India tests Prithvi based ABM-2

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 29 Nov 2006 23:32


Subramaniam
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 27 Mar 2005 19:01

Postby Subramaniam » 29 Nov 2006 23:40

Great news-following all along.

This is of extreme strategic significance.

Message is sent and silence speaks louder than words 8)

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 29 Nov 2006 23:40

Yes I was harsh. Corrosive fuel my foot. The only thing corrosive is the way the press is behaving. It is terrible.

Manohar,

Let them struggle to find out anyway they going to such great lengths to penetrate our setups. I say give them something to chase.

Good time pass for them no.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 29 Nov 2006 23:42

akutcher wrote:
Even if we develop an effective system, how long a bill are the babus willing to foot? What could be the possible objectives of this program.... does MOD want to cover only the metros and some other strategic locations, do they want to protect every state-capital or provide a complete missile shield?


Take some more time to read in BRF to slowly understand the unspoken.
This test is more a psy ops which can put pressure on lots of countries. It changes Indian foriegn relations, geopolitics and influence. There is a trend going on for the last 25 years to understand what this this test means.

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 29 Nov 2006 23:46

Acharya wrote:
akutcher wrote:
Even if we develop an effective system, how long a bill are the babus willing to foot? What could be the possible objectives of this program.... does MOD want to cover only the metros and some other strategic locations, do they want to protect every state-capital or provide a complete missile shield?


Take some more time to read in BRF to slowly understand the unspoken.
This test is more a psy ops which can put pressure on lots of countries. It changes Indian foriegn relations, geopolitics and influence. There is a trend going on for the last 25 years to understand what this this test means.

do you mean its fake by any means :cry: :cry:

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 29 Nov 2006 23:56

From last thread:

ramana wrote:The first test was a few days ago. The Arrow is based on US technology and they would be on both Israel and India like a ton of bricks.

I suggest you read Vison 2020 by Kalam saheb. He writes that people are so used to non achievements by Indians in India that they see non existant foreign links for every achievement.

I was going to make some sarcastic remarks but why you might be under some maya.


Jeez, one small question from me and it gets everybody's goat.

For the record, I neither participate in the mindless chest thumping nor in the whining that goes on. I did not condemn the DRDO when A3 failed, and I am also aware of the fact that it was the french system that falied in the T90. I prefer to congratulate the defence R&D people for being one of the only three functioning institutions in India.

I asked about the 'foreign hand' because it appeared to me that this missile was developed, at best, in a few years time. There is no way anyone can develop a complex system such as an ABM in a 3-4 years, no matter how brilliant. Now, after reading certain posts, I see that the time frame is more like 9 years. That seems like a reasonable time frame to develop the system indigenously.


Although, I have to ask, will it hurt your patriotic sentiments too much if it turns out later that some furrin country had helped design some sub-component or some sub-sub-component of the missile? Really?


Anyway, this is my last post on this topic.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 30 Nov 2006 00:01

I am more interested in the reactions of Paki-China combine to the test, than where the missile came from. And it warms the cockles of my heart more is the rampant display of sheer impotence the two countries have put up in the past week. Let's go over it step by step:


1. First we send off Hu with an Agni on his tail after his visit here. It was China which was more known for taking such steps, now with India treating the Chinese premier with such an insult is a double insult. It shows the rest of the world (esp. the developing world) that China can be triffled with, and their is nothing they can do about it. In the global geo-eco-political sweepstakes, just the impression that China cannot defend itself has immense implications. And coming right after the Afro-Sino summit meet, it tells a lot of African leaders not to fawn over China just yet.


2. The paki reaction has been even more impotent. They fire a missile that everybody knows they already have. That is, in essence they just confessed that they do not have anything to counter our new tech. Period.


3. The Chinese effort to open a new pressure point in India via Tawang issue is a case in point. It seems that they are a) running out of options, b) running out of time because of India's economic progress.


4. But what is the most interesting implication of this test is when you combine it with JJ SIngh's statement just after HU's visit. He said India is ready for joint exercises with chinese. I thought that the statement was odd, because I could not figure out why he said that.

