India's Neutron bomb capability

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
If you don't defend, I call it quits from your side.
Huhh?

But it kills a whole bunch-a infantry and cavalry on the border.
That's just it. You don't. My regiments are not on the entire border. They're on reaction points.

What is the defence against a terrain hugging supersonic cruise missile (and hypersonic in the next 5 years) mated with a tactical nuclear warhead or a neutron bomb?
Are you that young? Look down, shoot down missiles from CAP.

Missile defence don't have time to react to tactical nukes. Which is why I'm asking you, when they are mated with supersonic/hypersonic cruise missiles how will the enemy be prepared to receive them, especially if those missile silos as close to the border?
Ok, you are that young. Over-the-horizon surveillance.

It has a much bigger blast radius that sub-minitions dont, making it lucrative to use for negating the advantage of massive infantry and cavalry buildup on the border.
Assembley points ain't that big.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,002
Air pressure inside the tank is greater than outside. Hence, clean air is blowing out and not bad air, ie the bad neutrons are coming in.
That is not the case with most Pakistani tanks. They don't have air conditioning. Only a handful of their tanks are NBC protected.
 

AkhandBharat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
542
Likes
79
Huhh?

That's just it. You don't. My regiments are not on the entire border. They're on reaction points.
So? What does that change?


Are you that young? Look down, shoot down missiles from CAP.
Whats a CAP?
Ok, you are that young. Over-the-horizon surveillance.
Isn't it hard to shoot down a terrain hugging hypersonic cruise missile than a BM? Even with satellites, you can track it the moment it launches, but their range is short, 300-600 kms.

Assembley points ain't that big.
They are concentrated on flash points though.

Moreover, I still haven't got an answer to my question on how a tactical thermonuclear warhead is more effective than an ERW on concentrated and multiple border buildups over flash points.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,002
How hard is it to install an AC unit with a hepa filter?
Even with our budget, IA will find it hard to install ACs on all our tanks. PA will find it much harder.

Anyways, even if we consider this in the 2020 period, with all PA tanks with AC. Can you tell me how effective will the neutron bomb be considering IA delivery capabilities have increased considerably(more accurate) over the period.

According to what you say, we will have to be lucky for the Neutron bomb to do its job. Right?
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,002
Whats a CAP?
Combat Air patrol. OOE is referring to Strike/CAP.

Isn't it hard to shoot down a terrain hugging hypersonic cruise missile than a BM? Even with satellites, you can track it the moment it launches, but their range is short, 300-600 kms.
Terrain hugging hypersonic cruise missiles don't exist.
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
So? What does that change?
It means that if you are serious about killing my people, you will come after my people instead of a bunch of cows.

Whats a CAP?
Combat Air Patrol. The Soviet Air Defence against NATO cuise missiles were MiG-25s with look down radar - and shoot down AAms. Considering that terrain hugging curise missiles cannnot avoid look down radars and being sub-sonic, they were easy prey to shoot-down AAMs.

Isn't it hard to shoot down a terrain hugging hypersonic cruise missile than a BM?
I don't see the difference. In fact, the BM would be a factor of 10 faster than the cruise missile - simple physics.

Even with satellites, you can track it the moment it launches, but their range is short, 300-600 kms.
Counter-battery operations are measured in seconds.

They are concentrated on flash points though.
Do you even know what you're talking about? Lines of Approach can easily be identified. Lines of launch cannot be determined until the point of launch.

Moreover, I still haven't got an answer to my question on how a tactical thermonuclear warhead is more effective than an ERW on concentrated and multiple border buildups over flash points.
Well, first off, you have not asked that question.

2nd, define more effective. Modern munitions do not equate themselves with tac nukes. Not one brochure identifies itselft as having the equal effect of a tac nuke. What it does say is that it will have the equivelent effect of a tac nuke, ie instead of 30x30 metre crater where an enemy CP used to be, you have pot marks of submunitions over a 40x40 area.
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
Even with our budget, IA will find it hard to install ACs on all our tanks. PA will find it much harder.

Anyways, even if we consider this in the 2020 period, with all PA tanks with AC. Can you tell me how effective will the neutron bomb be considering IA delivery capabilities have increased considerably(more accurate) over the period.

According to what you say, we will have to be lucky for the Neutron bomb to do its job. Right?
Ok, I'm using some experience here. Neutron bombs and tac nukes are the same in my mind, ie you need the same deployment methods. I really don't care how they kill but I really need to know how they hit.

With this in mind, if my CP is moving with my company, then you need extremely good intel where I am and where I'm going (hard to do in the extreme circumstance).

With a tac nuke, my only hope is prayer that I am outside the lethal blast range.

With neutron weaponry? Keep an air tank inside the tank and unleash the airvalve while telling the driver to get the hell backwards out of dodge.

And if you see a river, drive straight into it.
 

AkhandBharat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
542
Likes
79
It means that if you are serious about killing my people, you will come after my people instead of a bunch of cows.
True for US vs Russia, not true for China vs India. Massive population, cannot be completely destroyed by nukes.

Combat Air Patrol. The Soviet Air Defence against NATO cuise missiles were MiG-25s with look down radar - and shoot down AAms. Considering that terrain hugging curise missiles cannnot avoid look down radars and being sub-sonic, they were easy prey to shoot-down AAMs.
Effective for subsonic cruise missiles, not supersonic/hypersonic.

I don't see the difference. In fact, the BM would be a factor of 10 faster than the cruise missile - simple physics.

Counter-battery operations are measured in seconds.
BM would be faster but not manevourable mid-flight. Hence easy to intercept than supersonic guided cruise missiles.

Do you even know what you're talking about? Lines of Approach can easily be identified. Lines of launch cannot be determined until the point of launch.
Did you read my post? I know that lines of approach can be easily identified, which is why the attacker is launching ERW in the first place.

Well, first off, you have not asked that question.

2nd, define more effective. Modern munitions do not equate themselves with tac nukes. Not one brochure identifies itselft as having the equal effect of a tac nuke. What it does say is that it will have the equivelent effect of a tac nuke, ie instead of 30x30 metre crater where an enemy CP used to be, you have pot marks of submunitions over a 40x40 area.
I have. Read my previous posts. You are saying that a conventional weapon will have an equivalent effect of the thermo blast of a tactical nuke? That is not my question. I'm asking what is the difference in the effectiveness of damage caused to infantry/cavalry vis-a-vis a thermonuclear tactical nuke vs an ERW? Effective, as in in case of a land-grabbing war that will most likely be in India vs China, a tactical thermonuclear weapon will make the environment unusable for many years, vs with ERW, the enemy lines can be diluted/eliminated, and the land can be occupied almost immediately.
 

AkhandBharat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
542
Likes
79
I don't believe for one second that a hypersonic missile can change course in mid air.
Maybe, Maybe not. Its still in the lab, so I won't argue for or against it. Although, science permits it, since EM waves always travel much faster than anything else, so its definitely feasible to guide a hypersonic missile.
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
True for US vs Russia, not true for China vs India. Massive population, cannot be completely destroyed by nukes.
You really know zero about nukes. But I am tired of repeating myself.

Effective for subsonic cruise missiles, not supersonic/hypersonic.
Nothing is faster than the speed of light and supersonic/hypersonic is damned easier to intercept than BM.

BM would be faster but not manevourable mid-flight.
You know zip about physics also.

Did you read my post? I know that lines of approach can be easily identified, which is why the attacker is launching ERW in the first place.
No, you don't. You obviously know zip about the recce battle and right now, you are am amateur telling a 20+ year vet on how to do his job.

I have. Read my previous posts. You are saying that a conventional weapon will have an equivalent effect of the thermo blast of a tactical nuke? That is not my question. I'm asking what is the difference in the effectiveness of damage caused to infantry/cavalry vis-a-vis a thermonuclear tactical nuke vs an ERW? Effective, as in in case of a land-grabbing war that will most likely be in India vs China, a tactical thermonuclear weapon will make the environment unusable for many years, vs with ERW, the enemy lines can be diluted/eliminated, and the land can be occupied almost immediately.
And you are not reading what I am saying. ERW will NOT eliminate enemy counters. PERIOD!
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
Maybe, Maybe not. Its still in the lab, so I won't argue for or against it. Although, science permits it, since EM waves always travel much faster than anything else, so its definitely feasible to guide a hypersonic missile.
Are you really that stupid? What is your minimum radius at 2000 miles an hour?
 

AkhandBharat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
542
Likes
79
You really know zero about nukes. But I am tired of repeating myself.

Nothing is faster than the speed of light and supersonic/hypersonic is damned easier to intercept than BM.
LOL, supersonic/hypersonic missiles are easy to detect, but not intercept. Show me proof or shut up already.

You know zip about physics also.
Ditto.

No, you don't. You obviously know zip about the recce battle and right now, you are am amateur telling a 20+ year vet on how to do his job.
...

And you are not reading what I am saying. ERW will NOT eliminate enemy counters. PERIOD!
Keep talking like that. It doesn't do jack shit. Sam Cohen himself believes that China/Israel have neutron bombs (read my previous posts), this proves them to be effective in case of a limited nuclear exchange, but you are not. Military professional or not, you sure don't know a single thing about science/engineering.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,002
Brahmos II What now?

Moreover, supersonic cruise missiles are difficult to track down as well.
Brahmos II is not terrain hugging and neither is Brahmos I. It will fly high up and fall down at an angle. In the last phase it comes down to 20m before hitting the target. Low-High-Low profile. The low-Low-Low profile can only be used over water.

And at short ranges(300 or 600km), super maneuverability is not required. If our scientists can develop the technology required for super maneuverability, then a longer range is required.

Even the Brahmos's S-maneuver needs 150-200km.
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
LOL, supersonic/hypersonic missiles are easy to detect, but not intercept. Show me proof or shut up already.
You've got the sh!tting me! How fast were the SCUDs going when the PATRIOTS hit them!

Ditto is right!

Keep talking like that. It doesn't do jack shit. Sam Cohen himself believes that China/Israel have neutron bombs (read my previous posts), this proves them to be effective in case of a limited nuclear exchange, but you are not. Military professional or not, you sure don't know a single thing about science/engineering.
I know far more than you pretend to know. NATO withdrew plans for the neutron bomb for one very good reason. The Warsaw Pact started putting swimming pools over their HQ.

We know China has tested a Neutron bomb but we also know that Israel tested zilch, nadda, nothing, a big fat zero.

By the same token, I can identify all of China's nukes through open source, none of them are neutron weapons. And that is mainly because they found the weapon to be worhtless. 2 metres of water stops the neutron penetration cold.

It is obvious in this thread who is throwing up the science and who is wanking off. And I am too old to be interested in sex.
 

AkhandBharat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
542
Likes
79
You've got the sh!tting me! How fast were the SCUDs going when the PATRIOTS hit them!
Le Sigh, CM vs BM.

Ditto is right!

I know far more than you pretend to know. NATO withdrew plans for the neutron bomb for one very good reason. The Warsaw Pact started putting swimming pools over their HQ.

We know China has tested a Neutron bomb but we also know that Israel tested zilch, nadda, nothing, a big fat zero.

By the same token, I can identify all of China's nukes through open source, none of them are neutron weapons.
What is open source? Open source to me is something that is GPL'ed and whose source code is available to modify. Please explain.

And that is mainly because they found the weapon to be worhtless. 2 metres of water stops the neutron penetration cold.

It is obvious in this thread who is throwing up the science and who is wanking off. And I am too old to be interested in sex.
And that is what I'm saying, 2 metres of water is not everywhere. We don't live in a waterworld. :rolleyes:
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

Articles

Top