALLY BEING EFFECTIVE.
COUNTERMEASURES SUCH AS mirv ARE FAR CHEAPER AND FAR EFFECTIVE. (forgot capslock )

 

[Kinetic]

Good move by Pakistan to show concerns it will provide reason to test more missiles.

Have a good university first.

 

[MimophantSlayer]

I can understand from your riposte alone that your understanding of BMD is only cursory and one sided.

nice theory you have put there brah,but i am not so sure about being "old technology" cause kind of world's oldest technology(nuclear) is most elusive and powerful till date and i don't think anything that is gonna replace it in power.

Strawman argument.
Nukes and ballistic missiles are 2 completely different subjects.

We are talking about the defence and delivery system and not nukes(which is the warhead).

btw it was never about development of BMD or inventing bad a*s radar,

It is exactly about radars and detection system.

Most of the cost on a functional BMD goes towards detection, hence the radar and IR satellites.

BMD theory doesn't hold because simple physics rule it can't reverse and it doesn't hold in economic ratio.

It doesn't need to "reverse".
One aggressor missile will be going against several layers of bmd and each layer depending on the situation may employ a number of interceptor missiles.
The warheads are not fighting a fair fight, they are going 1(warhead) vs several(interceptors).

What you are unknowingly talking about is the cost-exchange ratio.
And it was indeed in the PAST not economically viable which is why USA and the Soviet Union agreed to go into a treaty called the ABM treaty which stipulated that both USA and USSR were allowed only 100 ABMs.

But that all changed during the late 90s when US had a string of successes aided by advanced BM detection systems and interceptor missiles.

Which is why US backed out of the ABM treaty few years after those very successes.

And delved full fledged into the NMD as it was now possible to allay the cost exchange ratio a little less in the aggressor's side if not made equal.

It is not rocket science to figure out how to confuse an interceptor,forget jamming.

Umm, it is exactly rocket science.

in short its not possible to have a effective BMD unless you totally give up developing missile tech,with a little study and lower cost anyone can easily find out way to penetrate it

Says you.
The ABMs are slowly but surely negating the advantages of ballistic missiles with each iteration.

No wonder advanced countries including your beloved China is developing Anti Ballistic Missiles.

unless you cover every square inch of your country with radar and interceptor,good luck with that.

That is the eventual goal.

But before that we will protect our strategic locations and important cities so that we can retaliate so hard that the enemy is not even able to escalate.

oh by the way,the last picture you have posted,you really should go through details of those test before assuming it a success.

Maybe you should.
If you doubt the official records so much prove that your assumptions of it being otherwise is correct.
I gave you a legitimate statistic, its upto you if you to believe it or be in denial.

specially the conditions and the missiles they used to intercept.Why do you think kim has launched a missile 3AM at night?

Not to pop your bubble, but radars and abms work at night as well.

I was,am and will be always against stealth and BMD tech because it is simply waste of money.who want to waste money is of course upto them

It doesn't matter what some random person on the internet disagrees to.

When political leaders, engineers and scientists in France, US, UK, Israel, India, China and Russia are actively developing it and are actually not going bankrupt your point goes moot.

Have you considered that maybe you are against newer systems because you cannot follow suit and catch up to the nations pursuing these newer systems.

I am sure at any given point in time a new tech was called redundant and useless, but fast forward a few decades and those very tech have probably become a staple.

The nations that accept the future and adapt accordingly are the ones that stay at the top.
The ones that spurn it, well, they get dominated by the ones on the top.

Those tests were done against old missile variants that had not fitted or aided with countermeasures

https://www.defensenews.com/space/2...s-homeland-missile-defense-system-on-horizon/

As I had said earlier in the thread, ABMs are catching up faster than Ballistic missiles are evolving.

And even Russian haven't perfect a satellite based missile tracking system and USA satellite were so good they would have stopped infiltration at afpak border by now

Russians aren't the market leaders, Americans are, which is why US has the more advanced satellite IR detection system for ballistic missile and not Russia.

As for the infiltration bit, a strawman argument, but I'll bite regardless.

You see infiltrating humans don't really have the infrared signatures of ballistic missiles hence are hard to detect and BMs with solid rocket motors burning hot as hell and then on top of that travel at hypersonic speeds come in contact with the atmosphere and due to friction heat up hence easier to detect through satellites which possess IR sensors as opposed to small humans with not the largest heat signature.

And even aesa works on laws of physics so if multiple jammers due to our close proximity would be sending in false signals after years of analysis of your bmd radar emitted signals your chances of using your whole kill chain to properly track and intercept will be slim

I understand being hopeful but optimistic to the point of denial is just stupid.

How close are you talking about? Are your jammers advanced enough and have the necessary range?

Firstly, we haven't even deployed the units as of yet so forget about knowing our systems which are tested on our eastern front and not the western front, and like we'll let everyone see all our spectrums.

You are talking about barrage jamming.

You realise how many T/R modules ballistic missile detecting AESA radars have?
They number in the 1000s and are increasing every year.
Think of the continuous micro second frequency hops, polarity coding and filtering the noise rapidly, the power and effort required by the jammers to nail down an AESA of such calibre is herculean and not easy.

AESA is more than just a radar, its a complete computer system, the radar part of AESA is just one part. It can choose to ignore signals or command a t/r module to stop 't and r'ing as commanded by the software and so on.

Lets say that it works somehow near the LOC where hypothetically our SFC is stupid enough to put our radars, do your jammers have the range to continue jamming 1000s of kms away where your say BM is going for Mumbai where our radars have free reign?

And in a conflict, jamming from both will be used initially and extensively, and consecutively ARMs will be used to neutralize them.
Hence it is the jammers which will be downed earlier on and not the huge radar units used for detecting Ballistic missiles as you are implying.

Not to mention USA is no danger of air raids India at least it's northern part is
So if it comes to nuclear weapons Indian air servailance would already have gone through some damage in prior warfare
And won't be in mint condition as in testing conditions

It depends on how strong and numerous your airforce is, how PAF's attrition rate is and if it can achieve air superiority.

You are assuming that you will get the above.

These surveillance units are not placed in the middle of the battle theater that you can get to it so easily.
These have long ranges and don't need to be close to danger.
Not to mention they are mobile and protected by advanced SAM units.

FYI south Korea has withdraw from purchase of thaad citing it's expenses and less reliability against nkmissiles your bmd isn't as sophisticated as USA and our missile r more so then nk

Don't just shamelessly lie through your teeth.

SK has already deployed a number THAAD batteries.
And it is only put on hold and that too because the chinese were resorting to economically blackmail the South Koreans.

And if it is so unreliable then why are the chinese so vehemently scared of it?

As for missile sophistication, no one can really say so for sure even though we have had remarkable success with minimal failure as compared to USA, however US' detection environment is definitely more advanced.

 

[1ndy]

Any SAM can fix Nasar missile. Nasar is not a MIRV or HSGV or any maneuverable warhead. The problem with nasar is different. Any SAM system out there needs RADAR to get data for intercept in case of NASAR the issue is that the Radar cross section of NASAR is equal to that of MLRS. So if there is MLRS being fired and along it there is Nasar fired the SAM cannot identify which is Nasar and which is a Dud rocket. secondly they cannot identify which Nasar missile is with nuclear war head and which is not so that means in a disguised attack India might use 30 missiles for one successful interception of Nasar. Nasar is 20 time cheaper than any SAM missile.

Radar can track multiple targets and ballistic missile has a different trajectory than those of MBRLs. Its not difficult to differentiate ballistic missiles from MBRLs and Artillery shells due to different velocities and trajectory.

 

[Kopa Shamsu]

I can understand from your riposte alone that your understanding of BMD is only cursory and one sided.



Strawman argument.
Nukes and ballistic missiles are 2 completely different subjects.

We are talking about the defence and delivery system and not nukes(which is the warhead).



It is exactly about radars and detection system.

Most of the cost on a functional BMD goes towards detection, hence the radar and IR satellites.



It doesn't need to "reverse".
One aggressor missile will be going against several layers of bmd and each layer depending on the situation may employ a number of interceptor missiles.
The warheads are not fighting a fair fight, they are going 1(warhead) vs several(interceptors).

What you are unknowingly talking about is the cost-exchange ratio.
And it was indeed in the PAST not economically viable which is why USA and the Soviet Union agreed to go into a treaty called the ABM treaty which stipulated that both USA and USSR were allowed only 100 ABMs.

But that all changed during the late 90s when US had a string of successes aided by advanced BM detection systems and interceptor missiles.

Which is why US backed out of the ABM treaty few years after those very successes.

And delved full fledged into the NMD as it was now possible to allay the cost exchange ratio a little less in the aggressor's side if not made equal.



Umm, it is exactly rocket science.



Says you.
The ABMs are slowly but surely negating the advantages of ballistic missiles with each iteration.

No wonder advanced countries including your beloved China is developing Anti Ballistic Missiles.




That is the eventual goal.

But before that we will protect our strategic locations and important cities so that we can retaliate so hard that the enemy is not even able to escalate.



Maybe you should.
If you doubt the official records so much prove that your assumptions of it being otherwise is correct.
I gave you a legitimate statistic, its upto you if you to believe it or be in denial.



Not to pop your bubble, but radars and abms work at night as well.

It doesn't matter what some random person on the internet disagrees to.

When political leaders, engineers and scientists in France, US, UK, Israel, India, China and Russia are actively developing it and are actually not going bankrupt your point goes moot.

Have you considered that maybe you are against newer systems because you cannot follow suit and catch up to the nations pursuing these newer systems.

I am sure at any given point in time a new tech was called redundant and useless, but fast forward a few decades and those very tech have probably become a staple.

The nations that accept the future and adapt accordingly are the ones that stay at the top.
The ones that spurn it, well, they get dominated by the ones on the top.






https://www.defensenews.com/space/2...s-homeland-missile-defense-system-on-horizon/

As I had said earlier in the thread, ABMs are catching up faster than Ballistic missiles are evolving.



Russians aren't the market leaders, Americans are, which is why US has the more advanced satellite IR detection system for ballistic missile and not Russia.

As for the infiltration bit, a strawman argument, but I'll bite regardless.

You see infiltrating humans don't really have the infrared signatures of ballistic missiles hence are hard to detect and BMs with solid rocket motors burning hot as hell and then on top of that travel at hypersonic speeds come in contact with the atmosphere and due to friction heat up hence easier to detect through satellites which possess IR sensors as opposed to small humans with not the largest heat signature.



I understand being hopeful but optimistic to the point of denial is just stupid.

How close are you talking about? Are your jammers advanced enough and have the necessary range?

