It sounds too good to be true, neither USA nor Russia claims to possess such technology at the moment. Identifying a decoy among real warheads is almost impossible. However, given the fact, Pakistan and India are right next to each other, so it makes any Anti-Missile-Defence system redundant. Furthermore, these days there are many means available to overwhelm any defence system and further investing in AI drone technology will further make it more attractive for countries who love to go out all offensive.
USA has that technolog. I am not sure of Russia. But, USA can easily sift through decoys
were right next to you and have 150+ warheads with multiple and varied delivery vehicles
You aint stoppin much, thats a guarantee
BMD does not stop everything but just many things. That is good enough. Better to get hit with 50 warheads than 150. Also, saturation fire on one target due to BMD can protect the others due to warhead limitations
Any Anti Missile Defense system anywhere in the world cannot guarantee 100 % success rate. We have seen this in case of so much publicized Iron Dome missile shield of the Israelis but even it couldnt stop barrage of primitive rockets fired from both Hizbullah as well as Hamas.
Expecting a defense system against high technology nuclear cruise missiles or Ballistic missiles equipped with MIRVs is fooling one self. The best defense for India against any nuclear attack is to make peace with its neighbors including China and Pakistan and stop its hegemonic designs which will lead to nothing but destruction !
Cruise missile is piece of cake. The real challenge is against ballistic missiles. The probability of kill is quite high for missiles upto MRBM range. ICBM will be difficult to intercept. Even IRBM is more difficult due to higher speed.
come back and talk to us when your able to intercept a 4ft MIRV locked on to your veggie bungholes coming in at mach 18, oh wait...even the u.s. can't intercept that.
4ft MIRV? MIRV just launches multiple warheads from same missile. That means that there will be need for more than 1 BMD missile per BM missile. If there are 3 MIRV warhead, 3 times BMD missile is needed. But it is not impossible. Also, Mach 18 is some high speed IRBM. Pakistan is limited to MRBM within 2500km. 10Mach may be reasonable limit
Currently, you won't be able to intercept MIRV's like Ababeel, nor will you be able to shoot down every one of our nuclear warheads if launched (or even a significant number of them). Even if your system gets around these problems, we could develop even more counter measures on top of MIRV.
There's also the problem of how much of Hindustan you can protect with these systems, you have a huge country and these weapons are not cheap you know.
Not to mention that if they do seem promising, Pakistan will probably invest in them as well.
You cannot even block 10% of them, let alone all of them.
MIRV can be intercepted. It just has more warheads than normal missile. Launching MIRVed missile with 3 warhead is same as launching 3 missile with 1 warhead
Even if Pakistan invests, Pakistan does not have the required technical manpower to make these missiles and BMD
Only if it magically is able to operate in a heavy radiation envirmomet like nuclear war and is able to avoid multiple vector assualt. No doubt Indian bases will be targeted with both ai dropped, CM and BM simultaneously.
What radiation? The radiation is only momentary. In a matter of few minutes, radiation will be diluted in the vas atmosphere. Humans have some radiation tolerance too to tolerate the diluted radiation.
i do not dispute this, india has very advanced missile technology because it has fantastic engineers and because russia helped it a lot (my opinion), but even american/russian missile defence systems have not shown an ability to deal with decoy warheads etc (even in bullshit scripted test conditions, let alone in reality), so this is the basis for my scepticism
USA has shown the ability to deal with decoys as well as high speed missiles. Decoys have different signature than actual warheads and also have lower speed due to lower weight and thus higher drag. It is automatic that the higher weight one is the warhead. Unless one makes decoy as heavy as warhead in which case, there is no point of decoy
what good comes from thinking about how to create a 'holocaust' of hindus/pakistanis?? war has no winners and you are just continuing cycle of hatred
War has decisive winners at the end.
I do understand that, but what
@Persian Gulf 1906 said is right. To intercept a missile, we need to detect the launch, trace the trajectory, launch many missiles towards it, the margin of error is very less. Also, if the missile is a decoy or conventional low yield warhead that can trick the BMD and can launch a nuclear missile in Tandem. Developing BMD is good because we will learn a lot and can employ the technology in our strike missiles. The BMD system in today's terms cannot counter any threat.
We need not know the launch. Just trajectory is enough. By the way, detecting launch is easy as Pakistan is nearby
But the thaad is deployed in south korea. And yeah, sure, the decided not to intercept multiple missiles violating their airspace unless it is targeting Japanese targets. If it violates their airspace what else do they need? The warheads actually falling on their cities??? Naah dude, not buying it... it's merely a face saving tactic on the part of the Japanese.
THAAD is for terminal phase only. The T in THAAD means terminal. How ca Japan intercept a misisle flying over 100km above? Also, NoKo has no oceanic space to test long range missiles due to geography and henc eit has to test it over Japan
Russia, on its own, is like a 3rd world country in relation to the US in all fronts. Russia is powerful because it inherited a significant share of defenses and resources of USSR (defunct); other states were not as lucky.
Russia is strong due to heavy focus o defence. All smart people in Russia work in defence and hence it does not have any other industry but science and defence. India has large population and can get large number of intelligent people. Hence it can build better defence
That's why India is most ignorunt country in world
Small in size Decoys r designed to make similar radar and thermal signature of real warhead
It's a bs claim that u can differentiate between em
U can stack several decoy with each warhead
It's more bs propaganda to fool bhagats
For coming elections
Decoys are lighter than warhead. If decoys have same weight as warhead, then it is difficult. But with different weight, the deceleration will be different and that can be detected. Radars are capable of detecting speed
And an marv does not evade interceptor like fighter does it just makes a few changes to its trajectories within its envelope to make trajectory calculations that much difficult
Marv was rejected by USA as that was said to reduce accuracy. the RV is having heat shield which can't detect any incoming radiowaves. So, merely relying on internal INS is a risky job. The miniaturised nature of warhead and the fact that they can rotate makes the INS system very difficult to place. So, MaRV is something that will be hard to use accurately. Very few countries use MaRV as a result.
Why has irst not replaced radar
Because you don't have reliable depth data in an iir only scenario
Sorry i missed this one name one marv programme which had or is using such seeker
If you really want to discriminate between decoy and warhead in re entry stage you must sensor fuz high resolution xband radar data with high quality iir sensor data in real-time. That is beyond indian capability. Till date or use just xband
Let me give you an example have you watched the thermogram of a Softcore tracer bullet vs hardcore non tracer Einstein
The seeker on Indian AAD/PDV is RF seeker. It has sense of depth and speed. In addition, decoys are detected by ground radars much before the seeker detects it. The different speeds of deceleration due to different weight is easy to notice. If the decoys have same weight as the warhead, then the purpose of decoys are lost. Decoys are generally inflatable things which are low in density.
