Pakistan's Ballistic Missle Defence Systems?

[arbit]

When I hear Indians talking about Pakistani will for sure lose to India. One word comes to mind, arrogance.

India was overtly confident against China in 1962 and was humbled. Let's hope India eat another humble pie.

How are your chances against India in a war? Please take care not to make me call you arrogant.
As far as 1962 is concerned that was not a full fledged war, whereas we have fought 4 full fledged wars against pakistan and won each one of them.
You can hope for what you want, wont change reality. The reality remains pakistan will lose irrespective of how you arm them. Its a thin strip of land unlike china or India, and has geographical limitations. You just can't wish away geography.

 

[Hollow Field]

The fallacy of MIRVs and hyper-sonic gliders: we will have the opportunity to use them.

With 100% guarantee, India doesn't have the resources to monitor our nuclear facilities, warheads, missile launchers.

With 100% guarantee, the America+Israel+Britain+France nexus has the ability to monitor us, and ARE monitoring us.

With 100% guarantee, the America+Israel+Britain+France nexus feels the world is an unsafe place because Pakistan has nukes.

With 100% guarantee, India will strike with a solid backing of, and with intelligence from, the America+Israel+Britain+France nexus.

Now that we have changed the goal posts with MIRVs, we have changed the face of war. India would be foolish to give us the opportunity to use them. The 'Indian Cold Start' should not be viewed as a massive tank assault across our Eastern border. The Indian cold start will come in the form of a massive, acute, and completely surprise attack after months and years of careful intelligence gathering by the world's best intelligence agencies. India will simply be a front for the war. The full technological prowess of major powers will be utilized against us.

The first phase of the attack will disable our EW and radar capabilities. And with all of our AD infrastructure bought from foreign vendors, this will be literally a piece of cake. What the West sells, the West fears not.

The second phase attacks will be from B-2 Spirit Bombers, F-22 raptors, missile strikes. It will be a saturation attack to take out our nuclear facilities, our mobile launchers, and sites of warhead storage.

Once the claws are taken out, we would be left at Indian mercy.

Those who think MIRVs and hypersonic vehicles will save us, live in a fool's paradise. We need comprehensive Air Defence capabilities that we can actually rely upon.

Exactly, do not underestimate the power the west has. These people were walking on the moon when we were still use wood burning stoves to make chappatis.

If you comprehensively study USAs intelligence capabilities, the Research and development progress etc, you will be mind boggled.

 

[BHarwana]

How are your chances against India in a war? Please take care not to make me call you arrogant.
As far as 1962 is concerned that was not a full fledged war, whereas we have fought 4 full fledged wars against pakistan and won each one of them.
You can hope for what you want, wont change reality. The reality remains pakistan will lose irrespective of how you arm them. Its a thin strip of land unlike china or India, and has geographical limitations. You just can't wish away geography.

World War 2 was not won by massive armies and Large budgets or Possessing massive land but World War 2 was won by aeroplane that carried an Atomic Bomb. In the same way Just try the cold start doctrine and see how Nasar can defend Pakistan. Mobilize the Aircraft carrier and see if RAAD can wipe out entire fleet in a single blow or try the Agni and find out which cities was your BMD system was able to save lol. Your entire force and in answer just three type of missiles well sometimes I do think why is India not doing any thing.

 

[CriticalThought]

Let's closely analyze the ongoing argument of BMD being a money pit. If you think logically, any mismanaged project will become a money pit. The key to good project management is setting realistic goals, and tracking them with a hawk's eye and take corrective action at the first sign of trouble.

Amongst the various components of an indigenous BMD system, we already have command over missile construction and launch. Unfortunately these are ballistic misdiles and we need missiles that can perform mid-course correction. At this point, in order to justify costs, we need to thing dual use. We want to develop technology that steers a missile to a moving target. This can be used against both aircraft and missiles. Crucially, it can be used in both surface-to-air and air-to-air mode. So the cost should be compared against savings across multiple service branches and uses. As a start, develop it for a more achievable scope such as WVRAAM. The good thing is, WVRAAM doesn't have the stigma of being a money pit attached to it.

Next comes the tracking system. Here, we need a larger discussion. Our utter ineptitude in the field of electronics. This is an unforgivable crime. I wouldn't be too wrong in stating that modern warfare IS electronic warfare, in the sense that electronics controls everything. Without a good design and fabrication setup, we will forever more spend precious foreign exchange in acquiring weapons system. Our negligence in this area is criminal.

When I propose that we need to work on BMD, what I mean is that we need to work quick smart like on the underlying fundamental technologies. A journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step and we are sitting twiddling our thumbs dreaming about MAD. In order to have a standing and respectable chance in the world, we will need much more than merely MAD.

