ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

[somnath]

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.

Not true at all...Depends on the situation..So if Pak started on its BMD programme, it would simply encourage India to rapidly multiply its own offensive capabilities, therefore forcing Pak to spend a lot more on the BMD side....As the poorer party, it will invariably beggar itself...A MAD balacne of offensive capabilities on the other hand, keeps things stable and relatively constant..

[shiv]

Not true at all...Depends on the situation..So if Pak started on its BMD programme, it would simply encourage India to rapidly multiply its own offensive capabilities, therefore forcing Pak to spend a lot more on the BMD side....As the poorer party, it will invariably beggar itself...A MAD balacne of offensive capabilities on the other hand, keeps things stable and relatively constant..

My reply was in response to a specific statement that said that India's offensive capabilities were not good enough (ERGO our defence should be better.) My response for this situation was "No. For a given and fixed level of offensive strike ability any addition of ABM is a benefit."

You are talking about a scenario in which India is willing to spend endless amounts on increasing offensive capabilities in response to Pakistan's ABM. If you are going to keep on varying (increasing) your strike capability based on the other guys response (as you have suggested) - you are dancing to his tune. This has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

[somnath]

No. For a given and fixed level of offensive strike ability any addition of ABM is a benefit."

Thats precisely the point..In case of a nuclear arms balance between two powers, introduction of an ABM is an immediate destabiliser..It forces the other party to dramatically increase its own offensive arsenal to take care of the probability differentials that a BMD system causes (or appropriately, claims to cause)...At the same time, increasing offensive capabilities (in terms of numbers of bombs, missiles etc) are a fraction of the cost of a BMD system required to keep remotely up to it..

Hence, for a poorer country to introduce a BMD element in the strategic scenario is downright foolish - it will simply prompt the "enemy" to increase its offensive capacities which will in turn force it to spend money on increasing its own offeisive capacities AND spend a far greater amount on the BMD to keep pace...this is precisely the reason why Russia has such a huge bee in its bonnet over BMD..

Even for a "rich" country, introduction of BMD is a calculated "if"...The cost of a poorer country (Pak) ramping up or modifying its offensive arsenal is far lower than that of India maintaining a credible level of probabilistic uncertainty through BMD......But then, the economic gap is also huge, so it might work...

Net net, BMD is not a given positive at all...

[negi]

Hence, for a poorer country to introduce a BMD element in the strategic scenario is downright foolish - it will simply prompt the "enemy" to increase its offensive capacities which will in turn force it to spend money on increasing its own offeisive capacities AND spend a far greater amount on the BMD to keep pace...this is precisely the reason why Russia has such a huge bee in its bonnet over BMD..

Firstly let us keep costs out Indian ABM is on SDRE budget , also if what you say is true then I am all for an arms race with Bakis lets see how much can they beg .

[somnath]

Firstly let us keep costs out Indian ABM is on SDRE budget , also if what you say is true then I am all for an arms race with Bakis lets see how much can they beg .

thats the "best case scenario"...Unfortunately the cost of Pak increasing/improving its nukes and delivery platforms in response is a fraction of the cost of us keeping the BMD "relevant"...So it can be dicey - but at least worth playing for a start, maybe pull the trigger on the programme if it goes out of hand..

[narayana]

if a paki nuke is intercepted and destroyed by our BMD,we can take it as first use of nuke weapon and go for second strike.

BMD are not only for BM's with nukes, we can save vital installations and cities from BM's with conventional war heads.

[Austin]

if a paki nuke is intercepted and destroyed by our BMD,we can take it as first use of nuke weapon and go for second strike.

Thats a big "IF" , Paki will be compelled ( in an all out war ) to go for a massive first strike with what ever they have since they would think that would be the best gamble to penetrate any BMD and limit India's second strike option , not that they may not do that other wise , but with BMD in their mind they will be more edgy.

We will eventually have to stabilize the Nuclear and ABM environment in this region ( China-Pak-India or multilateral effort ), right now there is lack of transparency in the numbers of warhead and launchers each party has the best guess is intelligence estimates , the key is to have transparency and give numbers to your deterrence ( like most P5 ) , so that it ends reliance on the unreliable intelligence source and National Technical Means on what the other party has and secretly keep on adding numbers.

The new START treaty though reduced the offensive system by 30 % ( not a big deal ) but introduced far greater transparency which in the future will put a accurate figure on reduction/eliminations that needs to be achieved Assessing START follow-on

[kit]

For India.,

1)It should change its nuclear stance to First Strike .. period .. that itself is a deterrent
2)BMD defenses can mature in time .. only a fool will depend on it totally.At best judging India's size and ground realities BMD will be specific for some cities and major installations.Forget BMD for the whole country., that is not going to happen ., and if some one thinks it can given the level of technology India is displaying ., i would say it would not be practical and would be easily penetrated by advancements in anti ABM tech.
3)India has to better its current arsenal , more missiles and MIRVs and a credible undersea deterrent.There is no other choice.It has to have thermo nukes ., another stabilizing factor against the dragon.
4)India until and unless it enjoys double digit growth will be hard placed to put a BMD defense for the whole country.that too a credible one.

