Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Sep 2010 14:35

Kanson wrote:Ooopps...so much disagreement on one such statement! Maybe it should be taken as compliment as any achievements will be compared to the best system in the world or the first system of its class and we are never going to have a face off with Topol-M.

The issue is not of "one statement", its of abusing folks like Pillai, VKS etc. Last year, Deepak Kapoor, at an off the record conference, mentioned issues like IA modernization. The media blew it into a controversy and then you had every fellow taking potshots at him in the media, in an equally shameful manner. Nine tens of those mocking him could not identify a tank if it was given to them on a dinner plate but that did not matter. Disagree with what these people say, but frame it in civilized terms and using strong factual basis. Ego-driven stuff like "loud mouth, talk big, good PR" is no basis for a discussion.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Sep 2010 14:42

Kanson wrote:Sir, adding to your point, we were not offered best of PAC system initially and even PAC-3 system is getting updated.

Yes, we were offered PAC-2 and then GEM & even the Hawk. You open any Indian trade magazine and you will see Hawk ads. And then upgraded versions of the same. Russia has been busy pushing the S-300 series at shows. Ask them about how some of their earlier equipment was given second hand or with bad spares, and they will deny everything.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 21 Sep 2010 14:49

Karan M wrote:
Kanson wrote:Ooopps...so much disagreement on one such statement! Maybe it should be taken as compliment as any achievements will be compared to the best system in the world or the first system of its class and we are never going to have a face off with Topol-M.
The issue is not of "one statement", its of abusing folks like Pillai, VKS etc. Last year, Deepak Kapoor, at an off the record conference, mentioned issues like IA modernization. The media blew it into a controversy and then you had every fellow taking potshots at him in the media, in an equally shameful manner. Nine tens of those mocking him could not identify a tank if it was given to them on a dinner plate but that did not matter. Disagree with what these people say, but frame it in civilized terms and using strong factual basis. Ego-driven stuff like "loud mouth, talk big, good PR" is no basis for a discussion.

There is no disagreement on this. Infact i find it bit odd seeing people defending Topol-M which we never know completely. Using statements like 'loud mouthing' is definitely not in good taste.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 21 Sep 2010 14:56

Karan M wrote: but both Janes & AWST have already picked up on it.

Sir, could you add more details for the benefit of every forum members who might be interested in this development.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 21 Sep 2010 15:05

ramana wrote:Austin, He is making a technical statement. Please always evaluate the message at hand and then put past performance into the picture.
He is very credible for both points.

Infact, he published details of engagement where the interceptor could take the target when it is manoeuvring at the last few milliseconds before it is engaged. In simple words, even if it tries to change the trajectory as a kind of evasive manoeuver at the last minute, interceptor can engage the target.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 21 Sep 2010 15:19

Kanson wrote:US which developed such complex kill vehicle like ALMV which has 56 divert rocket motors says Arrow-3 kill vehicle is more advanced than what US got so far...

"The design of Arrow 3 promises to be an extremely capable system, more advanced than what we have ever attempted in the U.S. with our programs" Gen. O'Reilly told the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services subcommittee for strategic forces. "This has to do with the seekers that have greater flexibility and other aspects, such as propulsion systems- it will be an extremely capable system" he said.

Superiority is due to the gimabled seeker in Arrow-3 which is useful it making last minute changes as the target is manoeuvering whereas the kill vehicle of the US has a fixed seeker. Maybe it is time to appreciate our designers effort in using gimbaled warhead along with proximity fuze/sensor.

Arrow-3 kill vehicle:

Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle of US origin:

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 21 Sep 2010 15:22

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 21 Sep 2010 15:23

http://defense-archive.teldan.com/Artic ... sID=451320

It is possible that the Arrow-3 high-altitude BMD system, being jointly developed by Israel Aerospace Industries and Boeing, could be modified to carry out anti-satellite (ASAT) missions against future Iranian high-resolution imaging platforms. The Arrow-3 design, which incorporates agility with the Israeli Green Pine and US AN/TPY-2 tracking radars, is already addressing some of the engineering challenges of building a ground-based ASAT system. Moreover, the Arrow-3 kill vehicle will feature a divert motor that allows the missile to switch directions quickly and dramatically.

I guess we too can expect our PDV to have ASAT capabilities.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Sep 2010 15:41

Kanson wrote:There is no disagreement on this. Infact i find it bit odd seeing people defending Topol-M which we never know completely. Using statements like 'loud mouthing' is definitely not in good taste.

Kanson , Topol-M or Agni-3 it is much less complex for any BM designer to develop a very capable ICBM then a ABM designer to develop a capable interceptor intercepting those maneuvering target. An ABM is quite complex and has too many failure points or things that can go wrong.

That is one of the key reason ABM developer tests their interceptor with specialised developed BM and do not use proven BM as target , not even during advanced level of testing and you must have seen they do not test SM-3 ,NMD against Trident D5, because one of the guys will be proven wrong and there is a high probability it will be the BMD guy due to complex engagement nature.

BTW Topol-M is a top class ICBM with MRV (BGRV) and LLRI capability as mentioned by William Yengest in Lightening Bolts , the Agni-5 will get similar capability eventuallylink

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 21 Sep 2010 16:10

Austin wrote:
Kanson wrote:There is no disagreement on this. Infact i find it bit odd seeing people defending Topol-M which we never know completely. Using statements like 'loud mouthing' is definitely not in good taste.
Kanson , Topol-M or Agni-3 it is much less complex for any BM designer to develop a very capable ICBM then a ABM designer to develop a capable interceptor intercepting those maneuvering target. An ABM is quite complex and has too many failure points or things that can go wrong.

Quite complex indeed. But that is where the ascendancy in the skills related to these tech will be established and complimented in turn into the BM programme. As you see, our BM programme are increasingly stressing on precision as we progress in BMD. That precision is indeed the building blocks of credible ABM. This precision in BM is not achievable unless you have high degree of control & a very good flexible, responsive guidance. And this very same tech will be used in ABM. So to reframe your statement, anyone can make ballistic missile. As Prahlada mentioned, techs are so available that people can construct a BM in the garage on Sunday at their leisure time. Real question is can anyone make BM with hi-fidelity ? i.e. it should exactly go in the same path as programmed and land on exact spot where you want that to land. This is quite a complex tech. You have to be a master in propulsion, guidance & control. And this is same tech needed in ABM.

Corollary, if you have a credible ABM, you have a very robust BM.

I am sure the quite guy Avinash Chander will be having a nice simile on his face when he hears what his boss has to say on ABM topic

If if i'm not wrong, they will be consulting each other as we are developing both tech simultaneously.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Sep 2010 16:27

Well the world and more specifically India has been making BM much before we had any ABM program on the drawing board and our BM like A-2/A-1 were quite precise.

ABM program really could benefit from BM program in some way or the other as they do share some common technology.

Avinash Chander would certainly have his own point to make on what his boss has to say on ABM , We are moving in A-5 direction with those technology because we see ABM as a threat and there is need to defeat those threat with A-5 technology not just regionally but on a global scale.

As I said some one has to be proven more wrong here either the guys who work on top class BM technology like Agni-3,Agni-5,Topol-M etc or the guys who are working on ABM technology like AAD-1/2/SM-3/Arrow/S-5xx etc

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 21 Sep 2010 16:55

Austin wrote:Well the world and more specifically India has been making BM much before we had any ABM program on the drawing board and our BM like A-2/A-1 were quite precise.

hmm...may i share few points....maybe it is true only for US as it is not having any active BM programme. Russia, China, India developed or developing BM along with ABM more or less in the sametime. In the case of India, we are developing ABM from late 90s that is also the time Agni-1, Agni-3 programme started. We are pursuing both programmes side by side as a parallel track. So it is prudent to expect both benefiting from each other.

ABM program really could benefit from BM program in some way or the other as they do share some common technology.

Yes, that's reason i probably reframe your following statement

As I said some one has to be proven more wrong here either the guys who work on top class BM technology like Agni-3,Agni-5,Topol-M etc or the guys who are working on ABM technology like AAD-1/2/SM-3/Arrow/S-5xx etc

as Agni-3,5/AD-1,2/PDV Vs Topol-M/S-5xx.

I guess i'm highlighting the subtle difference. Agni missile is *not* in race with PDV/AD-2 missile as the basic tech for both missiles came from the same pool. In any altercation we are pitting one set of techs(Shields & Swords) from Indians against another set of techs from the adversary. If i could stress the point, both Shields & Swords benefit from the *same* metallurgical knowledge of the land where they are developed and it will be the same more or less.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Sep 2010 17:29

Kanson the point I was trying to make is there are claims from both the sides , Much like we are developing A-5 to defeat future ABM threats or atleast one of the purpose , people from other side of continent are developing ABM to deal with such advanced BM.

Much like ABM threats are building up there are new ICBM development on the block the American are planning for Trident replacement , the Russians are developing SS-18 replacement , the Chinese are with new DF-xx and I am sure the Paki begging bowl is working tirelessly, Most of these countries including India have ABM on their table as well.

So VKS claims have as much a credibility as Avinish Chander has and they are on the opposite side of the task ( not against each other ) but against the BM vs ABM world , some one will be eventually proven wrong.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 21 Sep 2010 19:06

Austin wrote:Kanson the point I was trying to make is there are claims from both the sides , Much like we are developing A-5 to defeat future ABM threats or atleast one of the purpose , people from other side of continent are developing ABM to deal with such advanced BM.

.......

So VKS claims have as much a credibility as Avinish Chander has and they are on the opposite side of the task ( not against each other ) but against the BM vs ABM world , some one will be eventually proven wrong.

Agreed. But that doesn't change the status quo of BM Vs ABM in general, isn't it?

If Indian BM fails, the ABM of the adversary will be heralded and the same way if Indian ABM defeats the incoming threat then it treated as superior tech. All in all, it is one tech vs another. Anyway, i understood your point.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 21 Sep 2010 19:19

Kanson wrote:US which developed such complex kill vehicle like ALMV which has 56 divert rocket motors says Arrow-3 kill vehicle is more advanced than what US got so far...

"The design of Arrow 3 promises to be an extremely capable system, more advanced than what we have ever attempted in the U.S. with our programs" Gen. O'Reilly told the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services subcommittee for strategic forces. "This has to do with the seekers that have greater flexibility and other aspects, such as propulsion systems- it will be an extremely capable system" he said.

Kanson wrote:Superiority of Arrow-3 kill vehicle is due to the gimabled seeker in Arrow-3 which is useful it making last minute changes as the target is manoeuvering whereas the kill vehicle of the US has a fixed seeker. Maybe it is time to appreciate our designers effort in using gimbaled warhead along with proximity fuze/sensor.

To add meat to this assertion, quoting a piece from relatively old article by T.S. Subramanian.

At this point of time, the radio proximity fuse (RPF) of the gimballed directional warhead calculated the distance from Dhanush and the time at which the warhead should detonate.
.........
The highlights of the mission were proving the technology of the gimballed directional warhead and demonstrating the interceptor’s coasting phase, using a vernier thruster. This coasting phase in the interceptor’s trajectory helps it to decide at what stage it should intercept the “enemy” missile. If the attacker does a manoeuvre, the interceptor’s guidance system will take care of it. To make the seeker effective, the DRDO used a wide-beam RPF in the warhead, which was a mini-radar. “So even if there is a manoeuvre by the enemy missile in the last 500 milliseconds, the RPF will be able to take care of it. The directional warhead will be ignited on the basis of the data given by the RPF,” said Saraswat.

It is the sensor along with warhead positioned on the gimabled platform is very much similar to that of Arrow-3 kill vehicle, isn't it?

Difference is we tested the concept much before it could be built up for the Arrow-3 and US says Arrow-3 is much more advanced than their own kill vehicle design.

Maybe it can be said that i'm boasting but what's wrong in telling the obvious, hmm?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Sep 2010 20:13

Austin wrote:Kanson , Topol-M or Agni-3 it is much less complex for any BM designer to develop a very capable ICBM then a ABM designer to develop a capable interceptor intercepting those maneuvering target. An ABM is quite complex and has too many failure points or things that can go wrong.

