Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by manjgu »

venug !! what have u been smoking of late? :) block entrances thru Brahmos. This is not humour thread...
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_22872 »

:) saar, I am not a missile expert, but would like to know if there is any wherewithal with us to just do that. I mentioned Brahmos- III because if they can do a steep dive, they are good for mountainous regions, tunnels hidden in such regions can be reachable, but I am ignorant about if such thing is even conceivable or just as you mentioned or I am smoking dope :). Brahmos are also limited by range, so if not them any other arsenal we can think of just that?
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by manjgu »

venug...just kidding. Cant be done. These are flights of fancy...
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by manjgu »

a good road infrastructure along china border, good mountain artillery, well equipped troops, a powerful AF and a more aggressive political stance will do more to deter the chinkis then anything else. I was recently in AP and met GOC of a mountain Div and what i write above are some of his thoughts. Chinkis outmatch us in all these deptt but now they are not so sure about a certain and decisive outcome as in old times if ever the two nations clash conventionally. we have made quite a few improvements and as per the GOC, last 2 years have been critical in terms of us being more prepared. but soooooooooooooooooo much to be done as per him.... all this talk of taking out chinese N arsenal is pure BS.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by kit »

China has a whole underground network of tunnels linked by trains to deploy the missiles quickly to different places.The missiles are out in the 'open' only when fired from the 'nodes' in the system.The whole network has lots of redudancy built in and has been systematically improvised and upgraded over the years to provide a highly effective and concealed nuclear force.The whole system is almost immune to a nuclear counterstrike.Beauty of the system is that there is a lot of redudancy even when specific 'nodes' are take out.And the whole complex is expansive and vast.Takes years and lots of commitment to do something like this, but national will prevails.In a small measure almost every major country worth its salt has in some measure its own 'tunnels' hidden from prying satellite eyes but the chinese system is truly immense by any standard.

By the way PK seems to have its own tunnels in some of its mountains.They call their weapons 'safe' once deployed in those regions.
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by manjgu »

we will have to build a credible N deterrence against China and also develop a credible SUb based N strike capability. This talk of taking out chinese N arsenal is total BS. And what is range of brahmos? how deep can it go into China... ? total BS... dont even think abt it..
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Kanson »

>>all this talk of taking out chinese N arsenal is pure BS.

:D If someone uttered about India acquiring technologies for Anti Ballistic Missile before the first PAD test, I'm sure, he/she must have heard the same message that it is BS.

I say, If you or anyone have so much conviction in your statement, I request you to inscribe those statements in a place that you often visit. It will come very handy. Lets see. :mrgreen:
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Kanson »

Singha wrote:not sure how unkil plans to deliver prompt global strike, but in the days when people were floating ideas of conventionally armed Tridents being used, Putin put an end to that line of thought saying the moment his satellites or radars see inbound ICBMs he has no way to verify their payload and will immediately press the red button for a nuclear counterstrike.
U.S. Alters Non-Nuclear Prompt-Strike Plan

[ quote ]
Instead, the report says, the Pentagon will continue to explore “boost-glide” concepts that have a nonballistic flight trajectory, which is deemed less likely to be mistaken for a nuclear attack and would not be counted by the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which limits only missiles with a ballistic trajectory.
[ /quote ]

[ quote ]
One possible mission for conventional prompt-strike weapons, congressional staffers say, is to be able to knock out Chinese anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities early in a crisis.
[ /quote ]

By extension any missiles and launchers.
Last edited by Kanson on 26 Apr 2012 20:26, edited 1 time in total.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by ShauryaT »

kit wrote:China has a whole underground network of tunnels linked by trains to deploy the missiles quickly to different places.The missiles are out in the 'open' only when fired from the 'nodes' in the system.The whole network has lots of redudancy built in and has been systematically improvised and upgraded over the years to provide a highly effective and concealed nuclear force.The whole system is almost immune to a nuclear counterstrike.Beauty of the system is that there is a lot of redudancy even when specific 'nodes' are take out.And the whole complex is expansive and vast.Takes years and lots of commitment to do something like this, but national will prevails.In a small measure almost every major country worth its salt has in some measure its own 'tunnels' hidden from prying satellite eyes but the chinese system is truly immense by any standard.