Present scenario Pak can literally overwhelm India with an overwhelming nuclear first strike using all its available nuclear assets ?

[somnath]

^^^At some stage, India and Pakistan need to come to the table to formalise their respective nuclear weapons status...Guven that nuke weapons are not weapons of "use", but only weapons of deterrence, all the ambiguity around numbers, platforms etc make for a destabilised environment..the same at some stage needs to be worked out for China as well, though given that both India and China have declared NFU policies (the only two nuclear powers to do so!) there is some clack to be cut there..

the problem however is that both India's and Pakistan's nuke weapons and delivery platforms are still nascent, and developing..For example, we are still develping MIRVs, which when deployed will represent a shift in capabilities..Pakis might be doing the same thing...No one knows whether we have a thermonuclear bomb, and if we do, how many...Ditto for Pakistan...Do they have tactical nukes? How many? Pakis seem to have a cruise missile based nuke delivery platform (Babur)..I dont think we intend to use Brahmos/Nirbhay as nuke platforms - cruise missiles are highly destabiliing as weapons of nuke delivery...So its a bit of a mess...

Therefore even a "Stabilisation treaty" is difficult to arrive at..Different from the US-Russia scenario, where the START/SALT talks happended once most capabilities on either side had stabilised...And even there, introduction of ABM by the US trumps the whole framework..

But maybe we can start by at least defining the number of warheads each year in a verifiable way..Even if that number is increasing...To start with, it need not even be public, but limited to the two governments...

[somnath]

Present scenario Pak can literally overwhelm India with an overwhelming nuclear first strike using all its available nuclear assets ?

How will they achieve that? Take out all Mirage and Su30 squadrons spread across maybe 15 different locations? Take out every single Prithvi battery along the border? And every single Agni launcher on rails spread across India? And every single Dhanush-equipped Sukanya? Hoe many warheads do they have, and what is the quality of their surveillance platforms?During the Cuban crisis, the Americans had by some estimates a 5:1 superiority in nukes, and still their generals couldnt assure Kennedy that all Soviet nukes could be taken out in a pre-emptive strike..

BMD even for protection of single cities is a contradiction in terms...No BMD system in the world can handle a salvo attack involving dozens of missiles - which is what a determined enemy will do...The current BMDs can handle limited numbers in predetermined modes and simulation - no one's tested (at least to my knowledge) a BMD performance against a MIRV..ESpecially when launched over "3-5 min" distances...

So BMD is a "game changer", but only in psychological terms, at least as of now..

First strike, well, people have argued in favour of that..But given our conventional balance against Pak, we dont really need that...If we are that confident about our efficiency in taking out Paki nukes in a preempive attack, we dont need nukes to execute that - conventional weaposn do as well..against China, they too have an NFU policy!

[kit]

Hence, for a poorer country to introduce a BMD element in the strategic scenario is downright foolish - it will simply prompt the "enemy" to increase its offensive capacities which will in turn force it to spend money on increasing its own offensive capacities AND spend a far greater amount on the BMD to keep pace...this is precisely the reason why Russia has such a huge bee in its bonnet over BMD..

Firstly let us keep costs out Indian ABM is on SDRE budget , also if what you say is true then I am all for an arms race with Bakis lets see how much can they beg .

Not a very good idea.Pak missile tech is essentially China s.We will soon see anti ABM tech and MIRV s in their ballistic missiles courtesy the Chinese.India cannot and should not go for knee jerk responses.What happens if PAK acquires ABM tech from China ? As a whole I would view a limited Indian anti ABM as a stabilizing factor vs China but destabilizing vs PK.One could argue that a 'limited' war would involve both Pak and China by proxy.
Indian response should involve some lateral thinking., thinking outside Pak / China context.

[Austin]

the problem however is that both India's and Pakistan's nuke weapons and delivery platforms are still nascent, and developing..For example, we are still develping MIRVs, which when deployed will represent a shift in capabilities..Pakis might be doing the same thing...No one knows whether we have a thermonuclear bomb, and if we do, how many...Ditto for Pakistan...Do they have tactical nukes? How many? Pakis seem to have a cruise missile based nuke delivery platform (Babur)..I dont think we intend to use Brahmos/Nirbhay as nuke platforms - cruise missiles are highly destabiliing as weapons of nuke delivery...So its a bit of a mess...

Somnath to quantify your weapons/warhead we need not have a operational MIRV or operational SSBN on patrol and from what we now read both India and Pakistan have a robust command and control and delivery system ( missile/aircraft ) in place.

But the issue is more about quantifying our warhead , right now its anybody guess how many warhead each party can deploy or in ready to deploy , figures avilable for Pak ( 80 - 100 ) for India ( 300 to as many we want ) , China ( ~ 600 ) certainly thats not a very comforting again its speculative.

We need to talk and put some sane numbers to our warhead , at the 2nd stage we can work on delivery system and platforms.

The current equation between China-Pak-India is a nice breeding ground for weapons race as there is lack of transparency , trust deficit in Strategic Issues and escalatory systems likes ABM ( India/China ) and Qualitative new offensive system introduced by all 3 parties.

[Sanku]

The current equation between China-Pak-India is a nice breeding ground for weapons race as there is lack of transparency , trust deficit in Strategic Issues and escalatory systems likes ABM ( India/China ) and Qualitative new offensive system introduced by all 3 parties.

Austin, this is as good as it is going to get, short of break up of either of our adversaries.

IF we dont do this, others wont do that is a policy that India followed for a long time, without any use whatsoever.

Let us get into a arms race, and win -- that is the only option.

[Nihat]

The current equation between China-Pak-India is a nice breeding ground for weapons race as there is lack of transparency , trust deficit in Strategic Issues and escalatory systems likes ABM ( India/China ) and Qualitative new offensive system introduced by all 3 parties.

Austin, this is as good as it is going to get, short of break up of either of our adversaries.

IF we dont do this, others wont do that is a policy that India followed for a long time, without any use whatsoever.

Let us get into a arms race, and win -- that is the only option.

completly agree , lets see the extent of Pakistans begging. Thier uncontrollable urge to match India in conventional war equipment will be their undoing.

[somnath]

We need to talk and put some sane numbers to our warhead , at the 2nd stage we can work on delivery system and platforms

A agree, thats why I said:

But maybe we can start by at least defining the number of warheads each year in a verifiable way..Even if that number is increasing...To start with, it need not even be public, but limited to the two governments

But even there, the key word is "verifiable"..How do you "dependably" verify in an Indo-Pak context? Next, what do you put in as "numbers" - between fission, tactical, boosted fission and thermonuclear, how do we enumerate with verifiable accuracy? Given that our tech capabilities on each are evolving almost by the day...

But a numbers-driven system is a must..At least that would obviate the need for people starting to react everytime FAS came out with an estimate!

At some stage, there needs to be some arrangement on delivery platforms as well..Especially with respect to cruise missiles..The level of "protection" over omnibus platforms (like cruise missiles and aircraft) in militaries is much less than that over warheads and dedicated platforms (ballistic missiles).....Pak seems to have cruise missiles as an integral part of its nuke strategy..Whihc makes it easier for a rogue military element to spark off a nuke war by simply launching a cruise missile, even if he doesnt have the nuke activation codes...

We need to lay down the rules of the game clearly - that we launch a nuke counterstrike the moment we detect a cruise missile launch...

Things like these are currently open-ended, and dangerous, especially in the Indo-Pak context..

[Austin]

Let us get into a arms race, and win -- that is the only option.

Sanku , thats a fallacy that we can win an arms race , In an arms race no body wins but every one looses , and if we think we can win viz a viz pakistan that is impossible , with Nuclear deterrence in place even with a modest stock pile of 80 x 12kt weapons Pakistan can deter india even if India has 1000 TN weapons .

Didn't China managed to deter US with 20 odd TN ICBM when there were thousands in US arsenal and finally they decided not to target each other as a symbolic good will gesture agreement ?

But even there, the key word is "verifiable"..How do you "dependably" verify in an Indo-Pak context?

How does other less important agreement work in indo-pak context ? Dont we have an agreement that notify each other on BM launches and faithfully followed by both ( i dont know of Pak complaining that India cheated by not notifying them , or treaty to exchange each other nuclear facility )

During the height of cold war and with all the trust deficit both US and Soviet got over it and institutionalized a verifiable arms agreement in place since both understood the risk of not doing so.

We too can have such an agreement irrespective of political trust deficit , I am certain there are sane elements in Pakistan Military/Political class who understands what mishandling of Nuclear weapons means , we can build a verifiable and dependable framework for arms agreement.

At the least we need to start talking , the opaqueness that exist now cannot go on for too long without hurting us all , the rest will follow one we talk.

Next, what do you put in as "numbers" - between fission, tactical, boosted fission and thermonuclear, how do we enumerate with verifiable accuracy? Given that our tech capabilities on each are evolving almost by the day...

A weapon is a weapon , how does it really matter if it has a yeald of 10 kT fission or 300 kT TN ? Both can kill people in significant numbers and generations to come will have to bear the loss.

Will it be an acceptable loss to India if it wipes out Pakistan and in exchange for loosing 2 million of its citizen in a densely populated city like Mumbai after taking hits from two 10Kt Fission weapon ?

One needs to put numbers on the table and what constitutes their respective offensive/deterrence arsenal ( doesnt matter if its 80 odd 10 Kt Fission weapon for pakistan or 600 odd 300 Kt TN bomb for india ) , once we define our deterrence ,we can talk about how to stabilize it in terms of weapons and platforms, without numbers we cannot talk for sure.

Bottom line is we need to get talking and show transparency with all the stake holders , the current state where each party thinks it has an advantage over other , is opaque about its deterrence ,intentions and numbers and keep developing new systems like ABM and Offensive Missile is an open invitation to uncontrollable arms race.

[Sanku]

Let us get into a arms race, and win -- that is the only option.

Sanku , thats a fallacy that we can win an arms race , In an arms race no body wins but every one looses ,

I am not sure Austin. I disagree, but that is not a debate for this thread. In any case it has not stopped any one from having an arms race never the less. Everyone will try and increase their capabilities, every one already is doing that.

We decided Police will be enough, China expressed polite displeasure. We though we will have atoms for peace. China intejected.

We decided to stay at Shermans, Pakis went to Pattons. We were happy with Gnat, they called in Starfighters.

We thought we will sort border issues politely, Pakistan intervened.

We though we will not develop BMD, China is anyway doing that, once ready, it will proliferate to Pak too anyway.

This discussion is moot. Everyone and his uncle wants this, Russia has S400 and a path forward. US has Thaad, China is developing what is necessary.

So everyone is already running, what we do is the question, we can either develop now, or buy later, or pay the price a la 62.

and if we think we can win viz a viz pakistan that is impossible , with Nuclear deterrence in place even with a modest stock pile of 80 x 12kt weapons Pakistan can deter india even if India has 1000 TN weapons .

I do not mean only nuclear weapons when I am talking of arms race. Again this is a different discussion, but in short, no Pakistan's nuclear weapons have not deterred us. We have been in general been a little deterred by the thought of going on a offensive war (as opposed to defensive one) and Nuclear weapons have not really changed the situation.

Our posture is defensive, we have nuclear weapons to only stop the adversary from using WMD that is all, very limited.

Didn't China managed to deter US with 20 odd TN ICBM when there were thousands in US arsenal and finally they decided not to target each other as a symbolic good will gesture agreement ?

Well US and China are not China/Pak and India. They may have deterred each other, they may not have. We dont know, we will find when things get hot.

[somnath]

At the least we need to start talking , the opaqueness that exist now cannot go on for too long without hurting us all , the rest will follow one we talk.

Austin, re this I agree...We need to talk, and keep talking about these issues with Pakistan..that is why I find it a bit amusing when some people (including a majority on BRF) advocate stopping of all conversations with Pakistan...And some start has to be made in terms of starting to "account" for the sizes of our respective arsenals..

But I am just a lot more sceptical about our (and I include India as well here) ability to be mature about these things..For some reason, the way many people, especially politicians, talk about nukes here, they make it sound as if its an oversized Daisy Cutter...And treat strategic weapons similar to tactical ones..To take an example:

How does other less important agreement work in indo-pak context ? Dont we have an agreement that notify each other on BM launches and faithfully followed by both ( i dont know of Pak complaining that India cheated by not notifying them , or treaty to exchange each other nuclear facility

Yes, it has worked upto now..But let me take you back to the time when this agreement was signed..In the meeting, India purposely "limited" the scope of the notification to ballistic missiles only..We were already testing the Brahmos then, and when the Pakis brought up the question, apparently we airily dismissed it, thinking its not "reciprocal" (as Pakis did not have a cruise missile programme at that time)...Within days, Pakis tested Babur! At one level, it was a strategic intel failure on our side..At another level, just showed the juvelinity of both sides in dealing with an issue as important as nuclear weapons..

Thereafter, cruise missiles were also included in notification (I think)...But expect Indians and Pakis to behave similarly in future talks as well..

A weapon is a weapon , how does it really matter if it has a yeald of 10 kT fission or 300 kT TN ? Both can kill people in significant numbers and generations to come will have to bear the loss.

Well, not entirely..Especially if one party has a stated NFU policy while the other has a stated First strike policy..Especially for us, it becomes important to gauge the capability of Paki tactical nukes that can be used against military formations for us to determine our force postures and dispersion of nuke delivery platforms...At some stage of START therefore didnt both US and Russia agree to ban tactical nukes completely? So it is important to know the type and capability of nukes as well, more so actually in the Indo-Pak context..

But net net, there is no excuse for not talking about it...There is far too much at stake not to...

The concept of a "number" on our deterrence at least is far away....As Jaswant Singh said (in his own book, as well as quoted by STrbe Talbot in his), its not a "fixity", not even an "enunciation of a fixity" ...We want to keep it flexible for now, especially because of the China factor...

However, that doesnt prevent us from starting to count and tabulate the numbers as a start...But you know who in Pak is the best guy to talk to about this? The COAS!!But imagine India asking the COAS to come over to Delhi for talks as KS was suggestin in a different context) - people will cry sellout, MMS yankee agent in a moment!!! We go back to the concept of juvelinity in strategic affairs!

[sawant]

I think we are missing on 1 critical ladder b4 we goto ABM and that is simply intelligence... whether electronic,satellite or even weather balloons we need to have 24/7 intelligence capacity, so that the moment the 1st salvo is up against us, we are ready... that acts as a good deterrent to the enemy... and the best part is that intelligence can be covert, it is defensive and no one can claim that it upsets balance of power... needless to say such a system acts a good input to any ABM/BMD system as well... and I think b4 we match our wits against China, it shd be feasible to have such a structure in place for our western friend... mayb we shd have 24/7 sorties by indigenous elint a/cs etc

[Lilo]

A noob question.

Within this thread a member pointed out that a well matured BMD (say PAD - stage 2) may have a warhead with weight of 30-50 Kg.
Is it possible to save on deployment costs of a BMD by using the same kill vehicles but changing the warheads (or without changing the warheads like in S-400) to function as a ground based SAM or even further - a hybrid (ballistic but maneuvering) strike missile like shaurya ?

In short can a BMD be envisaged to perform all the three roles of a BMD+SAM+Ballistic missile ?