At first I felt that this statement was basically meant to increase the cost of co-operation on America. That is, it was meant to send shivers down the spine of US officials, and help in negotiating better terms in our relationship with them. IOW, I thought it was a classic case of shakedown. But it seemed to unreal.

Then I thought that MMS was simply trying to fend off pressure from the left allies, by showing that India is ready for a new level of relationship with CHina. IOW, we were effectively putting the ball in China's court. But this explaination also seemed a little out of place.


Now, after this test the full import of JJ's statement is becoming clear to me.

To understand that, visualise the big picture. The one thing that Yanks truly fear is a ganging up of all their rivals in asia in one big block. The Indo-Sino-Russian alliance. And they are willing to go to any length to prevent. US now understands that Russia and China are irrevocably anti-US. So, their asian strategy is dependant on keeping India out of this alliance. And for this very reason China knows it has to keep India away from a US-India alliance - because the main target of such an alliance will inevitably be China.

So JJ's statement was an invitation to China to become less anti-India, and the promise of India's goodwill in return. Combine that with this test. This test puts enormous pressure on the Chini-Paki alliance. Think about the following:

If our ABM defence has a 50% success rate, it will put pressure on pakis to double their nuke arsenal to keep the same confidence level of hitting targets. If our ABM defence has a success rate of 90%, then pakis will need to increase their arsenal amount by 10 times. And so forth.
Now, where do you think pakis will need to get the infrastructure for increasing their arsenal by such vast amounts? China, of course.

So, by holding out the hope of cooperation with China, we are giving them an incentive to stop cooperation with pakistan. Putting all pieces together, I feel that India has introduced many new fronts in the old game between India, pak and China:
1. Try and separate pakistan and China alliance.
2. Try and make China see the benefits of a cooperative relationship with India.
3. Subdue pakistan's yahoo attitude towards war by further degrading its nuclear threat over India.
4. Wrest initiative away from China in the larger, asian/global game. (See my next post).



The ultimate POLITICAL (as opposed to military) thrust of the activities orchestrated by India for past week was to throw dice at various problems. One of them is isolating Pakistan from its principal sponsor - China. Another is to show China the benefits of a pro India policy, or the harm in an anti India policy. And a third important objective is that it sets India into an extremely select club of countries.


---------------
Now wasn't the political analysis more interesting than the incessant bitching and whining about the source of the missile. More below.
Last edited by abhischekcc on 30 Nov 2006 00:43, edited 1 time in total.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 30 Nov 2006 00:03

And talking of emerging patterns of strategic lanscape, here's another one for you to chew on:

List the countries developing ABM tech:
1. US (Patriot)
2. Russia (S-300)
3. Israel (Arrow)
4. India (Prithvi-5 or Trishul Mark2)
(In order of development start time)

A. What is the common factor among these countries?
Q. These four are the primary targets of Islamic terrorists.

Q. Dissect further, which country is arming Islamic countries with latest weapons?
A. China.

IOW, the primary threat to world security is emanating from China. China is providing the supporting framework for world Islamic terrorism.

So, look at Japan next to develop this tech.

------------

As an aside, here is a list of countries that DO NOT have the ABM tech:
1. China
2. Haiti :mrgreen:
3. Japan
4. England
5. France
6. Germany
7. Trinidad & Tobago :mrgreen:

T&T and Haiti must be very pleased to find themselves in such august company :P . Can't say the same for the others though.
Last edited by abhischekcc on 30 Nov 2006 00:45, edited 1 time in total.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3518
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby fanne » 30 Nov 2006 00:13

Mr. Vijay J
I feel really offended by your comment on the Pioneer editorial desk. And it is not that you used a curse word but against whom you used it. If it was Mr. SG of IE or VM of Outlook, maybe I would have complained about lack of expletive, but then against Pioneer, you are doing a disservice. It is only few papers that has not sold itself out and has something called Journalistic ethics. Though I do not agree with there assessment on the missile in the editorial, I cannot forget that they (compared to maybe other 90% of DDM) are on the right side - On Mother India's side. I hope that you do go back and edit your post.