By the way PK seems to have its own tunnels in some of its mountains.They call their weapons 'safe' once deployed in those regions.
The point is? I am missing it.

Also, not in relation to the above post, but can anyone here confirm/deny the payload of Shourya not K15 is going to be nuclear only?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by SaiK »

another aspect for NFU deterrence is one shot A5 delivering multiple ASAT weapons.. I am thinking we should be able to pack about half a dozen anti-sat missiles in an a5 shroud.. may be I am wrong since homing logic for anti-sats needs first orbit inputs, calculations, as when it crosses a point in orbit, and then engage the chase and hit to kill. Assuming on a luanch mission, that joins the orbit at x speed, and waits for the sat to merge, and then boost up an orbital thrust to kill the sat.

Now, one point shoot all the way from Earth is another aspect, but orbit loitering can deter chippanda and "www.mutu" club to tisssy!.. .
Varoon Shekhar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2178
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Varoon Shekhar »

"all this talk of taking out chinese N arsenal is pure BS."

A simple layman's thoughts: The idea is to make the Chinese pay a heavy, massive, price for any use of nuclear weapons against India. The belief is that they are rational enough not to want to risk the chance of a counter strike against their *cities*, not just their military/strategic bases. There's also the belief that the Chinese wouldn't desire the enormous international opprobrium and retaliation( of whatever sort) that any use of WMD against democratic, pluralistic India would bring forth. And then there's the environmental fall-out that people have alluded to. How would that be dealt with?

The Chinese have an extremely strong, vital, interest in preventing the not-so-rational TSP from using nukes against India. India would likely associate a Pak strike against India with a China strike, and hence retaliate against both.

There's no notion( far as one can see) of 'winning' a nuclear exchange with China. The idea is to inflict unacceptable losses to the nuclear attacking country. You are right that more needs to be done to achieve this capability, particularly with submarines.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Kanson »

Also, not in relation to the above post, but can anyone here confirm/deny the payload of Shourya not K15 is going to be nuclear only?
Initial report as came in public domain indicated Shourya is meant for Second Strike. Later, I vaguely remember Conventional role was also talked about in media. I'm too tired to search and give the link. Thks.
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_22872 »

But again, the question lingers on, how are you going to take out ASAT weapons if they are buried deep inside tunnels? do we have bunker busters?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by SaiK »

perhaps drop few brahmos with a shield canister, and once inside atmosphere, the shield separates, and brahmos will do the bunker busting.. see imaginations can go any way.. possible, yes. all it takes is the mission to charter on these, and public thinks it is a worthwhile investment, that gives a lot of civilian off-shoot technologies. part of the game changer theory.
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_22872 »

I think it is worthwhile to think and develop some bunker busters, TSP has tunnels and PRC has tunnels, too uncomfortable, TSP think nukes are safe because it can safeguard them inside the tunnels. Develop bunker busters, have an open show by busting some mock concrete bunkers, that will rob sleep of at least TSP. And with dedicated tunnel studies we can have a plan in place to counter PRC tunnels, something is better than nothing. If you cannot take all of them, render few useless.
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_20317 »

Is it only me or is there anybody else who thinks that a 100 kg 20 kt dirty plutonium FBF embeded in a 200 kgs of further exotic casing material, mounted on top of an air launched Brahmos will be able to punch through about 30 meters of earth and a further 2-3 meters of concrete to eventually blast a cavern about 30 meter radius.

And yes i do believe i am being too conservative with this. And also that this is just to much of a bother. Christmas in Shanghai is much better.
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_20317 »

Also all this talk about hidden nukes in tunnel networks makes me wonder why?

