Indian Ballistic Missile Defense System

[Kshithij]

if you have any trust on our current NSA, he mentioned that Chinis approached Americans for control of IOR trade route for TP which they will need to destroy India. In return choochas will let US own Pacific and Atlantic trade routes besides continued support for WTO. Two powers centres.. Americans refused and China started string of pearls.

China wanted security for their oil imports. Destroying India is out of question. India technically owns IOR by virtue of its size and peninsula structure

Give me a source to say that NSA said that Chinese intention was to destroy India

 

[Craigs]

Lets get back to the original topic.

 

[Chinmoy]

Why is India going after NASAMS 2 when already hai Aakash system and going for S-400?

India has not yet gone for NASAMS 2. MoD has only approved AON for it. It doesn't mount to buying the system. But there could be some valid reason in going for this system. It is to form a layered Air Defence system along with Akash and MRSAM.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

India has not yet gone for NASAMS 2. MoD has only approved AON for it. It doesn't mount to buying the system. But there could be some valid reason in going for this system. It is to form a layered Air Defence system along with Akash and MRSAM.

MRSAM is for cruise missiles only. MRSAM can't shoot down planes. It lacks enough thrust or speed to do it

 

[Chinmoy]

MRSAM is for cruise missiles only. MRSAM can't shoot down planes. It lacks enough thrust or speed to do it

Where from you got the idea?

http://www.iai.co.il/2013/34408-36713-en/IAI.aspx

 

[no smoking]

First "batch" of BM's are duds? Did you even think through the logic before you posted? You just negated all the advantages of a first strike!

For nuclear deterrence countries, there is no advantage of first strike as they give up the right of first NUCLEAR strike from the beginning.


For nuclear war fighting countries, they can afford couple of minutes late.

Once a barrage of BMs are launched towards opposite territory there will be an instant 'nuclear' retaliation. Because the receiving end would counter-launch nuclear missiles either suspecting the incoming BMs to be nuclear tipped or knowing that you're the smart general whose second barrage will be nuclear tipped BMs!

Your strategy is like pulling the trigger on an unloaded gun with the hope that your enemy will exhaust all his bullets firing at your bullet proof vest! Once they see your (empty) gun, your head will be blown before you attempt to load your gun!

Firstly, for nuclear deterrence countries, they don’t launch instant ‘nuclear’ retaliation as soon as detecting the BM launch from enemy, they wait until nuclear explosion is confirmed. The nuclear deterrence is not nuclear war fighting.

Secondly, it doesn’t matter to India and China whether or not the incoming BMs are nuclear tipped as long as they are not aiming at the nuclear weapon bases. Their nuclear forces are safe in either way.

You either take the first shot or be dead for the stupidity of brandishing an empty gun!

That is not how nuclear deterrence countries see it. With couple of hundreds nuclear warhead, they lost either way as soon as the nuclear war starts. They are betting on the assumption that the number of their nuclear weapon survived from enemy’s nuclear retaliation will be enough to impose unacceptable damage to enemy. So, no, they won’t take the first shot.

You should do some research on how much a country spends on their entire nuclear & BM program; compare that with the budget for BMD program and then comment. Typing by the seat of your pants is not beneficial to the forum.

As I said, enemy doesn’t need to use nuclear tipped BM to target your BMD system. The fact that Russia deploying iskander system for US missile shield in Europe tells that you are wrong.

 

[Enquirer]

Somehow this is an unending process - where someone will blurt something that doesn't make sense,but then to justify it they'll make up more nonsense. Some folks here can never accept their mistake !

For nuclear deterrence countries, there is no advantage of first strike as they give up the right of first NUCLEAR strike from the beginning.

Who's talking about NFS states (India's the only one btw)? When you said about a country launching dud BMs to be followed by a second barrage that's nuclear armed - you're talking about first strike. But somehow a first strike that'll get them killed!

For nuclear war fighting countries, they can afford couple of minutes late.

Which nuclear state has said this to you? US & Russia have a hair trigger response systems. The moment one detects a BM being launched in their direction, the other counter launches nuclear BMs.

Firstly, for nuclear deterrence countries, they don’t launch instant ‘nuclear’ retaliation as soon as detecting the BM launch from enemy, they wait until nuclear explosion is confirmed. The nuclear deterrence is not nuclear war fighting.

So, according to your logic the first strike country launches several dud BMs and then will launch real nuclear tipped BMs.
While the defending country will continually launch ABM against incoming BMs. It will keep destroying the duds and also few real nuclear armed BMs. But it won't launch a nuclear counter attack, until the time its ABM fails to destroy an incoming nuclear BM - which explodes and kills a few million.
Sounds pathetic that they'll wait till there's a nuclear explosion!

