How to counter tactical nukes?

[It.is.all.mudi's.fault]

Has anyone broached the most straightforward method to counter Tactical Nukes? (I have not read this whole thread) ie that of shooting down delivery vehicle, Nasr.

Nasr is a tactical battlefield missile, a much inferior one than Russian tactical battlefield missile like Iskander. There exists systems in this world which could shoot down Iskander, namely MIM Patriot-III, David Sling, and given the range of Nasr (60 Km), even Iron dome may work. All of these systems are mobile or could be made mobile easily.

Why not buy them and embed them in strike corps of Indian Army?


David Sling's and Iron dome's interceptor missiles could be cheaper than Nasr.

 

[The Deterrent]

Has anyone broached the most straightforward method to counter Tactical Nukes? (I have not read this whole thread) ie that of shooting down delivery vehicle, Nasr.

Nasr is a tactical battlefield missile, a much inferior one than Russian tactical battlefield missile like Iskander. There exists systems in this world which could shoot down Iskander, namely MIM Patriot-III, David Sling, and given the range of Nasr (60 Km), even Iron dome may work. All of these systems are mobile or could be made mobile easily.

Why not buy them and embed them in strike corps of Indian Army?


David Sling's and Iron dome's interceptor missiles could be cheaper than Nasr.

The problem is that MLRS like A-100 and Nasr have similar dimensions and trajectories. It is relatively easy and less costly to first saturate and overpower the missile defense system and then launch the strike, or launch MLRS and Nasr together.

 

[It.is.all.mudi's.fault]

The problem is that MLRS like A-100 and Nasr have similar dimensions and trajectories. It is relatively easy and less costly to first saturate and overpower the missile defense system and then launch the strike, or launch MLRS and Nasr together.

But in that case, Iron dome like system would be capable of intercepting Nasr (it can intercept MLRS). At $50,000 a missile, it would be cheaper than both Nasr and most of MLRS, thus making an Iron dome based defence, economically viable.

In case trajectory and dimension of Nasr is different from MLRS, then using David Sling to intercept it would be a safer bet, but in this case, another system (Iron Dome) has to be used for intercepting MLRS, as David Sling at $700,000 a missile is too costly to be used against MLRS.

 

[The Deterrent]

But in that case, Iron dome like system would be capable of intercepting Nasr (it can intercept MLRS). At $50,000 a missile, it would be cheaper than both Nasr and most of MLRS, thus making an Iron dome based defence, economically viable.

In case trajectory and dimension of Nasr is different from MLRS, then using David Sling to intercept it would be a safer bet, but in this case, another system (Iron Dome) has to be used for intercepting MLRS, as David Sling at $700,000 a missile is too costly to be used against MLRS.

Its not about the economics, it is about effective deployment. Each Iron Dome battery has 4 launchers, with 20 missiles each. Assigning 2 interceptors per target, it would take 40 rocket targets to completely deplete the battery. Which means that only 4 A-100 MLRS (10 rockets each) would be required to saturate the defense system at a time. Add 1 Nasr launcher (4x missiles) later, and you'll see why Iron Dome won't be effective.

 

[It.is.all.mudi's.fault]

Its not about the economics, it is about effective deployment. Each Iron Dome battery has 4 launchers, with 20 missiles each. Assigning 2 interceptors per target, it would take 40 rocket targets to completely deplete the battery. Which means that only 4 A-100 MLRS (10 rockets each) would be required to saturate the defense system at a time. Add 1 Nasr launcher (4x missiles) later, and you'll see why Iron Dome won't be effective.

But every missile defence system comes down to economics. From what I have read about Iron dome, the biggest reason why India and South Korea are interested in it is because Iron-Dome missiles is cheaper than MLRS.

And while 4 MLRS could overwhelm a traditional Iron dome battery (though I think that increasing number of launchers connected to a single batter/radar is not much of a technically difficult feat), if they don't come cheaper than Iron dome, than there may be more Iron dome batteries in a theatre than there are MLRS. Defender ,in this case Pakistan, would need to disperse its rocket artillery over the front, while attackers could choose to strike on their convenience concentrating its resources. Let's say Pakistan evaluate that IA could ingress into Pakistan at 20 points ( a very very low estimate), in order to be sure that they would be able to overwhelm Indian missile defence systems reliably, PA would have to field 80 MLRS systems, even if India has one battery of Iron dome embedded with its strike corps. It is here that game of BMD economics come into play.

Another point is that TActical Nukes are not spectre of death. They are not expected to knock out more than a couple of dozen tanks. So in case PA tries to saturate an Iron Dome battery, IA could disperse its assets in that theater (TAc nukes have very small effective radius of destruction and tanks could maneuver to crate some distance between them) in couple of minutes that Iron dome would provide.

 

[Nilgiri]

But every missile defence system comes down to economics. From what I have read about Iron dome, the biggest reason why India and South Korea are interested in it is because Iron-Dome missiles is cheaper than MLRS.

Bro, do you have a link to some of these sources? Thanks.

 

[The Deterrent]

But every missile defence system comes down to economics. From what I have read about Iron dome, the biggest reason why India and South Korea are interested in it is because Iron-Dome missiles is cheaper than MLRS.

Can you provide authentic per unit price quote for the 9M528 300mm rocket? (used in SMERCH-90km, from which A-100 is derived).

And while 4 MLRS could overwhelm a traditional Iron dome battery (though I think that increasing number of launchers connected to a single batter/radar is not much of a technically difficult feat), if they don't come cheaper than Iron dome, than there may be more Iron dome batteries in a theatre than there are MLRS. Defender ,in this case Pakistan, would need to disperse its rocket artillery over the front, while attackers could choose to strike on their convenience concentrating its resources. Let's say Pakistan evaluate that IA could ingress into Pakistan at 20 points ( a very very low estimate), in order to be sure that they would be able to overwhelm Indian missile defence systems reliably, PA would have to field 80 MLRS systems, even if India has one battery of Iron dome embedded with its strike corps. It is here that game of BMD economics come into play.

Another point is that TActical Nukes are not spectre of death. They are not expected to knock out more than a couple of dozen tanks. So in case PA tries to saturate an Iron Dome battery, IA could disperse its assets in that theater (TAc nukes have very small effective radius of destruction and tanks could maneuver to crate some distance between them) in couple of minutes that Iron dome would provide.

This war-gaming scenario is another topic, as the potential use of Nasr is often misunderstood.

 

[Gen Padmanabhan]

But in that case, Iron dome like system would be capable of intercepting Nasr (it can intercept MLRS). At $50,000 a missile, it would be cheaper than both Nasr and most of MLRS, thus making an Iron dome based defence, economically viable.

In case trajectory and dimension of Nasr is different from MLRS, then using David Sling to intercept it would be a safer bet, but in this case, another system (Iron Dome) has to be used for intercepting MLRS, as David Sling at $700,000 a missile is too costly to be used against MLRS.

Iron Dome is not capable to intercept SRBM or TBM, you are mistaken.

 

[It.is.all.mudi's.fault]

Bro, do you have a link to some of these sources? Thanks.

It is an observation.

Cost per unit of A 100E MLRS ,a variant of Smerch with Pakistan, is $12.5 million per system (12 rockets). Getting cost of single rocket is difficult.

BM-30 Smerch | Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing - eBooks | Read eBooks online http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_NC_Forum/ar/t138.htm


But cost of a single rocket of similar American MLRS is $110,000 per rocket, which is twice that of Iron dome's interceptor.

M142 HIMARS | Info, MLRS, ATACMS, Budget/Costs, Specs

So economics of interception would not be a problem, if Iron dome could intercept Nasr.

Can you provide authentic per unit price quote for the 9M528 300mm rocket? (used in SMERCH-90km, from which A-100 is derived).

Iron Dome is not capable to intercept SRBM or TBM, you are mistaken.

Yes, AFAIK it could intercept only rockets, but the point @The Deterrent was making was that Nasr and MRLS have same dimensions and trajectory, in which case Iron dome would be able to intercept Nasr too, else for Iskander type missiles, David sling is used by Israel.

 

[Gen Padmanabhan]

Yes, AFAIK it could intercept only rockets, but the point @The Deterrent was making was that Nasr and MRLS have same dimensions and trajectory, in which case Iron dome would be able to intercept Nasr too, else for Iskander type missiles, David sling is used by Israel.

Nope, if it is same then PA never required to buy Nasr.