Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Indian Defence News & Discussions

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Oracle View Post
    But, now that you've said it, why do American ICBMs belong to the USAF?
    The USAF had the most experience of strategic bombing over the other branches.

    Originally posted by Oracle View Post
    If I read your argument correctly, not all ballistic missiles can be destroyed in the 1st pre-emptive attack. Mobile launchers, missiles hidden in mountainous caves etc make sure some of them are saved. If I am correct, another wave of preemptive (2nd) attack is necessary to destroy the remaining ballistic missiles, whenever eyes in the sky picks them up readying to be launched? My guts tell me this can be done with the adequate number of missiles, intel, planning, and preparation.
    Much simpler than that. In the civilian world, rocket launches have a 80-96% success launch rate and these are rockets that are checked, double checked, and tripple checked and still 1 to 2 rockets out of ten ends uip kaboom.

    Now, let's compare that to rockets that have been sitting on the launch pad for months on end and there are no time for checks, let alone double and tripple checks. How confident are you that those rockets would work as intended? There's a reason why retallitory nuclear strikes aim for nuclear missile silos that are supposed to be empty. When START II was signed, the Americans found out that 80% of the Soviet/Russian rockets would not work, mainly because of the lack of maintenance funding.

    Let's add to something else. Only the Americans and the Russians maintain ready-to-launch nuclear weapons. Everyone else is recessed. However, the Americans maintain a 75-80% readiness while the Russians maintain a 25% readiness. It's damned expensive keeping nukes on a warfooting.

    Originally posted by Oracle View Post
    Don't you think the IAF has done a dry run of that with the Balakote air-strike? How will you see the training, it's not like IAF jets will train over Canadian airspace. What do you mean here?
    That's hardly a nuclear value target. In India's case, only Modi has the authority to release nuclear weapons. What is the procedure from Modi giving the go to a mushroom cloud over Pakistan?

    The N5's nuclear weaponsneers had to be qualified. That means that they have to goto school, train, and then pass the test in order to qualify to deliver nuclear weapons. That kind of schooling, training, and testing can hardly be hidden.
    Chimo

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Oracle View Post
      So, CPC gifted Pakistan a production line to manufacture their own planes. Own planes? What own planes? They can't manufacture a bicycle.
      They did make nukes.

      Originally posted by Oracle View Post
      That money was spent on building the JF-17 assembly line in Pakistan I guess.
      It went into some General's pokcet.

      Originally posted by Oracle View Post
      I read somewhere that JF-17 kits are imported from China and assembled in Pakistan.
      The inital batch was but Pakistan is now making their own. They're buying Western avionics.

      Originally posted by Oracle View Post
      You gave almost a similar argument earlier, not in detail, but my point still stands, the PLAAF dumped the JF-17 on the PAF because they found the jets inferior.
      No, the CAF did not dumped the JF-17 on Pakistan. They were doing everything they can not to build that bird, including offerring the J-10 to Pakistan. However, Pakistan demanded a production line and China was unwilling to offer Pakistan a license to the J-10.

      And it's hardly a dump. You're talking about Chinese Generals willing to cut a $1billion from their budget just to avoid that the JF-17. This was not a painless decision on their part.
      Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 02 Jul 19,, 07:32.
      Chimo

      Comment


      • #78
        US Senate passes legislative provision to give India Nato ally-like status

        This ^, and this below.

        Click image for larger version

Name:	R.png
Views:	2
Size:	30.6 KB
ID:	1478187
        Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
          Much simpler than that. In the civilian world, rocket launches have a 80-96% success launch rate and these are rockets that are checked, double checked, and tripple checked and still 1 to 2 rockets out of ten ends uip kaboom.

          Now, let's compare that to rockets that have been sitting on the launch pad for months on end and there are no time for checks, let alone double and tripple checks. How confident are you that those rockets would work as intended? There's a reason why retallitory nuclear strikes aim for nuclear missile silos that are supposed to be empty. When START II was signed, the Americans found out that 80% of the Soviet/Russian rockets would not work, mainly because of the lack of maintenance funding.

          Let's add to something else. Only the Americans and the Russians maintain ready-to-launch nuclear weapons. Everyone else is recessed. However, the Americans maintain a 75-80% readiness while the Russians maintain a 25% readiness. It's damned expensive keeping nukes on a warfooting.
          I understand your point here about working rockets, but I don't understand why you brought it up. I was talking about ballistic missiles being the least survivable in case of a pre-emptive attack.

          Do you mean, if say, India has to take out Pak nukes in a pre-emptive attack, for every Pak nuke launch-site India should have say 5 conventional ballistic missiles considering some may fail during launch? It's tough to follow and understand these things.
          Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Oracle View Post
            I understand your point here about working rockets, but I don't understand why you brought it up. I was talking about ballistic missiles being the least survivable in case of a pre-emptive attack.
            Unless you're talking about 1000 MIRV warheads against 25 ICBMs, ie a US first strike against China, then no. The chances of India destroying all Pakistani nuclear SSMs beyond their ability to launch a retalitory strike is next to nil.
            Chimo

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
              Unless you're talking about 1000 MIRV warheads against 25 ICBMs, ie a US first strike against China, then no. The chances of India destroying all Pakistani nuclear SSMs beyond their ability to launch a retalitory strike is next to nil.
              And you're saying that because India doesn't have the numbers to do that, that is a pre-emptive attack to take out Pak nukes.

              Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
              That's hardly a nuclear value target. In India's case, only Modi has the authority to release nuclear weapons. What is the procedure from Modi giving the go to a mushroom cloud over Pakistan?

              The N5's nuclear weaponsneers had to be qualified. That means that they have to goto school, train, and then pass the test in order to qualify to deliver nuclear weapons. That kind of schooling, training, and testing can hardly be hidden.
              That I don't think is open source, so I don't know.
              Last edited by Oracle; 03 Jul 19,, 03:25.
              Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                And you're saying that because India doesn't have the numbers to do that, that is a pre-emptive attack to take out Pak nukes.
                Which makes your statement that land based nuke tip rockets the easiest to destroy incorrect.

                Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                That I don't think is open source, so I don't know.
                That's the point. The very fact that we can find open source material on the N5 states that their nuclear forces are highly trained and highly qualified. It's simply not worth the money to hide such training, testing, and certification. It also goes to show to the enemy just how robust nuclear weapons and nuclear weaponsneers are that a first strike will not succeed.

                Just having nukes is not enough. You have to show you know how to use it.
                Chimo

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                  Which makes your statement that land based nuke tip rockets the easiest to destroy incorrect.
                  Which is true incase of India Vs Pak. But not in case of, say, US Vs India. Correct?
                  Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                    Which is true incase of India Vs Pak. But not in case of, say, US Vs India. Correct?
                    Sure. Since India doesn't have any opertional ICBMs. The US doesn't even have to do a thing.
                    Chimo

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      World’s largest combat jet deal under way as India starts process
                      Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Narendra Modi's new outreach to China is bigger than just foreign policy and may hold keys to Asia's future

                        His words were spoken in the shadow of the gold statue that guards the throne of Bhutan’s Dragon King. King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck’s message for his visitor, India’s External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, was to have no witness but the Buddha. Bhutan remained India’s most loyal ally, the king said. But he warned: there was growing pressure from a new generation to keep the kingdom out of India’s conflicts with China. In future crises, Bhutan’s support might not be a given.

                        King Jigme’s message — delivered earlier this month during Jaishankar’s first-ever foreign visit as minister — will, almost certainly, have been on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s mind as he begins his second-term effort to engage Beijing.

                        China’s economic might is reshaping India’s neighbourhood, raising fears that allies like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Nepal and Bhutan could one day, like Pakistan, end up orbiting Beijing.

