Pakistan Missile Defense?

[DavidSling]

Shooting down a SAM going up at Mach 3; max is a big differ et from an RV reentering at upto Mach 20.




Firstly Re the claimed 100% is pure unadlterated bullshit. Nothing ever has a 100% kill rate, and oif someone claims they do, they are lying.

Secondly, re rest of your links. Big fucking deal. So they can hit an uncomining warhead. Repeat. wBig fucking deal. People could do that in the late fifties. Even in the second World War, they had plans to use RADAR guiuded guns firing enmass to intercept V2. Thats irrelevant. No one is throwing 40's era Scud, or fifties era R-7 missiles at you. Modern (by which I mean any BM designed since the 1960's) have penetration aids, such a jammers, chaff, balloons decoys. They also have high altitude maximum trajectory and very high (mach 8) terminal velocity, as opposed to the sub-sonic terminal velocity of the Scuds. Not to mention MIRV's and maneovering warheads. There is a reason everyone gave up on missile defences in the early 70's; after nearly 25 years of work and getting technically more advanced than anything now; its just not feasible. (The US Safeguard System; google it, was more advanced the the much vanted GMD, and was decommmssioned since all it could do was protect a small area).

The other MOKV that you linked to actually made me cry with laughter. Its a rehase of Brilliant Pebbles, the only SDI project that seemed feasbily; except Brilliant Pebbles was supposed to be orbiting interceptors, while this is ground based; in othger words the compolexity of Brillinant Pebbles, with the disadvantages of Ground Based systems. Brilliant Pebbles also was ulimatkey deemed unworkable.

In short, don't be seduced by marketing departments, or the IDF propaganda arm (for @DavidSling).

Nothing is perfect and there are countermeasures to the countermeasures, no one claimed they don't.
But who are u to claim what's propaganda and what's not.
In short, u claimed Arrow didn't shoot anything in live scenario, I just showed u it did.
as for Arrow 3

 

[SHAH820]

missile defence for paksitan is completely useless and also for india if both have complately working and 100% accurate missile defence it won't going to save them cause time for a missile to travel to india or to pakistan is very little only about 10-15 minutes and even if we look at USA their BMD don't work as fast but only way their's work is due to long distance from asia to america and cause more time for a missile to travel and at that time their BMD get enough time to make calculation and which can be launched and gain enough speed to hit 22,000+ km/h 4-8 meter projectile

 

[LeGenD]

Firstly Re the claimed 100% is pure unadlterated bullshit. Nothing ever has a 100% kill rate, and oif someone claims they do, they are lying.

F-15 combat aircraft have 100% success rate in (strictly) air-to-air engagements; 102 in total [all conflicts].

My point is that PAC-3 have intercepted every kind of target that came within its reach in various battles - this is 100% intercept record for it in the battlefield.

Now, I am (not) asserting that these weapon systems are infallible, they have their limits and are designed to defeat specific threats. However, they are really good at what they are supposed to do - and this fact is important to consider.

Secondly, re rest of your links. Big fucking deal. So they can hit an uncomining warhead. Repeat. wBig fucking deal. People could do that in the late fifties. Even in the second World War, they had plans to use RADAR guiuded guns firing enmass to intercept V2. Thats irrelevant. No one is throwing 40's era Scud, or fifties era R-7 missiles at you. Modern (by which I mean any BM designed since the 1960's) have penetration aids, such a jammers, chaff, balloons decoys. They also have high altitude maximum trajectory and very high (mach 8) terminal velocity, as opposed to the sub-sonic terminal velocity of the Scuds. Not to mention MIRV's and maneovering warheads.

Minuteman-III ICBM came into service in 1970 and it is one of the most advanced ballistic missiles in existence even today. You don't look at how old a missile is [unless it is really ancient]; you concentrate on its capabilities in large part.

Scuds might be old but they are a threat to large stationary targets and have claimed many lives in wars - and some variants are not easy to intercept due to their erratic behavior.

More importantly, different classes of ballistic missiles exist today and different ABM systems have been developed to counter each class of ballistic missiles accordingly. To put this in perspective:

PAC-3 is suitable for intercepting SRBM and MRBM class targets; THAAD is suitable for intercepting SRBM, MRBM, IRBM and ICBM class targets (in terminal stage of flight and/or a bit earlier); and GMD is suitable for intercepting MRBM, IRBM and ICBM class targets (in both Mid-course and terminal stages of flight). Idea is to make defenses against ballistic missiles multi-layered to increase chances of intercepting them and relevant coverage.

As for the countermeasures, do you know that interceptors of THAAD and GMD systems can distinguish real warheads from decoys? They cannot be fooled with this strategy because decoys do not behave like real warheads during re-entry phase and there are technical methods to distinguish them in exoatmospheric conditions also. Even maneuvering warheads cannot escape these modern interceptors due to their on-board tracking mechanisms and sheer speed:

The Raytheon EKV is equipped with an infrared seeker, which is comprised of focal plane arrays and a cooling assembly attached to an optical telescope. The seeker software has to detect and track all incoming objects, discriminate warheads from decoys, and steer the EKV to a head-on collision with a target at closing speeds of more than 25700 km/h (16000 mph). The EKV's manoeuvering system, known as DACS (Divert and Attitude Control System), has four rocket thrusters around the vehicle's body. The vehicle weighs approximately 63 kg (140 lb), is 140 cm (55 in) long and about 60 cm (24 in) in diameter.

Source: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/gbi.html

The only method to get through these defenses is to deploy ICBM in relatively larger numbers. Only Russia have this advantage at present. However, US is expected to expand its defenses against such threats in coming years.

I believe that existing form of MAD between Russia and US will be obsolete at some point in the future, like 30 years ahead from today.

There is a reason everyone gave up on missile defences in the early 70's; after nearly 25 years of work and getting technically more advanced than anything now; its just not feasible. (The US Safeguard System; google it, was more advanced the the much vanted GMD, and was decommmssioned since all it could do was protect a small area).

Bro, you have no idea how capable GMD system have become in recent years. Its protection extends to entire North America (from Mexico to Alaska) and its tracking assets are deployed at land, sea and space across the world to ensure intercepts at vast distances.

Learn more form following links:

https://missilethreat.csis.org/system/gmd/
http://aviationweek.com/defense/first-successful-us-icbm-intercept-test-step-step

There have been considerable advances in science and technologies since 1970 and what seemed to be an impossible objective back then, is becoming a reality in current times.

Several states are investing in 'missile defenses' today and they are on the right path. You don't take your chances, if you have a strong economy and take your national security seriously.

The other MOKV that you linked to actually made me cry with laughter. Its a rehase of Brilliant Pebbles, the only SDI project that seemed feasbily; except Brilliant Pebbles was supposed to be orbiting interceptors, while this is ground based; in othger words the compolexity of Brillinant Pebbles, with the disadvantages of Ground Based systems. Brilliant Pebbles also was ulimatkey deemed unworkable.

In short, don't be seduced by marketing departments, or the IDF propaganda arm (for @DavidSling).

I think you do not understand the concept of MOKV.

Technically, MOKV represents an MiRV'ed interceptor much like an MiRV'ed ballistic missile; a single interceptor will carry multiple kill vehicles and release them to intercept multiple warheads in exoatmospheric conditions.

MOKV will make it technically feasible to intercept a large volley of ICBMs in space with relatively fewer interceptors. This is the next step in evolution of GMD system.

As for the brilliant pebbles part, this may surprise you but US is also considering development/deployment of strictly space-based defenses against ballistic missiles in near future. Here: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine....-options-for-space-based-missile-interceptors

Essentially, another layer of 'missile defenses' on top of existing layers.

 

[Submariner]

This was the target missile used during the FTG-15 GMD intercept. it was designed with decoys, multiple warheads and as an ICBM-simulaid.

This is the GBI interceptor used during FTG-15. It's the size of an ICBM itself, standing at 16.61 meters and weighing 21,500 kg:

A long-range ground-based interceptor is launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, and successfully intercepted an intercontinental ballistic missile target launched from the U.S. Army’s Reagan Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll. This was the first live-fire test event against an ICBM-class target.

The GBI was designed to destroy ICBM class targets at a range of 4000km, before they deploy decoys and before warheads separate from their bus, but after the bus separates from the carrier missile.

To date the missile has a success ratio of +50%, but is steadily becoming more reliable.

THAAD has seen more success in the reliability department, but is restricted to a different class of target, being IRBM and MRBM-class missiles. During FTT-18, on July 11, 2017, a THAAD interceptor successfully intercepted an IRBM-class target:

A Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor is launched from the Pacific Spaceport Complex Alaska in Kodiak, Alaska, during Flight Test THAAD (FTT)-18 on July 11, 2017. During the test, the THAAD weapon system successfully intercepted an air-launched intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) target.

Missile defence works, but is limited by high cost and technical sophistication, and also by the number of interceptors versus the number of targets, a dynamic similarly faced by advanced air-defence systems like PAC-3 or S-400. Dismissing missile defence as infeasible, impossible or unreliable, costly or just dumb is a fools bargain.

 

[EpiiC]

Shame how Israel has much better missiles and missile defense than Pakistan...This really saddens me

 

[LeGenD]

missile defence for paksitan is completely useless and also for india if both have complately working and 100% accurate missile defence it won't going to save them cause time for a missile to travel to india or to pakistan is very little only about 10-15 minutes and even if we look at USA their BMD don't work as fast but only way their's work is due to long distance from asia to america and cause more time for a missile to travel and at that time their BMD get enough time to make calculation and which can be launched and gain enough speed to hit 22,000+ km/h 4-8 meter projectile

Yes and No.

You are correct in pointing out the fact that a ballistic missile will not take much time to complete its journey between Pakistan and India but this span of time will vary according to the type of ballistic missile and location of its target (across India specially due to its massive size).

However, span of time is not an issue for modern ABM systems (American in particular). For example, PAC-3 systems - deployed in Saudi Arabia - have taken out all ballistic missiles that came (within their range) from Yemen and these states are neighbors of each other.

THAAD and GMD systems are capable of intercepting ballistic missiles in both exoatmospheric and endoatmospheric conditions due to their sheer speed; therefore, span of time is not an issue for them. I have posted a video of THAAD based intercept of an IRBM-class target in one of my posts in this thread and it shows that the interceptor moved very fast.

 

[SHAH820]

Yes and No.

You are correct in pointing out the fact that a ballistic missile will not take much time to complete its journey between Pakistan and India but this span of time will vary according to the type of ballistic missile and location of its target (across India specially due to its massive size).

However, span of time is not an issue for modern ABM systems (American in particular). For example, PAC-3 systems - deployed in Saudi Arabia - have taken out all ballistic missiles that came (within their range) from Yemen and these states are neighbors of each other.

THAAD and GMD systems are capable of intercepting ballistic missiles in both exoatmospheric and endoatmospheric conditions due to their sheer speed; therefore, span of time is not an issue for them. I have posted a video of THAAD based intercept of an IRBM-class target in one of my posts in this thread and it shows that the interceptor moved very fast.

you are forgetting one thing yemen BM is not advance as pakistan and they use old slow BM which use to carry whole body with them to the target not like others which use to drop warhead on the target even if you watch some videos of US BMD you can clearly see it take them a lot of time to find the target then to launch missile which could gain enough speed to hit it second most important thing is that US uses radars(which are planted all across the world ) and infrared satellite to detect it target and for pakistan and india they dont have any such thing if you BMD can take out BM which is traveling just few hundred km/h yes it can target that but if you say that same system can take out a BM traveling at 22,000+ km/h no it haven't been proven yet and for cities at that speed it only take 10-15 minutes to reach end of india and all important cities are located near pakistan

 

[LeGenD]

you are forgetting one thing yemen BM is not advance as pakistan and they use old slow BM which use to carry whole body with them to the target not like others which use to drop warhead on the target even if you watch some videos of US BMD you can clearly see it take them a lot of time to find the target then to launch missile which could gain enough speed to hit it second most important thing is that US uses radars(which are planted all across the world ) and infrared satellite to detect it target and for pakistan and india they dont have any such thing if you BMD can take out BM which is traveling just few hundred km/h yes it can target that but if you say that same system can take out a BM traveling at 22,000+ km/h no it haven't been proven yet and for cities at that speed it only take 10-15 minutes to reach end of india and all important cities are located near pakistan

Bro,

I am speaking in general; I am pointing out advances in the domain of defenses against ballistic missiles in recent years (American in particular). Pakistan doesn't have to worry about these developments because our beef is with India primarily.

However, no harm in understanding developments outside Pakistan and India for the sake of general knowledge.

---

Are you aware of speeds of ballistic missiles in the inventory of Yemen and Pakistan?

A large number of videos are edited for showcasing key developments of a test and they do not give a true idea of speed of ballistic missiles and interceptors involved. Action sequences are deliberately shown in "slow motion" so that viewers can grasp what is happening.

Check this video:

You can clearly notice that those interceptors are incredibly fast; there take-off speed is particularly phenomenal (this technological capability is crucial for stopping a target in a short span of time). There isn't a ballistic missile out there that can escape from them. An IRBM-class target is very close to an ICBM-class target in speed and sophistication. If an ABM system can intercept an IRBM-class target, its chances of intercepting an ICBM-class target are also good; this is apparent from testing of GMD in 2014 and 2017 respectively.

Interception is not only a matter of speed but also tracking and timing (combination of these 3 variables). Speed-wise, the interceptor just needs to be fast (enough) to counter an incoming target - it doesn't have to chase a ballistic missile from behind. To explain my point in lay man terms: suppose that you are driving a car; irrespective of your speed, another object can come in-front of your car from the side [suddenly] and score a hit. This is the logic of interception and ABM systems are expected to be stationed near important destinations such as cities and military bases in order to protect them.

---

Of-course, Indian defenses are nowhere close to American in capability at present. However, Indians are making progress in this field with input from Israel and Russia. And even American input cannot be ruled out in coming years. Slowly but surely, this will become a major concern for strategic balance in South Asian region.

 

[Usamafarooqi99]

Ok i tried looking for a forum about this topic but couldn't find one so i am creating my own.
If there is a forum, please link it to me
Is Pakistan developing or acquiring a missile defense program. Recently saw a video on Israeli Iron Dome and wanted to know if Pakistan is developing something similar or something at all. so i looked at all the missile defenses and found out that other countries like India has them but Pakistan doesn't have a missile defense system. is pakistan ever going to develop one? or is it going to get them off of china or something?

Look! At this time Pakistan have LY-80 and Aspide which are quite enough to engage jets from the other side and hopefully getting hq-9 as soon funds will be allotted for that
And probably if war occour it will be on Kashmir side so there are already enough Chinese defences to help
but now Pakistan should spend more money on missile system and drone technology and especially corvettes for navy becoz Pak navy lack behind technology
And I am sure nearby 2020 pak will be in good shape ,... In sha Allah

Nothing is perfect and there are countermeasures to the countermeasures, no one claimed they don't.
But who are u to claim what's propaganda and what's not.
In short, u claimed Arrow didn't shoot anything in live scenario, I just showed u it did.
as for Arrow 3

The enemy will send you a letter with bouquet before firing missile ..isreali books quote
don't forget tht today tech is super super sonic dude

 

[DavidSling]

Look! At this time Pakistan have LY-80 and Aspide which are quite enough to engage jets from the other side and hopefully getting hq-9 as soon funds will be allotted for that
And probably if war occour it will be on Kashmir side so there are already enough Chinese defences to help
but now Pakistan should spend more money on missile system and drone technology and especially corvettes for navy becoz Pak navy lack behind technology
And I am sure nearby 2020 pak will be in good shape ,... In sha Allah




The enemy will send you a letter with bouquet before firing missile ..isreali books quote
don't forget tht today tech is super super sonic dude

And you think arrow system is for lesser missiles ?

 

[CHI RULES]

Look! At this time Pakistan have LY-80 and Aspide which are quite enough to engage jets from the other side and hopefully getting hq-9 as soon funds will be allotted for that
And probably if war occour it will be on Kashmir side so there are already enough Chinese defences to help
but now Pakistan should spend more money on missile system and drone technology and especially corvettes for navy becoz Pak navy lack behind technology
And I am sure nearby 2020 pak will be in good shape ,... In sha Allah




The enemy will send you a letter with bouquet before firing missile ..isreali books quote
don't forget tht today tech is super super sonic dude

Though Pak have capable medium range SAMs but they are in limited numbers to protect only sensitive sites not cities and general infrastructure.

 

[YeBeWarned]

HQ-9 will be our best bet .

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

HQ-9 will be our best bet .

Maybe the HQ-19, since the HQ-9 is only SAM.

China's HQ-19 was deployed in the December 2014, so if Pakistan really needs as the national urgency, China wouldn't mind to share the technology.

 

[Reichsmarschall]

Maybe the HQ-19, since the HQ-9 is only SAM.

China's HQ-19 was deployed in the December 2014, so if Pakistan really needs as the national urgency, China wouldn't mind to share the technology.

what is the cost of system and are there chances of tot?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

what is the cost of system and are there chances of tot?

I don't think the Chinese systems could be expensive compared to its American counterparts.

For example, the DDG-1000 is 4.5 billion, while the Type 055 is less than 1 billion.

Realizing the importance of the CPEC, China will indeed try the best to boost Pakistan's self-defence capability, so the HQ-19 being bundled with the security of the CPEC is absolutely worthy.