ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

D_Prem · Post by **D_Prem** » 16 Mar 2010 06:26

Out of curiosity, how does interception/destruction of the carrier missile ensure that the warhead is also destroyed. What if the warhead is detonated upon a particular altitude....the missile might be destroyed but if the warhead is still intact it may still explode?

Secondly, can we not intercept Pakistani missiles while they are still in boost phase? The country isnt wide enough for this idea to be an improbable scenario.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Mar 2010 09:51

sunilUpa wrote:Apparently the next test is in June (Hindu)

I suspect the target missile too must have been full of telemetry stuff. So it is "one missile wasted" in a sense.

Bu I must admit I worry about too many "successes" in a row - especially of missiles that are being tested. Surely - something must fail to work exactly as planned no?

Fidel Guevara · Post by **Fidel Guevara** » 16 Mar 2010 10:26

D_Prem wrote:Out of curiosity, how does interception/destruction of the carrier missile ensure that the warhead is also destroyed. What if the warhead is detonated upon a particular altitude....the missile might be destroyed but if the warhead is still intact it may still explode?

Secondly, can we not intercept Pakistani missiles while they are still in boost phase? The country isnt wide enough for this idea to be an improbable scenario.

If the carrier missile still has some fuel onboard when intercepted the resulting explosion will very possibly disable the warhead, unless it is hardened/armored. Even if the warhead continues to be operational, the new ballistic trajectory will likely take it far away from the intended target (depending on which point in the ballistic trajectory the intercept occurred). Worst case, the missile targeted at Mumbai may end up taking out Panvel, or Charkhi Dadri instead of Delhi.

As for intercepting Paki missiles in boost phase, you would need some high-acceleration AND long-range missiles to do this. The boost phase of a BM is just a couple of minutes, and within this time Indian radars would need to detect the launch, identify it as the real thing (how?), and get an interceptor over hundreds of km before the Paki missile has finished the boost phase. Theoretically doable, but not feasible - lasers and other directed energy are probably the best bet for launch-phase intercepts.

Fidel Guevara · Post by **Fidel Guevara** » 16 Mar 2010 10:51

And in other news, BMW's new air-bag technology could not be tested, since the highly-modified vehicle on which the air-bag was mounted, did not crash per the crash-test criterion.

Big deal. Move on to the next test.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 16 Mar 2010 10:52

Intercepting missiles is a tricky business. The following link contains a study of the success rate of the patriot missile in GW-I
http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/patriot.html
Hint: Performance wasn't as claimed.

D_Prem · Post by **D_Prem** » 16 Mar 2010 10:57

Worst case, the missile targeted at Mumbai may end up taking out Panvel, or Charkhi Dadri instead of Delhi.

Dont say that I am from Charkhi Dadri

!! ...but in any case the fallout would still affect much of the NCR.

Theoretically doable, but not feasible - lasers and other directed energy are probably the best bet for launch-phase intercepts.

Yah I dont think thats a feasible solution for the next 5-10 year at least.

Could we not just take out the puki nukes/missiles in one go? Basically shock-and-awe II...using Brahmos/SRBMs to obliterate all their launch sites and installations. I know there were unconfirmed reports that Isreal and India had drawn up plans to take out the nuclear plant at Kahuta, but were later abandoned.

Fidel Guevara · Post by **Fidel Guevara** » 16 Mar 2010 11:06

THAAD test cancelled due to target unavailability

Even the sooper-dooper THAAD faced a very similar test "failure", just 3 months ago.

A planned Dec. 11 intercept test of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system was halted when the target missile’s motor failed to ignite, according to a Dec. 11 agency press release.

The THAAD interceptor was to be fired from the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Missile Range Facility at Kauai, Hawaii. The target, built by Coleman Aerospace of Orlando, Fla., a subsidiary of L3 Communications, was deployed from a C-17 transport aircraft over the Pacific Ocean and failed to ignite, the release said. The THAAD fire control system, however, continued with a series of successful simulations and all components were certified to be in working order, the release said.

Same as this, the only difference being the press release continues to mention "a series of successful simulations and all components were certified to be in working order".

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Mar 2010 17:10

What is the best form of defence?...Offence! With no criticism of the gallant efforts at our ABM development,we cannot ignore the greater need for an ICBM,both ground and sub lanched.This capability will make the enemies of India sh* briks far more than the fear of one of their missiles being shot down.What the nation needs is an arsenal of at least 400-500 nuclear tipped missiles,many with multiple warheads in addition,with at least 25% of this capability sub-launched.(6subs each with 16 missiles).This will give us at least two subs always at sea.Another 100+ should be air-launched from a strategic bombing fleet of 40+ aircraft.The rest land based qually in silos and road and rail mobile.While ou indigenous efforts must be pursued without any relaxation,acquiring proven ABM systems that can also be integrated into our holistic ABM network,like Russia's S-400/500,should be prusued to give us a credible ABM system in part right now.Meanwhile we keep testing and testing.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 16 Mar 2010 17:24

^^ While I agree with rest of your post but I must object to this ...

Philip wrote:While ou indigenous efforts must be pursued without any relaxation,acquiring proven ABM systems that can also be integrated into our holistic ABM network,like Russia's S-400/500,should be prusued to give us a credible ABM system in part right now.Meanwhile we keep testing and testing.

I am surprised at the attitude of BR oldies; just one partial failure has shaken their faith. And they are ready to integrate, use, accept enhance and adopt external stuff. Be it Arjun, LCA, ABM it is all same. Really guys, no limit of being critical to local R&D. I agree with this quote: If you want to see that GOD exists, then come to India and you will see as well as believe it.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Mar 2010 17:34

Philip you mean proven Russian S-400 system

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 16 Mar 2010 17:56

Austin wrote:Philip you mean proven Russian S-400 system

I dont know how it is proven .... could you please enlighten us

- when it will be inducted during 3rd quarter of 2010.
- after many teething problem found in "First delivery” --> 2007, on February 17, 2010 took place “second delivery”.

please check this link for more details http://www.missiles.ru/foto_606zrp-2010.htm and pics of S-400

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 16 Mar 2010 18:25

Fidel Guevara wrote:THAAD test cancelled due to target unavailability

Even the sooper-dooper THAAD faced a very similar test "failure", just 3 months ago.

A planned Dec. 11 intercept test of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system was halted when the target missile’s motor failed to ignite, according to a Dec. 11 agency press release.

The THAAD interceptor was to be fired from the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Missile Range Facility at Kauai, Hawaii. The target, built by Coleman Aerospace of Orlando, Fla., a subsidiary of L3 Communications, was deployed from a C-17 transport aircraft over the Pacific Ocean and failed to ignite, the release said. The THAAD fire control system, however, continued with a series of successful simulations and all components were certified to be in working order, the release said.

Same as this, the only difference being the press release continues to mention "a series of successful simulations and all components were certified to be in working order".

Same except that the US test was by a gora country so it cannot "fail". Only tests by India and other Asian countries can actually fail. You must be aware of an very old story, a Rolls Royce car does not have problems, it just did not proceed ahead !!

ankit-s · Post by **ankit-s** » 16 Mar 2010 19:34

The phase-I PAD, which can destroy an incoming ballistic missile at a height of 80 kilometers, is expected to be inducted into operational service in 15 months.

In the second stage, which has been initiated, incoming missiles with a range of more than 2,000 kilometers will be intercepted at a height of more than 120 kilometers.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =ASI&s=TOP

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Mar 2010 12:59

ankit-s wrote:
In the second stage, which has been initiated, incoming missiles with a range of more than 2,000 kilometers will be intercepted at a height of more than 120 kilometers.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =ASI&s=TOP

From the interview of VK Saraswat
link and Defence News information it seems.

It seems to me the current liquid fuel first stage PAD will do the 80Km interception and the all solid fuel first stage PDV will do above 120km interception.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Mar 2010 14:13

RKumar wrote:
Austin wrote:Philip you mean proven Russian S-400 system
I dont know how it is proven .... could you please enlighten us

- when it will be inducted during 3rd quarter of 2010.
- after many teething problem found in "First delivery” --> 2007, on February 17, 2010 took place “second delivery”.

please check this link for more details http://www.missiles.ru/foto_606zrp-2010.htm and pics of S-400

I know dear , I am just teasing Philip since he was pointing towards S-400 system , Galti ho gai bhai

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 17 Mar 2010 14:20

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 17 Mar 2010 14:25

It seems to me the current liquid fuel first stage PAD will do the 80Km interception and the all solid fuel first stage PDV will do above 120km interception.

I feel PAD is interim vehicle till PDV is developed. Once PDV is perfected we may phase out PAD.. PDV is fully solid fueled as against liquid fueled first stage PAD which to some extent may effect its readiness

Also, we may always want to intercept at the highest possible altitude... That gives maximum safety even if the warhead blasts during interception. It also gives you comparatively higher window for second interception launch.. Just my understanding

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Mar 2010 14:26

Not to belittle Russi's achievement but I dare say we are ahead of Russi in ABM development and we have mastered the use of AESA for our ABM program , infact Russia has not moved beyond advanced PESA on their latest S-400 system

So i think we can help Russi in the AESA/BMS domain if they ask for well at a price ofcourse

BTW has any one seen any video released by Russi of their S-400 system intercepting any BM , we have seen such information from India , US and Israel but nothing from Russi yet. some of the claims of Russia are brochure claims

biswas · Post by **biswas** » 17 Mar 2010 15:16

Austin wrote:Not to belittle Russi's achievement but I dare say we are ahead of Russi in ABM development and we have mastered the use of AESA for our ABM program , infact Russia has not moved beyond advanced PESA on their latest S-400 system

So i think we can help Russi in the AESA/BMS domain if they ask for well at a price ofcourse

BTW has any one seen any video released by Russi of their S-400 system intercepting any BM , we have seen such information from India , US and Israel but nothing from Russi yet. some of the claims of Russia are brochure claims

Even if that was the case, which seems unlikely, they would be unlikely to ask for 'help', serious loss of H+D there.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 17 Mar 2010 18:37

nrshah wrote:
It seems to me the current liquid fuel first stage PAD will do the 80Km interception and the all solid fuel first stage PDV will do above 120km interception.
I feel PAD is interim vehicle till PDV is developed. Once PDV is perfected we may phase out PAD.. PDV is fully solid fueled as against liquid fueled first stage PAD which to some extent may effect its readiness

Also, we may always want to intercept at the highest possible altitude... That gives maximum safety even if the warhead blasts during interception. It also gives you comparatively higher window for second interception launch.. Just my understanding

Interim or not is not decided based upon whether it is solid or liquid fueled. As per Saraswat, liquid fueled missile is storable for 7 yrs or more and can be refueled many times. The idea that we are moving towards PDV from PAD is more to do with miniaturization of payload and systems involved. Using gimballed directional warhead, the warhead mass is reduced from 150 kg to 30 kg. Sameway, miniaturization of systems and sensors will help to reduce the payload and inturn reduce the missile mass and increases the reach. Thats why we are talking abt more than 100km for the PDV missile. Better way to call the PDV is nothing but an upgrade of PAD.

Payload of SM3, the KKV weighs just ~10 kg, if i'm not wrong. It reaches more than 200 km. What is the missile size and mass? Its dia is just 0.5 m and that of THAAD ~0.35m. Earlier KKV weighed ~200 kg. And the one in GBI weighs ~60kg. So what will be the profile of PDV missile, will it look like SM3 ? With the payload more than 30kg, I guess, it will look more like Shaurya missile

of dia ~0.75m and reaches much higher than PAD. Next upgraded version of PDV, which is scheduled for Phase II programme will be closer to 0.5m dia as we will be well ahead in miniaturization programme as well as we would have learnt few lessons from the JV of Barak - NG/LR/MR missiles with Israel in the miniaturization of sensors and systems.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 28 Mar 2010 02:51

Stopping ballistic missile

The deployment of India's planned ballistic missile shield is to start in two years' time. The Defence Research and Development Organisation, which is developing and testing the complex system, intends to roll it out in two phases and have all of it up and running by 2016. The first phase will deal with missiles having a range of less than 2,000 km, and the second will tackle missiles with a longer range. The latter will be travelling much faster than the former and are therefore less easily targeted. There will be interceptors to destroy the incoming missiles at heights of over 50 km as well as much closer to the ground. Such a tiered defence is intended to boost the chances of knocking out an incoming missile before it hits the target. The problems encountered with a Prithvi missile simulating an enemy attack in a recent test is not likely to be a serious setback to these plans. India is not the only country that seeks to protect its citizens from enemy missiles carrying nuclear and other lethal warheads. The United States has been developing anti-ballistic missile systems for over 60 years. Its highly ambitious missile shield aims to destroy ballistic missiles during all stages of their flight. In February 2010, the U.S. successfully tested an airborne laser carried aloft on a modified Boeing 747, which was used to destroy a missile less than two minutes after it was fired. Israel, Japan, and the Taiwan regime too intend to establish missile defence capabilities. China, which demonstrated its anti-satellite capability in 2007, successfully conducted a mid-course missile interception test in January this year. Russia has a system of its own that was developed during the Cold War.

A big unanswered question is how effective any of these missile shields, including the Indian one, will be in an actual conflict situation, especially if it is between nuclear-armed nations. The technical evaluation of the U.S. system carried out by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2000 is instructive. It found that there were a range of countermeasures an attacker could take to “confuse, overwhelm or otherwise defeat the defence.” Any country capable of deploying a long-range missile would be able to use them. Decoys could overload a defensive system and allow attacking missiles to slip past. Besides, even the U.S. system is intended to be effective against only a “limited ballistic missile attack.” The Indian defensive shield too will have similar limitations: if a single nuclear-tipped missile gets through, the consequences will be calamitous. This country would do better to rely on diplomacy, rather than a chancy missile shield, to increase its security.

sum · Post by **sum** » 28 Mar 2010 13:42

^^ N.Ram must have received urgent cable from Chinese embassy in Delhi for such a wierd op-ed to show up with no reason for the same.

sunilpatel · Post by **sunilpatel** » 28 Mar 2010 15:04

Craig Alpert wrote:Stopping ballistic missile
The deployment of India's planned ballistic missile shield is to start in two years' time. The Defence Research and Development Organisation, which is developing and testing the complex system, intends to roll it out in two phases and have all of it up and running by 2016. The first phase will deal with missiles having a range of less than 2,000 km, and the second will tackle missiles with a longer range. The latter will be travelling much faster than the former and are therefore less easily targeted. There will be interceptors to destroy the incoming missiles at heights of over 50 km as well as much closer to the ground. Such a tiered defence is intended to boost the chances of knocking out an incoming missile before it hits the target. The problems encountered with a Prithvi missile simulating an enemy attack in a recent test is not likely to be a serious setback to these plans. India is not the only country that seeks to protect its citizens from enemy missiles carrying nuclear and other lethal warheads. The United States has been developing anti-ballistic missile systems for over 60 years. Its highly ambitious missile shield aims to destroy ballistic missiles during all stages of their flight. In February 2010, the U.S. successfully tested an airborne laser carried aloft on a modified Boeing 747, which was used to destroy a missile less than two minutes after it was fired. Israel, Japan, and the Taiwan regime too intend to establish missile defence capabilities. China, which demonstrated its anti-satellite capability in 2007, successfully conducted a mid-course missile interception test in January this year. Russia has a system of its own that was developed during the Cold War.

A big unanswered question is how effective any of these missile shields, including the Indian one, will be in an actual conflict situation, especially if it is between nuclear-armed nations. The technical evaluation of the U.S. system carried out by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2000 is instructive. It found that there were a range of countermeasures an attacker could take to “confuse, overwhelm or otherwise defeat the defence.” Any country capable of deploying a long-range missile would be able to use them. Decoys could overload a defensive system and allow attacking missiles to slip past. Besides, even the U.S. system is intended to be effective against only a “limited ballistic missile attack.” The Indian defensive shield too will have similar limitations: if a single nuclear-tipped missile gets through, the consequences will be calamitous. This country would do better to rely on diplomacy, rather than a chancy missile shield, to increase its security.

when china has done interceptor test??
I might not be updated, can u pls. provide the link... thanks..

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Mar 2010 16:43

The problem with missile shield (ABM ) developed any where around the world and as history has proven it drives arms race like no other offensive systems does.

As an example US developed ABM systems to deal with certain threat Russia responded in kind by developing and deploying qualitatively better offensive system that can penetrate the shield.

Iran similarly developed MaRV on its new IRBM to deal with Israel ABM threats.

We can expect Pakistan to increase the number of deployed warhead and introduce MaRV on its new IRBM which are cheaper to develop and effective against current ABM system like India and others are developing.

India has already deployed such MaRV on its Agni-3,Agni-2 and Agni-1

China has nothing to worry right now , but when AAD1 and AAD2 with anti ICBM capability is developed , expect China to deploy manouvering warhead (MIRV) missile similar to what Delhi is developing for Agni-5.

In the end ABM system tends to make countries position harder , make them feel more insecure about their deterrence and drives the arms race.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 28 Mar 2010 18:21

Why should we be bothered what China and Pukes do to counter our ABM, that is none of our business. We have to take all possible steps to prevent ourselves, especially from a rabid neighbour like TSP. I would not put it beyond them or one of their non-state actors to launch in anger against our cities.

Not so much for the China threat but surely TSP is enough of a threat to warrant an ABM shield.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Mar 2010 12:03

Nihat , this is not as simple as none of our business.

If India develops and enhances its ABM capability as seems to be the ambition from VKS interview , then Pakistan would get nervous about the effectiveness of its deterrence capability , since Pakistan cannot match India on ABM front due to its technological limitations it will try to match it by increasing the number of warhead , the number of launchers and the sophistication of launcher (MaRV ) all are very effective and cheaper way to defeat ABM and within Pakistan's capability ( or via China )

India too will try to match Pakistan numbers capability by increasing its numbers and ABM shield , which will have cascading effect on China which would be closely watching India progress in ABM field.

All in all this will start a strategic arms race and something beyond New Delhi control.

ABM is a good tool to deter very limited attacks or blackmail by say some jihadi taking control of few Pak Nukes and threatens India or something similar , in an all out war with Pakistan ABM will have limited to zero ability to defeat any Pakistan nuclear weapons.

Considering its destabilizing nature of ABM the new START agreement to be signed by US-Russia on April 8 has attached with US ABM development in which there is a paragraph which states

"Russia will make a unilateral statement asserting its right to withdraw from the treaty in case it decides that the U.S. missile defense program poses a threat to its national interests."

Mr_Li · Post by **Mr_Li** » 29 Mar 2010 13:31

Questions:

if & when the ABM sys is ready for deployment -
who will be the operator? (may be IAF)
who will purchase it (may be IAF)
what if IAF pulls an "arjun" on it and ups the requirements
what if IAF decides to consider a foreign ABM sys

i think it makes more sense to create a new elite
missile-defense arm of the military that is independent
of IA, IN, or IAF

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Mar 2010 14:21

Austin wrote:
"Russia will make a unilateral statement asserting its right to withdraw from the treaty in case it decides that the U.S. missile defense program poses a threat to its national interests."

This is precisely why Russians created so much brouhaha over the proposed BM shield based out of East Europe...None of the current BMD capabilities are remotely close to being a deterrence to a determined enemy with a nuke arms programme...

Having said that, even a semi-credible BMD programme impose huge costs over the adversary, to the extent of even bankrupting him (extreme example - the cost imposed on SU by the Star Wars programme)..Therefore, a credible BMD programme forces Pakistan to spend even more on its first strike infratsructure, thereby further impoverishing their broke finances..While ballistic missiles are gettign cheaper, the operative word there is "relative"..A BMD system capable of (say) handling a salvo of 10 missiles with 90% probability will force Pak to upgrade its operational missile stock with a 90% mission success probability from (say) 2 to 20 for ONE successful first strike...With the related operational and maintenance infrastructure..The problem is of course that building a BMD too is prohibitvely expensive, and it works only if the "affordibility gap" is big enough between adversaries...Between Indo-Pak, it might be, or it might not be yet...There arent any great cost estimates of a "credible" BMD system in our context yet...

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Mar 2010 18:11

somnath wrote:This is precisely why Russians created so much brouhaha over the proposed BM shield based out of East Europe...None of the current BMD capabilities are remotely close to being a deterrence to a determined enemy with a nuke arms programme...

Well they wanted some reason to develop range of offensive system they got ABM as a good one , since US unilaterally pulled out of the ABM treaty.

Also note the recent Putin statements given few weeks back , that in response to US NMD they will develop offensive system and not a similar ABM system because they realise the futility of the exercise

Therefore, a credible BMD programme forces Pakistan to spend even more on its first strike infratsructure, thereby further impoverishing their broke finances..While ballistic missiles are gettign cheaper, the operative word there is "relative"..A BMD system capable of (say) handling a salvo of 10 missiles with 90% probability will force Pak to upgrade its operational missile stock with a 90% mission success probability from (say) 2 to 20 for ONE successful first strike...With the related operational and maintenance infrastructure..The problem is of course that building a BMD too is prohibitvely expensive, and it works only if the "affordibility gap" is big enough between adversaries...Between Indo-Pak, it might be, or it might not be yet...There arent any great cost estimates of a "credible" BMD system in our context yet...

Yes statically, but in reality ABM is not a wonder tool as it is advertised , US GAO has made the point that with the multitiered ABM system they are developing its effectiveness is limited .

Most of the missile defence test done are all designed to impress the political class and get funds and done within a controlled environment ( plus it keeps those scientist busy with the next big thing )

Even simple things like decoys depending on the sophistication can make the exchange ratio highly unfavorable for the defender ( economically ) hence the statics that you have put up ( 2 to 20 ) is not valid. You add simple MaRV and Sophisticated decoys to the equation( within the reach of Paki or generously donated ) not only makes the exchange ratio uneconomical but also the ability to penetrate a ABM defence highly likely.

You add all the above and increase the number of launchers and warhead available by 50 % you know you have a real arms race in hand , something which is costly and ultimately gets a life of its own , the cost increases exponentially if you end up paying for ABM systems as well as trying to keep up your offensive system.

sawant · Post by **sawant** » 29 Mar 2010 18:37

You add all the above and increase the number of launchers and warhead available by 50 % you know you have a real arms race in hand , something which is costly and ultimately gets a life of its own , the cost increases exponentially if you end up paying for ABM systems as well as trying to keep up your offensive system.

But the US bankrolls PA and this is where this argument falls short

.....we will have to market ourselves very well...

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Mar 2010 21:00

sawant wrote:But the US bankrolls PA and this is where this argument falls short .....we will have to market ourselves very well...

Pakistan Strategic Program is well funded gets the highest priority by pindi and if I remember past discussion on this matter is funded by Saudi/Paki and technically supported by China. US does its bit by funding and oiling Pakistan conventional program

Mr_Li · Post by **Mr_Li** » 29 Mar 2010 21:30

Among the so-called experts here no one has yet answered any of my Q above. I guess the answer does not exist.

As usual, there is too much theoretical discussion going on that is not related to ABM Missile Discussion (for example USA bankrolling the pakis etc - a wild statement in itself).

Of course the Missile Defense can be defeated by a mule carrying a nuclear bomb and also due to proximity to dirtystan ABM is not a good deterence against pakis. (Deterrence against paki should be total guaranteed destruction of pakistan even in the case of a dirty bomb attack)

India ABM seems is more for chest thumping than for real use. i.e. to gain security coucil seat and to be in the "club". It might also work against specific city or installation. But it is not an overall defensive umbrella as most above "experts" think.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Mar 2010 22:24

Mr_Li wrote:Among the so-called experts here no one has yet answered any of my Q above. I guess the answer does not exist.

As usual, there is too much theoretical discussion going on that is not related to ABM Missile Discussion (for example USA bankrolling the pakis etc - a wild statement in itself).

Of course the Missile Defense can be defeated by a mule carrying a nuclear bomb and also due to proximity to dirtystan ABM is not a good deterence against pakis. (Deterrence against paki should be total guaranteed destruction of pakistan even in the case of a dirty bomb attack)

India ABM seems is more for chest thumping than for real use. i.e. to gain security coucil seat and to be in the "club". It might also work against specific city or installation. But it is not an overall defensive umbrella as most above "experts" think.

Mr Li Sir. Or maybe madam? Your asstute observations are mind boggling. You are right - people do keep going off topic. In fact your post reminds me of a friend who would bang his maid once for every one bang of his wife. We used to call him Mr Lay.

You are actually trolling by taking potshots in general at forum members with your post. You are too clever by half. Not meant to be among the stupids here. You will not last long here. I did not ask to know you, and am fairly sure that this imposition on me will not last long. Than means I won't have too many opportunities to be ~~stupid~~ myself with you and I might as well make babies while the skirt is up.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 29 Mar 2010 23:09

Mr_Li wrote:India ABM seems is more for chest thumping than for real use. i.e. to gain security coucil seat and to be in the "club". It might also work against specific city or installation. But it is not an overall defensive umbrella as most above "experts" think.

Mr. Li, who gave you the idea that the ABM is Pak centric? Look to the east and you might find a reason more valid than 'chest thumping'. And how does develpoing an ABM guarantee a seat in the UN Security Council?

Mr_Li · Post by **Mr_Li** » 29 Mar 2010 23:24

Shameek wrote:....<clipped>
Mr. Li, who gave you the idea that the ABM is Pak centric? Look to the east and you might find a reason more valid than 'chest thumping'. And how does develpoing an ABM guarantee a seat in the UN Security Council?

i think i did not form the sentence correctly, i did not mean to imply that india ABM is pak-centric. i was saying that it is NOT pak centric because pakistan is too close to the border. That leaves China. And the ABM might work against specific installation or City against some chinese missiles. (Given early detection).

I did not imply india's ABM might or might not work, all the ABM in the world have the same issues. (i.e. expensive to develop and maintain and easy to defeat).

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 29 Mar 2010 23:47

I would not think how close or far Pak is from us makes a difference to the ABM. If a missile is launched from anywhere in Pakistan then the LRTR picks it up then and there, from here the interceptors are kept always on "hot mode" i.e ready to fire and the software guides the interceptor to a hit.

Perhaps the matter of less reaction time comesinto play for cities in India very very close to the Border with Pak such as Amritsar but an ABM will provide enough cover to all our major cities and other vital installations.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 30 Mar 2010 01:09

Nihat wrote:I would not think how close or far Pak is from us makes a difference to the ABM. If a missile is launched from anywhere in Pakistan then the LRTR picks it up then and there, from here the interceptors are kept always on "hot mode" i.e ready to fire and the software guides the interceptor to a hit.

Perhaps the matter of less reaction time comesinto play for cities in India very very close to the Border with Pak such as Amritsar but an ABM will provide enough cover to all our major cities and other vital installations.

There are still a few matters to deal with, e.g. probability of an intercept and government resolve. Firstly, we are usually too quick, historically speaking, to declare a missile ready for induction after 3 tests. Its all too easy to blame the mass production process and not question the testing process. There are more issues on government resolve to consider but since discussing governments and policies is usually scorned in this thread, although it is such an important aspect of ABM defences, I'll let that thought rest.

Then, what if Pakistan were to magically give birth to MIRV missiles, as similar miraculous appearances of technology have been known to happen in that magical land? Yes, I know about the MTCR, but humour me and ignore that for a moment. Have a look at this illustration of MIRVs being released from the MinuteMan III. The MIRVs are released so close to the apogee / ceiling of the missile. Isn't that roughly where our ABM attempts to intercept the threat? There so little time between step 1 and step 6 in the missile trajectory if it is targetting Delhi or Mumbai from Pakistan. If you miss the interception prior to step 6 then is there any recourse against MIRVs and their small radar signatures?

Boost phase intercepts are the answer and we know there is a long way to go in that direction. But then government resolve gets tested even more stringently.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 30 Mar 2010 07:47

Mr_Li wrote:India ABM seems is more for chest thumping than for real use

Well, I dont know whether you really meant it or not, but you are broadly right (in a way)...And the same is true for every BMD system in development/use...Most BMD systems are deployed/developed for psychological reasons, the efficacy is far far from being even half-reliable..

The American stance itself is hilarious..They say that their BMD is aimed at "sneak" attacks by rogue states and terrorists, and not Russia (or China)..the problem with that stance is these pesky non-state characters choose their own time and place to hit...Which would mean a) a very wide area of BMD coverage and b) 24/7 system "turned on"...the former is prohibitevely expensive, and the latter is more so - imagine keeping a radar switched on 24/7/365..To mitigate that, you create massively overlapping radar coverage, so increase the costs even more..Net net, BMD is a chimera, but one that is used often to score psychological points and at times create enough insecurity in the adversary to beggar itself...

Thats why India's BMD can still be a smart idea...Even without a very massive deployment, even periodic tests, and pilot deployments interspersed with suitable "news leaks" would create enough doubts in Paki minds to have to try and massively increase their arsenal numbers and infrastructure...That would trigger a strategic "arms race" for sure - but Pakistan has greater potential of beggaring itself first in the process than the numbers in their arsenal growing to "unmanageable" proportions..

kit · Post by **kit** » 30 Mar 2010 08:31

The best defence against a nuke armed nation ?
An offensive defense.Maintain a highly credible,robust and redundant nuclear first strike option.Thats it.Nothing more,nothing less.

And frankly I think India s strike options and its nuclear ability is limited., thats one reason why it is so seriously concerned about ABM defenses.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Mar 2010 08:43

kit wrote:
And frankly I think India s strike options and its nuclear ability is limited., thats one reason why it is so seriously concerned about ABM defenses.

kit no matter how good India's strike options are it is always a good idea to prevent the other guy from hitting you. So there is either no connection between strike ability and ABM defence, or the connection is a positive, desirable one.