Secondly, it doesn’t matter to India and China whether or not the incoming BMs are nuclear tipped as long as they are not aiming at the nuclear weapon bases. Their nuclear forces are safe in either way.

That's the dumbest thing ever said on this forum (there may be few close contenders though).
You're saying that both India and China will be ok if few million citizens get vaporized by nuclear missiles, but they'll protect only their nuclear arsenal???

I don't want to comment any further.....

 

[Craigs]

For nuclear deterrence countries, there is no advantage of first strike as they give up the right of first NUCLEAR strike from the beginning.


For nuclear war fighting countries, they can afford couple of minutes late.





Firstly, for nuclear deterrence countries, they don’t launch instant ‘nuclear’ retaliation as soon as detecting the BM launch from enemy, they wait until nuclear explosion is confirmed. The nuclear deterrence is not nuclear war fighting.

Secondly, it doesn’t matter to India and China whether or not the incoming BMs are nuclear tipped as long as they are not aiming at the nuclear weapon bases. Their nuclear forces are safe in either way.





That is not how nuclear deterrence countries see it. With couple of hundreds nuclear warhead, they lost either way as soon as the nuclear war starts. They are betting on the assumption that the number of their nuclear weapon survived from enemy’s nuclear retaliation will be enough to impose unacceptable damage to enemy. So, no, they won’t take the first shot.





As I said, enemy doesn’t need to use nuclear tipped BM to target your BMD system. The fact that Russia deploying iskander system for US missile shield in Europe tells that you are wrong.

Look I don't get the whole point about a first strike with conventional/dummy BMs to saturate/take out the ABM followed by second strike with nuclear weapons. Let us say we intercept even one incoming BM. After that we are free to launch a counter strike by claiming that the one we intercepted was nuclear tipped. Who is going to challenge us? If the second strike happens before we can react then it is fait accompli, at that point we don't have to prove anything.

With China anyway we are looking at MAD - there is no hope of either party walking away unharmed. SLBMs and road/rail mobile BMs mean there is no hope of crippling the arsenal in one or two strikes. There will be a massive counter strike.

 

[sayareakd]

Why is India going after NASAMS 2 when already hai Aakash system and going for S-400?

Bhai elections in India cost bomb, so all need useless items to fund them.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

For nuclear deterrence countries, there is no advantage of first strike as they give up the right of first NUCLEAR strike from the beginning.


For nuclear war fighting countries, they can afford couple of minutes late.

How does this make sense? Everything is done to achieve an objective. First strike or at east instant retaliation to detection of B flying your way is the best way to achieve the objective - take minimum loss and inflict maximum damage.

Firstly, for nuclear deterrence countries, they don’t launch instant ‘nuclear’ retaliation as soon as detecting the BM launch from enemy, they wait until nuclear explosion is confirmed. The nuclear deterrence is not nuclear war fighting.

Secondly, it doesn’t matter to India and China whether or not the incoming BMs are nuclear tipped as long as they are not aiming at the nuclear weapon bases. Their nuclear forces are safe in either way.

Why does it not matter whether incoming missiles have warheads or are duds? How is it meaningful to not simply retaliate massively instead of take damage by multiple waves of enemy missile? The first wave will be meeting the ABM missile and large number of the first wave missiles will be intercepted. So, loss is minimised. Why would anyone wait for the explodion?

As I said, enemy doesn’t need to use nuclear tipped BM to target your BMD system. The fact that Russia deploying iskander system for US missile shield in Europe tells that you are wrong

Who made this declaration? Iskander missiles are for striking the TELs or BMD system. But there are more missiles for doing other work.

The idea of war is to wipe out hostility, either by wiping out hostile people or by slavery under force. It is just a matter of timings and situation that will determine the type and intensity of attack. Fixed doctrine does not work

 

[indus]

Look I don't get the whole point about a first strike with conventional/dummy BMs to saturate/take out the ABM followed by second strike with nuclear weapons. Let us say we intercept even one incoming BM. After that we are free to launch a counter strike by claiming that the one we intercepted was nuclear tipped. Who is going to challenge us? If the second strike happens before we can react then it is fait accompli, at that point we don't have to prove anything.

With China anyway we are looking at MAD - there is no hope of either party walking away unharmed. SLBMs and road/rail mobile BMs mean there is no hope of crippling the arsenal in one or two strikes. There will be a massive counter strike.