Thanks
fanne
Last edited by fanne on 30 Nov 2006 00:27, edited 1 time in total.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Postby Lalmohan » 30 Nov 2006 00:23

abhishekcc - you are on the money old chap

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 30 Nov 2006 00:26

Good thinking Abhishekcc. That what I want form you.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 30 Nov 2006 00:34

joey wrote:do you mean its fake by any means :cry: :cry:


No, The notion that it is a one time demo. It will take some time to remove that notion to something more substantial just like anything which is new.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 30 Nov 2006 00:36

The more I think about this test, the more it becomes apparent that it is of the same significance as Shakti tests. And I am not talking about the shock and awe effect due to the suddenness of the tests.

To understand that, refer to the ABM's ability to counter incoming missiles. Even when such a capability is less than perfect, the enemy is not sure of how many missiles will actually reach the target.

For example, if the Pakis have allocated 10 missiles and warheads for Delhi, and our ABM has a 50 % success rate, the pindi generals will not be sure if 5 warheads will do the job. SO, to get the same level of assurance (of hitting delhi with 10 bombs) they need to raise the number of bombs allocated for delhi to 20. And this move will be repeated all across the board for all targets. Effectively doubling their nuclear budge. Cos, they will need infrastructure for producing and storing and delivering all these newer bombs too. If the success rate goes to 67%, it will triple the costs on our enemies. So a mere increase in success of 17% (over 50%)on our side will increase the enemy's costs by 100%.


Mind you, a mere 50% success rate, imperfect as it is, will double the enemy's budget. (And the enemy is not only paks but China as well).

This is very sane logic, and this was the very logic that bankrupted the soviets and forced them to make up with the west. (SDI program).

I feel that the political message the test sent out was more important than the military message, that's why I have concentrated on that.

The message we sent to our enemies is as follows - 'We can increase your costs of opposing India at will. Compete against us at your risk. Keep the example of soviet union in mind when you oppose us.'

That is, even small incremental improvements in the ABM's efficiency will require a disproportionate increase in investment by the enemy. Recall the difference between 50% and 67% success rate I wrote above. It is such an important message that I feel that the only target of such a message is China, not pakistan.

Pakistan is a bit player in this drama. It is bankrupt and its ability to threaten India is because of China's support and weapon gifts. Now, China does not have anything to counter this technology, hence cannot help pakistan anyway. So this test has wrested the initiative away from China.



See, in the triangular relationship between India, Pakistan and CHina; these two unholy states had an alliance of hurting and subdueing India, and they could do so with impunity. These two put together had the initiative in inflicting pain on India.

POK-2 was like a show of hands between us and pakis. It was a challenge by us - 'Let's see what you got'. And the pakis came out looking like losers. They had a primitive arsenal, while some doubted whether it had an arsenal at all. It wrested the initiative away from pakis. The pakis did try to regain initiative in the form of the Kargil misadventure, but failed. When that failed, the entire world got on the India bandwagon. People credit Clinton with improving relations with India, but they forget that Clinton spent the first 6 years of his rule ignoring India and sucking up to China. It was our victory in Kargil that change his mind.

This test is of the same type, except now the show of hands is between us and China. China has nothing to counter this. And if Raja Ram's words about future 'show of hands' that India is going to unveil are correct, China will permanently be put at a strategic disadvantage vis-a-vis India. Yes, this test is that important.

It has helped us wrest initiative away from China in the Asian and global arena, just as POK-2 helped us wrest initiative away from pakistan in the south asian arena.
Last edited by abhischekcc on 30 Nov 2006 00:58, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 30 Nov 2006 00:37

Also we need to look at nature of the threats facing the different states developing ABM. The Patriot and the Arrow are really theater defences. The US is spending so much as it faces greater challenges from ICBMS which come in at faster speeds.