That's pretty obvious, as one is a system not just a missile! An ABM complex has specialized radars, battle management systems, fail proof communication links. The BM is a F&F system. To compare the two in the manner you are doing is apples to oranges. What should also be obvious, is that if you develop BM's your understanding of ABM systems improves!

That is one of the key reason ABM developer tests their interceptor with specialised developed BM and do not use proven BM as target , not even during advanced level of testing and you must have seen they do not test SM-3 ,NMD against Trident D5, because one of the guys will be proven wrong and there is a high probability it will be the BMD guy due to complex engagement nature.

Can you tell us, with absolute certainty, what targets and systems have been used so far for calibrating the sensors and systems on the Indian ABM and what are the growth targets built into the Project Plan? If not, your speculation is, unwarranted.

Second, your claims about why proven BMs not being used for tests are not as clear cut as you are saying. People dont use entire proven BMs for a variety of reasons, one huge reason being cost and limited availability of strategic assets!! The Americans are not using Trident D-5's is A) Because they cost too much (around $32 Million when manufactured, and today, many times that) and B)There are only a limited number left, which will be safeguarded, are being modernized and the occasional test fire for stock monitoring also has to be considered.

The standard nowadays is to make BM representative targets, either via brand new systems, or by jury rigging earlier targets. The Israelis do the former, the Russians, the latter. Do not underestimate the cost factor.

BTW Topol-M is a top class ICBM with MRV (BGRV) and LLRI capability as mentioned by William Yengest in Lightening Bolts , the Agni-5 will get similar capability eventually

And what information is William Yengst basing his claims on, public Russian statements? Isnt he the same guy who used internet webpages for Indian programs? With all due respect, how can you even be sure what the exact capabilities of the current Topol-M are, unless you think the Russians are kind enough to detail all its capabilities well in advance for the Americans and others to counter!What you should also be considering is why Russia is so cut up about US Missile Defence if everything is A-Ok at their side.

I am sure the quite guy Avinash Chander will be having a nice simile on his face when he hears what his boss has to say on ABM topic

Do you know Avinash Chander, personally to say that he is a "quite guy" and "that he will be having a nice smile on his face when he hears what his boss has to say on ABM topic". If not, then how can such statements be made. They have no place in any serious discussion. Now you have discovered telepathy to know what Avinash Chander will say or speak about his "boss" and imply that VK Saraswat has no BM experience and is talking out of his hat. So let us stop all these insinuations and look at available evidence.

First, lets begin with Saraswats resume from public information to know this man is to begin with, a Ballistic Missiles specialist. Dr Saraswat was Deputy Project Director in Project Prithvi, and played a vital role in developing its systems. During his tenure after he took over from Lt Gen VJ Sundaram, Prithvi program development included development flight trials, product improvement, TOT to the production agencies, production, training and induction. Add-ons included Prithvi payloads and different warhead types. (Source: CSIR News clippings)

He was then responsible for follow on Prithvi derived and other projects as well. Kalam, another missile specialist then handpicked Saraswat to head Air Defence program. So Kalam was also incompetent? (http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/01/ ... ssile.html)

Second, to show how mistaken you are of how closely these programs are linked. Project IGMP had integrated teams leveraging cross developed technology and this approach is being continued (http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/01/ ... nd-up.html) So by virtue of the setup itself, solid motors are coming from ASL, INS & Seekers from RCI & DRDL does liquid propulsion, and aerodynamics. These components and systems are required across missile programs. So how does only Avinash Chander know the secret sauce of BM's while Saraswat does not! And Saraswat, see below, is from DRDL and headed RCI also.

Third, for your information, prior to becoming the SA to RM, Saraswat was the CC R&D- Missiles and Strategic Systems. That means R&D for every DRDO missile related project was under his dominion. His job was to know more about the overall big picture and to actually develop the path forward for ALL of the missiles, given his background in both DRDL and RCI.

Here:

Dr Saraswat had been “Distinguished Scientist and Chief Controller Research and Development (Missiles and Strategic Systems)” since November 2005 before taking over as the new head of Defence R&D. 1. In his capacity as CCR&D (MSS) he spearheaded the development of country’s strategic and tactical missile systems including the AGNI series of strategic missiles covering a range up to 3000 kms as well as Air Defence system against hostile ballistic missiles, making India self-reliant in Missile Technologies.

Dr. Saraswat, a Ph.D in Combustion Engineering, started his career in DRDO in 1972 at the Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), Hyderabad and was responsible for the development of country’s first Liquid Propulsion Engine. 2.As Project Director ‘Prithvi’’, he steered the design, development, production and induction of the first indigenous Surface-to-Surface missile system into the armed forces.

The successful testing of ‘Dhanush’ missile on board a moving ship with high terminal accuracy brought a new dimension in the national defence capability. 3.As Program Director AD (Air Defence), Dr. Saraswat pioneered the concept of theatre defence system and integration of national Air Defence elements. 4.He was Director, Research Centre Imarat (RCI) before taking over as CCR&D(MSS) in November, 2005. He was conferred Padmashree in 1998.(EOM)

And:

http://www.zeenews.com/news558875.html

Holding a doctorate in combustion engineering, Saraswat started his career in DRDO in 1972 at 1. Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), Hyderabad and was responsible for the development of the country’s first Liquid Propulsion Engine.

2. "He played a key role in the development of a number of critical missile technologies that were under denial due to Missile Technology Control regime, thus making India self-reliant in missile technologies," the officials said.

Your claims are wrong, across the board, which you could have easily discerned if you spent some time seeing the information available to all of us.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Sep 2010 20:39

Kanson wrote:It is the sensor along with warhead positioned on the gimabled platform is very much similar to that of Arrow-3 kill vehicle, isn't it? Difference is we tested the concept much before it could be built up for the Arrow-3 and US says Arrow-3 is much more advanced than their own kill vehicle design. Maybe it can be said that i'm boasting but what's wrong in telling the obvious, hmm?

Yes, the concept is similar in some respects. Key Arrow3 advances also suggest gimballed seeker (TV&IR) and new simplified KV with solid motor TVC (in space).

http://defense-update.com/products/a/arrow3.html

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Sep 2010 20:51

Austin wrote:Well the world and more specifically India has been making BM much before we had any ABM program on the drawing board and our BM like A-2/A-1 were quite precise.

ABM program really could benefit from BM program in some way or the other as they do share some common technology.

Avinash Chander would certainly have his own point to make on what his boss has to say on ABM , We are moving in A-5 direction with those technology because we see ABM as a threat and there is need to defeat those threat with A-5 technology not just regionally but on a global scale.

As I said some one has to be proven more wrong here either the guys who work on top class BM technology like Agni-3,Agni-5,Topol-M etc or the guys who are working on ABM technology like AAD-1/2/SM-3/Arrow/S-5xx etc

India started BMs simultaneously along with research into surface to air missiles. So the gap is not as large you infer.

Rest of the details about the "boss" and his knowledge about BMs has already been pointed out.

Finally, India's ABM program considers what technology likely adversaries have in BMs and how to defeat it, and BM program considers what technologies opponent ABM systems have and how to defeat them. Both proceed hand in hand which is why all this being under one head and one organization is such a force multiplier as they dont have to run all over the place for missing links in understanding the sword and the shield.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 22 Sep 2010 02:59

Kanson wrote:
ITR sources said the missile would be tested for 320 km range.
Earlier on June 18 last, the missile was conducted for a range of 273 km.
Wow! Missile range is gradually increasing. If the max. range is 350 km what is the significance of testing @ 320 km from the previous 273 km range.

Probably they are trying the same maneuver on Prithvi that they did with the last test of Brahmos, its a pull in trajectory of the warhead which makes the range 320km instead of 350km

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 22 Sep 2010 04:56

for boost phase interception the spec of SM-3 is suitable which is 150km altitude and 500km range while PDV is said to be close to THAAD which is at 150km altitude and 200km range

There was a mention of a possible surface role for a PDV derivative which suggests longer ranges are possible. Arrow-3 reaches Mach 9 in space and Shaurya reached mach 7 at higher altitudes but well within the atmosphere

for end game dynamics, high divert systems seem to help with large kill envelopes, and the interceptor can also be launched quicker even before determining the interception point; Agni-3 has the flex nozzle thrust vectoring system

acquisition immediately after launch remains a problem for boost phase interception since LRTR picks up the target missile after its well into its boost phase due to the horizon, probably AFNet integrated airborne radars can do the honors in this special case for ranges of 400-500km

