sealordlawrenceNever said that something was better than nothing at all. Quite the contrary. Just pointing out it’s got a ways to go.
Not to mention the idea that any defense system is infallible in the long term.
sealordlawrenceIt can frequently be seen in the background on Top Gear.
sealordlawrenceI find alot of stuff at warfare.ru its an execellent Russian site mostly in English.
Im very,very surprised to see extremely few Russians there much less anyone else truly interested in naval matters Russian or otherwise.
In fact Im quite surprised in the general lack of interest in naval matters in general as that is where the future of this world will truly be decided as it has been for many centuries now.
All else is a sideshow. Albeit often quite interesting and exciting.
Fashion dear boy fashion. Terrorism and insurgency are the favorite subjects at them moment, Russia has been all but abandoned since the mid nineties.
sealordlawrenceIndeed you didn’t. You said that it would be quick. Chevaline took 13 years, and that was with substantial US assistance.
Quoting from your posting was just a simple way of bringing the reader’s attention to the particular aspect of the discussion that I was addressing.
Today, the problem would be even more difficult than that faced by the Chevaline designers, as any ICBM penaid would have to counter not only radar sensors, but also space-based sensors and future land-based non-radar sensors. For example, Boeing has studied a scheme in which high-powered laser pulses would create ablation of the incoming warhead or decoy, and the resulting effect or lack of it on the object’s trajectory would give an indication of the object’s weight.
Mercurius Cantabrigiensis
Well dont qoute posts that are irrelevent to your point, you should be articulate enough to draw readers attention to what you have to say without doing that.
We are talking about India, last time I checked Boeing was not an Indian company. If you want to talk about space based sensors then also talk about ASAT systems. People forget that we have seen all this before.
Just becouse Chevaline took 13 years it does not mean that others would. Indeed I would very much doubt that China in paticular would be starting fom scratch on such an exercise given the intended targets of their strategic delivery systems and the massive scope of their missile development program.
sealordlawrenceAgreed, mostly sorted, & the tankers are probably the biggest worry (apart from helicopters, but that’s as much an army problem), but I think there are also some holes to be filled in ISR. E-3 (as long as we can keep upgrading ’em), Sentinel & Nimrod MRA4 are good, but won’t cover everything – and we won’t have enough Nimrods. Got a bit of a short-term transport problem, as well, until the A400M are in service, but at least we know it’s only short-term.
Yeah the government seems really committed to the A400M, just hope it works out. Ideally a few more C-17s would be nice but I agree that the MRA4 numbers are a serious concern.
The RAF very cleverly has all its combat aircraft programs protected F-35 by the Navy, Typhoon by the sheer cost of getting out of it and any UCAV’s by the governments desire to stay in the game and by BAe’s lobbying. Those programs without such protection seem to suffer, Nimrod MRA4 being a perfect case in point.
sealordlawrenceFarooq, suppose Indian BMD had a success rate of just 50%. Hence, to maintain the current threat, China would have to double its arsenal. If the success rate were 10%, China would have to increase it by 1/10 and so forth.
Assuming 1000 ballistic missiles in Chinese inventory that can strike India, a success rate of 99% would imply China increasing their arsenal by 100 times to maintain the same threat level as it was before the BMD.
As already explained, it does not work like that.
sealordlawrenceThe art of creating workable anti-ABM countermeasures is not as easy as many seem to think.
Dr Stanley Orman, who was involved in the design of the UK’s Chevaline payload, once commented that BMD critics who predicted that such systems could be defeated by decoys and countermeasures all had one thing in common – none had ever tried to develop a workable decoy or countermeasure.
Speaking at a 2001 Strategic Weapons conference, Orman stated that the task of developing effective countermeasures was “neither trivial nor cheap”. Chevaline had been designed to defeat only ground-based radars, yet took 13 years, and cost a billion UK pounds, making it the largest and most costly defence programme ever conducted by the UK up until then.
He was harshly critical of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ 175 page study published a year earlier on potential countermeasures to BMD, saying that none of the group’s claims could withstand scrutiny. The proposed countermeasures were “designs by physicists”, paper exercises in which the engineering complexity of the task was overlooked.
Mercurius Cantabrigiensis
I never said that it was easy or cheap, so you had no need to qoute me there.
sealordlawrenceThe total numbers of Typhoon & F-35B planned to be bought are such that no additional fighters or fighter-bombers are envisaged as being needed. It is not a case of Type A is replaced by Type X, Type B by Type Y, etc. The force structure is changing, as old aircraft are retired & new ones procured.
Harriers on the carriers will be replaced by F-35B; Tornado ADV is being replaced by Typhoons in the air defence role. But the assorted other strike & recce aircraft are not being replaced in such a clear-cut fashion. And by the time the GR4s retire, there are expected to be effective UCAVs available.
Perfectly said. I would suggest that the RAF is doing very well out of all of this. They are getting some extremely capable multi-role aircraft and are on a kind of fast stream to get some UCAV’s, they just need to sort the tanker fleet out now.;)
sealordlawrencesealordlawrence, to counter only Chinese threat, 200 such exo-endo missile pairs may have to be developed. Presently, most ballistic missiles do not have an ECM facility and China and Pakistan are not known to possess MIRV missiles. Thus, the BMD will be effective for the long-term.
Regarding cruise missiles, they can be countered by the Barak in India’s inventory and possibly Akash. As per Dr. Saraswat’s statement, the BMD system will also be designed counter cruise missiles.
No it wont, it will be effective in the medium term at best. Simply saying that ‘this can be countered by that’ is flawed logic. You have no idea what can be countered by what, what is just round the corner in Chinese or Pakistani procurement programs. People who believe that ABM systems are some kind of strategic panacea need to take a serious reality check. They are not, various ways round them can, will and have been developed in relatively short periods of time. There is only one way to find out how effective systms such as these are and that is to subject them to actual bombardment and everything that entails, if you really think that it would then be 99% effective then you are very naive indeed.
sealordlawrencematt, the argument of “something is better than nothing” may be put forth to counteract the above.
Besides, the Pradyumna-Ashwin system is itself a saturation BMD—if the exo-atmospheric system Pradyumna fails to intercept the incoming ballistic missile at 50 kms altitude, then the endo-atmospheric Ashwin will ensure to intercept the same.
As per the statement of Dr. Saraswat, the accuracy of this system is 99 %. Hence, in order to maintain the same threat level against India via a brute-force saturation attack, China (and Pakistan) may have to increase their arsenal by 1 x 100 = 100 times. This implies a Chinese arsenal of 1 lakh ballistic missiles that too dedicated only for India.
That is completely incorrect. How many interceptors will India have compared to its potential opponents warheads, how effective will they be against increasingly effective and sophisticated warheads and counter-measures. One also has to consider the security of the ABM system to other forms of strategic attack, such as speed long range cruise missiles. As for this system being 99% effective………….very unlikely if not impossible.
sealordlawrenceC*ap choice of wine then !!
Polite and sociable as ever I see.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceC*ap choice of wine then !!
Polite and sociable as ever I see.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceThe current plan has the RAF/RN getting F-35B’s for the CVF’s. That said, I have heard of discussion regarding replacing the GR-4 with the JSF at some point. Yet, I don’t think anything has been set in stone……….unless you know something I don’t?:confused:
The F-35B replaces joint force harrier, it is a very long way from being ‘for’ the CVF’s.
sealordlawrencePersonally, I wouldn’t be surprised if the GR-4 is replaced by some version of the F-35. Maybe even the F-35A with the larger wing of the F-35C. Which, has been talked about for sometime. Of course that debate is years off……..Yet, I believe it would be very plausible. On the otherhand the USAF has been talking of a bomber version (FB-22) of the Raptor. So, that also a possibility…………….:cool:
The GR-4 is going to be replaced by the current F-35 plan, the Typhoon and a UCAV of some sort.
sealordlawrenceDitto
Well at least you have the aptitude to recognise your very serious flaws.;)
Sign In