Currently India faces short range(Hatf series) and medium range(NoDong/Ghauri) missile threat from TSP and IRBMs(~4km/sec) from PRC. The EAIS seems to be able to handle the SRBMs with its 45 km altitude and 70 km range. The response time of ~ 1min is also good. Need to see it tested at 100km range as was stated to see its capability against an Agni I.

As its still in development, expect a few misses in the future tests.

Raymond
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 21 Oct 2006 20:41

Postby Raymond » 30 Nov 2006 00:39

Yup I would say good analysis.

Some reservations with the development of strategic landscape scenario where the links become a bit tenous...but otherwise very good all in all.Isnt it a nice feeling when all the blocks fall into place and your eyes widen in understanding.... :twisted:

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 30 Nov 2006 00:51

As an aside, I went to the PDF and CMF to check thier reactions to the test.

PDF is fully into head-in-the-musharraf asana. Saying how could yindoos master this tech when the white massa has not done so even onlee.

CMF is simply ignoring it. This seems to be their favoured response to any any news which does not suit the crudeness of the members.

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

Postby Arun_S » 30 Nov 2006 00:51

Kanson wrote:
rakall wrote:
Arun_S wrote:
This DRDO's Large Size Solid Booster
when used as a single stage ABM will be approximately:

Fuel: 2,250Kg
Mass: 2,700 Kg (2.5tonne booster mass + 200Kg interceptor including terminal cross thrusters)
Length: 9-10 meter
Powered Flight time:38 sec
Final velocity: Mach 11.5 (3.5Km/sec)
Minimum intercept altitude: 45Km (that is how long the booster burns before it can release the kill vehicle)


A 2-stage ABM that has 500Kg second stage will be approximately:

Fuel: 2,250Kg+400Kg
Mass: 2,700 Kg (2.5tonne booster + 500Kg second stage + 200Kg interceptor including terminal cross thrusters)
Length: 10.5-11.5 meter
Powered Flight time:58 sec
Final velocity: Mach 15(4.5Km/sec)
Minimum intercept altitude: 70Km (that is how long the booster burns before it can release the kill vehicle)


These numbers correspond to firing at an angle such that terminal velocity is at 45 degree elevation (this also allow reader to roughly estimate the ground imprint when payload becomes active ).

Bheri bheri different from any other missile in world.


Arun -- are you not beeing very cute/cheeky in your first sentence.. "this booster when used as".. so the numbers are (only) for the case if this booster is used as ABM. But you are not revealig if it "is used" or "if you think it is used".. :wink:

1. The flight time as 1stage ABM is 38sec from the motor specs per DRDO release.. However per some reports the interception time is 110/117 seconds.. i think it is not too comfortable for the interceptor to be un-powered for so long (~70secs).. and with 200Kg total mass it may have very less powered flight of its own..

given that prithvi liq-fuelled Prithvi has a flight time of 300sec to reach a 150km target.. we can assume about the same or more for a solid-fuelled Prithvi (going longer range)6m long 1m dia motor..

total powered flight of it can be as low as 38sec? is that enough? (assuming 0.8m dia motor burn time will also be same as 1m dia counterpart)

2. please look at the 2-stage ABM mass calculations.. they dont add up..
You missed adding the 2nd stage mass to the total

You are right Rakall on Mass calculation.

On powered flight and non-powered one..it depends upon the situation. And for the terminal phase interceptor 70 secs unpowered flight is high.

To add..there are two ranges reported normally. One if max. range. And, other is max. range of flight. Max. range is range covered by powered flight. and max. range of flight is one including the non-powered flight time.

With that information, if you see the spec of Arrow-2, max range is 70km and max. range of flight is 90 km. With this information, if we did gross comparison, 70s non-powered flight is too high.

There is one more angle too, to show there is discrepancy in the data provided above.

For stage 1. Max. velocity is given as 3.5 km/sec. Initial velocity is 0. If we assume, uniform acceleration. Then average velocity is 1.75 km/sec. With 38 sec. duration its range is 66.5 km.