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 22 Sep 2010 05:31

Austin wrote: I am sure the quite guy Avinash Chander will be having a nice simile on his face when he hears what his boss has to say on ABM topic

I protest:
1) foul mouthing Shree Saraswat for no particular reason other than personal tastes
2) using Shree Chander's name as a post-trauma jock-cup after others protested

These are two are revered public servants of India and are not action figures for anyone to make them do battle.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Sep 2010 07:04

Austin wrote:
I guess he the guy who will talk big , show big dreams, and extract maximum fund from the GOI

The US, Russia and Israel do exactly that while talking about their systems. They are all looking at selling their stuff to make money and unless India invests someone will sell us snake oil. Wake up sir.

Like Religion of love and religion of peace, here we have "Missiles for peace"
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/08/4662003

With the production of enough SM-3 interceptors (i.e., thousands), the costs of our missile defenses could drop below that of offensive missile systems, but this would require a good number of America’s allies buying large numbers of SM-3 systems.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Sep 2010 08:49

shiv wrote:The US, Russia and Israel do exactly that while talking about their systems. They are all looking at selling their stuff to make money and unless India invests someone will sell us snake oil. Wake up sir

Shiv ofcourse they do thats how the entire MIC works , eventually these people get their ROI many times over by eventually selling stuff to other countries and even components and systems , as you would know many key systems in indian BMD forms part of their BMD system.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Sep 2010 10:15

Austin wrote:
shiv wrote:The US, Russia and Israel do exactly that while talking about their systems. They are all looking at selling their stuff to make money and unless India invests someone will sell us snake oil. Wake up sir
Shiv ofcourse they do thats how the entire MIC works , eventually these people get their ROI many times over by eventually selling stuff to other countries and even components and systems , as you would know many key systems in indian BMD forms part of their BMD system.

But that does not happen by accusing them of talking big to extracting money from their governments as you have alleged about Saraswat. If the head of India's missile programs is accused of bluster, it only helps foreign sellers act as if they are selling something more than snake oil as compared to an extractor of money like Saraswat. We all have heard about the serviceability and efficacy of imported systems.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Sep 2010 10:37

shiv wrote:But that does not happen by accusing them of talking big to extracting money from their governments as you have alleged about Saraswat. If the head of India's missile programs is accused of bluster, it only helps foreign sellers act as if they are selling something more than snake oil as compared to an extractor of money like Saraswat. We all have heard about the serviceability and efficacy of imported systems.

Saraswat is doing a task mandated by GOI , so there is no point in me calling him a bluster or any thing as he is not extracting money for his own personal benefit. He is just showing big dream which I must say nicely over laps with US Missile Defence ppt may be just a coincidence or probably because what he has in mind must be the latest and greatest out there and that needs big funds which eventually the GOI may or may not provide that is another story.

As far as foreign seller they are already in our BMD system directly or indirectly, even the GP sale needed the approval of US although its an Israel system.

Nirmal · Post by **Nirmal** » 22 Sep 2010 14:12

hnair wrote:
Austin wrote: I am sure the quite guy Avinash Chander will be having a nice simile on his face when he hears what his boss has to say on ABM topic
I protest:
1) foul mouthing Shree Saraswat for no particular reason other than personal tastes
2) using Shree Chander's name as a post-trauma jock-cup after others protested

These are two are revered public servants of India and are not action figures for anyone to make them do battle.

I second that view. WE MUST LEARN TO LEAVE personal attacks out of this forum. Such action only demean the quality and substance of this very valuable forum. Moderators please act.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 22 Sep 2010 14:38

>>>He is just showing big dream which I must say nicely over laps with US Missile Defence ppt may be just a coincidence or probably because what he has in mind must be the latest and greatest out there and that needs big funds which eventually the GOI may or may not provide that is another story.

For that reason alone, we must thank these guys - i.e., for thinking big. If not, nothing will happen..Kalam thought big, so the LCA is what it is today. If he had thought of designing a fighter to counter the Thudaaar onlee, then we would be holding an aircraft much less capable than LCA, still without an indigenous engine. See the case of the engine itself - they (GTRE or whoever) thought of meeting the original specs of LCA, hence the thrust is inadequate now...

Another reason for all these guys to talk big could be to get adequate funds - previously, when they needed 100 crores, they asked for 10 crores and the stingy babu gave 5 crores or less..Now, when they want 100 crores, they have (probably) learnt to ask for 500 crores and may get 200 crores.

In short, it is good to think big. Nothing wrong, even if there is a bit of boasting involved. People like me get comfort even in designs on paper sometimes.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Sep 2010 16:01

geeth wrote:In short, it is good to think big. Nothing wrong, even if there is a bit of boasting involved. People like me get comfort even in designs on paper sometimes.

Geeth I understand and appreciate the sentiments you have expressed and all Indians are proud that Kalam and many others unknown scientist have provided us with a deterrent and offensive system.

Though ABM system may have its own value one of the unintended consequences that ABM brings to the table is that it tends to fuel arms race that no other system does , I use the word unintended because we are fairly new to the game and GOI is yet to wake up on this issue and probably it will once systems starts getting deployed and players start reacting.

Irrespective of the promised capability the ABM brings it tends to have a very destabilizing effect on Nuclear deterrent and not a stabilising one.

For one Pakistan would believe that as size and sophistication of Indian ABM system grows , its ability to deter India will lower down significantly and then it will take the easy way out which is to increase the number of deployed nuclear warhead and the number plus sophistication of delivery system BM , Cruise Missile and Aircraft to a level which makes them feel comfortable and that till date remains undefined.

I said easy because there is no way Pakistan will ever be able to compete with India in ABM domain so it will just increase its offensive potential.

The other player china who are much more sophisticated will too feel its deterrent getting watered down though not as greatly as Pakistan would feel will work on improving their own offensive and defensive system.

In the end if the whole ABM potential if fully unleashed we will end up with an arms race in the nuclear field and missile field that is not in our interest and something we may not be able control it will have significant impact on defense spending both in terms of import and locally developed system and we will be no better secured with zero ABM system today then what we plan to build and deploy in the next 10-15 years.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 22 Sep 2010 16:14

Austin Ji , with all due respects ABM is a system in its infancy, think 25 yrs ahead.What if countries possessing it were to perfect it and hand it over to countries like Pakistan.We will be cutting off our whatever technological prowess we have.
Pakistan is going to do whatever it fells like. Same goes for china.It would be a big folly to not develop and deploy it at the earliest.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 22 Sep 2010 16:16

Deeper and deeper we dig ourselves

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 22 Sep 2010 16:24

Enough has been said about all this and it has been registered to one and all..
None of us need to prove respect and loyalty by focusing on few loosely (carelessly) constructed phrases... nobody is writing a legal documents here that even a semi-colon requires “true” interpretation..
let's move ahead...
Stop, what they call in hindi, "Behti Ganga Mein Hath Dhona"..

There is news about impending Prithvi-II test on 24th Sept.. whereas recently there were snippets about new 1.3 Mts dia, Agnii-II test on last week of Sept.
Next 2-3 days could be interesting. Let us all focus on that....

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Sep 2010 16:27

Manishw wrote:Austin Ji , with all due respects ABM is a system in its infancy, think 25 yrs ahead.What if countries possessing it were to perfect it and hand it over to countries like Pakistan.We will be cutting off our whatever technological prowess we have.
Pakistan is going to do whatever it fells like. Same goes for china.It would be a big folly to not develop and deploy it at the earliest.

They still do what ever they feel like and they always did that way an ABM or no ABM will not change their atttitude. Did our going nuclear every changed them , on the contrary they have gone more worse but that another topic.

And offensive system are there and they can always be developed , an ABM system can never have any stabilising effect considering we do not have even a defined deterrence in place.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 22 Sep 2010 16:34

Austin wrote: And offensive system are there and they can always be developed , an ABM system can never have any stabilising effect considering we do not have even a defined deterrence in place.

And are you sure that potent ABM system's can never develop not only today but in the future.
One is a shield and another is a sword I do not find any comparisons between them.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 22 Sep 2010 16:38

Austin wrote:
They still do what ever they feel like and they always did that way an ABM or no ABM will not change their atttitude. Did our going nuclear every changed them , on the contrary they have gone more worse but that another topic.

So are you suggesting that we should not have gone nuclear?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Sep 2010 16:42

Manishw wrote:And are you sure that potent ABM system's can never develop not only today but in the future. One is a shield and another is a sword I do not find any comparisons between them.

ABM and Offensive system go hand in hand , if you develop a qualitative ABM system you will develop an equally capable offensive system to break through it.

Now you are not always certain that a offensive system can just break through dense ABM ring so the only way you can be assured is to increase the number of offensive system that means warhead that means delivery system.

Which means an ABM system will always impact the offensive potential of your enemy or it equally applies to us a quality ABM in our enemy hand will always have an impact on our offensive system there are no two ways about it.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Sep 2010 16:46

Manishw wrote:So are you suggesting that we should not have gone nuclear?

Did I ever said that ?

I said our going nuclear did not change their behavior ( if that was ever expected ) on the contrary their terrorist have just got bolder under nuclear umbrella , dont expect we getting ABM will change their behaviour.

What you can be certainly assured that ABM will impact their ( China and Pakistan ) Nuclear deterrence in a way that remains unknown and not quantifiable.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 22 Sep 2010 16:48

Austin wrote:
ABM and Offensive system go hand in hand , if you develop a qualitative ABM system you will develop an equally capable offensive system to break through it.

Correct.

Austin wrote: Now you are not always certain that a offensive system can just break through dense ABM ring so the only way you can be assured is to increase the number of offensive system that means warhead that means delivery system.

Correct

Austin wrote:
Which means an ABM system will always impact the offensive potential of your enemy or it equally applies to us a quality ABM in our enemy hand will always have an impact on our offensive system there are no two ways about it.

correct
So why don't we develop and deploy an ABM system? These general statements don't say anything.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 22 Sep 2010 16:52

Austin wrote: Did I ever said that ?

I said our going nuclear did not change their behavior ( if that was ever expected ) on the contrary their terrorist have just got bolder under nuclear umbrella , dont expect we getting ABM will change their behaviour.

You never said that , that is the reason I asked this question, kindly dont go off topic and qualify it by saying 'that is another topic'.You are doing the same thing again.Anyway never expected them to change their behavior.

Austin wrote: What you can be certainly assured that ABM will impact their ( China and Pakistan ) Nuclear deterrence in a way that remains unknown and not quantifiable.

So if it remains unknown we drop it? sound's illogical to me.By that same yardstick plenty of other things should also be dropped.Bizarre.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Sep 2010 17:33

Manishw wrote:So if it remains unknown we drop it? sound's illogical to me.By that same yardstick plenty of other things should also be dropped.Bizarre.

Manishw you are right there are plenty of other things I agree may be 100 more aircraft , 20 more submarine conventional dissimilarity etc etc.

But the impact of ABM is something different as it has impact on Strategic Space in ways we may not be able to control.

Any ways the whole idea to write the above was to take home the point that ABM system has its effect that can be cascading , we can certainly deploy ABM system and qualitatively improve it that is within our reach and our threat perception but we need to be equally prepared on exponentially increase in offensive potential of our enemy in ways that remains undefined and unknown.

You can bet we would be no more better secured with ABM 20 years from now then what we are right at this moment.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 22 Sep 2010 17:45

Austin wrote: Any ways the whole idea to write the above was to take home the point that ABM system has its effect that can be cascading , we can certainly deploy ABM system and qualitatively improve it that is within our reach and our threat perception but we need to be equally prepared on exponentially increase in offensive potential of our enemy in ways that remains undefined and unknown.
You can bet we would be no more better secured with ABM 20 years from now then what we are right at this moment.

I do see your point that if our BM fail so would our ABM but that cascading effect could perhaps occur even without ABM.Then would we be better off with or without ABM.

There are multiple spinoff's to this technology also, will we do without them also?

20 yrs is a long time.How can you bet either way when technology is changing rapidly?