Cruise Missile Test in Pakistan: News and Discussions

Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby Kumar » 16 Aug 2005 00:15

I don't see why should it be an embarassment for USA if it knew and understood and okayed testing of a CM by Paks. Actually the reverse should be considered embarassing.

As far as Paki actions are concerned, they have to have the approval/understanding of both the masters, China & USA.

MuNNA of "PAKs AMERICA-ANNA" & "PAKs CHI-NANA"

munna = a darling little boy in Hindi
anna = elder brother in Tamil
nana = maternal grandfather in Hindi
paks -> pronounced as pax

parsuram
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 31 May 2002 11:31

Postby parsuram » 16 Aug 2005 00:19

paki CM test is, at best, "arranging deck chairs on the Titanic". Means naught. SD, Dehli response is, imo, consistant with that.

P Babu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 23
Joined: 24 Nov 1999 12:31
Location: USA

Postby P Babu » 16 Aug 2005 00:37

We should not see this test with India-TSP eye. This test is direct reply from China to US for US signing Nook-pact treaty with India without consulting it in the first place. I don't hear a word from anti-prolifotollahs now...

Sunil
BRFite
Posts: 634
Joined: 21 Sep 1999 11:31

Postby Sunil » 16 Aug 2005 00:42

Hi TSJ,

I am going to let you go on with this "oh we really can't get them to..." act - simply because it amuses me. The act itself gives away the fact that you want to see the India-Pak situation be volatile and that is why you are keen to put it out there that "Pak is not nuke nude" and "the US does not control Pakistan"... if the US does not control Pakistan - then quite frankly all claims about being a hyper-power are very lame indeed.

Cutting through the crap - we know you guys don't like us testing that Brahmos - we know you don't like us building submarine launched systems and we know you don't like our Agni-II. We also know why you don't those things. But encouraging Pakistan to do dumb things like test cruise missiles is a very bad bad bad idea. That sort of thing goes straight to Pakistan's head and that will have very nasty consequences for the US in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Here is the old South Asia model that is popular among people in the US and is currently used...

" Pakistan does something India reacts, so whenever you want India to react push Pakistan into doing something..."

This is new South Asia model that should IMO be used ...

"Whenever you want India to react, ask Pakistan to do something but everytime around Pakistan does something the crack shoots straight to its brain, and then the Pakistanis do something nasty to the US".

> Our boys aren't taking it up a** they are giving it back...

Yes and denial is a river in Egypt.

Take a look at Beg's opeds, he is talking openly about "strategic defiance" - it is very clear what this cruise missile test means to him. Yes he can't fire a cruise missile - and for that matter neither can Musharraf - we all know that. But do we know what Beg can do? What was it that Beg said in that speech in Dahran when your troops were fighting Saddam in Gulf-I?

Pakistan is a known proliferator. Pretending that missile is going to be aimed solely at India is extremely dumb.

Umrao
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 30 May 2001 11:31

Postby Umrao » 16 Aug 2005 00:52

Sunil>> I have a ppt in the works that shows exactly what you say and how and why unkil will still try harder to stoke the flames in Indian sub continent.

There is so much money to make and other kinds of intervention into India afairs via this policy.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 16 Aug 2005 01:41

Dileep wrote:Tech update for couple of posts above:

1. Yes, INS is pretty accurate. The ALCM in 1984 reportedly had 0.6nm drift per hour. So, at the end of the flight of the range of 500km, it would drift almost half a nautical mile. But that clearly is not sufficient for anything useful at all.

Yes, but any GPS fix in the last 6 minutes will reset the INS error to Zero and eventual accuracy to within .06nm. This assuming the enemy using GPI aliasing noise system preventing contineous GPS tracking. Just one fix in last few minutes is enough.

2. That is exactly the reason TERCON was brought in. It is NOT PRIMARILY a terrain hugging technique. It is used to identify the prominent features in the terrain below and correct the error of INS. It is kind of an emulation of aircraft navigation. You go by your INS to get an approximate location, and then use a local reference (VOR or visual) to get exact location.

3. DSMAC is digial scene matching, that gives better reliability in identifying the correction. The TERCON uses a single dimension data, while DSMAc is two dimensional. So it has better chance of getting an exact location.
Again just 1 DSMAC fix a minute before impact means eventual accuracy of within few meters.

4. Both the TERCON and DSMAC inputs can be used by an alternate process to get closer terrain hugging, but that is a very much advanced technique.
For terrain hugging an additional data is required I.e. Cartographic map. :wink:

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36360
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 16 Aug 2005 02:24

i failed to even surmise the range of this new "paki-cruiser" [perhaps they should have named it habeeba-with cruise control, they tested with 500km range!?, and they are working on 1k range, and a possibility of 1.5k max~?

i hope they are not just renaming ballistic to cruise, because some of their failed ballistic test behaved like a cruise missile. :) .

whatever be the case, its enough for our anti-missile department to get working, and these claims should be good enough for drdo and other experts to not consider patriot or arrows [per paki plans].. which they would go chest beat, you haven't taken care of their habeebas!.

i am waiting for their next test that is mountain hugging, terrain avoidance, satellite guided, passenger habeebas.

Harry
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Postby Harry » 16 Aug 2005 02:35

Am I missing something or is this plain bullcrap?

From the Pakistani Report,


The missile crosses all hurdles on its way due to computerized programming and moves towards the target, protecting itself from anti-aircraft line of the enemy. Special cameras installed in the missile, control and manage its height by minutely monitoring ups and downs of land. After recognising the target the missile hits its target instantly.


Since when can "cameras" get you height info or act as height finders? What is described comes close to TERCOM but TERCOM is done by a ground mapping radar whereas it is terminal DSMAC which is electro-optical (hence "camera"). A radio/radar altimeter may be used for terrain avoidance but once again, cannot be electro optical.

So what is the new invention? Cameras that can extract height information of terrain from 2D images? I'm afraid this news proves that a certain country is really as advanced as it claims. :P

Arun, IR (assume thermal "camera") for distance measurement finds little application with LACMs, does it not?

Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby Kumar » 16 Aug 2005 02:47

If the missile is already loaded with terrain images (say acquired from some satellite), then comparing the images acquired by the camera and the images from the satellite and doing the careful bookkeeping for the scale factors, it may be possible to extract the height info.
Last edited by Kumar on 16 Aug 2005 02:50, edited 1 time in total.

AJay
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 09 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Postby AJay » 16 Aug 2005 02:49

Johann wrote:In fact conventional missile strikes are exactly the kind of brinkmanship I can see the Pakistanis attempting in order to wear on the Indian leaderships nerves as well as for internal propaganda value - ie the enemy is not safe even in his own capital.


If we assume that enquoob's "nuke nanga" theory is incorrect, the Pakis might try something like send a few (half a dozen) coventionally armed cruise missiles India's way and then hit Mumbai, and "nayi dhilli" with nukes. Either the DND has taken this into account or this is a destabilizing event in the subcontinent that does upset the balance unless DND is changed to what Rungudu is saying, i.e. CM launch bny Pakistan would be the Rubicon which when crossed would bring nuclear response from India.

Added later: :oops: Now I see that Umrao has already said this v. succinctly on Page 2.
Last edited by AJay on 16 Aug 2005 03:54, edited 1 time in total.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5648
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 16 Aug 2005 03:14

Arun, I agree. The GPS or geography based techniques are for correcting the INS input, which ois the primary guidance. Pre-2000, when civilian GPS was of lower resolution, DRDO had developed an extrapolation system to get better relative accuracy, based on this.

For terrain hugging an additional data is required I.e. Cartographic map

That is correct, but theoritically, if your software is sooo good, you can fly terrain hugging using TFR and imaging. Not sure if Tommy block3 does that.

Harry, my friend! You already know that the text you quoted is DDM multiplied by Paklogic. You take a kid in elementary school, explain to her the working of tomahawk and then ask her to write it again, she will do a better job. The text is generated by some poor Pakducated Journo Abdul. Why do a guy like you take that seriously?

I mean, it isn't even worth the sarcasm! :twisted:

Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby Kumar » 16 Aug 2005 03:36

Dileep wrote:. DSMAC is digial scene matching, that gives better reliability in identifying the correction. The TERCON uses a single dimension data, while DSMAc is two dimensional. So it has better chance of getting an exact location.


Is TERCON different from TERCOM (Terrain contour mapping)? For TERCOM you need the full 3-D data, not just 1-D.

DSMAC is camera/imaging based and uses image correlations, and is heavily dependent on powerful image processing software/hardware. Can be used to determine height, although it seems it is only used with terminal guidance.

Is DSMAC more precise beacuse it uses high resolution images, than t he resolution used for TERCOM?
Last edited by Kumar on 16 Aug 2005 04:05, edited 2 times in total.

Leonard
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 15 Nov 2000 12:31

Postby Leonard » 16 Aug 2005 03:48

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Cruise-Missiles-1985.html

The Current AGM-86B is equipped with the basic TERCOM (Terrain Contour Matching) inertial guidance system and this also reflects in the vehicle's mission profile. A TERCOM equipped vehicle will employ an inertial navigation system (INS) to find its way to the target, however the INS will accumulate a position error with time and this error must be eliminated or reduced if the weapon is to have any sort of useful accuracy. TERCOM does exactly that.

The TERCOM system uses a radar altimeter and barometric altimeter to measure the profile of the terrain beneath the aircraft. This information is then compared with stored terrain profile information within the memory of the TERCOM computer to yield a position update. The update is then fed into the INS. The exercise of measuring and matching the terrain profile is carried out only several times during the weapon's flight, this provides sufficient accuracy while limiting the size of the computer memory required to store the terrain maps.

The missile is loaded with its position and a file of terrain maps for its flight prior to launch, it is then fully autonomous. It will hug terrain at several hundred to a thousand feet, following a very indirect flightpath through hostile territory, this serves to confuse the defenders as to the exact nature of the target, alternately the flight planner may route the flightpath to avoid known early warning and air defence facilities.

Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby Kumar » 16 Aug 2005 03:55

OK, so what Dileep meant was that TERCOM just measures a linear profile of heights, and matches with the stored 3D terrain data.

Harry
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Postby Harry » 16 Aug 2005 03:57

Why do a guy like you take that seriously?


Maybe perhaps the journo may just be spitting out what he/she/it was told by the genius developers and not neccessarily be at fault him/her/itself. Look at what all you have already - centimeter accuracy, completely indigenous, serial production in 1 month...

DDM? You mean PDM.

Leonard
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 15 Nov 2000 12:31

Postby Leonard » 16 Aug 2005 04:05

PTAN has already replaced TERCOM and DSMAC in TWS ....( More Acro's for ACRO loving MOJOs) ... :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://206.37.216.29/pao/PTAN_release.htm

...


The PTAN system for Tomahawk will provide an all-weather, GPS-independent enroute and terminal navigation capability complete with mission planning support that is suitable for use by the TWS with Block IV missiles. PTAN specific missile hardware and software will be integrated into the Block IV missile navigation system to provide navigation updates to the existing Block IV missile navigator. PTAN navigation updates will use a sensor(s) to measure terrain elevation and correlate those measurements to Digital Elevation Maps (DEMs) provided by Tomahawk Command Control System (TC2S) and loaded into the missile. Thus, PTAN navigation updates will initially compliment the existing GPS and DSMAC while replacing the existing radar altimeter. As such, the PTAN will also perform the radar altimeter functions such as providing height above ground for terrain following. Only Block IV (Tactical Tomahawk) missiles are currently planned to be upgraded with PTAN. The ultimate goal is for PTAN to replace the DSMAC and GPS providing Tomahawk missiles with totally autonomous navigation capability.


PTAN ---> Precision Terrain Aided Navigator

TWS ----> Tomahawk Weapon System

DSMAC ----> Digital Scene Matching Area Correlator


Have the PAKIS re-engineered the TWS BG-109 using LIZARDs help ???

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1418
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Postby Sumeet » 16 Aug 2005 04:08

http://jdw.janes.com/

*Pakistan tests cruise missile
* The Pakistani Babur cruise missile seems to share several basic similarities with the US BGM-109 Tomahawk * Pakistan's ultimate aim may be to field ...
17-Aug-2005


So babur is being compared to Tomahawk. Hmmmm... can anyone get that whole article ?

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 16 Aug 2005 04:09

Dileep wrote:
For terrain hugging an additional data is required I.e. Cartographic map

That is correct, but theoritically, if your software is sooo good, you can fly terrain hugging using TFR and imaging. Not sure if Tommy block3 does that.

Terrain hugging is obviously useful in featred terrain, like hills, valley and mountain. So find you way as you fly approach has its own limitation for as one gets lower the lesser it can see beyong the hill and by the time one is over the hill there is not enough time and attitude to adapt to the new horizon. So a before hand knowledge of the 3'rd dimension determines how close one can hug before being taken by surprise (as you know this kind of flying is a PID control problem (requiring correct hight, correct velocity and correct attitude when it on the next peak), unless the D component is well estimated, it will nip the surface or be taken by terrain surprise. The PI scheme is possible using optical co-relation to detrmine hight but it is less responsive and tends to fly higher than what is safely possible.

JMT

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby TSJones » 16 Aug 2005 04:21

"All the armies of Europe and Asia could not, by force, take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. If destruction is to be our lot, we ourselves must be its authors. As a nation of freemen we shall live forever or die by suicide."
Abraham Lincoln

Sunil:

I have not heard anyone call us a "hyperpower" other than those who do not understand us.

The US has declared a War on Terror although a few days ago the appellation has been changed somewhat. It is the official policy and belief of the US that the government of Pakistan is not behind the terror. So, when the war started, we didn't annhilate them. To my way of thinking maybe we should have but I'm not sure what we would have done with the survivors. What we did was to co-opt them. We quite simply told them to cooperate with us and we would try to be kind. Don't cooperate with us and suffer the consequences.

In order to co-opt somebody, you must make them to want to cooperate. Greed, debt forgiveness, trade, whutever, promises of magic weapons, etc., is usually the coin of cooperation. Since we really don't have the troops to occupy Pakistan at the moment, we rely on their desire to cooperate. That means we don't regulate their every move. From time to time, we release tidbits of sweets and good words to encourage them.

in short, we can't push them too far or they will get sullen and not cooperate. Then we really will have to hurt them. The whole world will be against us as usual and it will cost us a mega fortune that would make Iraq look small in comparison. It would require lots and lots of bombing with wedding parties getting splattered to and fro with pictures and video at 5 o'clock.

So no, we don't push them too far. We have our agents there. We have some other resources there. We are cooperating with India in certain matters. India seems to be cooperating with us. And really, India seems to be willing to work in participation of the co-opting of Pakistan(trade, etc.).

*But* India draws the line at how it wishes to defend itself and the US cannot tell Pakistan to back off defending itself either. Therefore Pakistan tests its own weapons and has its own nukes. Trust me on this.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5648
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 16 Aug 2005 04:25

TERCOM is correct. TERCON is my clumsy finger moving too much to the left.

TERCOM uses RADAR to identify prominent features on the terrain, and compare it with the stored info. This is essentially 1D info, and the resolution is much lower than a visual picture. that is why DSMAC is better. In either case, the system obtains the error and corrects it.

PTAN uses interferometry. That is the interference of the outgoing and incoming waves. This technique can resolve distances to the order of the wavelengths used. But this needs higher resolution terrain data. no wonder NASA took terrain data of the whole globe using satellite.

And remember, we have discussed only the techniques to correct the navigational error. There is more stuff that enables the missile to fly up in a canyon or between tall buildings.

