What's new

India: Defeating the Cruise Missile Threat

kurup

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
10,563
Reaction score
-2
Country
India
Location
India
1024px-BrahMos-400x300.jpg


As India considers its threat environment, it must consider not just ballistic missiles, but also cruise missiles, such as those that might potentially be launched from Pakistan or China. These latter are far more difficult to detect and intercept than are ballistic missiles.

A cruise missile has been defined as a “weapon which automatically flies an essentially horizontal cruise flight profile for most of the duration of its flight between launch and its terminal trajectory to impact.” Land-attack cruise missiles further complicate the task of any defense system, since they can be terrain hugging and can also fly a circuitous trajectory.

In particular, Pakistan’s Babur and Raad cruise missiles represent a threat to India. Meanwhile, China’s cruise missile arsenal include the Seersucker, Silkworm, the ground launched DH-10 and the air-launched CJ-10, C-101 and HN series, to name a few. Some of China’s missiles are nuclear capable.

As it considers these weapons, one of the key questions that confronts New Delhi is whether it should opt solely for a cruise missile defense or also adopt a “deterrence by punishment” posture with the help of its own cruise missile arsenal. While a cruise missile defense could possibly intercept a subsonic cruise missile, it may be difficult to intercept supersonic cruise missiles and it is virtually impossible to intercept hypersonic cruise missiles. Although at present neither Pakistan nor China possess a hypersonic cruise missile, that could very well change. China already has supersonic cruise missiles such as the C-101 and C-301. Pakistan has also acquired the new CM-400 AKG, a supersonic cruise missile claimed to be hard to intercept because of its velocity.

For its part, India is currently working on a ballistic missile defense. India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation is developing a defense system with two layers, with Advanced Air Defence (AAD) as the first layer and the two-stage Prithvi Air Defence (PAD) as the second layer. However, neither PAD nor AAD would be able to intercept cruise missiles.

Using anti-air missiles of various ranges, it may still be possible to intercept supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles (although intercepting land-attack missiles remains a Herculean task). France, for instance, has been able to intercept supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles using its Principal Anti-Air Missile System. For it to replicate the feat, India would need an effective command, control, communication, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance system. Even with that, intercepting hypersonic cruise missiles would very likely remain unrealistic. Moreover, missiles with low radar signatures make the job of any air or missile defense system that much more difficult. Any surface-to-air missiles used would need to be highly sophisticated, with high-power large aperture radars, although even that might not be enough to intercept incoming threats. India could hope to defeat air-launched cruise missiles by destroying the aircraft that carry them. However, both Pakistan and China are developing stealth technology that could make it difficult for India to locate and destroy the aircraft before they fire.

All of which means that while defense by denial is an important approach, India ought also to consider another form of defense. Specifically, it must concentrate on its own hypersonic cruise missiles. To maximize deterrence, its cruise missile arsenal should also be nuclear capable. Deterrence by punishment is a useful option when defense in general may not be sufficiently robust to counter the threat, and nuclear-capable cruise missiles would be as effective in that respect as nuclear-capable ballistic missiles. Indeed, the moment a missile becomes nuclear capable, it has value as deterrence.

In fact, next-generation cruise missiles for India and for other countries are likely not only to be faster, but will also be able to carry non-nuclear warheads that are equally cataclysmic, like directed energy weapons, such as electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons that could disable command, control and communication systems. A high-speed, sophisticated cruise missile carrying such a deadly warhead would surely give an adversary pause.

Already, India’s BrahMos supersonic cruise missile is capable of evading any missile defense system in the world. There are also plans to develop a hypersonic version. Either version is likely to defeat any defense system it counters. The next step would be for the missiles to be nuclear capable, making them a deterrence against not only conventional cruise missile attacks, but also against nuclear strikes using cruise missiles or even ballistic missiles.

http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2013/10/26/india-defeating-the-cruise-missile-threat/
 
. .
India is developing long range SAM like S300 or HQ-9.
It will take 5-7 years for induction.
 
.
it is not easy to solve this problem. In coming years, cruise missiles will be very stealthy, use of graphene in circuits will make them flying super computer. The only way could be either use of emp or visual take down.
 
.
I believe India should step the research in the field of high energy laser, which can act as both a defensive as well as offensive weapon. And invest more into space based detection system which will be far more effective in the longer run.
 
. . .
Preempt strike don't goes for the bluff of Nuke holocaust. At worst, Be ready to loose one or two cities for some years. Live happily ever after.
Matlab mera Bangalore nahin rahega??:cray:Bro... We are talking about cruise missiles here and they are mainly targeted at installations due to their high accuracy and not to take out a whole damn city.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom