How can Pakistan counter India’s ABM system?

[The SC]

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


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



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


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

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


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.


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


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

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

PLEASE NOTE
this are all my personal assumption ,well anyone having any better ideas apart from this can post
REGARDS

I do have an idea, Apart from high tech, there is a very low tech (excluding the bombs) solution. Why not use some squadrons of donkey carried nuclear weapons, they can be used efficiently too, since they have a low profile, they are very stealthy, can go through undefended areas, follow a predefined terrain (mostly mountainous) and detonate their bombs if need be, with calculations for ground detonation similar to the yield of above ground one.
This is an option, like the fourth or fifth or sixth if you want, but it is still a deterrent option to be taken seriously.

 

[The SC]

No ABM has worked efficiently yet, be it in Russia or in the USA, the best they had, had a 20 % rate of success and those were their claims, at least to justify the billions of dollars spent on their development.
The only claims that match the ones from India, come from Isael and it iron Dom, that proved to be unsuccessful against home made rockets, let alone cruise missiles or BM.
So, I do not know what to make of their claims.
last thing we've heard about the iron Dom is that it went berserk ( for what ever it thought it had detected) and fired missiles on own populated areas by mistake...automatically.

 

[The SC]

One can saturate the India's ABM shields with conventional home made rockets made on an industrial base, they will cost around 20$ for short range ones 50 $ for the medium ones and a 100$ for the longer range ones. So for a 100 $ million, Pakistan can send about 150 000 of those as a scare (Even if they have a grenade size explosif warhead, since the fact that they will explode would make the Indians react) and for saturation of the indian ABM and air defenses. Once all those targets get into action, it will be easy to identify them and eliminate them (if need be, since they won't have any missilles left for the real things), hence opening the doors for BM (coventionnal or nuclear) to be used with maximum kill probability, let us say 95%.

 

[anonymus]

One can saturate the India's ABM shields with conventional home made rockets made on an industrial base, they will cost around 20$ for short range ones 50 $ for the medium ones and a 100$ for the longer range ones. So for a 100 $ million, Pakistan can send about 150 000 of those as a scare (Even if they have a grenade size explosif warhead, since the fact that they will explode would make the Indians react) and for saturation of the indian ABM and air defenses. Once all those targets get into action, it will be easy to identify them and eliminate them (if need be, since they won't have any missilles left for the real things), hence opening the doors for BM (coventionnal or nuclear) to be used with maximum kill probability, let us say 95%.

A perfect example of delusional thinking.

India is not Israel which is a 50 Km wide country. India is a subcontinent in itself and your puny grads would probably kill some villager's goat ( along with infuriating India ).

Any act of using rocket artillery from Pakistani side would be met by counter battery fire from Indian side rather than interception. Palestinians should be thankful to Israel as it does not bomb their rocket lobbing *** to oblivion which it could do under International laws.

This topic has also been discussed in another thread in which i have made detailed post

MIRV's have no relation to Missile defense.The only advantage a MIRV'd missile could have over NoN-MIRV'd is that it could carry countermeasures due its high payload characteristics.Number of warheads does not decide the efficiency of missile defense.It is decided by warhead characteristics.

MIRV'd missile is more suitable for surprise strike and second strike.



India does not enjoy degree of air superiority that would be required target missile in boost phase by the means that we have and technology has not reached a pointed where it could be done by any system by remaining within Indian border.

I suggest that you take a closer look at MIRVs ability to counter ABMs.

Number of warheads can defeat ABMs by simply outnumbering them. If , say, 10 ICBMs are launched at a state in US mainland, would it be easier to intercept 20 warheads or 100 (if each missile in the latter case is MIRVed with 5 warheads per missile)?
The number of deployed ABMs in an area is limited, and can be further decreased by SEAD strikes.

The logic of overwhelming has major flaws.


1.A MIRV does not offer any extra advantage over non-MIRV warheads.A missile defense would have to do equal amount of work for x number of warheads,whether MIRV'd or not.3 warheads delivered by 3 missiles require equal resources to stop as 3 warheads delivered by 1 missile.Instead if coordinated,3 warhead on three missiles could outperform 3 warheads in 1 missile by approaching at different angles at same target.

2.The advantage of MIRV'd missile lies in the fact that it reduces the number of missiles that need to be prepared for targeting. It has advantage in second strike scenarios as even few surviving missiles would be enough and in surprise strike scenarios where the reduction in number of missiles that need to be prepared would make surprise possible.That's why MIRV'd missiles are older than missile defense.

3.The idea of overwhelming ABM's is grounded in argument that only few ABM's would per present per target since ABM vs BM is more of an competition based on economics rather than technology.It extends the same logic that is extended for futility of Iron Dome due to price differential but ignores an important point that the only missile that would have any practical chance of getting through an ABM would either has to be a decent MRBM fired in salvo(not some crappy rockets) or an ICBM class with ability to carry MIRV's (Every MIRV'd capable missile is an ICBM irrespective of what the country of origin is claiming).ABM's battery which itself consist of guided missiles when compare to multiple missiles (one on one comparison) or an advanced ICBM (many on one) would easily justify it's cost.Whether missile defense finally works would depend upon relative economic strength of adversaries.After initial sunk cost in R&D is written off,the ABM does not suffer from drawback on account of production cost vis a vis any other missile.A country able to afford 5 batteries would not have to pay 10 times for acquiring 50.

4.Effect of SEAD strikes is highly doubtful,even bordering to impossible as most countries have their important cities far from border (only exception of south korea comes to my mind).If an adversary as sufficient airpower to penetrate that far,probably his country would not be nukes at all.

1. Yes, speaking in terms of individual warhead capability, MIRVs don't. But they can overcome ABMs, if saturated in a particular area (then they would be simply MRVs, i.e. separate warheads but converged on the same target).
No, ABMs can defeat missiles coming from any direction, difference of direction does not makes the interception difficult.

2. Yes, the primary reason for developing MIRVs was to inflict maximum damage in a fist strike utilizing least possible missiles. In the second strike too, they can ensure complete annihilation.

3. Yes, a limited number would be present, because all the targets cannot be defended equally. However I agree with you that MIRVed systems are somewhat equally expensive speaking in terms of individual economics. But don't you think that the countermeasures, which MIRVs deploy, make interception a whole lot difficult?

4. Well PAF does have the capability, although it might not be pretty strong at the moment. We can potentially reduce the number of deployed ABMs by India in case of a war.

1.I was not talking about difficulty in targeting a warhead due to some technical shortcoming of ABM but due to the fact that warheads released from a single missile destined for a single target would be bunched up together (warheads follow ballistic trajectories) while in case of multiple missiles they could approach from different directions thus providing tactical flexibility to targetter. In multiple missile scenario,first warhead may be used in high altitude airburst mode.While this may not knock down a modern radar as it is well shielded from Emp bursts,but it could temporarily blind it by creating an ion field from which other warheads could pass through (as ballistics warheads are not guided by electronics,there would be no effect of them,and nuclear explosion in upper atmosphere would not generate a shock wave as it is rarefied which would be strong enough to knock down nukes travelling at considerable distance.This is not possible in MIRV mode in which most of nukes would be travelling close to each other and one of them going off would destroy all of them.

2.The whole premise of saturation of targets has many flaws.

a.One which i have highlighted earlier is that it assumes that missiles used in saturating target would be less costly than ABM missiles.This is fundamentally wrong.ABM has high price tag due to sunk cost it requires in R&D.Missile to Missile,an ICBM or MRBM is much costlier to produce than an interceptor missile.

b.It assumes that targets worthy of nuclear strike are dime a dozen.This is not the case.In most countries,if you have been able to save Tier I and Tier II cities,you have not only ensured your country's survival but your prosperity also.Example in India's case if you have been unable to target Delhi,Mumbai,Chennai,Banglore and Hyderabad,you have ensured that most of the manufacturing base and agricultural base(which is nuke-proof) has survived. Targeting cities like Lucknow may satisfy the bloodlust of some general but the effect that it would have not have much effect on ability of India to recover.A lot of Indian states do not even have a primate city.There is not target of value in state of Gujrat,Kerala,West Bengal or Haryana and Punjab concentrated enough to be targeted by nukes.Assets of these states are dispersed.Think of this from pakistani perspective. Would your government care for peshawar or quetta in case on all out nuclear war,if you theoretically have limited ABM batteries.

So the prospective targets would be heavily guarded,making the job of getting through an ABM shield difficult.

c.Countermeasures if applied would require additional weight hence reducing the number of warheads a MIRV'd missile could carry.Minutemen III and topol M could carry up to 6 warheads( maximum is in 12-15 range but for more than 6,the yield per warhead reduce into sub kiloton range making nukes practically useless as there are conventional bombs which have yield close to a kiloton) but could carry less than 3 with countermeasures .An normal MRBM would be unable to carry any countermeasures.Dummy warheads,Chaff and reflectors occupy space and have weight.An actively maneuvering warhead would require inbuilt supply of electrophile fluid which would would disperse ion field that is created around a warhead during reentry thus allowing it radar guided navigation thus increasing weight.Even after this effectiveness of countermeasures is doubted.US radars runs algorithm which could predict trajectory of all warheads thus separating dummy from rest.Radars could differentiate between warheads and chaff/balloons.It only needs a supercomputer powerful enough to run those algorithms which every country who has a missile defense including India has ability to construct. Maneuvering warhead is susceptible to ECM.Thus countermeasure which could be theoretically deployed only by MIRV'd missiles have their limitation.


3.Radars used with ABM would not be kept at border but deep inside the territory of targeted nation ,probably even close to the target(US is bulding radar facility in poland which is far away from russian border).Pakistan does not have capability to carry SEAD operations 500-600 Km from it's border.To attack a site in Delhi it has to go through the whole gauntlet of IAF and Air defense batteries which is out of pakistani capability.It would be much wiser to carry a one way mission to nuke delhi using nuke equipped planes than a SEAD mission whose efficacy in best case scenario would be doubtful.

Agni-VI all set to take shape | Page 3

 

[The SC]

@anonymus

Anything entering Inda's space will make it react, be it 50 kms wide or a subcontinent.

 

[anonymus]

@anonymus

Anything entering Inda's space will make it react, be it 50 kms wide or a subcontinent.

It would be met with counter artillery barrage.

 

[Zhukov]

Off topic but this India-Pakistan Crap scares shit out of me. 90% chances are there that if a nuclear war ever erupted that would be either between India-Pakistan or Nkorea-SKorea. Ironically both share common culture and traditions.
If Ever human beings will learn to come over there difference for safety of there generations........

 

[The SC]

It would be met with counter artillery barrage.

Counter-artillry barrage against rockets? it won't work. I am not talking about artillery here but hit and run tactics, it took Israelis counter artillery, commando units and air force to find one on ten firing posts and they were all too late, all they could destroy is an empty truck.
That is a lot of energy and resources to destroy an old truck worth 1000$.
Hope you get the point. No CSD and no war is possible with Pakistan, be it nuclear or conventional, so you better concentrate on your and their well being, since it is interrelated somehow.

 

[anonymus]

Counter-artillry barrage against rockets? it won't work. I am not talking about artillery here but hit and run tactics, it took Israelis counter artillery, commando units and air force to find one on ten firing posts and they were all too late, all they could destroy is an empty truck.
That is a lot of energy and resources to destroy an old truck worth 1000$.
Hope you get the point. No CSD and no war is possible with Pakistan, be it nuclear or conventional, so you better concentrate on your and their well being, since it is interrelated somehow.

If you are stupid enough to think that India would not react with disproportionate force than i have nothing to say. Wish Pakistani generals think on similar lines.

BTW, Israel never used Artillery against Palestinians.

 

[Yeti]

The first thing India would use is Brahmos which has pin point accuracy and is rapid, this will be used on key targets in Pakistan like power stations, airstrips, etc

There is nothing that Pakistan has that can stop Brahmos as it is like a bullet hitting a bullet.

Once Nirbhay becomes operational it will also be part of the 1st strike missiles we can launch on key targets.

 

[Secret Service]

The first thing India would use is Brahmos which has pin point accuracy and is rapid, this will be used on key targets in Pakistan like power stations, airstrips, etc

There is nothing that Pakistan has that can stop Brahmos as it is like a bullet hitting a bullet.

Once Nirbhay becomes operational it will also be part of the 1st strike missiles we can launch on key targets.

and there is no guarantee that anything can stop Babur/Nasr hitting targets in India if they are launched from different locations

 

[Yeti]

and there is no guarantee that anything can stop Babur/Nasr hitting targets in India if they are launched from different locations

Perhaps but we do have the Spyder system from Israel which will give it a good attempt.

 

[The SC]

Perhaps but we do have the Spyder system from Israel which will give it a good attempt.

You can have the whole of israeli tech, you won't prevail.
Here you can think to feel good, reality won't let you feel good, it is that simple.
You can use brahmos in another phase or while you are using it, the cheap rockets will be illuminating you point defenses and your ABM. No one said you can not hit, but you won't prevail or have the upper hand or whatever you like to think, since you will be softened first. And your blows will be weak, since your generals will be busy in defense rather than offense.
Remember that in WW2, it took The US, Russia and most of Europe and their colonies man power and energies to beat the Germans, not anyone of them could do it on its own, although they were much larger and 10 times more populous than Germany each.
That is a lesson you can meditate upon.

 

[Yeti]

You can have the whole of israeli tech, you won't prevail.
Here you can think to feel good, reality won't let you feel good, it is that simple.
You can use brahmos in another phase or while you are using it, the cheap rockets will be illuminating you point defenses and your ABM. No one said you can not hit, but you won't prevail or have the upper hand or whatever you like to think, since you will be softened first. And your blows will be weak, since your generals will be busy in defense rather than offense.
Remember that in WW2, it took The US, Russia and most of Europe and their colonies man power and energies to beat the Germans, not anyone of them could do it on its own, although they were much larger and 10 times more populous than Germany each.
That is a lesson you can meditate upon.

Can't respond to this gibberish I thought you were here for a technical debate but all of what you said sounds childish and silly.
Yes I am well aware of WW2 and how the Germans got bogged down in the East, they bit more than they could chew but what does that mean on countering Brahmos? what do you have that can prevent it?

 

[The SC]

Can't respond to this gibberish I thought you were here for a technical debate but all of what you said sounds childish and silly.
Yes I am well aware of WW2 and how the Germans got bogged down in the East, they bit more than they could chew but what does that mean on countering Brahmos? what do you have that can prevent it?

If I had the answer, do you really think I will give it to you?
With whom do you think you are dealing with, a child minded person as yourself, projecting your gibberish mind.
Brahmos is a good soviet cruise missile, it will be dealt with in same manner as you think you can deal with pakistani tomahawk like cruise missiles.