And have you thought about the FCS for the Nai? Wouldn't it be much more complex than an aircraft FCS?

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5648
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 16 Aug 2005 04:33

Arun, Ref. terrain hugging, you need to have a rough idea (IOW low resolution terrain map) on the surface beyond the next hill. Whatever be the resolution, you can't believe the maps for closer flight. So, a good software should be there to watch TFR and visual info to fly the canyon and between buildings.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 16 Aug 2005 05:00

del. off-topic.
Last edited by Alok_N on 16 Aug 2005 08:14, edited 1 time in total.

Nav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 8
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 20:58
Location: Canada
Contact:

Paki Cruise Missile Test

Postby Nav » 16 Aug 2005 05:27

Now why would you expect a response from GOI. It was not a surprise to them or to the world. It was probobaly delayed ( Test) because the Instructions Manual was in Chinese :lol: . Its quite obvious the missile is not designed and built by Pakistan. It has china written all over it. Pakistan military industary is not that advanced nor do they have the resources to. Yes it is a bad thing that they have it ( for show or for deployment) but really it doesn't make that much difference. For the cruise missile to be successfull it needs pin point accuracy with conventional warhead. I am more than certain that this one doesn't have it even if it is made in China. Its just pure BS that this missile is better than Bhramos ( as they claim). Since it won't be as accurate conventionally it won't pose that much of a threat. In the case of it carrying nuclear warhead well if the paki's ever use nukes then all bets are off because then pakistan will be a one big nuclear Wasteland. Now giving them some credit :roll: I don't think they would ever use single nuclear weapon against india because that would be a stupid move since india's retalitary Action will not only finish pakistan's military (Nuclear and conventional) but the pakistan as a country will cease to exist. So I think if it ever came to nuclear war they would use everything in the first attack. So I fail to see the significance of the cruise missile in nuclear backdrop. Where it really concerns me is if the missile is ever used on a dam such as Bhakra nagal. Can ABMs be used to take it down?Pac-3, Arrow, Akash?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4201
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Postby srai » 16 Aug 2005 06:10

Sumeet wrote:http://jdw.janes.com/

*Pakistan tests cruise missile
* The Pakistani Babur cruise missile seems to share several basic similarities with the US BGM-109 Tomahawk * Pakistan's ultimate aim may be to field ...
17-Aug-2005


So babur is being compared to Tomahawk. Hmmmm... can anyone get that whole article ?


:roll:

IMO, this is really a "Tomahawk" body-frame facade probably built using the size measurements taken from mis-fired Tomahawks launched from USN that fell on Pakistan territory pretty much intact.

Inside it, I would assume would be rocket-propulsion technologies from their other SSM programme.

However, it is beyond their capability to build the sophisticated guidance systems required for a LACM. Even China has not been able to do so yet, and they have been at it since the late 80s stealing/salvaging/buying/reverse engineering Russian/US cruise technologies.

So in essence, a publicity stunt for the media ... shape it like a cruise missile, put some rocket powder in it, fire it, take some pictures and tell the world that its really a LACM :wink: ... no honestly :D

appuseth
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 10 Feb 2004 12:31
Location: United States

Postby appuseth » 16 Aug 2005 06:17

Srai, there is still the possibility that the Chinese were able to reverse-engineer the unexploded Tomahawk and extract its technology, and used it in this missile.

AJay
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 09 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Postby AJay » 16 Aug 2005 06:38

Harry wrote:Am I missing something or is this plain bullcrap?


Two cameras mounted some distance apart can gather height information. My guess is that a CM is not big enough to acheive the requisite separation between the cameras. As Kumar said tough, it is possible to have a stored map (or uploaded by a satellite to the CM in real time) and the camera on the CM taking the pictures from a different perspective can get you the height info. But the accuracy would be a bi*ch.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4201
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Postby srai » 16 Aug 2005 06:40

appuseth wrote:Srai, there is still the possibility that the Chinese were able to reverse-engineer the unexploded Tomahawk and extract its technology, and used it in this missile.


