Umair Nawaz
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2012
- Messages
- 13,407
- Reaction score
- -20
- Country
- Location
ISLAMABAD - In response to India's pursuit of missile defenses, Pakistan has expanded its countermeasure efforts, primarily through development of maneuvering re-entry vehicles. The Army Strategic Forces Command, which controls Pakistan's ballistic missiles, has since at least 2004 said it wanted to develop such warheads; analysts now believe these are in service.
Mansoor Ahmed, lecturer at the Department of Defence and Strategic Studies at Islamabad's Quaid-e-Azam University, said that in addition to maneuverable warheads, multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) may be developed to stay ahead of India's "multilayered ballistic-missile defense system" and potential future countermeasures.
"This, coupled with submarine-launched, nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, would ensure the survivability of its nuclear deterrent and enhance the effectiveness of its missile force that can beat any Indian defenses," he said.
When asked about the threat posed by India's anti-ballistic missile (ABM) program, Harsh Pant, reader of international relations at the Defence Studies Department, King's College London, said it depended on the capability India eventually acquired.
"Many in India see an Indian missile defense capability as the only effective way to counter what they consider as Pakistan's 'nuclear blackmail,'" he said.
He cited the ongoing conflict in Kashmir, the 1999 Kargil conflict and the November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks as examples.Strategic Disadvantage These incidents "demonstrated for many the inability of India to come up with an appropriate response to the stability-instability paradox operating on the subcontinent that has put India at a strategic disadvantage vis-à-vis Pakistan."
He further explained, "A missile defense system would help India blunt Pakistan's 'first use' nuclear force posture that had led Pakistan to believe that it had inhibited India from launching a conventional attack against it for fear of its escalation to the nuclear level. With a missile defense system in place, India would be able to restore the status quo ante, thereby making a conventional military option against Pakistan potent again."Such a missile defense system and a second-strike capability "would enhance the uncertainties of India's potential adversaries, regardless of the degree of effectiveness of missile interception, and would act as a disincentive to their resort to nuclear weapons," he said.
Asked whether Pakistan's countermeasures would be effective against such ABM systems, Pant replied, "most definitely."
He said, "According to various reports, Pakistan has been developing MIRV capability for the Shaheen-II ballistic missiles and [the] Shaheen-III missile is under development."
He also explained there was a further danger for India in Pakistan's countermeasure efforts.
"Although the current capability of Pakistani missiles is built around radar seekers, the integration of re-entry vehicles would make these extremely potent and defeat the anti-ballistic missile defense systems. This would be especially true of Indian aircraft carriers that would become extremely vulnerable," he said.
While measures to maintain the credibility of the land-based arm of the deterrent may prove to be adequate, the security of the future sea-based arm of the nuclear triad is not as clear-cut.
Analysts have for years speculated that the Navy will equip its submarines with a variant of the Babur cruise missile armed with a nuclear warhead. However, whether a cruise-missile-based arm of the nuclear triad at sea would be effective and survivable in the face of Indian air defenses is uncertain.
The Soviet Union developed a counter to the BGM-109 Tomahawk nearly 30 years ago in the form of the MiG-31 Foxhound, which had a powerful look down/shoot down radar and a potent missile system. The Indian Air Force claims its Su-30 Flanker has similar capabilities.
When this was put to analyst Usman Shabbir of the Pakistan Military Consortium think tank, he said the interception of cruise missiles is not so simple."I think Babur will form the sea-based arm of the Pakistani nuclear deterrent" he said, "but the problem in targeting subsonic cruise missiles is that 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."
"By the time you detect them, there is not much time left to vector aircraft for interception."
However, Shabbir conceded it would be possible for an airborne interceptor to shoot down a missile like Babur. "An aircraft already on [patrol] might be lucky to pick it up on its own radar well in advance [if looking in the correct direction], or vectored to it by ground-based radar."
written by Mr. Usman Ansari.
Pakistan Seeks To Counter Indian ABM Defenses | Defense News | defensenews.com
Mansoor Ahmed, lecturer at the Department of Defence and Strategic Studies at Islamabad's Quaid-e-Azam University, said that in addition to maneuverable warheads, multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) may be developed to stay ahead of India's "multilayered ballistic-missile defense system" and potential future countermeasures.
"This, coupled with submarine-launched, nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, would ensure the survivability of its nuclear deterrent and enhance the effectiveness of its missile force that can beat any Indian defenses," he said.
When asked about the threat posed by India's anti-ballistic missile (ABM) program, Harsh Pant, reader of international relations at the Defence Studies Department, King's College London, said it depended on the capability India eventually acquired.
"Many in India see an Indian missile defense capability as the only effective way to counter what they consider as Pakistan's 'nuclear blackmail,'" he said.
He cited the ongoing conflict in Kashmir, the 1999 Kargil conflict and the November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks as examples.Strategic Disadvantage These incidents "demonstrated for many the inability of India to come up with an appropriate response to the stability-instability paradox operating on the subcontinent that has put India at a strategic disadvantage vis-à-vis Pakistan."
He further explained, "A missile defense system would help India blunt Pakistan's 'first use' nuclear force posture that had led Pakistan to believe that it had inhibited India from launching a conventional attack against it for fear of its escalation to the nuclear level. With a missile defense system in place, India would be able to restore the status quo ante, thereby making a conventional military option against Pakistan potent again."Such a missile defense system and a second-strike capability "would enhance the uncertainties of India's potential adversaries, regardless of the degree of effectiveness of missile interception, and would act as a disincentive to their resort to nuclear weapons," he said.
Asked whether Pakistan's countermeasures would be effective against such ABM systems, Pant replied, "most definitely."
He said, "According to various reports, Pakistan has been developing MIRV capability for the Shaheen-II ballistic missiles and [the] Shaheen-III missile is under development."
He also explained there was a further danger for India in Pakistan's countermeasure efforts.
"Although the current capability of Pakistani missiles is built around radar seekers, the integration of re-entry vehicles would make these extremely potent and defeat the anti-ballistic missile defense systems. This would be especially true of Indian aircraft carriers that would become extremely vulnerable," he said.
While measures to maintain the credibility of the land-based arm of the deterrent may prove to be adequate, the security of the future sea-based arm of the nuclear triad is not as clear-cut.
Analysts have for years speculated that the Navy will equip its submarines with a variant of the Babur cruise missile armed with a nuclear warhead. However, whether a cruise-missile-based arm of the nuclear triad at sea would be effective and survivable in the face of Indian air defenses is uncertain.
The Soviet Union developed a counter to the BGM-109 Tomahawk nearly 30 years ago in the form of the MiG-31 Foxhound, which had a powerful look down/shoot down radar and a potent missile system. The Indian Air Force claims its Su-30 Flanker has similar capabilities.
When this was put to analyst Usman Shabbir of the Pakistan Military Consortium think tank, he said the interception of cruise missiles is not so simple."I think Babur will form the sea-based arm of the Pakistani nuclear deterrent" he said, "but the problem in targeting subsonic cruise missiles is that 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."
"By the time you detect them, there is not much time left to vector aircraft for interception."
However, Shabbir conceded it would be possible for an airborne interceptor to shoot down a missile like Babur. "An aircraft already on [patrol] might be lucky to pick it up on its own radar well in advance [if looking in the correct direction], or vectored to it by ground-based radar."
written by Mr. Usman Ansari.
Pakistan Seeks To Counter Indian ABM Defenses | Defense News | defensenews.com
few days ago...
... i wonder why you wasted/wasting money on other SAMs...