Firstly, we haven't even deployed the units as of yet so forget about knowing our systems which are tested on our eastern front and not the western front, and like we'll let everyone see all our spectrums.

You are talking about barrage jamming.

You realise how many T/R modules ballistic missile detecting AESA radars have?
They number in the 1000s and are increasing every year.
Think of the continuous micro second frequency hops, polarity coding and filtering the noise rapidly, the power and effort required by the jammers to nail down an AESA of such calibre is herculean and not easy.

AESA is more than just a radar, its a complete computer system, the radar part of AESA is just one part. It can choose to ignore signals or command a t/r module to stop 't and r'ing as commanded by the software and so on.

Lets say that it works somehow near the LOC where hypothetically our SFC is stupid enough to put our radars, do your jammers have the range to continue jamming 1000s of kms away where your say BM is going for Mumbai where our radars have free reign?

And in a conflict, jamming from both will be used initially and extensively, and consecutively ARMs will be used to neutralize them.
Hence it is the jammers which will be downed earlier on and not the huge radar units used for detecting Ballistic missiles as you are implying.



It depends on how strong and numerous your airforce is, how PAF's attrition rate is and if it can achieve air superiority.

You are assuming that you will get the above.

These surveillance units are not placed in the middle of the battle theater that you can get to it so easily.
These have long ranges and don't need to be close to danger.
Not to mention they are mobile and protected by advanced SAM units.



Don't just shamelessly lie through your teeth.

SK has already deployed a number THAAD batteries.
And it is only put on hold and that too because the chinese were resorting to economically blackmail the South Koreans.

And if it is so unreliable then why are the chinese so vehemently scared of it?

As for missile sophistication, no one can really say so for sure even though we have had remarkable success with minimal failure as compared to USA, however US' detection environment is definitely more advanced.

I can't believe i have wasted some precious minutes of my life reading this pathetic shit,i can't really believe it.
sometimes it is better not to pretend as an expert googling things.

/// I can understand from your riposte alone that your understanding of BMD is only cursory and one sided.///

is that so? it sounds like your understanding of BMD matches your own IQ.


/// Strawman argument.
Nukes and ballistic missiles are 2 completely different subjects.
We are talking about the defence and delivery system and not nukes(which is the warhead).///

if you don't understand what is being said then ask it.do not make comments.it is irritating to check notification unless it does wort it.
i was talking about what you referred to as "old technology" ,icbm. what i said is being old means doesn't means it always fall out of favor as you can see about nuclear energy,being oldest "technology" it is most desirable because of it's power. i was not talking about nukes(warhead) i am fairly sure what it is.

///It doesn't need to "reverse".
One aggressor missile will be going against several layers of bmd and each layer depending on the situation may employ a number of interceptor missiles.
The warheads are not fighting a fair fight, they are going 1(warhead) vs several(interceptors).
What you are unknowingly talking about is the cost-exchange ratio.
And it was indeed in the PAST not economically viable which is why USA and the Soviet Union agreed to go into a treaty called the ABM treaty which stipulated that both USA and USSR were allowed only 100 ABMs.
But that all changed during the late 90s when US had a string of successes aided by advanced BM detection systems and interceptor missiles.
Which is why US backed out of the ABM treaty few years after those very successes.
And delved full fledged into the NMD as it was now possible to allay the cost exchange ratio a little less in the aggressor's side if not made equal.///

WHAAATTT?!!!
go to last part of answer


/// That is the eventual goal.
But before that we will protect our strategic locations and important cities so that we can retaliate so hard that the enemy is not even able to escalate.///

total area of india+pakistan=near about 4 million square km.

US land = well above 9 million square KM.

china has near about 300 nukes which can obliterate US from it's existence.

nukes of India+Pakistan(officially) = 220,less than half of US's land mass to destroy.

retaliate so hard? idiot.
btw wishing you all the best for your "goal"

/// Umm, it is exactly rocket science. ///

first learn what does a rocket looks like,then talk about radar.

///Says you.
The ABMs are slowly but surely negating the advantages of ballistic missiles with each iteration.
No wonder advanced countries including your beloved China is developing Anti Ballistic Missiles.///

if you do not understand something,then do't talk about it.

///Maybe you should.
If you doubt the official records so much prove that your assumptions of it being otherwise is correct.
I gave you a legitimate statistic, its upto you if you to believe it or be in denial Not to pop your bubble, but radars and abms work at night as well.///


youtube? you have posted this so you can show me this nonsense?
an indian educating himself from youtube,how typical?

this is what i call legit scientist.
https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk
this is an expert from middlebury institute,i am definitely sure he didn't get his education from youtube.

it doesn't worth time to argue a deluded indian crybaby.so i'll pass that,instead listen to what learned people has to say.

https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/tru...-could-lead-to-a-deadly-war-with-north-korea/

took time to find this report cause i forgot where i did read it.
i am posting this because --->>>
1) both author of this report are indian
2) to show idiot like you what they think about US's best missile defense(GMD).and they don't even mention yours.
this report was published before NoKo tested HS-15.

FYI,what France, US, UK, Israel, China and Russia does it out of grip of your brainless empty scull.You idiots do blindly anything they do thinking you are also as clever as them.