Reverse engineering is not as easy as it may sound even with intact artifact. It's a big learning curve and often a very lengthy process. If it was simple, by now Chinese would have been able to build Su-27s, Kilos, engines, ASM etc. Or India for that matter with multi-tude of Soviet/Western hardwares and electronics.

If the Chinese were able to do what you suggest, even then I doubt that the Chinese would be giving one of their "few" working cruise missile (LACM type) at this point.

At this point this news sensation is all according to Pakistan Army released statement. There is no independent verification of this report. Ofcourse, it can get away by saying "at a secret location" and "top secret" etc. to avoid answering detailed questioning. But this has worked as planned for PA ... all the top world media picked it up and its all over the world!

Sam CS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 02 Dec 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Sam CS » 16 Aug 2005 06:46

TSJones wrote:Then we really will have to hurt them. The whole world will be against us as usual and it will cost us a mega fortune that would make Iraq look small in comparison. It would require lots and lots of bombing with wedding parties getting splattered to and fro with pictures and video at 5 o'clock.


(Slightly WAY off-topic :mrgreen: )

TSJ, trust me. This is one country that you can "liberate" and will truly have flowers and sweets mailed to you from all over the world.

If there are videos at 5, you will have an endless stream of BR volunteers on the air at 7 o clock that will make Sean Hannity look like an anti-war puny liberal. :evil:

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5648
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 16 Aug 2005 06:52

Let us assume that a fully operational tomahawk is made available to china. What can they do with REing?

1. They sure can copy the airframe. In fact the Nai looks exceedingly like the tommy anyway. The PAC should have the capability to build the airframe at least I think, provided china gives the materials.

2. They can try to copy the engine. The Paki's sure can't, but china can. You don't need the full performance to do a demo launch. You can use inferior alloys, and heavily downrate the engine. Hell, all you need to make sure is that the damn ting doesn't burn up.

3. They can do nothing with the electronics, including the computer and sensors. So, they will have to come up with the whole flight control and guidance system. Now, THAT is a problem.

4. They can use an INS, with a basic flight computer, assuming the airframe provides stable aeronautic features. Maybe they can use a GPS based correction mechanism too. They do have terminal guidance capability using radar, IR and laser designation.

These are good enough for a demo test. You fire it over a flatland the distance to target doesn't matter. You can place it 20km away, and claim 500km. who is going to know? You can make a brick buildin and heat it up for the IR seeker, or shine a laser for the TV guidance. Who is going to know?

They don't have terrain hugging, they don't have any of the navigation technologies. I even doubt the missile does a decent turn at this point.

appuseth
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 10 Feb 2004 12:31
Location: United States

Postby appuseth » 16 Aug 2005 07:29

This discussion that the Chinese couldn't come up with a low altitude cruise missile is flawed because it keeps assuming that there was only one source for the Chinese, that unexploded Tomahawk. Has anyone considered the possibility that years of Chinese spying in the US has finally paid off? The Tomahawk isn't exactly new technology, and is probably easier to steal. Heck, I read recently that the Chinese had stolen knowledge related to stealth from the US. All those Chinese working in US laboratories comes at a price. So combining the knowledge obtained by years of spying and a complete Tomahawk missile, I think it's feasible that China pulled it off in 7 years. Our next move should be to develop a defensive system (that can shoot down Tomahawk) and low altitude cruise missiles of our own. What we do have now is a very good excuse to obtain/develop both of these.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 16 Aug 2005 07:38

http://www.hindu.com/2005/08/16/stories ... 801200.htm

The balance between India and Pakistan was somewhat "disturbed" by India's testing of the Brahmos missile. Pakistan therefore carried out the test to restore the balance, he said.