Firstly ABM shield does not cover entire country. Not even USA would have its entire landmass covered by ABM. India too is in process of covering strategic locations only like Delhi, Mumbai. So theoritically there is already a huge landmass open to BM attack, why would an adversary waste precious first attack on saturating ABM. Unless they are targeting civilian population centres which will lead to huge casualties. First striker is free to choose a millitary target too which prevents a retaliation on himself.
Secondly India China equation is not at MAD levels. This point I myself raised in the thread below. Since this thread is specific to BMD, Deterrence, MAD etc can be discussed in the thread below.

https://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/indias-nuclear-doctrine.28284/page-36

 

[Kshithij]

Firstly ABM shield does not cover entire country. Not even USA would have its entire landmass covered by ABM. India too is in process of covering strategic locations only like Delhi, Mumbai. So theoritically there is already a huge landmass open to BM attack, why would an adversary waste precious first attack on saturating ABM. Unless they are targeting civilian population centres which will lead to huge casualties. First striker is free to choose a millitary target too which prevents a retaliation on himself.
Secondly India China equation is not at MAD levels. This point I myself raised in the thread below. Since this thread is specific to BMD, Deterrence, MAD etc can be discussed in the thread below.

https://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/indias-nuclear-doctrine.28284/page-36

Actually, BMD, deterrence and MAD come under same topic. BMD is for deterrence and preventing MAD.

About nukes being launched at random landmass,the whole point of nukes is to destroy civilian centres. The BMD cover is likely to be in every big centre. Unless the idea is to bomb some village in Rajasthan and waste precious nuclear bomb, to kill few thousand inhabitants, there is no point dropping nukes on non strategic centres. So, BMD shield is effective in that manner

 

[indus]

Actually, BMD, deterrence and MAD come under same topic. BMD is for deterrence and preventing MAD.

About nukes being launched at random landmass,the whole point of nukes is to destroy civilian centres. The BMD cover is likely to be in every big centre. Unless the idea is to bomb some village in Rajasthan and waste precious nuclear bomb, to kill few thousand inhabitants, there is no point dropping nukes on non strategic centres. So, BMD shield is effective in that manner

Point of using Nukes may be more than hurting civillian centres. Like millitary nodes or assets. For e.g Andaman may be a strategic target for China coz it houses the ANC command but its not a civillian centre. Even if Delhi or Mumbai were the targets it would require too many BMs wth MiRvs to saturate a BMD system protecting the target.

 

[Kshithij]

Point of using Nukes may be more than hurting civillian centres. Like millitary nodes or assets. For e.g Andaman may be a strategic target for China coz it houses the ANC command but its not a civillian centre. Even if Delhi or Mumbai were the targets it would require too many BMs wth MiRvs to saturate a BMD system protecting the target.

Andaman has nothing to do with China. The closest path to China from it is 3500km. Also, sending a BM over MYanmar or Thailand may not be a reasonable idea.

Nukes are mostly used for civilian targets as military targets are more robust and won't get harmed by nukes unless they are direct hit. BM is however, not accurate and always has about 50-100 metres of inaccuracy, especially in case of ICBM

 

[Hari Sud]

Defence of Delhi and Mumbai from Pakistani nuclear missiles is of paramount consideration . It is Pakistani declared intent to attack Delhi whenever hostilities break out. Musharraf had said it ten years back that he will press a button in Rawalpindi and Delhi will cease to exist. He repeated it again about a month back on Indian TV channel interview. It is their clear intent to attack Delhi, if possible with nuclear weapons loaded on cruise or ballistic missiles.

All this planning in India about nuclear shield with Indian built nuclear missile is the first layer, second layer of Russian S-400 system and now we hear about third layer of Norwegian/US built NASAM system. Each of these are independently very capable but together these provide a high caliber, if not foolproof but as much close to it as possible defensive system.

When Pakistanis get aggressive and load up their tiny nuclear devices (that is what they have for their not so capable missiles) into their missile for attack, they at the back of their mind should know that chances of it being shot down are high, as much as 90% with three systems independently intercepting it. If their first nuclear attack fails, they cannot be given the second opportunity. They have to be attacked with full force including attacking all their known hiding places of the nuclear devices. That latter possibility should overweigh in their mind before they even begin to escalate it to nuclear level.

Hence our locally built nuclear shield, S-400 and NASAM are really peace makers. Any criticism of these systems or questions about waste of money for one or the other system are to be discouraged.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

All this planning in India about nuclear shield with Indian built nuclear missile is the first layer, second layer of Russian S-400 system and now we hear about third layer of Norwegian/US built NASAM system. Each of these are independently very capable but together these provide a high caliber, if not foolproof but as much close to it as possible defensive system.

When Pakistanis get aggressive and load up their tiny nuclear devices (that is what they have for their not so capable missiles) into their missile for attack, they at the back of their mind should know that chances of it being shot down are high, as much as 90% with three systems independently intercepting it.

Hence our locally built nuclear shield, S-400 and NASAM are really peace makers. Any criticism of these systems or questions about waste of money for one or the other system are to be discouraged.

I don't want to sound too optimistic but the first layer Indian defense may possibly be
3 layers PAD/AAD/PDV along with swordfish radar AKASH etc.. In the fist layers is
a formidable defense. Second and third layers are extra padding. You gave a number
of 90 percent of all three layers but Indian scientist have thrown numbers as high as
97% just for the indigenous layers. There is no country that can match this level of
missile defense. Any nation that wants to challenge this is surely on a suicide mission.

 

[Enquirer]

Defence of Delhi and Mumbai from Pakistani nuclear missiles is of paramount consideration . It is Pakistani declared intent to attack Delhi whenever hostilities break out. Musharraf had said it ten years back that he will press a button in Rawalpindi and Delhi will cease to exist. He repeated it again about a month back on Indian TV channel interview. It is their clear intent to attack Delhi, if possible with nuclear weapons loaded on cruise or ballistic missiles.

All this planning in India about nuclear shield with Indian built nuclear missile is the first layer, second layer of Russian S-400 system and now we hear about third layer of Norwegian/US built NASAM system. Each of these are independently very capable but together these provide a high caliber, if not foolproof but as much close to it as possible defensive system.

When Pakistanis get aggressive and load up their tiny nuclear devices (that is what they have for their not so capable missiles) into their missile for attack, they at the back of their mind should know that chances of it being shot down are high, as much as 90% with three systems independently intercepting it. If their first nuclear attack fails, they cannot be given the second opportunity. They have to be attacked with full force including attacking all their known hiding places of the nuclear devices. That latter possibility should overweigh in their mind before they even begin to escalate it to nuclear level.

Hence our locally built nuclear shield, S-400 and NASAM are really peace makers. Any criticism of these systems or questions about waste of money for one or the other system are to be discouraged.

There aren't 3 layers of ballistic missile defense.
If AAD/PDV materializes then it will be the ONLY layer of defense against ballistic missiles!

S-400 is primarily a long-range anti-aircraft defense system. It does very little in ballistic missile defense!
NASAMS as ballistic missile defense is even more laughable. NASAMS just provides point defense against aircraft using repurposed AAMs!!

 

[Enquirer]

I don't want to sound too optimistic but the first layer Indian defense may possibly be
3 layers PAD/AAD/PDV along with swordfish radar AKASH etc.. In the fist layers is
a formidable defense. Second and third layers are extra padding. You gave a number
of 90 percent of all three layers but Indian scientist have thrown numbers as high as
97% just for the indigenous layers. There is no country that can match this level of
missile defense. Any nation that wants to challenge this is surely on a suicide mission.

Dude, please!
You've a 'Moderator' label in your profile. Please moderate your jingoism with facts & reality.

There aren't 3 layers of ballistic missile defense.
If AAD/PDV materializes then it will be the ONLY layer of defense against ballistic missiles! It's ok to call AAD & PDV as different layers as they do intercepts are different altitudes. Also PDV replaces PAD - they don't coexist.

Akash cannot hit an incoming Ballistic missile! It hasn't yet been tested against a supersonic target for crying out loud! And somehow you feel confident it'll hit a hypersonic BM!!

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Dude, please!
You've a 'Moderator' label in your profile. Please moderate your jingoism with facts & reality.

There aren't 3 layers of ballistic missile defense.
If AAD/PDV materializes then it will be the ONLY layer of defense against ballistic missiles! It's ok to call AAD & PDV as different layers as they do intercepts are different altitudes.

S-400 is primarily a long-range anti-aircraft defense system. It does very little in ballistic missile defense!
NASAMS as ballistic missile defense is even more laughable. NASAMS just provides point defense against aircraft using repurposed AAMs!!

Akash cannot hit an incoming Ballistic missile! Tt hasn't yet been tested against a supersonic target for crying out loud! And somehow you feel confident it'll hit a hypersonic BM!!

read up on PDV. So you are claiming nothing will work for India?? Pakistan's main
delivery platform was/is F-16'S and cruise missiles/scuds. Why announce if a system
is completed/ inducted??

https://thediplomat.com/2018/08/ind...shoots-down-ballistic-missile-target-in-test/

India’s Advanced Air Defense Interceptor Shoots Down Ballistic Missile Target in Test

 

[Enquirer]

read up on PDV. So you are claiming nothing work for India?? Pakistan's main
delivery platform was/is F-16'S and cruise missiles/scuds.

I am saying that at this point in time, there's no shield against ballistic missiles. If ever it'll materialize it'll be AAD/PDV - which probably will be pretty good (I am not dissing this system at all).

With Akash, Barak etc. India has a decent air defense system. So, it's unlikely Pak will launch its nuclear payload on F16 or a cruise missile (even though it might have been an attractive option at some point in time).
Right now for Pakistan BMs (Shaheens etc) maybe a more credible option! As such AAD/PDV (or the newer variant AD-1/AD-2) should be deployed ASAP.