 

[The SC]

Here is what the US had to say about BMD as recently as 2014:

But as a general proposition, the existing homeland defense posture is effective against small numbers of early generation intercontinental-range ballistic missiles.
Early generation missiles are relatively unsophisticated technically, meaning that they take longer to ready to launch, are slower in flight, lack missile defense countermeasures and, if not the result of a rigorous development and
testing program, may lack reliability. An early generation force, as opposed to an early generation missile, is also likely to be relatively small in number.
Later generation missiles fly sooner, faster, further, and more reliably, may have missile defense countermeasures along with multiple warheads, and are likely to exist in numbers sufficient to enable the kind of salvo launches that can overwhelm either sensors or interceptors or both.
The short-comings of available BMD systems in dealing with countermeasures and large raid sizes are well known.
Accordingly, the Obama administration set out as national policy commitment to:
(1) maintain an advantageous defensive posture of the homeland against limited strikes by countries like North Korea and Iran and
(2) field phased, adaptive regional defenses in partnership with U.S. allies in each region where it offers security guarantees.
Hence they can be deployed and effective against early generation threats from countries like North Korea but cannot be effective against the large and mature forces of Russia and China.
This analysis is the basis of the American assessment that BMD technical options are available that promise stabilizing as opposed to destabilizing benefits.

http://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/pp50roberts.pdf

29 November 2012
India: How Credible is its Ballistic Missile Defence?


The lack of systematic policy considerations guiding the Ballistic Missile programme has seen the DRDO act quite hawkish on the score of achieving the capability. But given that this system threatens Pakistan’s first strike capability, it is bound to lead to uncertainty and insecurity on that side of the border. The Indian BMD will thus serve to only accentuate the current missile race in South Asia.

Domestically too, statements assuring BMD capabilities to just two cities will prove to be a major headache to the central government, as selective defence of cities is bound to be contested by other parts of the country, thus possibly arousing domestic turmoil. It seems that missile testing and potentially destabilising hawkish behavior on ballistic missile defence in India has acquired a certain bureaucratic momentum of its own. It is thus important for the government to reign in these programmes. While not compromising on the technological development of Indian defences, the government needs to ensure that these capabilities do not foster insecurity in the region.

http://www.ipcs.org/article/india/india-how-credible-is-its-ballistic-missile-defence-3768.html

It seems to be a very restricted BMD.. How many major cities are in India..
If Pakistan gets its own BMD it will be far more protected than India, due to geography alone..

 

[CriticalThought]

Here is what the US had to day about BMD as recently as 2014:

But as a general proposition, the existing homeland defense posture is effective against small numbers of early generation intercontinental-range ballistic missiles.
Early generation missiles are relatively unsophisticated technically, meaning that they take longer to ready to launch, are slower in flight, lack missile defense countermeasures and, if not the result of a rigorous development and
testing program, may lack reliability. An early generation force, as opposed to an early generation missile, is also likely to be relatively small in number.
Later generation missiles fly sooner, faster, further, and more reliably, may have missile defense countermeasures along with multiple warheads, and are likely to exist in numbers sufficient to enable the kind of salvo launches that can overwhelm either sensors or interceptors or both.
The short-comings of available BMD systems in dealing with countermeasures and large raid sizes are well known.
Accordingly, the Obama administration set out as national policy commitment to:
(1) maintain an advantageous defensive posture of the homeland against limited strikes by countries like North Korea and Iran and
(2) field phased, adaptive regional defenses in partnership with U.S. allies in each region where it offers security guarantees.
Hence they can be deployed and effective against early generation threats from countries like North Korea but cannot be effective against the large and mature forces of Russia and China.
This analysis is the basis of the American assessment that BMD technical options are available that promise stabilizing as opposed to destabilizing benefits.

http://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/pp50roberts.pdf

29 November 2012
India: How Credible is its Ballistic Missile Defence?


The lack of systematic policy considerations guiding the Ballistic Missile programme has seen the DRDO act quite hawkish on the score of achieving the capability. But given that this system threatens Pakistan’s first strike capability, it is bound to lead to uncertainty and insecurity on that side of the border. The Indian BMD will thus serve to only accentuate the current missile race in South Asia.

Domestically too, statements assuring BMD capabilities to just two cities will prove to be a major headache to the central government, as selective defence of cities is bound to be contested by other parts of the country, thus possibly arousing domestic turmoil. It seems that missile testing and potentially destabilising hawkish behavior on ballistic missile defence in India has acquired a certain bureaucratic momentum of its own. It is thus important for the government to reign in these programmes. While not compromising on the technological development of Indian defences, the government needs to ensure that these capabilities do not foster insecurity in the region.

http://www.ipcs.org/article/india/india-how-credible-is-its-ballistic-missile-defence-3768.html

It seems to be a very restricted BMD.. How many major cities are in India..
If Pakistan gets its own BMD it will be far more protected than India, due to geography alone..

Let's put it this way. How effective are vests against 50 Cal bullets. Or tanks against ATGMs. Yet you invest in them. There is no such thing as 100℅ security but we need to put max effort in securing GHQ, Kahuta, POF, nuclear installations etc. The BMD is NOT a luxury for common people, but a necessity for protecting important infrastructure.

 

[Max]

whereas we have fought 4 full fledged wars against pakistan and won each one of them.

@faithfulguy only on bollywood media, except 1971 with great help from bengali traitors these sub humans were not able to fight us in any war let alone win,

in 1948 Pakistan took half of Kashmir. despite bharat signed instrument of accession with Kashmiri king it was their PM Nehru who begged for ceasefire in UN and declared whole Kashmir disputed not Pakistan.. yet gangalander pests won all wars

In 65 war, Pakistan was aggressor in Kashmir but bharat was aggressor on international border, despite having much larger military then Pakistan they did not make any significant gains and war ended in stalemate.. Pakistan won largest tank battle after world war 2 in chawinda. PAF shot down their 75 jet with only lost of 18.. their navy was so fvckin coward that they never dare to challenge PN despite provocations by Pakistan Navy like bombing dawarka naval base.. yet their shitty kind won that war on bollywood media.

eastern subhuman can only fight and compete 7 times smaller Pakistan with help of proxies, their only achievement is they defeated much smaller Pakistan thousand miles away from mainland in a region surrounded by them from all sides, filled with proxies.. which we saw in 71..

otherwise they are not even competent enough to fight 7 times smaller state in fair fight. They only met an equal enemy once in their life time in 62.. and world still cant answer who was faster, indian army in surrender or Chinese amy in advance

 

[Hollow Field]

Or we should do what Russia does.
They built underground bunkers which can host 40 million people.

We should build those in the main cities. Majority of our population lives in these cities and around the Indus river.
After a Nuclear war we can wait a few decades until the radiation is all gone and rebuild the country after that.

Make sure the bunkers have railways to balochistan so we can live there temporarily during that time because that place wont be nuked.

In India's case doing something like this is impossible.

So Pakistan's nuclear policy should be to leave no square metre of India Un-nuked.

We'd need 857 Nukes each with a 50 Mt yield

Thats unlikely, but MAD should be practiced by Pakistan. It should be our deterrence strategy.

I'd keep those centrifuges at Kahuta spinning

 

[RIP Pak LAW]

Funny that some people are backing Anti-BMDs as effective shield against modern missile tech. Its 21st century, both Pakistan and India now have cruise missiles, fast moving solid fuel ballistic missiles and Pakistan leading the way with MIRV tech - is just simply impossible for any anti missile shield to stop them. Having said that, Pakistan should opt for S-400 type SAMs in near by future against Indian fighter planes. I believe war between Pakistan and India is out of question though there is always a chance of limited conflict or threat of surgical strikes against each other and for that air force will be used not any ballistic missile.

 

[arbit]

World War 2 was not won by massive armies and Large budgets or Possessing massive land but World War 2 was won by aeroplane that carried an Atomic Bomb. In the same way Just try the cold start doctrine and see how Nasar can defend Pakistan. Mobilize the Aircraft carrier and see if RAAD can wipe out entire fleet in a single blow or try the Agni and find out which cities was your BMD system was able to save lol. Your entire force and in answer just three type of missiles well sometimes I do think why is India not doing any thing.

The era of WW2 was different. What worked then will not necessarily work in future. Though, you are welcome to come try drop the bomb by an 'aeroplane'.
Nasr will not defend pakistan, rather will only increase the cost for India. What will you do if we are willing to accept the cost and escalate further citing legitimate reasons for self preservation.
RAAD might be a fine piece of weapon in your opinion, but it has to go past the ship defences first. Let me correct that, It has to get past the FLEET defences first. BARAK 8 & BARAK 1 , entire air wing is not there for static display.
However if that single piece of low range missile makes you feel secure. You are welcome to it.

 

[Deltaviper]

It is hard, but not impossible. We all know how they conquered Iraq. They bought out the generals.

With corrupt Western slaves like Nawaz Shareef and Zardari in place who can appoint the most useless army Chiefs when they want and as they want, the following scenarios are all possible:

1. SPD refuses to join the fight.

2. Someone or a group leaks the locations of our assets.

Remember, no one will simply bumble into an all out war with us. There will be a multi-year intelligence gathering operation behind it. There will be subversion and subterfuge involved. This is a high stakes game.

Having a reliable BMD system that is distributed through the Army and Navy not only makes the job of buying out people harder, it ensures those who want to fight CAN pose a credible threat to the enemy.

In general, look at the wider world situation. America is propping up Japan and South Korea against North Korea. And India is being armed to the teeth. At the same time, cooperation between Japan and India is growing. We have no idea what is going on inside American bases in Afghanistan. Finally, UAE is increasing its cooperation with India. And systems like Aegis can be mounted on ships. When and IF you fire the Ababeels, it won't be only Indian BMD that takes a shot at it. You will have BMD systems coming at you from multiple sides at once.

If I read this correctly, once all the pawns are in place, I envisage a simultaneous swift attack to take out the nuclear teeth of both North Korea and Pakistan. And they will do this with an appetite for risk. Just recently an American official released a statement saying there is a chance of a nuclear detonation in South Asia. They won't even care about a few nukes going off.

In this backdrop, take a look at the CPEC and inviting Chinese ships to the Arabian Sea.

The point is, are we going to rely on China forever?

In order to safeguard our interests, we need (not necessarily in any priority order)

a. A friendly Afghanistan WITHOUT any American intervention or Indian influence.

b. An effective air defence system.

c. Full spectrum deterrence.




Some points

1. The atmosphere acts as a shield against lasers. Not just in terms of decreasing beam energy, but also beam direction. The laser can get reflected off the air molecules.

2. The lasing system will need to deliver multiple beams in quick succession to act as a credible missile defence against simultaneous launches.

3. The laser can simply be reflected off the warhead.

4. I am merely theorizing this point so i may be completely wrong. At high energies, the laser beam can deliver momentum that causes the direction to change rendering the beam ineffective and requiring a corresponding change in beam direction. Lookup solar sails. There is a danger of the war head landing in an unintended location.

Hello, Great comment, here is my response:

1) Adaptive optics can counter such atmospheric effects, to a high degree, theoretically at-least. Essentially the system works in a feedback loop, constantly adjusting to the environmental effects. Of-course, the response time and stability would need to be excellent for such a system to work.

2) Agreed. But LASER based systems are good at this in general.

3) it is neither easy nor simple to achieve this. Since the surface materials for warheads are constrained by the thermal shielding requirements. Furthermore, during re-entry the warhead's surface will already be sustaining high temperatures. Not sure if a material could be easily produced which satisfies both the constraints.

4) The momentum imparted within the atmosphere will be next to zero. Solar sails work by gathering photonic momentum over a very long period of time in the absence of air resistance. However, if it is a maneuvering warhead, it might go off of its course if the LASER energy fries guidance systems or control mechanisms. But that will be unlikely given that if the LASER has fried something, it will most likely disable the warhead.

 

[vizier]

The obivous advantage of lasers is ofcourse you are not confined to closing velocity that interception algorithms are based on making it turn ot hitting bullet with a bullet and with a slightest error everything ruins so many interceptors are launched at the same target to raise possibility of kill. Also consider that the warhead has low observability coating and panels attached to it scattering radar waves away that negates the use of midcourse hit at 600kms away since missile warhead cannot even be tracked effectively at that range. That is why missile based abm systems has limitations but at least can be useful upto intermediate range ballistic missiles to hit them at terminal stage or exoathmosphere just before reentry.

Lasers limitation is as we see in demos taking out thin skin uavs it needs to continiously focus the beam for at least several seconds and it is mechanically steered. In an all around attack where dozens even hundreds of missiles are launched it needs a great number of lasers stationed on the ground that need to focus on the incoming targets at the same time. Also currently the systems are very short range. Longer range variants like airborne laser are bulky and very detectable.

I think plasma abm systems can be of some value that needs to be researched in near future to take out ballistic missiles at the terminal stage.

https://www.wired.com/2007/05/plasma_shield_m/

A large aesa radar with many transmitters on can sharply and effectively change direction without mechanical steering like laser and can ionize air at the nose or sides of the target making its trajectory a very bumpy ride eventually destroying it. Maybe some icbm warheads are too fast and totally travel inside ionised air and the system would be limited effectiveness but at least it can be an effective counter to many types of maneuvering missiles, gliders and of that sort.

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

Programs are in place to acquire an ABM system. It will be revealed in due time.

 

[IceCold]

Programs are in place to acquire an ABM system. It will be revealed in due time.

I think the options are very limited sir. Other than the Chinese with their HQ series missile what other options are out there? Americans wont sell their PAC system, we have no relations with the Israelis and Russia is already selling the S-400 system to India. There are not many options when it comes to ABM systems.

 

[Cool_Soldier]

Well, My dear fellows, in case of Indo Pak full scale of war, there would be "NO WIN NO LOSS" but totally destruction.
It doesn't matter who destroys first and who blasts later.

secondly, Yes ABM is area where currently Pakistan lags behind, and Pakistan definitely would be seriously working on it.

As MIRV tech is already demonstrated by Pakistan which can penetrate easily into Indian defence shield so again both countries are vulnerable against each other's missile threat.

Warning: Do not under estimate , Do not over estimate. Be Cool......