Shashank
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 13
Joined: 12 Sep 2001 11:31

Postby Shashank » 16 Aug 2005 08:39

What TSJ says is quite correct. With all due respect to people spending time on this forum I should note that the things have gone out of hand for all the claims of knowing and studying Pakistan.
It is one thing that America asks Pakistan something and Pakistan carries out that in earnest. That reflects on Pkaistan but not on America. Knowing Pakistan rather well, US has used them to a very good extent in furthering their own goals but it is in the realms of imagination to say that US actually controls Pakistan. Actually what they do is make Pakistan feel that their interests coincide with American interests and induce them to work with them with a mix of stick and carrot. Indian government understands this rather well and acts according to that. It is unfortunate that on this forum this situation has been over simplified to drive conclusions that America controls Pakistan so just get America to put pressure on Pakistan someway to get our work done. Us will not be averse to doing that as much as they can but ofcourse they are going to extract a right price for it (e.g. ask India to work with them against China).

Finally at the risk of irking almost all members I want to say that the attitude towards Pakistan is what was holding India back earlier. As for government they have learnt their lessons and have freed themselves from the trap but on this forum the old sentiments are still very much there.

appuseth
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 10 Feb 2004 12:31
Location: United States

Postby appuseth » 16 Aug 2005 09:37

Shashank, I agree with you. We should have been more proactive.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 16 Aug 2005 09:44

Shashank,

I have not yet stuck my neck out in terms of making any claims about what the US knows and how much the US controls TSP ...

The following items, I believe, are generally considered "fact":

1. The US is running a certain number of air bases in TSP.

2. FBI is there screening passengers at airports.

3. There were joint operations between US and TSP agencies for the capture of some jehadis.

4. Some amount of covert activities are being carried out by the US along the Afghan-TSP border.

Now, given all this, do you expect me to believe that the Americans are such dorks that they wouldn't be able to smell out a missile test taking place right under their noses?

Do you expect me to believe that Mushy will risk a test such as this without consulting Mai-Baap first?

I think not ...

The other possibility is that it was just a silly photoshop job ... there is no missile to begin with and everyone is having a quiet chuckle .... :lol:

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1650
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 16 Aug 2005 10:12

Now, given all this, do you expect me to believe that the Americans are such dorks that they wouldn't be able to smell out a missile test taking place right under their noses?

Do you expect me to believe that Mushy will risk a test such as this without consulting Mai-Baap first?


Alok N,

Maybe the Americans can smell the test. Maybe they knew that the missile had been delivered from China to Pakistan. But why does India have to depend on the Americans to solve its problems. Why does India not solve the problem on its own. On the one hand if there is a lot of military interaction with the Americans we have Indians crying out loss of sovereignity and being derisive about other Americans allies and referring to them as *poodles*. But in times such as this the reponse seems to be *But the americans must know about this*. Why should the Americans do anything about it? Maybe if India was a *poodle*, the US would solve the problem for India. If Indians want that, fine, but if not, India should solve the problem on its own and stop this constant whining that the US should *control* Pakistan.

In 1977 the Indian economy was 33% larger than the Chinese economy. Today less than 30 years later, the Chinese economy is double the size of the Indian economy and continues to outpace India. That has translated into greater money available for defence for China and a greater ability to project power. I would call these years, the years of lost opportunities for India.

If you sit back and think logically, this whole Pakistan business is so ludicrous. India has 8 times the population of Pakistan and most importantly a non jehadi economy. We should have far, far outpaced Pakistan and had a 10:1 military edge over that country by now. Lost opportunities again.

That Washington Post article I posted earlier dates back to August 1998, 7 years ago. The Pakis recovered the Tomahawk and gave it to the Chinese. The Chinese certainly have the capability to have done some kind of reverse engineering to it over the years. Maybe it does not have GPS guidance system. Maybe they have not mastered the engine technology. But Indian planners have got to have realized that everything that China has can and will be made available to Pakistan and I would not be surprised besides cruise missiles, that one day even the SU-30MKK will be transfered. If Indian defence and security planners cannot realize that, God help India.

Sorry for this rant, but I had to get it out of my system.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 16 Aug 2005 10:42

ldev wrote:
Alok N,

Maybe the Americans can smell the test. Maybe they knew that the missile had been delivered from China to Pakistan. But why does India have to depend on the Americans to solve its problems. Why does India not solve the problem on its own.



why indeed to Q#1? Why not indeed to Q#2? ...