THAAD will stop ICBM?do you even know elaboration of THAAD?you pathetic moron,BMD means Ballistic missile defense,short range,mid range,intermediate range these are also ballistic missiles. The current best existing BMD will barely hold against barrage of SRBM,MRBM,IRBM that is considering they will not be overwhelmed which is very unlikely in real war scenario. forget about ICBM.

it is really annoying hearing lecture from unworthy people whining and crying like a baby to prove his nonsense bullshit fairy tale story reported by his media.
unless you have something worthy of my time,do not post BS,it is really nuisance,cry baby type arrogant bullshitting which is really irritating for which i have neither time nor interest.

 

[khanmubashir]

I can understand from your riposte alone that your understanding of BMD is only cursory and one sided.



Strawman argument.
Nukes and ballistic missiles are 2 completely different subjects.

We are talking about the defence and delivery system and not nukes(which is the warhead).



It is exactly about radars and detection system.

Most of the cost on a functional BMD goes towards detection, hence the radar and IR satellites.



It doesn't need to "reverse".
One aggressor missile will be going against several layers of bmd and each layer depending on the situation may employ a number of interceptor missiles.
The warheads are not fighting a fair fight, they are going 1(warhead) vs several(interceptors).

What you are unknowingly talking about is the cost-exchange ratio.
And it was indeed in the PAST not economically viable which is why USA and the Soviet Union agreed to go into a treaty called the ABM treaty which stipulated that both USA and USSR were allowed only 100 ABMs.

But that all changed during the late 90s when US had a string of successes aided by advanced BM detection systems and interceptor missiles.

Which is why US backed out of the ABM treaty few years after those very successes.

And delved full fledged into the NMD as it was now possible to allay the cost exchange ratio a little less in the aggressor's side if not made equal.



Umm, it is exactly rocket science.



Says you.
The ABMs are slowly but surely negating the advantages of ballistic missiles with each iteration.

No wonder advanced countries including your beloved China is developing Anti Ballistic Missiles.




That is the eventual goal.

But before that we will protect our strategic locations and important cities so that we can retaliate so hard that the enemy is not even able to escalate.



Maybe you should.
If you doubt the official records so much prove that your assumptions of it being otherwise is correct.
I gave you a legitimate statistic, its upto you if you to believe it or be in denial.



Not to pop your bubble, but radars and abms work at night as well.

It doesn't matter what some random person on the internet disagrees to.

When political leaders, engineers and scientists in France, US, UK, Israel, India, China and Russia are actively developing it and are actually not going bankrupt your point goes moot.

Have you considered that maybe you are against newer systems because you cannot follow suit and catch up to the nations pursuing these newer systems.

I am sure at any given point in time a new tech was called redundant and useless, but fast forward a few decades and those very tech have probably become a staple.

The nations that accept the future and adapt accordingly are the ones that stay at the top.
The ones that spurn it, well, they get dominated by the ones on the top.






https://www.defensenews.com/space/2...s-homeland-missile-defense-system-on-horizon/

As I had said earlier in the thread, ABMs are catching up faster than Ballistic missiles are evolving.



Russians aren't the market leaders, Americans are, which is why US has the more advanced satellite IR detection system for ballistic missile and not Russia.

As for the infiltration bit, a strawman argument, but I'll bite regardless.

You see infiltrating humans don't really have the infrared signatures of ballistic missiles hence are hard to detect and BMs with solid rocket motors burning hot as hell and then on top of that travel at hypersonic speeds come in contact with the atmosphere and due to friction heat up hence easier to detect through satellites which possess IR sensors as opposed to small humans with not the largest heat signature.



I understand being hopeful but optimistic to the point of denial is just stupid.

How close are you talking about? Are your jammers advanced enough and have the necessary range?

Firstly, we haven't even deployed the units as of yet so forget about knowing our systems which are tested on our eastern front and not the western front, and like we'll let everyone see all our spectrums.

You are talking about barrage jamming.

You realise how many T/R modules ballistic missile detecting AESA radars have?
They number in the 1000s and are increasing every year.
Think of the continuous micro second frequency hops, polarity coding and filtering the noise rapidly, the power and effort required by the jammers to nail down an AESA of such calibre is herculean and not easy.

AESA is more than just a radar, its a complete computer system, the radar part of AESA is just one part. It can choose to ignore signals or command a t/r module to stop 't and r'ing as commanded by the software and so on.

Lets say that it works somehow near the LOC where hypothetically our SFC is stupid enough to put our radars, do your jammers have the range to continue jamming 1000s of kms away where your say BM is going for Mumbai where our radars have free reign?

And in a conflict, jamming from both will be used initially and extensively, and consecutively ARMs will be used to neutralize them.
Hence it is the jammers which will be downed earlier on and not the huge radar units used for detecting Ballistic missiles as you are implying.



It depends on how strong and numerous your airforce is, how PAF's attrition rate is and if it can achieve air superiority.

You are assuming that you will get the above.

These surveillance units are not placed in the middle of the battle theater that you can get to it so easily.
These have long ranges and don't need to be close to danger.
Not to mention they are mobile and protected by advanced SAM units.



Don't just shamelessly lie through your teeth.

SK has already deployed a number THAAD batteries.
And it is only put on hold and that too because the chinese were resorting to economically blackmail the South Koreans.

And if it is so unreliable then why are the chinese so vehemently scared of it?

As for missile sophistication, no one can really say so for sure even though we have had remarkable success with minimal failure as compared to USA, however US' detection environment is definitely more advanced.

