How can Pakistan counter India’s ABM system?

[DrSomnath999]

At this stage no one "has" the hypersonic CM technology , countries are working on it & chinese wont be far behind - you may see one faster than you think.

ya but US has X41 hypersonic missile & india -Russia are testing brahmos 2 .& About china they might be testing secretly who knows

 

[TaimiKhan]

Kindly keep the discussion on track and ignore childish comments. If one does trolling, doesn't means that all start trolling and post idiotic comments.

 

[DrSomnath999]

Kindly keep the discussion on track and ignore childish comments. If one does trolling, doesn't means that all start trolling and post idiotic comments.

exactly all indian & pak members post according to the thread ,no need to get excited
REGARDS

---------- Post added at 11:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 AM ----------

mod plz delete post no 6 ,it is the main cause of problem

 

[TaimiKhan]

Best answer is to have stealthy CMs which travel as low as possible, combined together with stealth features and materials & below radar range traveling, may give such CMs a chance to reach their targets.

Plus, BMs should be made maneuverable to the most possible extent, they should be given the shortest flight time period enabling the enemy to have less detection and reaction time period. MIRVs and counter measures in the shape of Chaff like system would be another measure to make sure that the BMs have more chance to reach their intended targets.

 

[DarK-LorD]

USE of Decoys is the cheapest & the easiest solution.

 

[DrSomnath999]

see i had posted this thread in IDF & had posted all it's countermeasures by INDIA there but 1st let me tell u about our counter measures on what u said

Best answer is to have stealthy CMs which travel as low as possible, combined together with stealth features and materials & below radar range traveling, may give such CMs a chance to reach their targets.

After the test of Babur ,India immediately teamed up with Israel to develop anti cruise missile system, so they developed Barak 8 anti missile system. these is a real futuristic ,advanced missile system, it can easily intercept any low flying stealthy high manuvering cruise missile ,UAV & can intercept even Supersonic missiles.

India has also spyder & indigenous akash system for extra protection against cruise missiles. India recently has teamed up with France’s mbda to develop next gen quick reaction sam maitri missile. it would also add more teeth into India’s Armour.

india has it's own ISRAELI MADE WORLD'S BEST EL/M-2083 AEROSTAT RADAR SYSTEM.& IAF'S PHALCON AWACS which fills the gap of low aerial radar surveillance ,it can detect low flying jets ,cruise missiles ,uav.

Another important asset to counter Pakistan's cruise missile threat is India ‘electronic warfare systems like samyukta electronic warfare system. It is a very advanced system capable of jamming enemy Survelliance signals & radar signals .so it can also be used to jam Pakistan's cruise missiles so that they would fail to hit their designated targets. So it is another great hurdle for Pakistani missiles to jump apart from India's great anti missile shield

Plus, BMs should be made maneuverable to the most possible extent, they should be given the shortest flight time period enabling the enemy to have less detection and reaction time period. MIRVs and counter measures in the shape of Chaff like system would be another measure to make sure that the BMs have more chance to reach their intended targets.

MIRV technolgy can also be countered ,drdo chief Saraswat said, "We modified our interceptor missile and provided it with higher energy, an improved guidance and control system and on top of it all, we have integrated a Gimbaled Directional Warhead with it." He said the new guidance system in the missile allowed it to tackle the maneuvers of enemy's incoming missile and could be used against the Russian Topol M class of missiles, which move in a zig-zag manner.So if pak have MIRV then also we can counter by exo atmospheric interception,then by chance some warheads survive it would be intercepted by endo atmospheric interception.
http://www.india-defence.com/reports-4267e
2.Another way is Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) developed by US

The latest trick the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) would like to field is the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV), an ABM with lots of smaller-sized kill vehicles on board. Lockheed Martin is currently developing the MKV to fit into the same space that Raytheon's hit-to-kill vehicle takes up on the U.S. Ground-Based Interceptor being deployed in Alaska this year. The MKV would work a lot like a MIRV It would have a "bus" that would hold dozens of coffee-can-sized kill vehicles and a long-range infrared sensor to spot an approaching cluster of objects such as a bunch of MIRVs and decoys. The bus would assign each kill vehicle a target and provide in-flight targeting updates. With dozens of smaller vehicles, every probable target in an inbound missile attack could be hit, including warheads, decoys, and junk parts that simply look threatening.

MDA would first use MKVs to complement existing single-shot kill vehicles and ultimately replace them. The MKV design is scalable, so it could be incorporated on smaller systems such THAAD using fewer kill vehicles. Even providing a smaller system such as THAAD or the Navy's Standard Missile with a couple of smaller kill vehicles would be beneficial. Flight tests are expected around 2010. – Doug Mohney.


http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-23697.html

 

[DARKY]

1.Pakistan would develop , multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs)& maneuverable warheads through SHAHEEN3 BM & also future BM

The next phase of BMD which would be inducted by 2017 would have capability to engage MIRVs aswell as maneuverable warheads.... however the number game would be the real factor here.

2.Pakistan would develop submarine launched cruise missile i.e Babur cruise missile & CJ-10k in their future chinese Type 39B submarine ,which would give them sea based nuke deterrence & would ensure the survivability of its nuclear deterrent

Such missiles can also be intercepted by ABMs.... but yes it would save them from retaliation.

3.Pakistan would produce more number of ballistic missiles & has increased production of nuclear fissile material like plutonium used for nuke bombs,so that it
would overwhelm india ABM shield ,by firing more missiles towards india

This is a very cheap and easy process however time consuming..... the real threat from Pakistan would come once they deploy thermonuclear warheads.

4.Pakistan would use of decoys (e.g., lightweight mylar balloons which, until re-entry, will travel on an identical trajectory with the heavier warheads), use of ablative materials or reflective coatings which limit the damage of directed energy weapons, launches of numerous harmless missiles early in an attack which might cause the defender reveal his defenses and expend valuable resources

Again the number game remains important here while such coatings can withstand a temperature upto certain level.... and would be useless against KE impact missile (like THAAD) which would be the part of 2nd phase of BMD development.

5.Pakistan could acquire anti satellite weapon or jammers from chinato confuse india’s satellites,which also play a key role in India’s anti ballistic missile shield

Anti-satellite missiles can be intercepted aswell..... even on that note damaging Indian satellites in space would result in destruction of most of the satellites in space thanks to the billions of debris produced which would impact other satellites as well.

6.Pakistan would rely more on cruise missiles like stealthy RAAD & babur for nuke deterrent they are harder to detect due to their lower radar cross-signature, low-level navigation,and use of waypoints to circumvent more secure and heavily defended areas.

Such missiles are highly vulnerable to point defense systems.... and any main target would have numerous such point defense systems waiting for such a subsonic missile only Hypersonic can give an assurance of successful mission in such a case.

7.Pakistan would seek help from from Beijing for high-altitude and anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defenses through HQ-9/ FD2000 deal

yes they can but that would have to be done in larger number.... here India would have larger number of ABMs for Pakistan's BMs hence Pakistan would have to buy an even larger number to intercept those SAMs.... and a better ones than HQ-9 since the ABMs to be targeted would be faster sleeker and more maneuverable... HQ-9 would be obsolete against them.... hence a fail..... Its better to consider above options in such a case.

8.Pakistan would target india’s BMD Radar through long range anti radiation missile like brazilian MER-1 anti radiation missile

For that the anti radiation missile and its platform would have to survive Indian... SAM systems and Air defense network.... even on that note jamming high powered AESA radars like swordfish is close to impossible.

9.Pakistan could pursue hypersonic missile technology if they are ready to afford it.

Hypersonic cruise missile is probably the best possible solution here..... however it remains to be seen which means Pakistan can afford to attain such technologies and mass produce it.

10.Last but not least Pakistan could 1st strike ,as it fears if india 1st strike then their majority nuke detterent might be destroyed & rest if survive would be destroyed by india’s ABM shield

India follows No 1st strike doctrine hence this option is always available.... and the Pakistani regime has not missed any chance to rant about this option.

 

[Major Shaitan Singh]

Defensive strategies for dealing with cruise missile threats fall broadly into two categories, the first being the denial or deterrence of launch and counterforce strategies, the second being the interception of launched weapons.

Deterrence strategies amount to threatening credible retaliation, regardless of weapons used.
Counterforce strategies amount to pre-emptive destruction of the opponent's cruise missile capability before it can be deployed or launched. This approach requires similar capabilities to deterrence, but involves much more specific targeting.
Denial of launch strategies amount to shooting the archer, not the arrow paraphrasing the 1980s US Maritime Strategy. This involves killing cruise missile carrying aircraft, sinking cruise missile armed ships/subs, or destroying ground mobile TELs before they have the opportunity to fire. This approach also requires a robust force structure, including good maritime and land strike capabilities, good air defence capabilities, and good ASW capabilities.

Interception of launched cruise missiles presents its own challenges, especially in terms of fighter persistence, speed, missile payload, radar performance, tanker and AEW&C numbers. However, in strategic terms it is often the only option left, especially during the period preceding an outbreak of full scale hostilities. As cruise missiles present an attractive first strike weapon to disrupt air defence infrastructure, their use is most likely in the opening round of a conflict.
To implement either deterrent or direct counterforce strategies to defeat an opposing cruise missile force requires significant targeting and strike capability. This strategy requires that a opposing force armed with cruise missiles be attacked and destroyed in situ, for instance by demolishing airfields, launch aircraft and missile stocks on the ground, or by analogous strikes against naval bases hosting cruise missile armed warships or submarines.

Targeting, with the exception of ground mobile TELs, is less challenging as airfields and naval bases are large fixed infrastructure which can be effectively surveilled using satellites or human intelligence assets, although timeliness can be an issue if signs of strike preparation are the trigger for a pre-emptive attack. Cruise missile warfare like ballistic missile warfare to a large extent obeys the use them or lose them rule, and there are strong incentives to fire off as much of the war stock as early as possible in a campaign.

Interdicting cruise missile armed submarines, or intercepting cruise missile carrying aircraft, also present interesting challenges. However, while a riskier strategy than counterforce strikes in situ, interdiction/interception achieves a similar effect by inflicting cumulative attrition on the opponent's delivery force. Rather than destroying the force in a small number of concurrent or closely timed strikes, the attrition occurs overs days or weeks as the opponent's assets are ground down to impotence. In political terms counterforce strikes, especially if pre-emptive, are problematic, but interdiction/interception of delivery platforms presents a clear cut case of defensive action with clear hostile intent by an opponent. The risk is that not every opposing platform is stopped before it launches, and that many will escape to attack yet again.

When interdiction of a submarine or interception of a strike aircraft fails, and cruise missiles are launched, the default strategy is then to engage and destroy these before they reach their targets.

In practice any model for defeating a cruise missile armed opponent must be multi-layered, even if the counterforce strike option is not implementable due to inadequate strike capabilities. Launch platforms must be detected, tracked and engaged, and if this fails, the cruise missiles must be detected, tracked and engaged. The air-sea gap is valuable in this respect, as it provides a defacto free-fire zone for fighters tasked with cruise missile intercepts, and the distances involved provide for repeat engagement opportunities, fighter fuel and weapon payloads permitting.

Reliance on land based SAM systems for terminal defence of target areas is a popular but relatively ineffective strategy, as high performance SAMs with expensive high power-aperture radars are required, and even with mast mounted antennas to improve coverage the footprint is bounded by ranges of miles to at most tens of miles. Placing SAM batteries on warships increases this expense for some gain in mobility.

 

[Major Shaitan Singh]

Detection

The greatest challenge for a cruise missile defense is the detection and tracking of the missile early enough to engage it before it reaches its target. A viable cruise missile defense will have as its goal the earliest possible detection of a missile after its launch. Sensor detection capabilities should be pushed out to as far a distance as possible from the areas defended to allow as much time as possible to track and intercept the missile. Also, in homeland defense, intercepting the attacking missile out over the ocean lessens the consequence management implications than over populated areas on land. Achieving this requires the ability to detect and launch an interceptor quickly so as to extend intercept ranges to the farthest point possible. Cruise missile flight paths make detection a particularly challenging undertaking. Shorter range missiles offer little reaction time. The missiles fly close to the Earth’s surface, and advanced systems are programmed to use topography (valleys, hills,
and mountains) and the Earth’s curvature to mask their approach from detection by the defender. Traditional approaches to CMD were specific, i.e., the defense of a particular point such as a naval vessel or military base, and relied on radar to fulfill the detection mission. By virtue of their size and design, cruise missiles present small radar cross sections (RCS) during head-on intercept, which is the method employed by most point defenses.124 Generally, low-flying objects are difficult to detect against other ground objects and sea-backgrounds. The radar must locate a faint cruise missile signal against “the hundreds of thousands of echoed returns from signals created by ground clutter.”125 Ground-based radars have gaps in their field of coverage that allow lowflying objects, like cruise missiles, to exploit the curvature of the Earth. Defense of wider areas requires complementing the ground-based radar with air- or space-borne
assets to provide more time to detect and track and result in more opportunities for interception.

Both the Air Force’s Airborne Warning and Control System
(AWACS) and the Navy’s E-2 Hawkeye Airborne Early Warning (AEW) aircraft are tasked with detecting and tracking airborne threats at the greatest possible distances,and with directing combat aircraft and anti-air batteries to deal with these air threats.

The Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS) is a longer-term option for stationary airborne sensor missions.130 JLENS is an unpiloted, lighter-than-air vehicle,
essentially an unpowered, tethered balloon, used as an at-altitude radar observation platform. Operating at 10,000 to 15,000 feet, the JLENS can look down over the horizon and down into otherwise-hidden terrain, to scan for cruise missiles.

Interceptors

Once an attacking cruise missile is located, the next major challenge is to shoot it down. Combat aircraft and ship-borne defense systems are the two principal means currently at the India’s disposal to shoot down cruise missiles. The Sypder, Iron Dome, Barak II, S300/400 and Advanced Air Defence system offers the most viable option for deployment in the near-term of a cost effective wide area defense

All current Indian front-line fighters since the Navy’s MIG 29k have been equipped with look-down, shoot-down, pulse-Doppler radar. This radar technology was designed from the outset to “see” and direct air-to-air missiles against airborne targets flying at low altitudes against ground clutter. All front-line Indian fighter aircraft can carry the AMRAAM active-radar homing air-to-air missile, with a range of up to 110 km.The newly deployed SU 30 MKI air-dominance fighter is also said to have improved cruise missile defense capabilities.Other potential platforms for the ALHTK include the MIG 29, Mirage 2000 , and Jaguar .These weapons would then be carried by aircraft flying Combat Air Patrols to provide area defense against all aerial threats.

Only the construction of an active defense ensures the ability to
intercept and destroy cruise missiles after they have been launched.
Only an active defense deployed on a wide-area scale can defend the
cities.

 

[DrSomnath999]

The next phase of BMD which would be inducted by 2017 would have capability to engage MIRVs aswell as maneuverable warheads.... however the number game would be the real factor here.



Such missiles can also be intercepted by ABMs.... but yes it would save them from retaliation.





This is a very cheap and easy process however time consuming..... the real threat from Pakistan would come once they deploy thermonuclear warheads.




Again the number game remains important here while such coatings can withstand a temperature upto certain level.... and would be useless against KE impact missile (like THAAD) which would be the part of 2nd phase of BMD development.



Anti-satellite missiles can be intercepted aswell..... even on that note damaging Indian satellites in space would result in destruction of most of the satellites in space thanks to the billions of debris produced which would impact other satellites as well.




Such missiles are highly vulnerable to point defense systems.... and any main target would have numerous such point defense systems waiting for such a subsonic missile only Hypersonic can give an assurance of successful mission in such a case.




yes they can but that would have to be done in larger number.... here India would have larger number of ABMs for Pakistan's BMs hence Pakistan would have to buy an even larger number to intercept those SAMs.... and a better ones than HQ-9 since the ABMs to be targeted would be faster sleeker and more maneuverable... HQ-9 would be obsolete against them.... hence a fail..... Its better to consider above options in such a case.




For that the anti radiation missile and its platform would have to survive Indian... SAM systems and Air defense network.... even on that note jamming high powered AESA radars like swordfish is close to impossible.



Hypersonic cruise missile is probably the best possible solution here..... however it remains to be seen which means Pakistan can afford to attain such technologies and mass produce it.



India follows No 1st strike doctrine hence this option is always available.... and the Pakistani regime has not missed any chance to rant about this option.

thanks i waiting for this kind of post ,i had already posted all it's counter measures by india on OUR forum u can see it

 

[DARKY]

Best answer is to have stealthy CMs which travel as low as possible, combined together with stealth features and materials & below radar range traveling, may give such CMs a chance to reach their targets.

Plus, BMs should be made maneuverable to the most possible extent, they should be given the shortest flight time period enabling the enemy to have less detection and reaction time period. MIRVs and counter measures in the shape of Chaff like system would be another measure to make sure that the BMs have more chance to reach their intended targets.

The BIG problem here with cruise missile is to make them STEALTHY enough to carry a decent warhead which is capable enough to neutralize the target upto the desired extent..... since these subsonic missiles have to travel; low hence it cannot carry a heavy warhead capable enough to take down a strategical target.... It even faces the probability to to get intercepted by point defense systems which would come in its way via different boundary layers which would guard the real target.... the interception of these subsonic terrain hugging missile is not a big deal.... It's only STEALTH which can save them.... which becomes very less once these missiles approach the target if good point defense system is available.... Its similar to intercepting a fighter aircraft..... even Tunguska 30mm guns can bring it down.

---------- Post added at 01:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:07 PM ----------

thanks i waiting for this kind of post ,i had already posted all it's counter measures by india on OUR forum u can see it

I saw your post #24 very good research done

 

[Major Shaitan Singh]

If you see the Modern day WAR.

No country is invading directly... it is guiding its won people against the government and then troppling the government.
You can make your clown as the head of that country.

Recent Example: Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt etc.

If India want it can create civil war between Shia and Sunni and armed the shia.
If India want it can create civil war between Baloch and others and arm the baloch groups.
If India want it can create civil war between Tribals
Open the DAMS and flood half of Pakistan
Block the Sea

That will be enough for Pak Army.... no need to go in all out WAR.

 

[Awesome]

The Indian ABM is a cash pit aimed to help corrupt people stockpile money. Pakistan needs to ignore it.

 

[DarK-LorD]

The Indian ABM is a cash pit aimed to help corrupt people stockpile money. Pakistan needs to ignore it.

True,Corrupt Pakistani Officials will make a lot of money because of the increased missile production due to ABM threat.
Even Ignoring it is actually corruption as it means that they were bribed by intelligence agencies to ignore the ABM's.

 

[Windjammer]

For every action there is reaction.! @ Cold Start > < NASR being a small example.

Without chest thumping, let's be realistic,..... Pakistan tests HATF-1 back in early 80s, India sidelines it as a mere firecracker....yet later in the years, it's India which felt the need for an ABM system.

Unlike say, US/Russia or US/China, India/Pakistan share a common border which if I am not wrong, extends out to the Sea as well. Where as a launch from Russia gave the Americans some 15 minutes reaction time, between the subjects, it's almost blink of an eye. I have little knowledge in this field, but a three prone attack involving some sophisticated delivery systems would need some heavy duty ABM systems in place..... just my 2 cents.