Indian Cruise Missile Defence - News and Discussions

Discussion in 'Defence & Strategic Issues' started by arnabmit, Oct 27, 2013.

  1. arnabmit

    arnabmit Homo Communis Indus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    5,859
    Location:
    Kolkata
    India: Defeating the Cruise Missile Threat | Flashpoints

    October 26, 2013 : By Debalina Ghoshal

    The country may need to look beyond a conventional defense, to deterrence by punishment.

    As India considers its threat environment, it must consider not just ballistic missiles, but also cruise missiles, such as those that might potentially be launched from Pakistan or China. These latter are far more difficult to detect and intercept than are ballistic missiles.

    A cruise missile has been defined as a “weapon which automatically flies an essentially horizontal cruise flight profile for most of the duration of its flight between launch and its terminal trajectory to impact.” Land-attack cruise missiles further complicate the task of any defense system, since they can be terrain hugging and can also fly a circuitous trajectory.

    In particular, Pakistan’s Babur and Raad cruise missiles represent a threat to India. Meanwhile, China’s cruise missile arsenal include the Seersucker, Silkworm, the ground launched DH-10 and the air-launched CJ-10, C-101 and HN series, to name a few. Some of China’s missiles are nuclear capable.

    As it considers these weapons, one of the key questions that confronts New Delhi is whether it should opt solely for a cruise missile defense or also adopt a “deterrence by punishment” posture with the help of its own cruise missile arsenal. While a cruise missile defense could possibly intercept a subsonic cruise missile, it may be difficult to intercept supersonic cruise missiles and it is virtually impossible to intercept hypersonic cruise missiles. Although at present neither Pakistan nor China possess a hypersonic cruise missile, that could very well change. China already has supersonic cruise missiles such as the C-101 and C-301. Pakistan has also acquired the new CM-400 AKG, a supersonic cruise missile claimed to be hard to intercept because of its velocity.

    For its part, India is currently working on a ballistic missile defense. India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation is developing a defense system with two layers, with Advanced Air Defence (AAD) as the first layer and the two-stage Prithvi Air Defence (PAD) as the second layer. However, neither PAD nor AAD would be able to intercept cruise missiles.

    Using anti-air missiles of various ranges, it may still be possible to intercept supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles (although intercepting land-attack missiles remains a Herculean task). France, for instance, has been able to intercept supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles using its Principal Anti-Air Missile System. For it to replicate the feat, India would need an effective command, control, communication, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance system. Even with that, intercepting hypersonic cruise missiles would very likely remain unrealistic. Moreover, missiles with low radar signatures make the job of any air or missile defense system that much more difficult. Any surface-to-air missiles used would need to be highly sophisticated, with high-power large aperture radars, although even that might not be enough to intercept incoming threats. India could hope to defeat air-launched cruise missiles by destroying the aircraft that carry them. However, both Pakistan and China are developing stealth technology that could make it difficult for India to locate and destroy the aircraft before they fire.

    All of which means that while defense by denial is an important approach, India ought also to consider another form of defense. Specifically, it must concentrate on its own hypersonic cruise missiles. To maximize deterrence, its cruise missile arsenal should also be nuclear capable. Deterrence by punishment is a useful option when defense in general may not be sufficiently robust to counter the threat, and nuclear-capable cruise missiles would be as effective in that respect as nuclear-capable ballistic missiles. Indeed, the moment a missile becomes nuclear capable, it has value as deterrence.

    In fact, next-generation cruise missiles for India and for other countries are likely not only to be faster, but will also be able to carry non-nuclear warheads that are equally cataclysmic, like directed energy weapons, such as electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons that could disable command, control and communication systems. A high-speed, sophisticated cruise missile carrying such a deadly warhead would surely give an adversary pause.

    Already, India’s BrahMos supersonic cruise missile is capable of evading any missile defense system in the world. There are also plans to develop a hypersonic version. Either version is likely to defeat any defense system it counters. The next step would be for the missiles to be nuclear capable, making them a deterrence against not only conventional cruise missile attacks, but also against nuclear strikes using cruise missiles or even ballistic missiles.

    (Debalina Ghoshal is an Associate Fellow at the Centre for Air Power Studies)
     
    A chauhan likes this.
  2.  
  3. W.G.Ewald

    W.G.Ewald Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2 Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,528
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    Defeating Cruise Missiles
     
    arnabmit likes this.
  4. W.G.Ewald

    W.G.Ewald Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2 Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,528
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    ibid.

    [​IMG]
     
    SajeevJino, happy and arnabmit like this.
  5. happy

    happy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Messages:
    3,369
    Likes Received:
    1,448
    Location:
    Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh
    Sir, does this hold true to any type of cruise missile? I mean, will a supersonic cruise missile take lesser time to target??
     
  6. W.G.Ewald

    W.G.Ewald Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2 Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,528
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    T=D/R, so yes. Greater rate, lesser time.
     
    happy likes this.
  7. SajeevJino

    SajeevJino Long walk Elite Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    5,650
    Likes Received:
    3,031
    Location:
    Inside a Cage
    In my views Gun turret systems is the Best option to defeat the Cruise Missile

    Once the Radar Picked Up the missiles Path we can take it out Using our Turret systems Like Shilka now and Land based AK 630 CIWS in Future

    Problems is they are Hungry systems they need Tons of Projects to defeat a single target
     
  8. cloud

    cloud Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    67
    Location:
    India
    Land based guns are not a solution for cruise missiles. if you hold the gun at horizon you can aim hardly 2-3 kilometers properly as these missiles flies very low, due to curvature of earth, unless one to put a pairs of AK630 every kilometer on entire Indian border on High towers/high ground such as hills including with Radars. But then I would prefer a solution something like OTO melara 76mm DART round. For example in below video(starts at 2:45), which covers greater area with precision. AK630 would eat too much lead. Also I'm assuming Oto-melara DART types of round can be used against artillery shells and short range missiles(I doubt if any military has conducted such tests so far, but seems possible) with more development. Such a solution is feasible. for India one would need to cover approx 7-8000 kms for outer layer ring Assuming A pair of such gun at every 10kms you will need 1500 guns..Seems quite possible if a long term plan is devised. And also one would need 3-4 rings of such guns, as enemy will most likely to take out the outer ring post even if in single numbers, this will create the holes and so missiles should be picked up by another ring 30-40 kms behind it.
    Oto Melara 76mm Strales Naval Gun System - YouTube

    Similarly land based radar also have very less range to detect them, no matter even if use swordfish radar it won't pickup cruise missile 40-50 km away.. We should be prioritizing the long range land based radar to pickup BMs and high flying target and should invest considerably in Aerostat radar for low level detection(i. e. downward looking radar) and our own AWECS even though they don't have 360 degree coverage, but we need to scan only the other side of border mostly. 20-30 AEROSTAT radar can cover the whole border, except in adverse weather situation.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2013

Share This Page