For stage 2. Intial velocity is 3.5 km/sec(due to first stage terminal velocity) and final velocity is given as 4.5 km/sec. So average velocity is 4km/sec(assuming uniform acceleration). For a duration of 58 secs, range convered is 232 km.

Now we add the first stage range + second stage, Then total range of AXO is 298.5 km.

Even if we consider, drift and change in g, and other data, this is too high compared to what is reported in the media the range as 100km.

I cautioned him on using the data which appeared some 6 yrs ago. Anyway its all boils to individual opinion.


Both of you are largely misguided and/or wrong in what you said.


rakall wrote: 1. The flight time as 1stage ABM is 38sec from the motor specs per DRDO release.. However per some reports the interception time is 110/117 seconds.. i think it is not too comfortable for the interceptor to be un-powered for so long (~70secs).. and with 200Kg total mass it may have very less powered flight of its own..
It does not matter if you are unconfortable with SAM/ABM intercepting in unpowered phase. That is way it always is. Pls read some more to be more informed.

rakall wrote: given that prithvi liq-fuelled Prithvi has a flight time of 300sec to reach a 150km target.. we can assume about the same or more for a solid-fuelled Prithvi (going longer range)6m long 1m dia motor..
Wrong assumption. What makes you think solid fuelled missile of of same range. Please read more to be more informed.

rakall wrote: total powered flight of it can be as low as 38sec? is that enough? (assuming 0.8m dia motor burn time will also be same as 1m dia counterpart)
You have it from horses mouth (i.e. DRDO) what is there to assume or speculate?


rakall wrote: 2. please look at the 2-stage ABM mass calculations.. they dont add up..
You missed adding the 2nd stage mass to the total
Yes the total mass should be 2700+500 = 3200Kg. Thankyou.


Kanson wrote:On powered flight and non-powered one..it depends upon the situation. And for the terminal phase interceptor 70 secs unpowered flight is high.
No comment, I didnt say anything on this.

Kanson wrote:To add..there are two ranges reported normally. One if max. range. And, other is max. range of flight. Max. range is range covered by powered flight. and max. range of flight is one including the non-powered flight time.
Not true for separating payload ABM.

Kanson wrote:With that information, if you see the spec of Arrow-2, max range is 70km and max. range of flight is 90 km. With this information, if we did gross comparison, 70s non-powered flight is too high.
Pls care to explain where did the 70s for Baan come from?

Kanson wrote:There is one more angle too, to show there is discrepancy in the data provided above.

For stage 1. Max. velocity is given as 3.5 km/sec. Initial velocity is 0. If we assume, uniform acceleration. Then average velocity is 1.75 km/sec. With 38 sec. duration its range is 66.5 km.
Wrong. Not so fast to a conclusion. It is not high school math problem. Your assumptions do not measure up to real rocket behavior. Hint: Rockets do not have uniform acceleration.

Kanson wrote:For stage 2. Intial velocity is 3.5 km/sec(due to first stage terminal velocity) and final velocity is given as 4.5 km/sec. So average velocity is 4km/sec(assuming uniform acceleration). For a duration of 58 secs, range convered is 232 km.
I pity your physics now. How did the rocket get initial velocity of 3.5Km/sec from first stage given that it carried not only the 200kg payload but also lugged the 500kg second stage. Wrong.

FYI For my analysis I use (way too accurate) discrete time simulation. Feel free to download & use BR's ROCKSIM (the tool that I use).

Kanson wrote:Now we add the first stage range + second stage, Then total range of AXO is 298.5 km.
Wrong because of the previous error in assumption.

Kanson wrote:Even if we consider, drift and change in g, and other data, this is too high compared to what is reported in the media the range as 100km.

I cautioned him on using the data which appeared some 6 yrs ago. Anyway its all boils to individual opinion.
I will take good advise when one is given. I await that day.

For the time being have a good day.
Last edited by Arun_S on 30 Nov 2006 01:15, edited 1 time in total.

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 30 Nov 2006 01:01

What was the pioneer edit desk doing? trying to piggy back the anti drdo wave of last week? caught unawares by this weeks developments?

Were they simply running last weeks editorial this week?

Is pioneer the last one to get the joke in the room?

I will edit my post the day pioneer withdraws that FDI request they called the editorial.

Corrosive fuel? I suggest we strap the entire editorial team to a solid rocket booster for the next flight up.

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Postby sunilUpa » 30 Nov 2006 01:02

abhischekcc wrote:And talking of emerging patterns of strategic lanscape, here's another one for you to chew on:

List the countries developing ABM tech:
1. US (Patriot)


US has multiple platforms for ABM, Patriots providing only medium/low level shield. THAAD is top most layer. In addition they have Navy Theater Wide TBMD based on Aegis with LEAP intercept software and SM3 combo. Japan has SM3 coverage.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 30 Nov 2006 01:03

sunilUpa wrote:
abhischekcc wrote:And talking of emerging patterns of strategic lanscape, here's another one for you to chew on:

List the countries developing ABM tech:
1. US (Patriot)


US has multiple platforms for ABM, Patriots providing only medium/low level shield. THAAD is top most layer. In addition they have Navy Theater Wide TBMD based on Aegis with LEAP intercept software and SM3 combo. Japan has SM3 coverage.


I just gave a name to every country as an example.

On Japan, is SM3 their own system?

R Sharma
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 05:30
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby R Sharma » 30 Nov 2006 01:06

The one thing though is that China can purchase ABM technology from Russia. Thinking about it, if there is this Sino-Russia alliance that is brewing, wouldn't it be in Russia's interest to give China the S-300 technology? This in turn can then be given to Pakistan at their request in a "joint development".

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 30 Nov 2006 01:07

abhishekcc, I think we need another thread in the other forum to discuss the geopolitical issues rising from this test. Please open one in the other thread and put in it yours, VijayJ, Kgoan and Rajaram's posts.

Also need to factor in impact on the fourth 'horseman'.

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

Postby Arun_S » 30 Nov 2006 01:09

abhischekcc wrote:The more I think about this test, the more it becomes apparent that it is of the same significance as Shakti tests. And I am not talking about the shock and awe effect due to the suddenness of the tests.

To understand that, refer to the ABM's ability to counter incoming missiles. Even when such a capability is less than perfect, the enemy is not sure of how many missiles will actually reach the target.

For example, if the Pakis have allocated 10 missiles and warheads for Delhi, and our ABM has a 50 % success rate, the pindi generals will not be sure if 5 warheads will do the job. SO, to get the same level of assurance (of hitting delhi with 10 bombs) they need to raise the number of bombs allocated for delhi to 20. And this move will be repeated all across the board for all targets. Effectively doubling their nuclear budge. Cos, they will need infrastructure for producing and storing and delivering all these newer bombs too. If the success rate goes to 67%, it will triple the costs on our enemies. So a mere increase in success of 17% (over 50%)on our side will increase the enemy's costs by 100%.


Mind you, a mere 50% success rate, imperfect as it is, will double the enemy's budget. (And the enemy is not only paks but China as well).

This is very sane logic, and this was the very logic that bankrupted the soviets and forced them to make up with the west. (SDI program).

Actually it a quite much more worse for them, because one has to do Monte-Carlo simulation on accuracy/variance & interception probability together) to arrive at 95% confidence of meeting an objective and that number and resource is now significantly altered.

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Postby sunilUpa » 30 Nov 2006 01:12

abhischekcc wrote:
I just gave a name to every country as an example.

On Japan, is SM3 their own system?


I was just adding to the list you made, that was not meant as a critique. Japans SM3 is from US.
Last edited by sunilUpa on 30 Nov 2006 01:15, edited 1 time in total.

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 30 Nov 2006 01:12

R Sharma wrote:The one thing though is that China can purchase ABM technology from Russia. Thinking about it, if there is this Sino-Russia alliance that is brewing, wouldn't it be in Russia's interest to give China the S-300 technology? This in turn can then be given to Pakistan at their request in a "joint development".


IMO no use against large country as India as Missiles will be many many thousand miles away from border region.

They needs Space based lasers to deal with such massive countries.
howeverwe can deal with them making a base in afganistan and our border....

ravikun
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 5
Joined: 12 Oct 2006 11:56

Postby ravikun » 30 Nov 2006 01:14

A Momumentous event, but this event is going to generate huge negative publicity abroad, with a lot of journos under chinese/unmentionable payroll, vomiting out their "news" and to tell how bad a country, india is. For the next few days definitely our media machine has to work overtime, so as to "kill" theirs. Also, this abm experiment, will definitely have an effect on the nuclear bill to be passed by the joint senate, in the next few days.
i would definitely like to see a situation where india cares a hoot for the western media(putin :twisted: ), but in the present day situation, unfortunately we are not.
i hope the babus have already made preparations for the media onslaught. unfortunately this is where the lot of scientists have no role :cry:
i don expect to see sanctions on india, but definitely among the nations, i expect the worst reaction from japan, though it outsourced its foriegn policy to us. in the future, if we want to check china, japan will definitely be a major player in it.

P.S: ooops the diasies, i forgot the pukis. better they remain forgotten

:lol:

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Postby Lalmohan » 30 Nov 2006 01:21

why sanctions? why recrimination?

the US has been trying to recruit India into an ABM deal for a few years. no one gets sanctions for doing this, the west has no reason to disapprove of this move

there are no treaty violations, this is not a weapon of offense, all it does is it partially negates pakistan's offensive capability. the chinese can still overwhelm us if they want to (nuclear), but read the tea-leaves, they have been signalling for some time that they are ready to accomodate us

we need to ensure that it is as equals, not 'the doorman one only has contempt for' to quote someone who frequents a thread on BRF

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 30 Nov 2006 01:25

ramana wrote:abhishekcc, I think we need another thread in the other forum to discuss the geopolitical issues rising from this test. Please open one in the other thread and put in it yours, VijayJ, Kgoan and Rajaram's posts.

Also need to factor in impact on the fourth 'horseman'.


The horseman is also called 'The Elephant in the Room'

R Sharma
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 05:30
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby R Sharma » 30 Nov 2006 01:37

joey wrote:
R Sharma wrote:The one thing though is that China can purchase ABM technology from Russia. Thinking about it, if there is this Sino-Russia alliance that is brewing, wouldn't it be in Russia's interest to give China the S-300 technology? This in turn can then be given to Pakistan at their request in a "joint development".


IMO no use against large country as India as Missiles will be many many thousand miles away from border region.

They needs Space based lasers to deal with such massive countries.
howeverwe can deal with them making a base in afganistan and our border....


I'm just going off of Abhishek's logic, which is credible, that we will force Pakistan to get into a big time arms race with us. China will get the technology from Russia, and if there is the Russo-Sino collaboration, I don't think the Ruskies would mind giving them the S-300 technology either. Then China in a so called "joint venture" with Pakistan, will give them the technology. We will again have to increase the number nukes fielded by us as well.

And you can shoot down missiles during reentry. You do not need space lasers etc to shoot down missiles in the enemies territory. So basically what that means is if the Pakis have S-300 equivalent, they will also have ABM capability which means that we will have to increase our nukes as well which means more of a chance for us to also get into the costly arms race.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 30 Nov 2006 01:44

R Sharma, The Russians dont have this type of technology. What they have is good for short range point defence.

Also stop thinking linearly. Think of the unmentioned one. Will PRC now still agree to FMCO whenit knows it needs more stuff for India? What impact will this have on their posture?

asharma
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 26
Joined: 29 Jan 2006 17:09

Postby asharma » 30 Nov 2006 01:49

Ah yes, the FMCT........ and now someone should hopefully look at Unkil's options also, not just limit it to Pubestan and even PRC

IUCNA, TMD.... interesting variables introduced now

R Sharma
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 05:30
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby R Sharma » 30 Nov 2006 01:56

Ramana,
What about the S-300?
FMCO/T?? What is that?

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 30 Nov 2006 01:59

Dont worry Russians will never give chinese "their best".
They have their own security issue as they had border dispute and chinas govt has this odd obsession of annexxation.

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Postby Sumeet » 30 Nov 2006 02:02

abhishek nice post there.

russians haven't shared ABM tech with china. Its different thing if china is able to reverse engineer russian "export model" S-300 series and then pass that to pakistan. For those of you who entertain such ideas please recall chinese have their missiles pointed at russian cities as well. Russia needs to keep their cutting edge ABM tech in safe lock with them only. I think india is the only nation that can get significant ToT on ABM systems from russia if the need arise. Also, IMO pakistan might not get cutting edge chinese defense system, because it will be very easy for US to get spy in detail on chinese ABM in pakistan.

It is for sure that with passage of time pukes and china will have an ABM system and as R Sharma suggested that this will come around to hit us as well and rope us into an arms race.

however, look at the present condition of pukistan, an economy which is surviving because of US and western baksheesh & other favors ....... and under current precarious economic circumstances pukes will have to as Arun_S & Abhishek say increase their nuclear arsenal and at the same time think of acquring some sort of system through their standard beg, steal and beg more method. Imagine what how costly will this be for them given their current status.

Atleast we have the luxury of time on our side. IOW if pukes/china develop credible system in another 10 years then economically we will be in a better position to sustain our credible nuclear detterrent against them. But what will pakistan do now ? This time they will have to sell all the grass that grows in pakistan too. :D

R Sharma
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 05:30
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby R Sharma » 30 Nov 2006 02:04

joey wrote:Dont worry Russians will never give chinese "their best".
They have their own security issue as they had border dispute and chinas govt has this odd obsession of annexxation.


I think we should worry about Russians giving the Chinese "their best". Talking about border issues, the US also has border issues with Canada, but they are the best of friends.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 30 Nov 2006 02:06

R Sharma wrote: Talking about border issues, the US also has border issues with Canada, but they are the best of friends.


Race and ethnic kinship makes a world of difference.

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Postby Sumeet » 30 Nov 2006 02:09

R Sharma wrote:
I think we should worry about Russians giving the Chinese "their best". Talking about border issues, the US also has border issues with Canada, but they are the best of friends.


kindly read history of China-USSR relations.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16817
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 30 Nov 2006 02:09

Talking about border issues, the US also has border issues with Canada, but they are the best of friends


You hav'nt heard all there is to be heard.

US-UK is a better story than US-Canada.

iff topic tho'.

R Sharma
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 05:30
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby R Sharma » 30 Nov 2006 02:12

however, look at the present condition of pukistan, an economy which is surviving because of US and western baksheesh & other favors ....... and under current precarious economic circumstances pukes will have to as Arun_S & Abhishek say increase their nuclear arsenal and at the same time think of acquring some sort of system through their standard beg, steal and beg more method. Imagine what how costly will this be for them given their current status.


You are right about the Pakistani economy. US injection of funds into their economy on this so called "war against terrorism" has helped their economy a lot.

The point remains that they have the funds and will be more than willing to spend some amount of it on this new arms race that has started in the subcontinent. Ofcourse importing their missiles, they will have to spend more than us, but we will still have to take that into account once it comes to fruition.

R Sharma
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 05:30
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby R Sharma » 30 Nov 2006 02:20

Sumeet wrote:
R Sharma wrote:
I think we should worry about Russians giving the Chinese "their best". Talking about border issues, the US also has border issues with Canada, but they are the best of friends.


kindly read history of China-USSR relations.


Gentlemen, Off topic so I will stop here. My point was that in the face of adversity, if this Sino-Russian friendship becomes more than what it is currently, again this is all speculation, Russia and China can put aside their border differences to gang up on a US-India alliance. Basically boils down to this: China can recieve the technology for S-300 from Russia, again this is worst case scenario, then rename it the "P-3000 MDS" and codevelop it with Pakistan. I am ofcourse assuming that this takes place in the next couple of years while the Pakis still have US bankrolling their economy.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests