Pakistan should develop Missile Defence System

[IceCold]

I would say yes but most importantly we need to MIRV our missiles. If we develop this capability shield or no shield, the MIRV gives us credible deterrence against any adversary.

 

[Hafizzz]

I highly doubt that Pakistan is capable to to develop it's indigenous ATBM System. Enough Experience in Radar and Missile Technology are neccessary and not to forget Huge amount of Money. Look at turkish Industry for example, it is working on indigenous low and medium Altitude SAM's, Corvettes, Frigates, MALE UAV, Tand and armoured Combat Vehicle.

Since more than 10 Years our Military need High Altitude SAM's which are capable to engage Aircrafts as well SRBM, but SSM only issued a Tender for direct purchase or License Prduction. The development of an indigenous Turkish ATBM Capable Air Defence System would probably end until the mid of the next Decade.


I see no real Chance for Pakistan.

Pakistan can work with China to develop Missile Defense System.

 

[Safriz]

Instead of investing in an immature technology,such as Missile shield,a better nuclear/conventional deterrent will be more effective and Achievable..

I suggest MIRV.

 

[Arsalan]

You could nonetheless start experimenting. Scientific endeavors are risky by their nature. The unpredictability of projects being successes or failures mean you can either waste a lot of money and time, like India, or develop some fabulous technologies, like India

yes, we must start working on it but must not wait for it to get done.
we need to get some good SAM systems and getting them from china with the option of technology insight will be a good options as it will also help pakistan to develop one of there own. the turkish option will also be a good one but with same problem that it will take quite some time to get this system developed and mature. in the mean time we must go for limited number of long range high altitude SAM battries to ensure a second line of defence against any miss adventure by our enemy.

regards!

 

[PAKFA]

Instead of investing in an immature technology,such as Missile shield,a better nuclear/conventional deterrent will be more effective and Achievable..

I suggest MIRV.

Take it from china.

 

[Chanakyaa]

i dont understand why HQ 9 is not yet there ..inducted..in PA ?

Whats the issue?

 

[Arsalan]

I would say yes but most importantly we need to MIRV our missiles. If we develop this capability shield or no shield, the MIRV gives us credible deterrence against any adversary.

there have been certain talks going around this topic, it is somtimes reported that Pakistan have infact acheived this technological milestone.
it is not reported in official statements so nothing can be claimed.about this.
however i think MIRV and SAm are two different systems all together.
the ballistic missiles are almost a last ditch deterence move whereas SAM are a truey anti aggression move.
no one will want the Ballistic missiles to go into action, even if a war breaks out. it is total destruction..

SAM can help protect key installation and also give limited anti ballistic missile sheild. both these technologies are important in there own place..

regards!

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Both Pakistan and India should perhaps focus more on raising the standard of living, education, health care etc in general (rather than on the military). The amounts spent on defense are insane, given the state of the country/ies

I wish that too. But the countries politicians play people in the country into hating each other to get votes. And dumb Indians and Pakistanis fall for it. Health care ans Education is a problem in India.

 

[waraich66]

I would say yes but most importantly we need to MIRV our missiles. If we develop this capability shield or no shield, the MIRV gives us credible deterrence against any adversary.

Good News ,Pakistan is developing MIRV

Pakistan is developing MIRV capability for the Shaheen-II ballistic missiles and Shaheen-III missile is under development. Although the current capability of Pakistani missiles is built around radar seekers and the GPS updates provide enormously accurate CEP, the integration of ‘re-entry vehicle’ would make these extremely potent and defeat the anti-ballistic missile defence systems. In the Indian context, there is as yet no sea based anti ballistic missile system and this gap in their defence can make the Indian aircraft carriers highly vulnerable. The Indian navy may have integrated the anti ship missile threat from surface , sub surface and air platforms of the Pakistan Navy, a salvo of DF-21 or Shaheen-II / III ballistic missiles poses an ‘existential threat’ and could be worth the attention it merits. In essence, the ASBM threat necessitates an equal priority as acquisition of aircraft carriers.

