India's Cold Start Is Too Hot

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Sir. I guess you may have read some of OOE's posts in DFI. He particular believes the Nuclear Option in the subcontinent isn't what it is assumed to be. Neither country can destroy "everything."

Also he was of the opinion that tactical conventional weapons have reached a point where objectives can be achieved more readily compared to nukes. Blowing up a city's water and electricity supply from the air can have an equivalent effect as multiple 20KT nuke attacks on the city.

Whatever the Pakistanis can throw at us in a tactical level cannot be compared to our conventional weapons superiority. Also their ability to rain down tactical nuclear weapons does not mean we have to stoop to their level when the effect is greater with conventional weapons.

The onus is on us to retaliate and we may not have to. Also how much pressure do you think Pakistan will face if they use TNWs while we never do?

They have very little second strike capability. If we escalate using our strategic weapons what little weapons they will have left after our first strike will or may be eaten by our ABM system.

They are at a disadvantage in both parameters.

Note a 1KT Nukkad will only be able to level a tiny area with a crater of probably 30x30m dimensions(maybe lesser) and a radiation cloud measuring, maybe, 1KM in diameter. They will be going the Plutonium route of course.
My reply assumes that I have understood your post.

You must also forgive me since in a post in reply, it is immensely difficult to explain issues since the subject is vast and the scenarios many.

OoE has does not know the environment of warfare in the subcontinent or the rationale behind selection of objectives. He postulations are based on the European context of the Cold War days and the Iraq War.

If one observes the various wars fought in the subcontinent, one will observe the window of the war is very limited. Therefore, would any country go for towns/ cities which are urban in nature and with very few avenues and instead have small lanes and bylanes? Imagine the colossal effort and time that will be taken to clear such cities/ town. By the time a city or town is addressed for some realistic result, the war would be over, the international powerbrokers having intervened as usual. And what would be our gain to show after the war is halted? One city? It would not be cost productive in the subcontinental context.

While I would be surprised if Pakistan 'rains down' tack nukes, yet a tac nuke with some yield can be assumed to have some stopping power to an advance compared to conventional weaponry.

In the Cold Start we would have seized the initiative and would be on the roll with our conventional weaponry and platforms. Therefore, there should be no reason for us to use tac nukes, unless Pakistan uses it. Then it would be retaliatory, the world having known that Pakistan used it first.

I am not talking of the strategic nuclear realm since that would mean a totally different scenario.

If I may add, tac nukes are designed for the tactical battlefield.
 
Last edited:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Say we use nukes, a few kilometres inside Pakistani territory or they use nukes a few kilometres inside Indian territory - the effect will be more or less the same when it comes to radioactive fallout.
Nuclear fallout from a tactical nuke is localized. It will dissipate quite quickly as compared to a Nuclear reactor meltdown which affects a large area.

Killing a cities power and water would mean a massive outbreak of diseases like Cholera. The nation will have to end up committing it's resources to save the citizens. If a city is destroyed completely then the govt or the military will not bother wasting resources in a high risk environment.

This is a scenario only for strategic use and the fallout is larger, but again this is localized.

My reply assumes that I have understood your post.

You must also forgive me since in a post in reply, it is immensely difficult to explain issues since the subject is vast and the scenarios many.

OoE has does not know the environment of warfare in the subcontinent or the rationale behind selection of objectives. He postulations are based on the European context of the Cold War days and the Iraq War.

If one observes the various wars fought in the subcontinent, one will observe the window of the war is very limited. Therefore, would any country go for towns/ cities which are urban in nature and with very few avenues and instead have small lanes and bylanes? Imagine the colossal effort and time that will be taken to clear such cities/ town. By the time a city or town is addressed for some realistic result, the war would be over, the international powerbrokers having intervened as usual. And what would be our gain to show after the war is halted? One city? It would not be cost productive in the subcontinental context.

While I would be surprised if Pakistan 'rains down' tack nukes, yet a tac nuke with some yield can be assumed to have some stopping power to an advance compared to conventional weaponry.

In the Cold Start we would have seized the initiative and would be on the roll with our conventional weaponry and platforms. Therefore, there should be no reason for us to use tac nukes, unless Pakistan uses it. Then it would be retaliatory, the world having known that Pakistan used it first.

I am not talking of the strategic nuclear realm since that would mean a totally different scenario.

If I may add, tac nukes are designed for the tactical battlefield.
Sir my post regarding Nasr has nothing to do with cities. The cities came as an offshoot in the debate and has nothing to do with the topic at hand, ie, TNWs.

Also with regard to Tactical Nukes. There is a certain level of stopping power it provides that may stop an IBG which "may" consist of 1000 to 2000 men and some 100 odd tanks. Also I don't know what the IA believes is credible stopping power in terms of casualties. If IA can take 5% casualties for rushing through a mine field then what would happen if there is a 30% loss in the minefield or the Nuclear attack. Is that enough stopping power?

Agreed that OOE has not taken India's limited diplomatic ability into consideration. However a nuke in India or a nuke in Europe gives pretty much the same result albeit the yield. 3 Thermobaric bombs carried by a single aircraft can decimate a battalion far quicker than a tactical nuke delivered by BM or aircraft. The probability of ballistic missiles finding it's target is actually decreasing day by day with the advent of electronic warfare too. The aircraft or BM penetrating Air defences and engaging the battalion successfully is the big question.

As long as the logistics isn't badly affected in a nuclear environment I don't see why an IBG can be completely stopped by a sub kiloton nuke.
 
Last edited:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Nuclear fallout from a tactical nuke is localized. It will dissipate quite quickly as compared to a Nuclear reactor meltdown which affects a large area.

Killing a cities power and water would mean a massive outbreak of diseases like Cholera. The nation will have to end up committing it's resources to save the citizens. If a city is destroyed completely then the govt or the military will not bother wasting resources in a high risk environment.

This is a scenario only for strategic use and the fallout is larger, but again this is localized.
Thanks for your explanation. I agree with most of what you said except that fallout will be localised. Even if we drop a few small nukes on, say, Islamabad, wind currents could actually cause more fallout on Indian territory than Pakistani territory.

Here is a nice visualisation. Notice how initially the winds carry the radioactive particles northwards.:

I read your reasoning and after some thought I guess I will have to disagree with what the other gentleman said and probably with you in case you agree with him; and leave it that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Thanks for your explanation. I agree with most of what you said except that fallout will be localised. Even if we drop a few small nukes on, say, Islamabad, wind currents could actually cause more fallout on Indian territory than Pakistani territory.

Here is a nice visualisation. Notice how initially the winds carry the radioactive particles northwards.:

I read your reasoning and after some thought I guess I will have to disagree with what the other gentleman said and probably with you in case you agree with him; and leave it that.
Nuclear power is actually exaggerated by a large margin.

The Earth is far more powerful than anything human. The atmosphere has absorbed over 2000 officially known nuclear tests around the world with nearly 500 of them being atmospheric tests.



Soldiers are only 10Km away from the blast and is one of the first tests in an actual war like situation. This is what you call a tactical nuke in the 60s and 70s.



They aren't even wearing NBC protected gear and NBC protected vehicles as compared to today's soldiers even in India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Buster-Jangle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tumbler-Snapper

There have been quite a few tests that both US and SU have conducted with operational soldiers on the ground.

Even today an earthquake is far more powerful and devastating than a nuclear device. Considering even the 50Mt Tsar Bomba managed 7.1 Richter Scale will give you an idea. Fallout is also exaggerated because most of the radiation is dissipated long before in the upper atmosphere before reaching us mortals on the ground. Only ground zero is most affected because the weapon is detonated closest to the ground.

Nuclear accidents like Fukushima or Chernobyl are slightly different because unlike a nuclear blast, meltdown is not a pretty sight. Unlike a nuclear blast where radiation release is instantaneous, meltdown is gradual release of radiation over the course of many days in the lower atmosphere, air that we use to breathe.

If the fallout from the 50Mt Tsar bomba could be localized(although the area was indeed quite big) then I doubt either India or Pakistan have anything in their arsenal that can do a Chernobyl 2 in the subcontinent.

A Nuclear attack on a city will do damage that is incalculable. However in the Cold Start case we are talking about scenarios that are tactical in nature using weapons that are 10000 times less capable than Tsar Bomba and will mostly be used on Pakistani soil.

Wiping out cities is easy, killing soldiers isn't.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
^^

Thanks for the detailed explanation P2P. Yes, I guess nuclear fallout is somewhat exaggerated. Still, concern lingers.

This thread is getting very interesting, thanks to the valuable inputs from the members.
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
India already has got its forces trained to work at nuclear environment








 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Interesting India specific articles.

http://mod.nic.in/samachar/jan1-02/html/ch6.htm

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-02-21/india/27758748_1_nbc-drdo-w-selvamurthy

http://www.ciidefence.com/pressreleases_016.asp?id=3

This should give some ideas on how well protected soldiers are. Difficulties of locating and targeting a battalion or brigade of soldiers are plenty. Our IBG is going to be small and fast. In case the Pakistanis do engage a brigade then the TNW has a high chance of killing PA units as well. Friendly Fire is after all a part and parcel of war.

If Ray sir can give some information on IA's or any Army's perception of stopping power then that would help a lot.
 

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,307
A naive question, what chance does akash has to stop something like nasr?
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
^^

My understanding could be wrong, but let us compare.

Nasr or Tian Long - 6
  • Speed: 0.9 mach
  • Altitude: 12 metres
  • Range: 35 km

Akash:
  • Rajendra Radar Range: 180 km
  • Intercept range: 30 km
  • Speed: 2.5 mach
  • Radar altitude limitation: not known
  • Radar detection/reaction time: not known
From the videos, the Akash that was used to destroy a modified Prithvi missile target, the target was pretty high up in the sky, definitely more than 12 metres.

Some details on why there is a possibility that it could detect location of a missile battery, as it can already detect artillery formations, but it probably needs the artillery being fired.
Weapon Locating Radar

The Army intends to use a Rajendra radar derivative in the artillery locating role. During tests at Chandipur for the Akash missile system, engineers noticed the Rajendra radar was able to detect and track artillery shells being test fired at a nearby range. This led to the development of the indigenous Weapon Locating Radar, an item in high demand by the Indian Army's artillery units, especially after the Kargil War. 28 LRDE Rajendra based WLR's have been ordered by the Indian Army. In June 2008, the WLR was accepted for induction by the Army, and 28 units are being produced by Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL).

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_Radar#Weapon_Locating_Radar
 
Last edited:

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,307
Akash can hit cruise missiles which definitely travel at lower altitudes, yes the radar limitation in not known, but if it can hit the cruise missiles then it should be piece of cake. And if IBG's are taking some Short range SAM's too, then it gives additional level of protection
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
^^

Hope it is true.

From what I understand, 12 metres could introduce a lot of noise in the input signal from trees, buildings and undulations in the terrain. Perhaps they have implemented some really robust noise-reduction techniques and/or feature detection algorithms.
 

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,307
Don't you think rajendra radar can track it from the point it is fired, so it should be able to keep a track of it.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Don't you think rajendra radar can track it from the point it is fired, so it should be able to keep a track of it.
Of course it can, but if it has to depend on a moving projectile to detect it, then it will be able to track only after the missile is fired. The missile has a speed of 0.9 mach. So, it should be able to intercept just quickly enough that it doesn't come too close for comfort. This is assuming (1) the detection is causally dependent upon firing of the target missile and (2) it can robustly detect at altitude of 12 metres.

Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the Rajendra Radar.

I'll reproduce part of the quote from post #35:
"The Army intends to use a Rajendra radar derivative in the artillery locating role. During tests at Chandipur for the Akash missile system, engineers noticed the Rajendra radar was able to detect and track artillery shells being test fired at a nearby range. This led to the development of the indigenous Weapon Locating Radar, an item in high demand by the Indian Army's artillery units, especially after the Kargil War. 28 LRDE Rajendra based WLR's have been ordered by the Indian Army. In June 2008, the WLR was accepted for induction by the Army, and 28 units are being produced by Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL)."

From what I understand, if you have a artillery piece stationed, the Rajendra RADAR might not detect it, but the moment it starts firing shells, it can detect it. Again, I am making certain assumptions based on the quote above.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,280
Country flag
WLR has a range of 30Km . There is also AESA radars on warplanes and Indigenous AWACS and Phalcons. And possibly satellite surveillance also??

http://www.business-standard.com/in...ade-its-weapon-locating-radar-systems/378832/

Indian Army set to upgrade its weapon locating radar systems

The Indian Army is in the final stages of accepting for induction a newly developed weapon locating radar (WLR), designed and developed by Bangalore-based Electronics and Radar Development Establishment (LRDE), a senior defence research official said today.

"We have a long border. The product has been developed and is ready for acceptance. Bharat Electronics is ready to roll out the systems in bulk. The radar can look at objects from 30 kms. It can locate rockets and even give the trajectory and give an early warning," S Varadarajan, director of LRDE, a Defence Research and Development Organisation lab, told reporters.

The Army is likely to place an order for the delivery of 29 WLRs worth Rs 1,500 crore, he said.
The foliage radar is also under development and the LRDE is looking for a collaboration. It is an airborne radar which can detect objects 20-30 kms away and can be deployed for internal security and help in low-intensity conflicts such as those resorted to by terrorists and insurgents, he said.

The radar will be ready for production in 2012, he added.

Varadarajan expects the Army to place orders with the Bharat Electronics Limited for a large number of WLRs.

LRDE is also in the advanced stages of developing a 300-km range radar for air defence applications.

"Gone are the days when radars are for specific purposes. Today a radar has got the capability for multiple functions. By 2012, the radars will be ready for commercial production," Varadarajan said.

These technologies will be on display at the 7th international radar symposium India (IRSI) 2009 being held here during December 8-11.

The objective of the seminar is to provide a common platform for practicing radar scientists, engineers, manufacturers and users to share their experiences, issues and knowledge to carve out the technology path for better future, he said. Bharat Electronics, LRDE, Institution of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineers, Bangalore Centre, ISRO, HAL among others are sponsoring the symposium.

I V Sarma, director-R&D, BEL said the company is gearing up to manufacture a wide range of radars for both civilian and defence applications. The company presently has orders worth Rs 4,600 crore in hand and for this fiscal, and it plans to deliver radars worth Rs 1,000 crore, a growth of 10 per cent over the last fiscal. He said the country is likely to capture about 10 per cent of the world market for radars in the next 10 years, worth about Rs 40,000 crore. BEL has dedicated three out of 17 strategic business units to manuacture various radars, he said.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top