Besides what if they are not hiding nukes there. what if these are conventional weaponery stockpiling, to facilitate their idea of a cold start?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by SaiK »

we can make it quasi conventional with DU loaded on brahmos. Either air launched or A5 injected.
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_20317 »

Depleted Uranium as casing kya? Doable certainly but DU would add too much to weight of Brahmos warhead. Besides Tessy would be wasted in hitting the caves in South Tibet and East Tibet :), probably just 300 km from Indian Borders.

Casing made of the material that they use on F1 Cars for the front end. A much thicker one is what I was thinking.
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_22872 »

Even if Brahmos-III or modified version of current weapons do exist, we need to show we do have them through a test, how else will they know we are prepared. And that they can run and
hide, but not for long. RISAT and one bunker buster test too and the signals will be clear.

Added later:
In fact Brahmos aren't enough, we can't take out those deep inside the PRC mainland. We need dedicated weaponry which does one and only one thing, take the tunnels out.
Last edited by member_22872 on 26 Apr 2012 21:41, edited 1 time in total.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15043
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Suraj »

Kanson: a counterforce doctrine against China is and will remain a nonstarter. They do not talk about the size or dispersal of their arsenal. Even the US has no clue about it. They are not party to any arms limitation treaty with any deterrent adversary. Their land based doctrine under the 2AC uses a widely dispersed (by some accounts 5000km long) tunnel system that enables them to protect their arsenal from a first strike. It was originally intended to protect them from Soviet megaton payloads. The accuracy or numbers of our arsenal do nothing against this - we don't know what to hit, where and how many.

Further, the entire debate amounts to arguing the modalities of a particular doctrine without bothering to ask what purpose it serves. Everything follows from the basic goal - effective deterrence against PRC. What do they fear losing most, and what do we have the most ability to credibly target ?

There's either option CF - spend ruinous amounts of money on a vast, accurate arsenal that can take out a large number of military targets that we don't know where they are or how many there are. Alternately we can implement option CV, where we build a smaller number of accurate, maneuverable single and MIRV payload based ICBMs and IRBMs that we can credibly use to state 'no matter what you do to us, you will lose all your top N big cities.' From everything we've seen of Agni-IV and Agni-V technology and capability, we've been implicitly pursuing the latter approach.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by SaiK »

See, if you are talking about targets that houses underground launchers, then send one 200kt wala direct. why bother about brahmos.

now, under NFU, it is important that we have all coordinates ready to strike, and with what type of weapon. It just can't be one type of missile alone. For various target types, we might want to use different types of maals.

Assuming, we have already lost few cities, and realing under pathetic babooze going haywire.. the only thing left is few good brains in the submarine with say dozen A5 (K class), and be ready just push the mission button. We need to have mission profile for pakis separate and chippanda separate.. all preconfigured, but programmable., as strategies keep changing.

coordinates are frequently gathered and updated.. our RISATS and other spies can help. blowing away strategic targets should satisfy the NFU agenda, that the agressor becomes near extinction, to make the deterrence value high.

All these dicussions adds value to deterrence actually. jmt
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_22872 »

CV might work only in case of PRC, what are you going to hit at in case of TSP? we have more to loose than them. In TSP case it has to be CF. Then again, how if they lock their arsenal securely, then they can always hit us at will till they exhaust their stock pile.
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by manjgu »

Quite agree with u Suraj. CV is the sensible choice/option from all angles. A Agni V based+Sub based capability is enough deterrence and that is indeed the way India is moving. Additionally a strong conventional capability along china border will ensure peace and security.