All your comparisons r of American technology of which indian r not at par with if ABM r advancing so r counter measures and there development is more economical and technically easy then ABM improvements fyi USA ABM dev budget is more so then entire Indian defense budget
How much ballistic missile be effective here is example USA minute man 3 during cold war USA MIRV it with 3 nukes but since early 90s USA is keeping it in single warhead configuration and plans to keep this missile up til 2040s with some modifications so first a ballistic missile developed back in 80s can be upgraded for service for see able future
Second it's against Russian the maker of fabled s400 so if USA is confident that single warhead can penetrate s400 shield and what ever be by 2040s then that means ballistic missile don't have any serious problem from ABM
Now don't claim your capabilities r superior to Russia

 

[Chhatrapati]

THAAD will stop ICBM?do you even know elaboration of THAAD?you pathetic moron,BMD means Ballistic missile defense,short range,mid range,intermediate range these are also ballistic missiles. The current best existing BMD will barely hold against barrage of SRBM,MRBM,IRBM that is considering they will not be overwhelmed which is very unlikely in real war scenario. forget about ICBM.

The only technical remark from the entire comment is this. And that itself is half BS.

The main purpose of development of ABM's is to defend against ICBM's and you here claiming "forget about ICBM". .

 

[MimophantSlayer]

All your comparisons r of American technology of which indian r not at par with if ABM r advancing so r counter measures and there development is more economical and technically easy then ABM improvements fyi USA ABM dev budget is more so then entire Indian defense budget
How much ballistic missile be effective here is example USA minute man 3 during cold war USA MIRV it with 3 nukes but since early 90s USA is keeping it in single warhead configuration and plans to keep this missile up til 2040s with some modifications so first a ballistic missile developed back in 80s can be upgraded for service for see able future

No we are not on par with USA, but that hardly matters as, for countering pakistan India doesn't need anti ICBM missiles.
Sure, countermeasures will eventually adapt, however as of now MARVs and MIRVs are the only known ones which are 20th century tech as compared to ABMs which have only just started evolving post 2000s following the dissolution of ABM Treaty.

Sure USA is removing MIRVs, that we know of.

Also, policies change all the time.
Obama might have deMIRVed Minuteman 3s Trump may re institute them back, specially the way he is going removing Obama era policies.

Second it's against Russian the maker of fabled s400

So?
Let me remind you its the US ABM that started it all.
I hope you are not presuming that the Russians are better than US.
The S-400 systems have never been tested against an ICBM type target unlike the US ABM has.

so if USA is confident that single warhead can penetrate s400 shield and what ever be by 2040s then that means ballistic missile don't have any serious problem from ABM
Now don't claim your capabilities r superior to Russia

That is some high level strawman argument.

So what if the US is deMIRVing?

US is doing the deMIRVing as per the 2010 NPR not because it can or cannot attack Russia.

As for US being confident, how do you know that and are you implying that you are on the same level as the Americans? Give me a break.
______________________________________________________________________


50% of your comment was nothing but full of ad hominems.

At this point all you are doing is name calling instead of actually having a legitimate response.

I suggest you stick to the topic and riposte through facts rather than on sentiment.

I can't believe i have wasted some precious minutes of my life reading this pathetic shit,i can't really believe it.
sometimes it is better not to pretend as an expert googling things.

And what special person are you that your time should be considered precious by every other member?
If you are wasting your time why feel compelled to answer, I mean clearly you have better things to do yet you come here.

Is that so? it sounds like your understanding of BMD matches your own IQ.

I'll take it as a complement even though you did not intend it in that context.

if you don't understand what is being said then ask it.do not make comments.it is irritating to check notification unless it does wort it.
i was talking about what you referred to as "old technology" ,icbm. what i said is being old means doesn't means it always fall out of favor as you can see about nuclear energy,being oldest "technology" it is most desirable because of it's power. i was not talking about nukes(warhead) i am fairly sure what it is.

You are in pdf, expect to be irritated.

So what?
It still was a strawman argument, better learn what that means.

No one said old means worthless, all anyone said was most old things are indeed worth very very LESS in the current zeitgeist.

Again stick to the topic.

total area of india+pakistan=near about 4 million square km.

US land = well above 9 million square KM.

china has near about 300 nukes which can obliterate US from it's existence.

nukes of India+Pakistan(officially) = 220,less than half of US's land mass to destroy.

retaliate so hard? idiot.
btw wishing you all the best for your "goal"

So?
Its a newer system so it'll take some time but as BMD R&D progresses the systems will eventually inundate the whole of the region, that is usually how things go.

US has a 4 layered BMD(Aegis, GMD, THAAD & MEADS) with many missiles under its employ.
So what of the size of a country?
All the BMD needs to do is protect the most important installations and cities so as to retaliate effectively, the cities or the strategic places will be under constant surveillance and the aggressor ballistic missile has to hit there. The targets are already known by both the parties(attacker and the defender) and is already protected by the defender and there is no element of surprise genius.
For now, its not every square inch of the country, its the important areas of the country, every square inch may happen in the future.

With 2-5 interceptors per warhead.
You still don't understand, it is not a fair fight it won't be 1 ABM vs 1 BM, it will be 2-5 ABMs vs 1 BM.

first learn what does a rocket looks like,then talk about radar.

Why don't you enlighten us mortals then?

If you do not understand something,then do't talk about it.

Ad hominem, stick to the topic and refute my claim.

youtube? you have posted this so you can show me this nonsense?
an indian educating himself from youtube,how typical?

Why is twitter more of a credible platform than youtube?
You get to post links off of twitter but heavens forbid if I do the same with youtube.

The video I posted is a legitimate video from the USMDA, you are just in denial coz you were proven wrong.

Here, same video from a US army website.
http://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/Media/Videos/videoid/537462/
Happy now?

this is what i call legit scientist.
https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk

this is an expert from middlebury institute,i am definitely sure he didn't get his education from youtube.

And that is supposed to be impressive why?
Maybe you thought randomly name dropping someone will prove something or give your rhetoric some credibility.

Guess what, he is not a "scientist".

http://www.miis.edu/academics/faculty/JLewis/node/23027

So what were you saying again?

Also, surprisingly I just found out that I follow him on twitter and a few other such commentators.
He is liberal leaning and liberals in general are very opposed to missile defence specifically the GMD which was initiated in the Bush era, suspiciously however they change their tone when they are elected and expected to vote on BMD in the US Congress. Democrats do however favour the SM3 systems more which the Obama administration fed to the USN and therefore making it their baby as opposed to the GMD being the GOP's which is why you'll see majority of the left leaning media outlets which is basically all of them denounce the GMD.

He almost never talks about the successful GMD tests like he does about the failures.

Not to say that he is always wrong, he does have sensible findings just that he only ever portrays one side of the spectrum.

it doesn't worth time to argue a deluded indian crybaby.so i'll pass that,instead listen to what learned people has to say.

https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/tru...-could-lead-to-a-deadly-war-with-north-korea/

LOL, firstly, you "passed" because you know zilch about the subject.

Secondly, I am crying? Hilarious.
A bangladeshi who is so jealous of Indians progressing that he takes the time to search for an Indian thread and troll, and who has no business talking about missiles forget BMD is in an Indian thread farting through his mouth about something bangladeshis themselves don't have the capacity to make; that is just righteous hypocrisy.

And finally, apart from the assumption taken out of all the presstitute liberty, most of the important points have been discussed to death and no one is denying it.

So no, BMD is not a perfect system and I never implied that.
And if you hoped you found something that masturbates your deep seated confirmation bias you are dead wrong, so try again.

But lets go into the article you posted and since you are so blinded by India hate you'll search for any crap, let me debunk some of it for you.



The quotes below are the crux of the article which they use to justify their vilification of the GMD.

First, it doesn’t work! As we’ve shown, U.S. missile defense is not particularly effective even against a single incoming ICBM.

Shamelessly, lying through their teeth.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Articl...md-system-ready-to-defend-the-homeland-today/

Assuming four interceptors, a single incoming ICBM, and an SSPK of about 57 percent, the odds of a successful intercept scenario thus rise to 97 percent. This calculation, however, ignores the possibility that each successive interceptor’s chance of successful kill might not be independent of the previous one, due to correlated factors such as design shortcomings, leading to a lower overall success rate.

They reluctantly agree to the 97% intercept scenario but with all the hypocritical presstitute glory without any explanation assume that very success rate will be lowered by "design shortcomings".

Now, the design shortcomings they are talking about is the EKV's ADT and/or DACS failure of 2016 making the EKV veer off course.

This failure happened way back in Jan 2016 but the newer test already addressed this problem specifically the one on the 30th of May 2017.
Aerojet Rocketdyne the makers of the divert thrusters improved the ADT which therefore resulted in the interception of the ICBM type target which also employed countermeasures.
http://www.rocket.com/article/aeroj...tical-role-10th-successful-intercept-test-gmd
Which basically means that the 8 new GBIs which were inducted by December 2017 post the May 2017 test got the new EKV or the CE2 Block1.

But presstitutes being presstitutes decided not to quote the latest success but instead quote the old failure and use it as a linchpin for their propaganda. After all how will they confirm their biases and brainwash the gullible public if they don't use outdated information.
They even mention the CE2 Block1 but only offhandedly and don't even expound on it or even take it into consideration when calculating the SSPK.

took time to find this report cause i forgot where i did read it.
i am posting this because --->>>
1) both author of this report are indian

So what if the writers are Indians?
Is that supposed to make your rhetoric legit now?

US's best missile defense(GMD).and they don't even mention yours.

GMD is not the best of US' tiered missile defense system, though it is the most important one.
THAAD with its 13 continuous successful tests is the best performing ABM.

They didn't mention Israel's or China's or Russia's BMD system so does that means those systems are all horrible?

The article is discussing NK and US not India.

Also, our system is not operational as of yet so why will it be brought up into the discussion?

In your hurry to spew venom against India you are forgetting to use some common sense.

FYI,what France, US, UK, Israel, China and Russia does it out of grip of your brainless empty scull.You idiots do blindly anything they do thinking you are also as clever as them.

Ad hominem, again.
Are you not capable of not regurgitating the usual baseless rhetoric every other troll regurgitates?

And yes we and everyone else is copying, is that not clear by now? In fact everyone except the US is copying.

Explain this to me, the Aster series missile which intercepted a ballistic type target came 5 years after the PAD and AAD tests of India so does that mean by your superb logic that France and Italy are blindly and idioticly doing whatever we are doing?

Also, maybe you should check our BMD success rate before passing gas.

THAAD will stop ICBM?do you even know elaboration of THAAD?you pathetic moron,BMD means Ballistic missile defense,short range,mid range,intermediate range these are also ballistic missiles.

Oh stop with the cursory knowledge every Tom,Dick and Harry knows that.

Who said THAAD will intercept ICBMs?
You are so eager to blow your load that you don't even read a comment properly.

Its the GBI that has shown the capability of intercepting ICBMs.
THAAD will eventually be tested against ICBMs

Only this year did the GMD test its interceptor against an ICBM type target lacecd with countermeasures, for which it scored a direct hit.

And that too in a 1 vs 1 format and not say 2-4(interceptors) vs 1(warhead) scenario which is a more realistic scenario, which will be tested this year.

https://www.defensenews.com/space/2...s-homeland-missile-defense-system-on-horizon/

The current best existing BMD will barely hold against barrage of SRBM,MRBM,IRBM that is considering they will not be overwhelmed which is very unlikely in real war scenario. forget about ICBM.

Let me correct your presumptuous statement: The current existing ABM system in the numbers that it has, which as we speak are being increased almost every month, can only intercept a majority of the ballistic missiles.

Apart from GMD, THAAD too is also capable of intercepting IRBMs and SRBMs, both of which it was tested against in 2017 and successfully intercepted.

So again it is a teired system that will intercept.

Also GMD has already been tested against an ICBM.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Articl...md-system-ready-to-defend-the-homeland-today/

https://www.defensenews.com/space/2...s-homeland-missile-defense-system-on-horizon/

it is really annoying hearing lecture from unworthy people whining and crying like a baby to prove his nonsense bullshit fairy tale story reported by his media.
unless you have something worthy of my time,do not post BS,it is really nuisance,cry baby type arrogant bullshitting which is really irritating for which i have neither time nor interest.

I get it you are here to hate on everything India for whatever complex/es you have and enjoy a whiff of schadenfreude.
Guess what, so is everyone else, but see the older more experienced members of the forum who actually have a thing or 2 to say, say it with a $hit ton of actual verifiable proof alongside them, you will learn it the hard way that spewing nonsense and name calling makes you look like an idiot who is just here to troll whom no one will ever take seriously.

Your are a novice anyone can clearly see that, a word of advice, better develop a thick skin because you will be intellectually owned a boat load of times.

 

[khanmubashir]

No we are not on par with USA, but that hardly matters as, for countering pakistan India doesn't need anti ICBM missiles.
Sure, countermeasures will eventually adapt, however as of now MARVs and MIRVs are the only known ones which are 20th century tech as compared to ABMs which have only just started evolving post 2000s following the dissolution of ABM Treaty.

Sure USA is removing MIRVs, that we know of.

Also, policies change all the time.
Obama might have deMIRVed Minuteman 3s Trump may re institute them back, specially the way he is going removing Obama era policies.



So?
Let me remind you its the US ABM that started it all.
I hope you are not presuming that the Russians are better than US.
The S-400 systems have never been tested against an ICBM type target unlike the US ABM has.



That is some high level strawman argument.

So what if the US is deMIRVing?

US is doing the deMIRVing as per the 2010 NPR not because it can or cannot attack Russia.

As for US being confident, how do you know that and are you implying that you are on the same level as the Americans? Give me a break.
______________________________________________________________________


50% of your comment was nothing but full of ad hominems.

At this point all you are doing is name calling instead of actually having a legitimate response.

I suggest you stick to the topic and riposte through facts rather than on sentiment.



And what special person are you that your time should be considered precious by every other member?
If you are wasting your time why feel compelled to answer, I mean clearly you have better things to do yet you come here.



I'll take it as a complement even though you did not intend it in that context.



You are in pdf, expect to be irritated.

So what?
It still was a strawman argument, better learn what that means.

No one said old means worthless, all anyone said was most old things are indeed worth very very LESS in the current zeitgeist.

Again stick to the topic.




So?
Its a newer system so it'll take some time but as BMD R&D progresses the systems will eventually inundate the whole of the region, that is usually how things go.

US has a 4 layered BMD(Aegis, GMD, THAAD & MEADS) with many missiles under its employ.
So what of the size of a country?
All the BMD needs to do is protect the most important installations and cities so as to retaliate effectively, the cities or the strategic places will be under constant surveillance and the aggressor ballistic missile has to hit there. The targets are already known by both the parties(attacker and the defender) and is already protected by the defender and there is no element of surprise genius.
For now, its not every square inch of the country, its the important areas of the country, every square inch may happen in the future.

With 2-5 interceptors per warhead.
You still don't understand, it is not a fair fight it won't be 1 ABM vs 1 BM, it will be 2-5 ABMs vs 1 BM.



Why don't you enlighten us mortals then?



Ad hominem, stick to the topic and refute my claim.



Why is twitter more of a credible platform than youtube?
You get to post links off of twitter but heavens forbid if I do the same with youtube.

The video I posted is a legitimate video from the USMDA, you are just in denial coz you were proven wrong.

Here, same video from a US army website.
http://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/Media/Videos/videoid/537462/
Happy now?



And that is supposed to be impressive why?
Maybe you thought randomly name dropping someone will prove something or give your rhetoric some credibility.

Guess what, he is not a "scientist".

http://www.miis.edu/academics/faculty/JLewis/node/23027

So what were you saying again?

Also, surprisingly I just found out that I follow him on twitter and a few other such commentators.
He is liberal leaning and liberals in general are very opposed to missile defence specifically the GMD which was initiated in the Bush era, suspiciously however they change their tone when they are elected and expected to vote on BMD in the US Congress. Democrats do however favour the SM3 systems more which the Obama administration fed to the USN and therefore making it their baby as opposed to the GMD being the GOP's which is why you'll see majority of the left leaning media outlets which is basically all of them denounce the GMD.

He almost never talks about the successful GMD tests like he does about the failures.

Not to say that he is always wrong, he does have sensible findings just that he only ever portrays one side of the spectrum.



LOL, firstly, you "passed" because you know zilch about the subject.

Secondly, I am crying? Hilarious.
A bangladeshi who is so jealous of Indians progressing that he takes the time to search for an Indian thread and troll, and who has no business talking about missiles forget BMD is in an Indian thread farting through his mouth about something bangladeshis themselves don't have the capacity to make; that is just righteous hypocrisy.

And finally, apart from the assumption taken out of all the presstitute liberty, most of the important points have been discussed to death and no one is denying it.

So no, BMD is not a perfect system and I never implied that.
And if you hoped you found something that masturbates your deep seated confirmation bias you are dead wrong, so try again.

But lets go into the article you posted and since you are so blinded by India hate you'll search for any crap, let me debunk some of it for you.



The quotes below are the crux of the article which they use to justify their vilification of the GMD.


Shamelessly, lying through their teeth.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Articl...md-system-ready-to-defend-the-homeland-today/



They reluctantly agree to the 97% intercept scenario but with all the hypocritical presstitute glory without any explanation assume that very success rate will be lowered by "design shortcomings".

Now, the design shortcomings they are talking about is the EKV's ADT and/or DACS failure of 2016 making the EKV veer off course.

This failure happened way back in Jan 2016 but the newer test already addressed this problem specifically the one on the 30th of May 2017.
Aerojet Rocketdyne the makers of the divert thrusters improved the ADT which therefore resulted in the interception of the ICBM type target which also employed countermeasures.
http://www.rocket.com/article/aeroj...tical-role-10th-successful-intercept-test-gmd
Which basically means that the 8 new GBIs which were inducted by December 2017 post the May 2017 test got the new EKV or the CE2 Block1.

But presstitutes being presstitutes decided not to quote the latest success but instead quote the old failure and use it as a linchpin for their propaganda. After all how will they confirm their biases and brainwash the gullible public if they don't use outdated information.
They even mention the CE2 Block1 but only offhandedly and don't even expound on it or even take it into consideration when calculating the SSPK.



So what if the writers are Indians?
Is that supposed to make your rhetoric legit now?




GMD is not the best of US' tiered missile defense system, though it is the most important one.
THAAD with its 13 continuous successful tests is the best performing ABM.

They didn't mention Israel's or China's or Russia's BMD system so does that means those systems are all horrible?

The article is discussing NK and US not India.

Also, our system is not operational as of yet so why will it be brought up into the discussion?

In your hurry to spew venom against India you are forgetting to use some common sense.



Ad hominem, again.
Are you not capable of not regurgitating the usual baseless rhetoric every other troll regurgitates?

And yes we and everyone else is copying, is that not clear by now? In fact everyone except the US is copying.

Explain this to me, the Aster series missile which intercepted a ballistic type target came 5 years after the PAD and AAD tests of India so does that mean by your superb logic that France and Italy are blindly and idioticly doing whatever we are doing?

Also, maybe you should check our BMD success rate before passing gas.



Oh stop with the cursory knowledge every Tom,Dick and Harry knows that.

Who said THAAD will intercept ICBMs?
You are so eager to blow your load that you don't even read a comment properly.

Its the GBI that has shown the capability of intercepting ICBMs.
THAAD will eventually be tested against ICBMs

Only this year did the GMD test its interceptor against an ICBM type target lacecd with countermeasures, for which it scored a direct hit.

And that too in a 1 vs 1 format and not say 2-4(interceptors) vs 1(warhead) scenario which is a more realistic scenario, which will be tested this year.

https://www.defensenews.com/space/2...s-homeland-missile-defense-system-on-horizon/



Let me correct your presumptuous statement: The current existing ABM system in the numbers that it has, which as we speak are being increased almost every month, can only intercept a majority of the ballistic missiles.

Apart from GMD, THAAD too is also capable of intercepting IRBMs and SRBMs, both of which it was tested against in 2017 and successfully intercepted.

So again it is a teired system that will intercept.

Also GMD has already been tested against an ICBM.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Articl...md-system-ready-to-defend-the-homeland-today/

https://www.defensenews.com/space/2...s-homeland-missile-defense-system-on-horizon/



I get it you are here to hate on everything India for whatever complex/es you have and enjoy a whiff of schadenfreude.
Guess what, so is everyone else, but see the older more experienced members of the forum who actually have a thing or 2 to say, say it with a $hit ton of actual verifiable proof alongside them, you will learn it the hard way that spewing nonsense and name calling makes you look like an idiot who is just here to troll whom no one will ever take seriously.

Your are a novice anyone can clearly see that, a word of advice, better develop a thick skin because you will be intellectually owned a boat load of times.

Again point is Indian tech is way behind USA and USA has only to worry about ICBM and slbm but for India other means which we have like jets cruise etc r possible so if u wanna waste billions on an ABM which can be countered by millions via countermeasures with ondia having more poor then continent of Africa then be my guest
Fyi USA de MIRV minute man since 90s Obama came in late 2000s
And my point about s400 was if USA believe it won't be much problem for there missile then nor would your ABM against ours