Here's my Q: why are you asking me these Q's?

Sorry for this rant, but I had to get it out of my system.


very well ... I suppose you took me for a wayside trash can ...

Enjoy your cleansed system ... :lol:

Uday
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 9
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 23:32

Postby Uday » 16 Aug 2005 10:48

Sunil wrote:Hi,

As discussed earlier with Ramana, the presence of Ehsan ul Haq instead of Pervez Musharraf seems to say all sorts of things. All in all I think it marks the rise of Ehsan Ul Haq. We may soon be hosting a "who is Ehsan ul Haq" thread on BRF.


Hi Sunil,
Some questions still linger. Please correct me if i am wrong
1) The presence of Ehsna-Ul-Haq at the sites may also mean.
A) USA is unsatisifed with Musharaff and backing other elements in Pakistan Army. May
be this will gain more space with Musharaff .In case Musharaff backtracks, hey Ehsan is already there: hence message from USA better kowtow us. Also Musharaff is refusing to step down.
B)Rogue elements of Pakistan Army(Jehadi elements headed by Ehsan) aiming to remove Musharaff. Thus presence of Ehsan at this point of time will make him an ideal successor.
C) The signal from USA: Bush wants the USA to be the only country on this planet which can deploy high tech cruise missile,ballistic missile. Any one trying to raise its head will be effectively met with. The US will love to escalate the costs of BMD development upon India.

2) Sunil, you have also mentioned that this uncontrollable behaviour will negative effects on USA. What if USA reaches a secret understaning with pakistan on supporting terrorist acts world wide but not on Ameircan soil. Note there has been not one attacks on USa soil also what ayman al zawahiri said: attacks on US in Afghanistan/Iraq and not on USA. One day USA will leave Iraq,Afghanistan and then the it will be return to the old days.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1650
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 16 Aug 2005 10:50

Here's my Q: why are you asking me these Q's?


Cause I knew you would understand. :)


very well ... I suppose you took me for a wayside trash can ...

Enjoy your cleansed system ...


Absolutely, thanks. :lol:


But seriously, this is off topic, but had India with a 33% larger economy than China in 1977 grown at the same rate as the Chinese economy over these last 28 some years, the Indian economy would have been a $2 trillion economy by now (in dollar terms). Now what would that have done for prosperity and for money for defence to face threats such as China and Pakistan. :(

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 16 Aug 2005 12:00

ldev wrote:But seriously, this is off topic, but had India with a 33% larger economy than China in 1977 grown at the same rate as the Chinese economy over these last 28 some years, the Indian economy would have been a $2 trillion economy by now (in dollar terms). Now what would that have done for prosperity and for money for defence to face threats such as China and Pakistan. :(


patience, man ...

if it helps, I was asking back in 1977, "why didn't India start growing 28 years ago?" ... :shock:

[that was the year of the 30th anniversary of Independence ... the country had just come out of Emergency ... there was euphoria ... everyone was cracking jokes about how the then PM drank some unmentionable in the mornings ... ]

As the current Indian PM said, India has survived 5,000 years and it will survive for 5,000 more ... +- 28 years is hardly a meaningful error bar ...

:)

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 16 Aug 2005 12:39

Ldev,

Succintly put. :(

One thing- if anything could be and should be chucked into the Bay of Bengal for being utterly useless- its the Indian Ministry of Defence. A more useless bunch of paperbound bureaucrats would be hard to find elsewhere.

Take a look at the way the Qatar deal was deliberately torpedoed. And the way the Scorpene negotiations were mucked up. The mess that they have made of funding Indian R&D programs in the past, which affected timelines and user confidence. And the total neglect of any sort of time oriented acquisition program.

The Pak cruise missile may be a low tech paint job- but 2 things are clear:

a) China has no regard for proliferation controls.

b)The PAF got a big breather.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest