Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Game Changer: India Tests K-15 SLBM From Bay Of Bengal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    There are only two possibilities:
    no 1) the two projects are related
    no 2) the two projects are not related

    my guess was no 1 and so when i read ajai shukla quote a DRDO official agree to it, i got a "A-ha!!" moment.

    btw, i noticed that you guys are biting me. i assume this is because of the conversation me and officerofengineers had in the other thread. i think he is a respected guru for all you guys here. i'm sorry for challenging your guru. there was nothing personal about it.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by lemontree View Post
      Why not sir?...its a strategic capability that has been achieved.
      A capability that is not needed, Captain. Neither Pakistan nor China is capable of a decapitating first strike against India. It raises the opening bet against Pakistan but then Pakistan could not afford the opening bet already. China can still afford the game and in fact, her opening bet is beyond what India can afford at the moment (I will explain later).

      Originally posted by lemontree View Post
      This capability permits us to fire sub launched conventional cruise missiles, something that is urgently needed.
      With American permission. (Again, will explain following).


      Originally posted by lemontree View Post
      What made you say that sir?
      No training in the Indian armed forces is similar to Soviet or Chinese navies. At best we adopt best practices, we buy some Russian defence equipment but that does not mean that we adopt Soviet naval tactics.
      Just like anyone with hair will invent a comb that looks very similar across the globe, similar combat requirements will dictate similar combat practices.

      Your boomer will be trailed by the Americans. Accept that as fact. They trailed every boomer that is not theirs or their ally's and that also means that they trail the Israelis so that they don't do anything stupid.

      That essentially means that the Americans can stop you from launching at any given point ... and Indian ASW is no where close to finding the Americans.

      How the Russians and the Chinese got around this is to keep their boomers close to home behind naval screens and naval aviation cover. American subs have to blast their way through those screens and survive air attacks before they can get to Russian or Chinese boomers. There is no better way to detect a sub than to force it into combat.

      For India to launch without American interference, they too would have to adopt such practices.

      Originally posted by lemontree View Post
      That is OK. We can still hit any target in China with our land based Agni III.
      Then, what's the difference between an AGNI launch and an extended range K15 launch? For the Chinese, their defence posture would remain the same until an Indian boomer can launch off Chinese shores.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
        That wasn't my intent to make such a statement. I wanted Defcon to understand the practical limitations of an Indian boomer and how in effect, it is not a game changer.
        That's ok i was asking in a general manner.

        Both these countries will not mate nukes. To put them on a sub requires a fundamental change in their thinking. How will that change affect their postures and the counter-reaction. No mating means things remain cool. No mating also means no operational experience and that in turn means less effective third leg.

        Does minimum deterence principle automatically imply no mating is possible. Which could be perceived as an aggressive move. Minimum deterrence it would seem to me is wholey reactionary in posture not offensive. Its a punishment paradigm. If one mates then the other is also forced to do the same.

        So i have trouble seeing how either of these two countries is going to put a nuke on a sub to begin with without even getting into the difficulties these subs would face of evading others, at this early point. 'No first strike' it would seem apears to limit that. Nukes on subs is getting dangerously close to tactical nuke territory.

        If the Chinese would not mate their nukes even under pressure from the Soviets then they ain't going to be putting them on a sub and neither will we. SLBM will remain just a proof of concept and does not change the status quo as it is currently.

        So cannot see a way to operationalise this ability to the extent it will have any deterrence value.
        Last edited by Double Edge; 29 Jan 13,, 17:20.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
          That's ok i was asking in a general manner.

          Both these countries will not mate nukes. To put them on a sub requires a fundamental change in their thinking. How will that change affect their postures and the counter-reaction. No mating means things remain cool. No mating also means no operational experience and that in turn means less effective third leg.
          Then why spend billions of $$ to put a boomer in the water? If the Chinese are not mating their warheads they might as well scrap all their boomers and India better stop building and testing hers before more money is wasted. I just don't buy the argument that the Chinese don't mate warheads onto the missiles in their boomers or that India won't do it in the future. The land based missiles I can understand, because the govt. may get a chance to rethink in case the balloon goes up. But in a boomer, it is a problem of physical impossibility. And they are not going to advertise what their chain of command and procedures for authorizing the boomer captains to launch are. So if we don't know them, it doesn't mean they haven't already been developed.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
            Then why spend billions of $$ to put a boomer in the water? If the Chinese are not mating their warheads they might as well scrap all their boomers and India better stop building and testing hers before more money is wasted. I just don't buy the argument that the Chinese don't mate warheads onto the missiles in their boomers or that India won't do it in the future. The land based missiles I can understand, because the govt. may get a chance to rethink in case the balloon goes up. But in a boomer, it is a problem of physical impossibility. And they are not going to advertise what their chain of command and procedures for authorizing the boomer captains to launch are. So if we don't know them, it doesn't mean they haven't already been developed.
            We know that the Chinese have not been loading nukes on patrols simply because they're not glowing the right shade of green.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
              Then why spend billions of $$ to put a boomer in the water? If the Chinese are not mating their warheads they might as well scrap all their boomers and India better stop building and testing hers before more money is wasted. I just don't buy the argument that the Chinese don't mate warheads onto the missiles in their boomers or that India won't do it in the future.
              There are nuiances at work that is extremely hard to understand and I'm not sure I fully grasp it myself. It's only within the past 3 years that I discovered "deterrence is not war fighting." Therefore, I am only a student (I wish there was a course on this) but the concept is to raise doubt in your enemy, not to guarrantee your retalliation.

              "Is it worth it to take the risk?" as opposed to "I'm taking you down no matter if I go down too."

              It doesn't matter if your boomer has nukes or not. I am still going to have to hunt it down and kill it. Else, you can load nukes onto your boomer and that I cannot allow. If you look at it from a war fighting perspective, I will still have to commit to killing everything and even then, I cannot be sure if I will lose a city or not.

              Is it worthwhile for me to take such a risk over say fishing rights? Or even Vietnam?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by anil View Post
                There are only two possibilities:
                no 1) the two projects are related
                no 2) the two projects are not related

                my guess was no 1 and so when i read ajai shukla quote a DRDO official agree to it, i got a "A-ha!!" moment.
                I read the quote and the link you posted and nowhere does it state that the missile is a derivative. Infact, even reading that article you provided, it provides you with more than enough information to show how the Brahmos and the K-15/B-05 are two entirely different projects. Re-read your own article. And than go read up on the Brahmos. These missiles are nothing alike! Nothing alike in their composition (liquid-solid fueled Brahmos with a Mach speed of 2.8 vs an all-solid K-15 hitting mach 6), not in their trajectories (ground hugging Brahmos vs Ballistic trajectory of K-15), or even nothing alike in their guidance systems.

                btw, i noticed that you guys are biting me. i assume this is because of the conversation me and officerofengineers had in the other thread. i think he is a respected guru for all you guys here. i'm sorry for challenging your guru. there was nothing personal about it.
                You haven't challenged anybody really.
                Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
                -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  Then, what's the difference between an AGNI launch and an extended range K15 launch? For the Chinese, their defence posture would remain the same until an Indian boomer can launch off Chinese shores.
                  Sir, it just provides a third leg, and harder nuclear assets to target by putting the launchers underwater. It ties up more of the enemy's resources and assets trying to find your boomers (even if you have them tucked away in some port of yours, it keeps the enemy guessing). Why would there be a need to launch off the Chinese coast, if launching from the Bay of Bengal can cover the same ground? The K-15 is just a stepping stone to developing the K-4, which is intended to be a 4,000+ km range SLBM.
                  Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
                  -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Tronic View Post
                    Sir, it just provides a third leg, and harder nuclear assets to target by putting the launchers underwater. It ties up more of the enemy's resources and assets trying to find your boomers (even if you have them tucked away in some port of yours, it keeps the enemy guessing).
                    What if the Chinese are not even trying? What if they stuck with counter-value instead of counter-force?

                    Originally posted by Tronic View Post
                    Why would there be a need to launch off the Chinese coast, if launching from the Bay of Bengal can cover the same ground? The K-15 is just a stepping stone to developing the K-4, which is intended to be a 4,000+ km range SLBM.
                    Well, two things here.

                    1) Until the K-4 comes on line, the only way you're forcing the Chinese to change their game is to put the boomer right off their coast, forcing them to hunt for them. Otherwise, the K-15 is going to mean diddlily squat to the Chinese.

                    2) On the receiving end, it matters very little if the nuke is delivered by an AGNI III or by a K-4 from the Bay of Bengal. You're not changing the Chinese defence posture.

                    So, how is this a game changer?

                    In actuality, it is a game stabilizer. India no longer feels her nukes are threatened to the point of use them or lose them.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      It doesn't matter if your boomer has nukes or not. I am still going to have to hunt it down and kill it. Else, you can load nukes onto your boomer and that I cannot allow. If you look at it from a war fighting perspective, I will still have to commit to killing everything and even then, I cannot be sure if I will lose a city or not.

                      Is it worthwhile for me to take such a risk over say fishing rights? Or even Vietnam?
                      If I understand what you are saying, it is basically a bluff. And I'm counting on you not calling it because you can't be 100% sure it is a bluff.

                      On the other hand, even if you try to kill all my boomers, there is always the chance that one of them will lose her pursuers long enough to be able to fire off her missiles. Now, if you have already destroyed my land based deterrent in a counter-force strike I will end up looking rather silly with my only means of retaliation sitting in the middle of the ocean with no actual nukes on board.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        There are nuiances at work that is extremely hard to understand and I'm not sure I fully grasp it myself. It's only within the past 3 years that I discovered "deterrence is not war fighting." Therefore, I am only a student (I wish there was a course on this) but the concept is to raise doubt in your enemy, not to guarrantee your retalliation.
                        I've been thinking about the deterrence concept and realise we only have a sample size of ONE.

                        The Chinese blinked when the Soviets put a gun to their head. They failed to deter the Soviets, it was the Americans that kept the Soviets at bay.

                        So the answer to the question of whether deterrence actually works is still -- don't know.

                        We have no examples where deterrence actually succeeded in deterring either of the big two. These are the only two that deterrence is aimed at.

                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        "Is it worth it to take the risk?" as opposed to "I'm taking you down no matter if I go down too."

                        It doesn't matter if your boomer has nukes or not. I am still going to have to hunt it down and kill it. Else, you can load nukes onto your boomer and that I cannot allow. If you look at it from a war fighting perspective, I will still have to commit to killing everything and even then, I cannot be sure if I will lose a city or not.

                        Is it worthwhile for me to take such a risk over say fishing rights? Or even Vietnam?
                        How do the Americans & Russians do it. They have their patrols. Or French & Brits. Everybody is tracking the other. No complications so far. Do they put out to sea with nukes these days ie post cold war at all.

                        I'm hung up on this mating issue as you've mentioned it numerous times. The mating point was brought up recently at a carnegie talk and the speakers said the same thing as you have here about Chinese not mating etc. The decision to mate on a sub would be a significant shift for both countries.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                          I've been thinking about the deterrence concept and realise we only have a sample size of ONE.

                          The Chinese blinked when the Soviets put a gun to their head. They failed to deter the Soviets, it was the Americans that kept the Soviets at bay.
                          I would argue that they did. They went begging to the Americans and formalized relations. Nixon met Mao before he talked to Brezhnev.

                          Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                          How do the Americans & Russians do it. They have their patrols. Or French & Brits. Everybody is tracking the other. No complications so far. Do they put out to sea with nukes these days ie post cold war at all.
                          Both send nukes on boomers. With the Soviets, it was a dual key release with both the Captain of the Boat and the KGB Officer having to give their oks.

                          The Soviets, however, were never as agressive with their patrols as the Americans were. They only sent out nukes on declared exercises and under strategic threat situations.

                          Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                          I'm hung up on this mating issue as you've mentioned it numerous times. The mating point was brought up recently at a carnegie talk and the speakers said the same thing as you have here about Chinese not mating etc. The decision to mate on a sub would be a significant shift for both countries.
                          I really don't know what the Chinese are thinking at this point. However, I do know that they're taking their own sweet time with the JL-2 R&D and it's not fully deployable yet. Until they have such a missile, it's really too early to state what they're thinking.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                            Then why spend billions of $$ to put a boomer in the water? If the Chinese are not mating their warheads they might as well scrap all their boomers and India better stop building and testing hers before more money is wasted.
                            Both countries need to develop the sea based leg of the triad. I'm not arguing against that.

                            I'm wondering how they're going to put it into effect. The Chinese have been at this longer than we have and i don't see any advances on their side.

                            Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                            I just don't buy the argument that the Chinese don't mate warheads onto the missiles in their boomers or that India won't do it in the future.
                            I don't know about the future, all i can do is comment about now which is a question about the future. What is going to happen when these two decide to put nukes on subs. What changes are required in their thinking to allow that.

                            This is uncharted territory.

                            Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                            The land based missiles I can understand, because the govt. may get a chance to rethink in case the balloon goes up. But in a boomer, it is a problem of physical impossibility.
                            Exactly, so if they won't mate land based missiles then sea based is out of the question as well.

                            The problem with a nuke on a sub is countries do not like them in the vicinity. It causes alarm and that is not the intent of deterrence to begin with. We have this inherent contradiction to deal with here.

                            Our subs are not going to do loop the loop in the Indian ocean. They need to figure out approaches to possible opponents get in and out without being seen if they are to have any effect at all. They need to do that with nukes on board to really know what their chances are. Chinese have not pursued this to date.

                            Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                            And they are not going to advertise what their chain of command and procedures for authorizing the boomer captains to launch are. So if we don't know them, it doesn't mean they haven't already been developed.
                            The americans & russians have a very keen interest in being able to detect this given that they would be on the receving end. I've not heard anything mentioned here about it nor in the media. It would be news, big news.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                              I would argue that they did. They went begging to the Americans and formalized relations. Nixon met Mao before he talked to Brezhnev.
                              Don't follow.

                              Why did the Chinese have to talk to the Americans at all if they had a deterrent.

                              Was it too early in their development to be able to deter the Soviets.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                Don't follow.

                                Why did the Chinese have to talk to the Americans at all if they had a deterrent.

                                Was it too early in their development to be able to deter the Soviets.
                                No, that's not it. One on one, the Chinese knew that they can't take on the Soviets. That they could not even inflict unacceptable damage onto the Soviets. What they could do is to tilt the balance against the Soviets. In other words, they might win round one against the Chinese but they would definetely lose in round 2 against the US.

                                What Zhou En-Lai (Mao was a babling fool by then) did was to get the Americans to jump in on round 1 instead of waiting for round 2. In that, they would discourage Moscow from going to war.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X