Maybe then india can change the negatively skewed BMD deployment costs vis-a-vis the increase of nuclear BMs (which will be the next step of pukes) .

[somnath]

I think we are missing on 1 critical ladder b4 we goto ABM and that is simply intelligence... whether electronic,satellite or even weather balloons we need to have 24/7 intelligence capacity, so that the moment the 1st salvo is up against us, we are ready

I dont know what you mean by "we are ready" once the first salvo is fired...No BMD system can be even remotely confident of tracking every launch early enough to knock it down...Nothing yet, in any case...Of course, once we do realise that there has been a nuke attack, our stated policy is disproportionate retaliation!

[Kanson]

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.

The passage very much resembles the Nehruvian era policy of solving the country's security related issues throu diplomacy rather than throu military capacity. Nothing wrong in that policy, if we have equally good neighbours like India. OTOH, we have Pak and China. Any diplomacy under these situtaion w/o military backup will be in the form of appeasement or submission. Thats why we often hear statements like only Strength respects Strength. Not suprised as this comes from this newspaper.

What many dont understand is missile shield is part of the offence. It is not defence but part of offence. Did any soldier went to war with shield alone without taking sword or spear along? Missile shield is like that. Its use will be with the offensive arm. Lets take the example provided by Mr. Somnath. Thanks Somnath.

During the Cuban crisis, the Americans had by some estimates a 5:1 superiority in nukes, and still their generals couldnt assure Kennedy that all Soviet nukes could be taken out in a pre-emptive strike..

In this case, lets say, If my missile defence is only 50 % effective against the aggressor, then the equation tilts from 5:1 to 5:0.5, i.e., 10:1. And if the effectiveness increases to 80% then the equation changes to 25:1. In other words no. of warheads to be taken out through Counter-Force reduces to just 20%. So thats how the calculation goes. And with layered defence the probability goes higher. If we believe our ABM developers they expect the system to have 99.8% success rate with two missiles fired for every aggressor missile. Other important thing with the use of missile shield is it provides Quality Shift in the offence and provides many options in dealing specifically with Nuclear warfare better than simple offensive missiles. As we are talking abt US and Russia, US after realising the GBR with a range of 1000+ km studied abt the possibility of using ICBM as boost phase Kinetic interceptor. The current KEI is supposed to have the velocity of close to 7 km/sec. For a missile with a range of ~ 2000 km has the velocity of ~3 km/sec and ~ 100 secs as boost phase. So with a max closing veloicty of ~10 km/sec, for a 100 sec KEI covers a distance equal to that of 1000 km. Against a country with the width of ~1000 km, a missile shield like KEI will povide an immense quality shift in its offensive arm and act as much more severe deterrence factor. So the diplomacy conducted with even a chancy missile shield is much effective than without one.
Edit: Error corrected.

[Kanson]

In short can a BMD be envisaged to perform all the three roles of a BMD+SAM+Ballistic missile ?

The rules of engagement for the BMD is bit different from SAM. Nevertheless it can be used. Current gen of combat aircrafts flies to max altitude of around 20 Km. Any BMD with that engagment altitude can be used as SAM provided it is designed that way.

[Mr_Li]

curiosity increases so asking again:

who will operate BMD (IAF or IA)
will they purhase the system from DRDO?
what if they (the customer) change specs?
what if they want a "comparative trials" with the US or Israeli system?
what is the chain of command to make a decison to launch an ABM within minutes

the system being developed under research money or customer money.

What if the system is truly capable (which it indeed seems to be) and the mil decides not to purchase it.

Other than the techo specs and accuracy etc there are serious questions like does india have the resolve to identify a missile launch from the enemy territory and CONCLUDE that is is directed at indian installation thus to press the "kill button",

these are the policy level issues not being debated thus my take that ok its a technology demostrator and much of the discussion is on its actual use is academic.

[PratikDas]

....
who will operate BMD (IAF or IA)
will they purhase the system from DRDO?
what if they (the customer) change specs?
what if they want a "comparative trials" with the US or Israeli system?
what is the chain of command to make a decison to launch an ABM within minutes
...

None of these questions are relevant to the discussion and annoying, to be honest.

"who will operate BMD (IAF or IA)"
As long as whoever operates it has vehicles to carry missiles, the missiles, the warheads, the radar, the button, a working telephone to the Prime Minister, and the trust of the democratically elected government, I don't really care who operates them.

"will they purhase the system from DRDO?"
They won't get it from the Pizza Hut, that's for sure.

"what if they (the customer) change specs?"
As if DRDO has no experience in dealing with this! Are you serious or just wasting time?

"what if they want a "comparative trials" with the US or Israeli system?"
When the US and/or Israel offer the same technology or better, with ToT, and without strings attached, I'm sure there will be a discussion between governments. Once again this isn't new to DRDO. On one hand you have the Trishul missile experience and on the other you have the Akash, Agni, Prithvi experiences, amongst others. Big deal. Move on.

"what is the chain of command to make a decison to launch an ABM within minutes"
There are fat folders full of information nobody here is going to share with you or me.

the system being developed under research money or customer money.
India is not the US and not every defense project is sponsored by the customer. But, I'm sure the armed forces would want to participate in the "free" indigenous ABM program if it were government sponsored initially too. The alternative is that they choose not to participate and instead wait for selection, trials, ordering, and delivery of a foreign system. In the meanwhile one of our friendly neighbours chooses to shower us with explosive gifts. That would be a national disaster and a political disaster for the offending armed force. Those who run our armed forces like their jobs too.