CF doctrine is wet dreams of jingos and armchair analysts on BRF. No offence meant !!
Jayram
BRFite
Posts: 361
Joined: 14 Jan 2003 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Jayram »

Varoon Shekhar wrote:

The Chinese have an extremely strong, vital, interest in preventing the not-so-rational TSP from using nukes against India. India would likely associate a Pak strike against India with a China strike, and hence retaliate against both.
This I dont buy. Has India ever declared explicitly they would do this? Is it a well understood red line for China that we will do that. I am not sure.. Also do we have the required numbers of patakas to do that ? We will be basically saying goodbye world if we do that since the chances of survival are very low to none for us if we get into a shooting match with China whereas we can and will survive a Pak strike and send them to oblivion for sure..
pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by pankajs »

Kanson wrote:
Singha wrote:not sure how unkil plans to deliver prompt global strike, but in the days when people were floating ideas of conventionally armed Tridents being used, Putin put an end to that line of thought saying the moment his satellites or radars see inbound ICBMs he has no way to verify their payload and will immediately press the red button for a nuclear counterstrike.
U.S. Alters Non-Nuclear Prompt-Strike Plan

[ quote ]
Instead, the report says, the Pentagon will continue to explore “boost-glide” concepts that have a nonballistic flight trajectory, which is deemed less likely to be mistaken for a nuclear attack and would not be counted by the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which limits only missiles with a ballistic trajectory.
[ /quote ]

[ quote ]
One possible mission for conventional prompt-strike weapons, congressional staffers say, is to be able to knock out Chinese anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities early in a crisis.
[ /quote ]

By extension any missiles and launchers.
If the enemy suspects that "boost-glide" thing is intended for taking out nuclear missile silos/TEL, will they not launch rather than loose them? Does it matter if the incoming payload is nuclear or conventional? Does it matter if the incoming missiles are not ballistic and therefore not counted under new START?
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by manjgu »

a tunnel is not a small room with a little door which will be effectively targetted and anything inside destroyed totally is BS. tunnel systems are a very long and complex maze of tunnels with blast gates /fire containment/rail tracks inside. a missile can be anywhere inside this complex web of tunnels. its not a kiddys job to destroy even a tunnel system even with the most super duper missile in the world. imagine the degree of difficulty of targetting ALL such tunnel systems accurately and completely.

one has to also understand that chinese have a fairly good sub based capability for 2nd strike which renders this whole CF questionable unless ofc BRF members have found another super duper missile to target chinese n sub capability on high seas !!

last but not the least is the cost aspect which really really renders this CF doctrine irrelevant....
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by SaiK »

CV's value entirely depends on accuracy of the system and inputs., indirectly heavy investments, but massive quality for NFU... the shear quality attributes alone should challenge the agressor using CF. Then we are in.
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_22872 »

Yes It is understandable that a tunnel is not store room, so you open the door and launch a missile and sit quiet. Does it mean you just GUBO because you can't counter it and then get hit by hundreds of theirs and you have no targets because they are hidden deep inside? this is defeatist at the best. If the situation is so helpless, Ameerkhan wouldn't have developed bunker busters.Secondly it is not about destroying every tunnel, just make them in operational. CV works when your enemy like PRC has a huge infrastructure and high values targets to protect. In TSP's case their economy is pathetic, what are you going to hit that they would fear you? in fact they can hide inside the tunnels and can cause extensive damage and you will have no answer.
pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by pankajs »

ravi_g wrote:Is it only me or is there anybody else who thinks that a 100 kg 20 kt dirty plutonium FBF embeded in a 200 kgs of further exotic casing material, mounted on top of an air launched Brahmos will be able to punch through about 30 meters of earth and a further 2-3 meters of concrete to eventually blast a cavern about 30 meter radius.

And yes i do believe i am being too conservative with this. And also that this is just to much of a bother. Christmas in Shanghai is much better.
Let us assume that we have such a warhead and that it effective in smashing into the Chinese tunnels, etc. Have we identified all the tunnels, all their entrances? Have we identified all the launch site outside the tunnels? You are hoping for a fighters/bombers with a couple of brahmos, at each and every launch site at about the same time. Do we have sufficient number of fighters/bombers with sufficient range? Will all of them make it through the heavy air defense?