South Asia Defence & Strategic Reveiw

India in trouble again

 

[Super Falcon]

i was barking for last two years that pakistan should consider and work on this system too we have all ingrediants to make this system indigenously if some thing we lack china is there to help us but seems like there is not think tank in armed forces stupid than pakistan wasting money on rubbish things which we dont need at this time artillery system we have system why we keep buying it from USA and foreign trips useless our armed forces think tank is nuts

 

[Arsalan]

i was barking for last two years that pakistan should consider and work on this system too we have all ingrediants to make this system indigenously if some thing we lack china is there to help us but seems like there is not think tank in armed forces stupid than pakistan wasting money on rubbish things which we dont need at this time artillery system we have system why we keep buying it from USA and foreign trips useless our armed forces think tank is nuts

a strange post from a member of your experience

you are comparing artillery with ballistic missiles now??

sir, both these platforms have there own use. the ballistic missiles are more of a deterrence system rather then an aggression platform.
the artillery guns are main battler equipment, no army can work without these..

going all out for missiles development will be a very Iranian approach towards things!
not good!

the army think tanks are wise enough to figure these things out. we are very categorically sorting out our requirements, i do feel like SAM have been neglected a bit but then, being a truly defensive weapon, there is a possibility that they are being kept secret unlike defensive-offensive weapon which we will speak of out and loud just to make sure that our adversary do not start any misadventure..

however, apart from this, every thing/move is being wisely taken.
either it is about the transport choppers coming for free or the cobra upgrades coming from funds.

i hope i have made my point clear.

regards!

 

[waraich66]

Possible Missile Defenses

Pakistani sources interviewed before the IDEAS show, as well as some recently published information, indicates that Pakistan’s leadership is very interested in a limited missile defense capability. This appears to be inspired mainly by the desire to match any prospective Indian missile defenses that might be obtained from Israel or the United States. This impression was confirmed by sources interviewed at the IDEAS show, though there was general reluctance to discuss the details of any future missile defense system. Published sources indicate that Pakistan is considering buying or co-producing the FT-2000A surface-to-air missile (SAM).[9] In 1998 Chinese sources disclosed that this SAM, originally designed with a passive seeker intended to attack electronic warfare aircraft, would eventually feature an active-guidance system with antitactical ballistic missile (ATBM) capability.[10] In 2003 a Malaysian defense journal revealed that the FT-2000A did have a new active phased-array radar for long-range missile guidance.[11]


FT-2000A SAM: Pakistan is showing great interest in its own ATBM capability, and a future missile-intercept capable version of the Chinese FT-2000A appears to be the most likely choice.
Photo: RD Fisher via CPMIEC

The FT-2000 program is believed to stem from the HQ-9 program, which in turn has been described by U.S. and Russian sources as having benefited from Russian S-300 and U.S. Patriot PAC-2 SAM technology. In its active guided configuration, the HQ-9/FT-2000A might be as capable as early 1980s versions of the S-300 or early versions of the Patriot PAC-2. It will definitely feature the very difficult to jam "Track Via Missile" system pioneered by the Patriot, and then reportedly stolen by the Russians. This uses a missile seeker to home in on reflected energy from a narrow-beam ground-based phased array radar signal. Such radar and missile seekers are very difficult to jam.


H-200 Phased Array Radar: This phased array radar is associated with the KS-1A SAM. The sets of secondary radar phase shifters on the top and bottom are strong indications this radar also has a missile guidance function, leading to the possibility that both the KS-1A and the active guided FT-2000A use a “track-via-missile” technology.
Photo: RD Fisher

Impact on India

For Delhi, Pakistan’s missile force sustains a strategic preoccupation with its larger political-military challenge. Pakistan’s emphasis on increased accuracy, maneuverability and the apparent range of non-nuclear warheads, at least for the Ghaznavi, point to an edge over India, especially concerning SRBMs. While the Indian Prithvi SRBM is reported to have high accuracy and some maneuver capability, its use of liquid fuels might also limit its flexibility. This has led India to develop may push greater Indian interest in the Russian Iskander-E solid-fueled SRBM, which is capable of low, maneuvering trajectories, and has an optical seeker for attacking moving targets. Meanwhile, India has a clear superiority in the development of indigenous electro-optical and future radar satellites that can aid missile targeting. But Pakistan could quickly catch up if given access to information from imminent Russian-influenced Chinese electro-optical and radar satellites.

If acquired by Pakistan, the HQ-9/FT-2000A ATBM might be useful only against short-range Indian missiles like the Prithvi or Dhanush, not against the faster and longer-range Agni missiles. This points to a possible emerging Pakistani advantage: it may be in the process of developing a better defense against Indian SRBMs, and challenging possible future Indian ATBMs to take down a maneuvering and low-altitude Ghaznavi/DF-11 Mod 1. However, possible future Indian high-altitude ATBMs like the Israeli Arrow 2 might pose a credible defense against the lower-tech Ghauri or the Shaheen 2-if attacked early enough in the flight cycle.

One hope in the India-Pakistan missile competition is that the interest in missile defense systems might prompt bilateral interest in a stable balance of offensive and defensive systems. At this point it is too early to determine if this will prove the case. Nevertheless, during the Summer of 2004 Pakistan and India took clear and welcome steps to put in place new "confidence building measures" essential to build toward further dialogue.

Dangers of Proliferation

For Delhi, Washington and others, Islamabad’s missiles highlight the dangers of Beijing’s and Pyongyang’s continued proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and possible new dangers of secondary Pakistani proliferation. Washington has repeatedly sanctioned Chinese and Pakistani missile concerns on the basis of their continued cooperation. The ongoing development and deployment of successive Chinese and North Korean-based missiles in Pakistan is a sure indication that all three countries are choosing to ignore Washington’s concerns.

The last decade has also seen the dangers of Pakistan’s participation in nuclear weapons technology trafficking, especially by the "father" of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, Abdul Quadeer Khan. Khan’s network was exposed to the world by Libya, when in 2003 it chose to begin dismantling its nuclear and missile systems in return for Western recognition. And while Pakistan may have curtailed Khan’s personal involvement in WMD proliferation, there is the continued danger that Khan’s associates or other high-level Pakistani nuclear and missile experts may be inspired to follow his example. In the meantime, Pakistan’s solid and liquid fuel missile development and production infrastructure point to another potential area of proliferation that.


Patriot PAC-3: China’s building and proliferation of ballistic missile technology has generated programs to purchase the Lockheed-Martin Patriot PAC-3 ATBM in Japan and Taiwan, and has led to Indian interest in this missile.
Photo: Lockheed-Martin

While India and Pakistan may continue to strive for missile advantages to serve perceived deterrent objectives, outside actors have some tools for influencing this competition. Encouraging the positive dialogue between Delhi and Islamabad started in mid-2004 is an obvious one. But it is also useful to shift this competition into defensive systems, to help reduce the desirability of ever greater numbers offensive systems. To this end it serves the interests of South Asian stability for the U.S. to continue to engage India in missile defense cooperation. Such cooperation also serves to place positive pressure on China to reconsider its rapid build-up of offensive missiles and its unwillingness to halt its dangerous missile proliferation. While they are not all linked, missile defense cooperation with India can compliment U.S. missile defense cooperation with Australia, Japan and Taiwan. This effort affirms American strategic leadership in this region while demonstrating that Asian democracies will defend themselves against Beijing’s growing direct and indirect missile threats.

[1] October 11, 2004: Ghauri/Hatf 5; March 6, 2004: Shaheen 2/Hatf 6; October 11, 2003: Shaheen 1/Hatf 4: October 3, 2003: Ghaznavi/ Hatf 3

[2] On April 6, 2002 Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf stated his readiness to use nuclear weapons against India in the context of the build-up of Indian military forces in Kashmir, in turn a reaction to December 13, 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament by Pakistani-supported terrorists.

[3] Interview, Bangalore, India, June 21, 2004.

[4] Interview, October 4, 2004.

[5] Babar Ahmad, "Pakistan: Tests May Not Include Cruise Missile Tests," ***********, September 8, 2004, http://www.****************/news/publish/article_001868.shtml

[6] Duncan Lennox, "Hatf 6 (Shaheen 2), Jane’s Strategic Weapon Systems, June 15, 2004.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Duncan Lennox, "Hatf 5 (Ghauri)," Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, June 15, 2004.

[9] Prasun K Sengupta, "Flying High; China's New Air Defense Systems Unveiled," September 8, 2004, http://www.forceindia.net; Ahmad, op-cit.

[10] Interview, Zhuhai Airshow, November 1998.

[11] Prasun K. Sengupta, "China's KS-1A and FT-2000A air defence systems unveiled," Tempur, January 1, 2003, in FBIS SEP20030123000046.

Related Links
Report On the International Defense Exhibition and Seminar (IDEAS)

back to top ^
Powered by eResources
International Assessment and Strategy Center > Research > Pakistan’s Long Range Ballistic Missiles: A View From IDEAS

 

[Safriz]

Ok this is my opinion on a missile shield.

Many fancy ways of achieving Missile shield have been tested and produces,mainly Laser and SAM based...I am unaware of the accuracy of these systems,but one thing is sure that they are expensive systems.
In this article about India's anti misssile Missiles.http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-tests-missile-shield/articleshow/6220221.cms
It says that the system is currently effective at an altitude of 15 Km,and yet a long way from completion..But Kudos to Indian scientists who are working in the right directions,on one of the most difficult projects in defense tech.I am not sure about the effectiveness of the system at 15Km only,as Nuclear weapons are already air burst weapons,which detonate at an attitude for maximum destruction.A 15 Km effectiveness,gives a margin of error of about 10Km,as at 5KM,the warhead may already detonate.

Pakistan has yet to start from scratch,and not only technical issues will take years to overcome,the cumulative cost of developing so many systems,such as Accurate radars,Missile guidance systems and warhead detection system will be too much.By then Ballistic missiles too will have evolved into something even more difficult to kill.For example Russia's Bulava missiles,which are extremely hard to kill,mainly due to multiple warheads and decoys.
As far as i know,Pakistan's Ballistic missiles too deploy decoys,and detecting the actual warhead for the Anti Ballistic missile to hit the target is not easy.The possibility of error is too big.The SAM based Missile shield does not have an unlimited missiles to fire,and the system may target a decoy,instead of the actual warhead.That would be an expensive error.

My suggestion for Pakistan is to go for the High altitude artillery Canons.

This is a 1960's technology,although abandoned..These guns were improvised Naval canons,from naval war ships.Was originally developed for the infamous HARP..The USA versions were massive and could launch a 750 kg Projectile into orbit,was impractical and reletively expensive..The Canadian versions called martlet were small,inexpensive and simple..They could be loaded on the back of a Pickup truck,and could launch a 10 Kg projectile to an altitude of 65Km.
Doesn't sound too much,but imagine a swarm of such high altitude guns,firing in synchronization.The payloads from all guns reach a certain height at the same time,and then explode to litter upper atmosphere with chaff or metal slug.
Such a system will work similarly as the Naval ships tackle enemy cruise missiles..Thier rapid fire guns,litter the air with hundreds of rounds,while firing in the approximate direction of incoming missile.

That way vast area will be covered,and the Missile detection system will not need to be very accurate.An approximation of the incoming missile's path will be enough..Then the High altitude guns,can rapid fire to cover large area in the expected path of the incoming missile..Such a system will have very high kill probability..will be cheaper to produce.
The ultrasonic speeds at which The ICBMs and IRBM's re-enter the atmosphere can also be their vulnerability..AT that speed,even few metal slugs hitting the missile will be enough to breach the heat sheild,and the hot atmospheric gasses will do the rest.
Apparently Iran is already doing something similar..Although its anti aircraft system,but can be improved and modified as Anti Ballistic missile http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-photos-multimedia/28504-iran-produces-smart-100mm-aaa.html
What says you?

 

[5link]

The actors in this competition are not just India and Pakistan. The US has a huge stake in cooperating with both of them in equal regards. For example It is heavily involved in sharing intelligence between India and Pakistan to thwart attacks on their respective territories. Letting India free to maneuver in the South Asian region is not in the interest of US as it poses a new challenge to US security and changes the traditional landscape of South Asia or even the Middle East.

 

[Awesome]

There is a slim chance that Missile based ABMs would effectively work. India's project is a big waste of money - thats why the US is working on effective laser based ABM.

Even the US's missile based ABM are not capable of shooting down ancient era ballistic system all the time. The more modern Israeli Arrow failed against missiles a lot less capable than the Iranian Shahab series. You think India which should be several generations behind both of them, can take on Pakistani missiles like the Shaheen series? For that matter I don't think Pakistan can build anything missile based that would take on India's missiles either.

If Pakistan has the money, efforts should be spent only on similar laser based projects, everything else is a waste of money