"What if the system is truly capable (which it indeed seems to be) and the mil decides not to purchase it."
It won't go up for auction on AQKhanBay, that too is for sure.

Other than the techo specs and accuracy etc there are serious questions like does india have the resolve to identify a missile launch from the enemy territory and CONCLUDE that is is directed at indian installation thus to press the "kill button"

This is regurgitated from my post on the previous page itself. I think it would be to safe to say that the budget for DRDO to build these ABM prototypes came from the same government too. So, surely, some resolve is in place. We have, not so long ago, shot down a Pakistani Atlantique because we perceived it to be offensive. For fun, the Indian Navy also blew up a Thai ship because pirates had taken control and fired at the Indian Navy. An incoming ABM is slightly more serious, don't you think? I'm sure some buttons will get pressed, if not sooner then later. Shooting down a missile in the boost phase is far more difficult technically and challenging diplomatically. You're welcome to share your thoughts on that with us.

[munna]

"will they purhase the system from DRDO?"
They won't get it from the Pizza Hut, that's for sure.

[somnath]

Kanson,

Probabilities are what drives the logic for all BMD programmes - have been since the Star War days..I gave an example in a post above..

The problem with the probabilities however is that they are very very nebulous, calculated under restricted conditions and there is too much "Central Limit Theorem"-type normalities associated with the calculations...

And the biggest issue is cost - even a limited ABM cover (of doubtful probabilities, but lets keep that aside) costs a few dozens times more than the cost of the adversary ramping up its own offensive capacities..Therefore in order to "work", ie, for the ABM to force the adversary to spend so much in absolute amounts that it beggars itself, the resource-differential should be that high...

Taking a pertinent example - by some estimates (at least the initial DRDO proposal to the ABV govt), the cost of deploying a limited ABM cover (presumably over the national capital region) would be in the 10-15k crores range..That cost would have gone up by now for sure...And thats just one city..the sort of overlapping coverage that you are talking about for at least key industrial/urban centres, would end up costing upwards of 25-30 billion dollars...And this would be, mind you, probabkly only good enough for the current level of threats....On the other hand, at a fraction of its cost -taking the 8 crore cost of Prithvi as a benchmark, Pakistan can deploy many hundreds and thousands of more ballistic missiles...

and all this is not even taking the China factor into the equation...

Therefore, BMD is not a panacea, its probably not even a good idea in many cases to start with...The US too is realsing that now, hence the demonstrable cooling off of their enthusiasm over BMD..

Unfortunately, in India we had a scientist-driven proposal cleared without any debate and then the programme got its own momentum..No one has done a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of BMD in our context, none at least in the public domain..It is all well and good to say "hurrah" at every successful AAD/PAD test, but the key questions are unanswered..

Talking of "Nehruvian diplomacy", well for strategic weapons once you have it, the best idea is to engage with your adversary..Nukes are not meant for use, they are meant for deterrence, and as ex-Adm Prakash says, once you use it, it loses its deterrence value...Thats exactly why US and Russia spend so much time, and have been for the last 4-5 decades, on validating each others strategic forces, down to the last warhead and delivery platform...

[Kanson]

the cost of deploying a limited ABM cover (presumably over the national capital region) would be in the 10-15k crores range

On what basis, you arrived at this figure.

[narmad]

Live Fist

Prithvi Target Missile Failure Due to Flight Control Component Failure, No Design Problems: Investigators

[PratikDas]

Live Fist

Prithvi Target Missile Failure Due to Flight Control Component Failure, No Design Problems: Investigators

In just the previous page I was talking about how easy it is to blame the mass production process and not question the testing process. Then this shows up. Makes me question what kind of quality control and production oversight is in place, and if the venerable designers take any interest in the auditing the final product, i.e. completely taking apart a randomly selected mass produced missile and checking each and every part. Lighting Prithvis like fireworks and going "oopsie, that one didn't work" isn't the answer.

[somnath]

On what basis, you arrived at this figure.

I remember reading about it some time back - when the first PAd/AAD test took place...Cant find the link now, but here is an estimate of the American system:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/index.html

this is an old report, circa 2000...And the "rudimentary" coverage against unsophisticated rogue states is projected to cost 9-11 billion..this despite the Amercians having already spent a fortune over 20-25 years on the star wars programme on at lest some of the C3I building blocks...And today, these numbers would have definitely gone up..

Therefore, to conclude that an limited Indian ABM coverage would cost 2-3 billion is probably very agrressive - conservative estimates would put it way beyond that..

[Mr_Li]

Somnath you've made some good points.
I had said that ABM is mostly for chest thumping
that offended some... may be not the right choice of words.

This ABM project seems to have taken a life of its own.
Lots of good experiments and results

But no government discourse on policy or scenario of use.
(perhaps the lack of balls...)

Even the chirpy press people don't seem to be asking any Q.

Even if India had a reasonably good ABM system technically
there is no political will that will allow it to be used even once.

India's coy policy on allowing pakistan low-intensity conflict
without any repatriation is a big indicator that India will not
allow a nuclear war to take place (even if it keeps suffering)

so there should be no need for ABM in indian context.

[sumshyam]

Self Deleted :: already posted by narmad

[somnath]

Even if India had a reasonably good ABM system technically
there is no political will that will allow it to be used even once

I dont know how you get that impression..ABMs are defensive weapons - looking to bring down an incoming missile - why shouldnt any govt "not allow" it to be used?!

[shiv]

so there should be no need for ABM in indian context.

OK that's one vote in. 999,999,999 more to go as the rest of a billion Indians vote on this.

[somnath]

so there should be no need for ABM in indian context.

I am sure you made the remark flippantly, but the idea might not be without merit..

Here is a more recent report from CFR on the status of National Missile Defence:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/18792/na ... fense.html

The key takeaways:

On cost

Coyle says since Reagan's 1983 Star Wars speech, the United States has spent at least $120 billion to develop missile defense, although the actual figure is probably much higher. According to the Government Accountability Office, the missile agency has spent about $56 billion since 2002 and is budgeted to spend an additional $50 billion through 2013.

And they are nowhere near being confident, even in a limited manner, of what they have managed to deploy:

While some components show promise, Isaacs says, the system remains unproven. "There is no current U.S. missile defense system that can neutralize a ballistic missile threat that employs even simple decoys,"

Charles E. McQueary, director of the Defense Department's Operational Test and Evaluation command, writes in his 2008 annual assessment (PDF) of the missile agency that "additional test data collected under realistic flight test conditions is necessary to validate models and simulations and to increase confidence."

It's embarrassing to the Missile Defense Agency and to their contractors when these tests fail, and it can also be costly," Coyle says. "Contractors can lose their award fee if a test fails and try to plan each test so it won't fail."

And mind you, all American "interests" (US homeland, Europe) fall at least tens of minutes (of missile flight time) away from potential rogue missile firers (Iran, North Korea), and the homeland is even farther away from potential "adversaries" (Russia, China)..

In India's case, flight times will be a couple of minutes? (how much time does it take a ballistic missile to traverse the distance between Lahore and Amritsar, or even Lahore and Delhi?)...Therefore, our BMDs need to have the sort of efficiency that the Americans are probably not even designing for..

the key question really is, do we believe that a half credible BMD programme will compel PAkistan to spend enormously more in dollar terms on its offensive capabilities, enough to beggar itself even more than what it is today? enough for it to have cataclysmic changes in the long term (a la Soviet Union)? If yes, then maybe a BMD is worth pursuing..If not, the 2, or 3, or 4 billion dollars can be better utilised in a variety of other much-needed capabilities...

[sumshyam]

Other than the techo specs and accuracy etc there are serious questions like does india have the resolve to identify a missile launch from the enemy territory and CONCLUDE that is is directed at indian installation thus to press the "kill button",

I think, in the case of a hostile situation, There is no need to conclude anything....Just your so called KILL BUTTON should/will be pressed...!

these are the policy level issues not being debated thus my take that ok its a technology demostrator and much of the discussion is on its actual use is academic.

I personally am thankful for your shared thought. But Sir, Academic without its real life implication is just a rose without scent.

Anyhow, things are getting much better..Like our NORTHERN NEIGHBORS have started learning English and look they are so good that....they are getting good in software and etc etc...I read it somewhere...Never mind...Just my routine OT...!

[Kanson]

On what basis, you arrived at this figure.

I remember reading about it some time back - when the first PAd/AAD test took place...Cant find the link now, but here is an estimate of the American system:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/index.html

this is an old report, circa 2000...And the "rudimentary" coverage against unsophisticated rogue states is projected to cost 9-11 billion..this despite the Amercians having already spent a fortune over 20-25 years on the star wars programme on at lest some of the C3I building blocks...And today, these numbers would have definitely gone up..

Therefore, to conclude that an limited Indian ABM coverage would cost 2-3 billion is probably very agrressive - conservative estimates would put it way beyond that..

I will provide you better example. We are not super power yet.
South Korea bought Super Green pine radar for 83 million USD. Arrow-3, the new miisile costs around 1-2 million USD and it is comparable to features of PAD, which is again a Prithvi derivative and expected to cost around the same. Even if you likely to build redundancy and extend whichever way you want, it wont extend beyond 1 billion USD.

And thats just one city..the sort of overlapping coverage that you are talking about for at least key industrial/urban centres, would end up costing upwards of 25-30 billion dollars...And this would be, mind you, probabkly only good enough for the current level of threats....

Lets says, even if your value of 25 billion USD is correct, are we not spending more than that amount for only one arm of our military, the airforce.
MMRCA deal - 11-15 b USD
MR-SAM - 2 b USD
PAK-FA developement - 5 b USD
Su-30MKI - 50 million a peice, ran to several b USD
LCA in more than 100 no.s - 30 million a peice, 3 b USD
and the list goes. So whats wrong in spending the amount, say even as high as 25 billion USD for protecting your country from most possible existential threat.

On the other hand, at a fraction of its cost -taking the 8 crore cost of Prithvi as a benchmark, Pakistan can deploy many hundreds and thousands of more ballistic missiles...

This is another myth talked abt in media, editorials, so-called analysts and carried over to internet fora discussion. Tell me somanth, by talking abt ballistic missiles, you are talking abt strategic missiles with N-warhead, right? You know, producing N material is not cheap and ramping up the number of warheads cant happen just like that and the weakest link is the material availability and it has its own associated costs. I'm specifically talking abt Pak. How can they add thousands of ballistic missiles or even in hundreds ? and what timeframe ? On the other hand, i have no restriction or limitations in adding ABM missiles. Adding N BM, raises alram bell throughout the area and all country affected by it. So adding BM has its cost. But adding ABM worries only the adversary having BM. Further, ABM costs much less than developing a N ballistic missiles. Agni-2 costs 25 Crores. I'm oinly using Prithvi type missile, PAD, to counter Agni-2 type missile. So which program costs more ? So i can build ABM defences much more effectively costwise, than the adversary developing N ballistic missile. And before talking abt Probability and Central Limit theorem, lets keep in mind that, it can be applied to both, us and adversary. I mean, there is no use in having Ballistic missile if it falls 100 km off the target and what guarantee is that Pak missiles doesnt fall 100 km off the target.

[somnath]

Kanson ji,

I posted a "later" estimate of the cost of the US NMD programme...(Re)Quoting from there:

Coyle says since Reagan's 1983 Star Wars speech, the United States has spent at least $120 billion to develop missile defense, although the actual figure is probably much higher. According to the Government Accountability Office, the missile agency has spent about $56 billion since 2002 and is budgeted to spend an additional $50 billion through 2013.

The US has spent about 56 billion in the last 6 years, and planning to spend at leats 50 billion more in the next 3 years - all for something whose reliability is suspect even against a "ballistic missile threat that employs even simple decoys"..
This, when the US is not even buiolding its NMD for China and Russia, but purportedly for rogue states with far simpler tech...We, on the other hand have to plan for China and Pak...

A BMD is not just about buying a super radar and linking it up to a bunch of interceptor missiles..As Dr Saraswat said in an interview, the interceptor is really the last leg of the system - a whole network of radars, sensors, satellites, C4I elements need to be put in place...In a recent interview with Force mag, Dr Saraswat said that the "first phase" of India's BMD can be deployed by 2013...We dont know what "first phase" would mean though, not yet in any case...

And as I said in the earlier post, the system has to be far more "efficient" in the Indian context due to the extreme short missile flight time between India and Pak (or for that matter China)...the 20-25 billion cost, in that context would be a very very aggressive one, especially as we have no "legacy" to build on, unlike the US...

And yes, both warheads and missiles are far cheaper to produce..

On warheads, data is always nebulous due to the extreme secrecy of the process around the world..But a Brookings institution study on the cost of nuclear weapons say that about 86% of the Us expenditure on nuclear weapons were on delivery systems and security systems...Warheads is the balance - for the US, that translated to about 800 billion over a 56 year period (1940-1996, at constant 1996 prices, so inflation-adjusted)..So thats about 15-16 billion dollars every year, for a US-sized arsenal (hitting numbers of 40-50k for a time and including large numbers of more-expensive-to-produce-and-maintain thermonuclear bombs)...For a smaller arsenal running into a couple of thousand, you can extrapolate the cost of warhead production - not more than a billion dollars, or even less...

the study is here:
http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archi ... wartz.aspx

Now delivery systems is what has gotten so much cheaper than what they were 30-40 years back...So you have cruise missiles available at a million dollars each, ballistic missiles of the simpler (Prithvi) variety at a couple of pops..

Further,fissile material enrichment is not a "black box" to anyone anymore - a range of chaps seem to be able to do it easily now...And ramping up is much simpler as well - as we can see with Iran's example....

Combine the two data points and you can see how much easier and cheaper it is to ramp up fissile material enrichment and missile production...The point is that the science and tech for both these are very very well known - everything is all there on the internet...

BMD, on the other hand, is an evolving tech, and people are still figuring out the limits of missile capabilities...How much did we spend on developing Brahmos? 250 million dollars? But how much will a BMD system need to spend to have a chance of tracking and eliminating a supersonic cruise missile, given that even a subsonic one is not really within its capabilities today?

Having said that, as I said, it might just still work in the Pak context...Maybe the resource differential is so large that the incremental efffort that Pak will need to make will cripple it even further...But then, what about China? A BMD programme will also cause China to move more numbers of its nuke forces closer to our border, and as the BMD gains "public" credibility, also ramp up....There is a "reverse gap" between us and China in resources - what happens to our own "minimum deterrence" levels against them then?

[narayana]

Well i dont know much tech stuff,but in general speaking if its a all out war between india and pakistan and it goes too far,then they will use nukes irrespective of we have BMD's or not,and i dont think they will rain more missiles at one place to defeat the BMD's,they will try to strike more places particularly cities that are very vital.if we have BMDs we may be able to save a few cities if not all before we wipe them off the map.and about cost,if we can save a 10 million lives,cost should not matter.

And BMD's can even save our second strike capabilities from a nuke attack to retaliate in full force.

JMT