Otherwise we are just setting our country for a smash. Even if one tunnel entrance is left intact, assuming most of them are connected and movement inside the tunnels are unhindered, we have setup our own cities and our people for a deadly diwali.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by SaiK »

please don't get focused only on few aspects of the counter measures. even with full blown MAD attack, you have no guarantee that you have the correct coordinates, even with massive strikes. and NFU does not stand only for bursting bunkers alone.

if launched, then the capability to intercept mid-course has maximum value for NFU effictiveness.
pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by pankajs »

Saar if you have reached the point that you are going to launch all you've got or loose it you will feed in the co-ordinates of the big cities and not missile silos. Beijing will not move to the western border to evade a A5.

We were talking of attacking their tunnels and preempting them. So my question on preemptive action using a bramhos or anything else is still valid.
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_22872 »

Saar you correct that we cant base everything on bunker busters, but that's where their effective defense against our missile lies. If we can't hide and they can, we will be subjected to heavy loss, even with ABM, it will be tough if your opponent has number superiority if not in quality. Having some counter measure to dig out would not harm us in our response.
pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by pankajs »

Suraj wrote:Kanson: a counterforce doctrine against China is and will remain a nonstarter. They do not talk about the size or dispersal of their arsenal. Even the US has no clue about it. They are not party to any arms limitation treaty with any deterrent adversary. Their land based doctrine under the 2AC uses a widely dispersed (by some accounts 5000km long) tunnel system that enables them to protect their arsenal from a first strike. It was originally intended to protect them from Soviet megaton payloads. The accuracy or numbers of our arsenal do nothing against this - we don't know what to hit, where and how many.

Further, the entire debate amounts to arguing the modalities of a particular doctrine without bothering to ask what purpose it serves. Everything follows from the basic goal - effective deterrence against PRC. What do they fear losing most, and what do we have the most ability to credibly target ?

There's either option CF - spend ruinous amounts of money on a vast, accurate arsenal that can take out a large number of military targets that we don't know where they are or how many there are. Alternately we can implement option CV, where we build a smaller number of accurate, maneuverable single and MIRV payload based ICBMs and IRBMs that we can credibly use to state 'no matter what you do to us, you will lose all your top N big cities.' From everything we've seen of Agni-IV and Agni-V technology and capability, we've been implicitly pursuing the latter approach.
Agree Saar.

Lets look at this whole discussion from another angle. Given how dharmic we are or rather how we portray to the outside world, will any Indian government, and I mean run by any party that exists as of now, choose to preempt a nuclear attack? After all don't we all, and that includes GoI, proudly state that India has never attached or Invaded any country in about 5000 or is it 10,000 years of its history. Don't we all take pride in the fact that we are the land of Gandhi and Buddha, the land of restraint and renunciation, the land that taught the world ahimsa?

We have always been a defensive power and will react only when attacked, or even then, quoting our civilizational value may exercise restrain to earn some plaudits from the gora sabihs.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by SaiK »

If you bring Gandhi and Buddha, we billion have to be a Tibet onreee. might take the sheen off NFU, and will throw MAD for just thinking about it.

For effective NFU, we have to ensure, we are reactive as a system and not individuals especially baboozes. It is better not have any use, forget first or last use.
pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by pankajs »

SaiK wrote:If you bring Gandhi and Buddha, we billion have to be a Tibet onreee. might take the sheen off NFU, and will throw MAD for just thinking about it.

For effective NFU, we have to ensure, we are reactive as a system and not individuals especially baboozes. It is better not have any use, forget first or last use.
Saar I was being sarcastic but the point I was making is valid. No Indian government will go beyond NFU. The only consolation that we have is we haven't defined the 'Minimum' in the MCD. It might be 200 or 2000 or 20,000. That number is our hope i.e the Jingos hope. It is the reason why the NPT Ayatollas want to define that Lakshman Rekha and the GoI doesn't.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15043
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Suraj »

venug wrote:CV might work only in case of PRC, what are you going to hit at in case of TSP? we have more to loose than them. In TSP case it has to be CF. Then again, how if they lock their arsenal securely, then they can always hit us at will till they exhaust their stock pile.
Deterrence doctrines are country-specific. Against TSP, they are the smaller, asymmetric actor. Against PRC, we are in that role. Against US, PRC are in that role. Our task is to ensure that PRC has to spend massive amounts of cash to defend against our ability to destroy their accumulated wealth and productivity centers.

Just as PRC responds to the presence of carrier task forces by designing the DF-21D ASBM, our goal is to implement vastly cheaper, asymmetric capabilities that circumvent their stadoff superiority by focussing on their most vulnerable high value targets, and forcing them to spend exponentially greater money to defend it, and then responding with yet another asymmetric weapon that costs us a fraction of what it costs them to defend themselves against it.

Therefore, against PRC, our role must be that of the more volatile and packee entity, just as the US were in the face of the superior Soviet arsenal. Force them to react by spending more time tunnelling, digging, protecting their cities, and improve the technology of our missiles to target each new defense that costs them far more than it costs us to improve our missiles.

This is what TSP does against us, except that we've already a 10:1 economic superiority and can afford the cost of defending our cities against their packee posture; China doesn't have a 10:1 superiority against us; their existing ~2.5:1 gap is about the largest they'll ever have. The soviets were in an even worse position - even with Moscow Math they barely had 1:1 economic parity. Therefore against PRC we should not be the one with the defensive CF posture; it does not make logical sense because we would be playing the game to their strengths - we should force them to maintain a CF posture to defend their superior economic base, and in the process erode that base by maximizing the cost of defending it.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by svinayak »

Suraj wrote:
This is what TSP does against us, except that we've already a 10:1 economic superiority and can afford the cost of defending our cities against their packee posture; China doesn't have a 10:1 superiority against us; their existing ~2.5:1 gap is about the largest they'll ever have. The soviets were in an even worse position - even with Moscow Math they barely had 1:1 economic parity. Therefore against PRC we should not be the one with the defensive CF posture; it does not make logical sense because we are playing the game to their strengths - we should force them to maintain a CF posture to defend their superior economic base, and in the process erode that base.
TSP does not have depth and that is the reason their escalation does not change the balance much.
But China landmass has depth and hence India needs more strategic assets on land and in sea to 'surround' china from all sides. Every region of China must be covered under Indian threat.
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_22872 »

Suraj Sir, I agree, but eventually sooner than later PRC will get ABM, PRC's ABM is same as TSP's ABM. What if that is their answer to our CV posture? They can secure their high value targets, have defenses against our missiles yet can hit us through secure locations our missiles cant reach not because of range, but because they are just unreachable? and how effective is our missile evasive mechanism? is it good enough that it can out maneuver their ABM? and add to the complexity, what if they take out our communication and future GPS satellites through well hidden ASAT missiles? that would blunt out CV posture, we can't even launch our missiles and guide them to the right targets. Hence I think CV and CF are must, first try to take out their missiles, bury them where they are, deal with the rest through CV targeting.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15043
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Suraj »

They can secure their high value targets ? There is no such guarantee. ABM bubbles can be defeated. That's one of the reasons why the A-V 3rd stage is designed the way it is. Our task is to ensure we keep extending the bleeding edge of ABM evasion technology. Their job is to spend orders of magnitude more cash to defend themselves against each incremental and generational update to our technologies.

The 'packee position' is not that we can stop them *and* hit them. It is 'we accept we'll get mauled, but we'll hurt you so badly in the process you'll not want to do it.' Don't apply TSP specific doctrines to addressing the posture against PRC; the two are unrelated. The best way to view it is to see our posture against PRC the way TSP views theirs against us. Our strategic programs reflect this developing posture - we're designing capable (but not guaranteed to be perfect) ABM shields and simultaneously devising maneuverable delivery platforms.
Post Reply