                        The prime minister’s meeting with China’s president Xi Jinping in Bishkek on Thursday comes at a time when the two countries are facing shared challenges. The United States is threatening to overthrow the global trade order on which the Asian powers’ prosperity has been built, and its confrontation with Iran threatens their energy security.

                        In theory, this should facilitate building a new kind of bilateral relationship, but mutual suspicion runs deep in both Beijing and New Delhi. Finding a way forward on China, the critical foreign policy task for which Jaishankar has been brought into government, is no small task.

                        Five years ago, National Security Advisor Ajit Doval had pushed forward a policy of staring down China all along its contested borders with India — a posture long advocated by foreign policy hawks. Bared swords, the theory went, were needed to scare the dragon off its Himalayan fastness and nudge it towards making peace on the borders.

                        In 2014, thus, Indian troops began building border defences and irrigation works on contested territories along the Line of Actual Control in Ladakh’s Chumar area. Then, Indian troops dug in to block the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) from building roads, also in Chumar, sparking a small-scale crisis on the eve of President Xi’s first visit to India.

                        Things came to head in 2017, with a 10-week standoff on the Doka La plateau, when troops under the command of Brigadier Gambhir Singh — later awarded an Ati Vishisht Seva Medal for his leadership — moved into territory claimed by Bhutan to block Chinese road construction.

                        Even though it won applause at home, the actual results of this new strategy remain contested. In Doka La, for example, China has built bunkers just 80 metres from India’s forward position at Doka La, linked to the PLA’s forward base at Yatung by an all-weather road that snakes across the plateau through the pass at Merug La. There are multiple new military structures scattered across the area, including trenches, artillery positions and helicopter landing pads.

                        India was able to ensure China didn’t push its road further south, right up to the Bhutan-India border, but could do nothing to deter PLA’s consolidation of its position, and this moreover inside territory claimed by Bhutan.

                        External affairs ministry insiders say that Jaishankar, as he prepared to leave office in January 2018, was convinced that Doval’s strategy had failed. Long a proponent of a nuanced, fluid strategy on China — one that sought incremental gains even in the face of border problems — he now has the opportunity to put his own ideas to the test.

                        For Indian policy-makers, this much ought to be clear: time is not on New Delhi’s side. Beijing’s economic might makes it a critical source of trade and investment for the entire region. From 2014 to 2018 alone, the American Enterprise Institute’s data shows, China invested a staggering $22.84 billion in Bangladesh, $8.14 billion in Sri Lanka, $1.7 billion in Maldives, $4.47 billion in Nepal, and $3.34 billion in Myanmar.

                        This money might come, as Sri Lanka has discovered, accompanied by painful terms and conditions — but cash-strapped developing countries have little choice.

                        From 1959, when People’s Liberation Army troops stamped out the last vestiges of Tibetan autonomy, Bhutan’s élite linked its fate to India, fearing a similar fate. But the children of that élite now study in Hong Kong, Singapore or the West — not in schools at Darjeeling or colleges in New Delhi.

                        Bhutan’s business and political leadership see China as more of an opportunity than a threat — as do the élite across South Asia.

                        Pressure and coercion, though, are no substitute for hard cash — meaning that it is in India’s own interests to not reduce its China policy to a head-to-head clash.

                        The prime minister’s new outreach to China must rest on a clear-eyed understanding of why it behaves in the ways it does. China’s neighbours see a fire-breathing dragon; the dragon sees the glint of spears and sabres. China’s aggressive posturing on its peripheries — from the expansion of military bases in the South China seas, to the enabling of North Korea’s nuclear programme — is not an outcome imperial ambition, but stems from its fear.

                        Left a strategic orphan by the Sino-Soviet split of the 1960s, and conditioned by colonial humiliation, Beijing sees the world as a malign entity, where norms are meaningless and power the best argument.

                        For the past decade, Beijing’s geostrategic policies have evolved into what could be called an adolescent phase: newly-grown muscles are flexed, but not always with either clarity of purpose or with finesse.

                        India will have to live with China as it evolves, managing conflict as best as possible, and at once pursuing what opportunity can be had. This isn’t perfect strategy, but the alternative is worse.

                        The wars of the future, the Spanish general Manuel Fernández Silvestre Patinga prophesied in 1910, “will be concluded in one day’s hard fighting.”

                        Leaders, persuaded by their generals that war could be contained, and its fallout calculated, allowed themselves to be dragged into World War I. Ten million soldiers and seven million civilians gave up their lives by 1918, and millions more in smaller wars that raged until 1923.

                        Europe, then, looked a lot like Asia now: riding a great wave of prosperity, its markets better-integrated than ever before. Like Asia today, it was also a stage for new, rising powers acquiring military muscle, and old powers pushing back against them.

                        Modi’s new outreach to China is about something bigger, then, than just foreign policy: the moves he now makes hold the keys to a continent’s destiny.
                        Agree overall. Don't agree with Jaishankar's incremental gains approach. If India lets China bully itself, it will become the norm. As is the case seen with Pakistan.
                        Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                          Which makes your statement that land based nuke tip rockets the easiest to destroy incorrect.
                          I was thinking about it. I don't think it is incorrect. More like, work in progress.

                          If India is building ballistic missiles to close the gap with China (China, not Pakistan), it effectively takes care of Pakistan. India doesn't have money like China, but the economy is not on its deathbed. Historically, we've spent less on defense, that has to be crazy since the neighbourhood is scary, but India's position that drove its FP is that it can manage conflicts by sending diplomats disguised as peace-keepers (China). Not a bad policy, but it's misguided. It works (1988, 2017), and it doesn't (1962, 26/11, Parliament attacks etc). So what I think is, it's a matter of time, before India develops a first-strike policy against Pakistani nukes.

                          Vipin Narang hinted on this, when he said India will go nuclear first if India senses Pakistan is about to go nuclear. I know analysts and think-tanks opinion cannot move you as you talk with experience, but what I argued instead is that India doesn't need to go nuclear at all. If India builds up a significant number of ballistic missiles, the first strike issue w.r.t Pakistani nukes will be solved, if Pakistan doesn't go bankrupt chasing defense parity with India.

                          Then, I'd like to see how these buggers continue their state policy of terrorism.
                          Last edited by Oracle; 05 Jul 19,, 04:31.
                          Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                            I was thinking about it. I don't think it is incorrect. More like, work in progress.
                            Ok, what if I tell you that open source intel suggests that 60% of nuclear tipped rockets will not work (varies by country but 60% is a good measure). Also, Pakistani nuclear arsenals are recessed, ie nukes are stored away from their delivery vehicles, effectively doubling the number of targets that needed to be hit. That is, if you have one nuclear tipped rocket, you only have one target. If the nuke is stored away from the rocket, you have 2 targets: the nuke and the rocket. As of right now, only the N5 can get away with conventional strikes against hardened targets, ie a nuclear silo or a heavy bunker but this require 2 hits. An earth penetrator to be followed by an thermobaric/FAE warhead. 60% of your rockets will not work as planned.

                            How many rockets do you need?
                            Chimo

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              ^ Good Lord, everytime I post an argument to end the argument, and feel good about it, you come up with 2 more arguments and ruin it. I know Pak nukes are recessed, and so are Indian and Chinese nukes. I've been on this board for sometime now, this is the least I learnt from your posts. But this scenario never occured to me. 1 recessed nuke means 2 targets.

                              What an insult, you didn't even read or quote my entire post. I will be back. :D

                              Hasta la vista!!!
                              Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                                So what I think is, it's a matter of time, before India develops a first-strike policy against Pakistani nukes.

                                Vipin Narang hinted on this, when he said India will go nuclear first if India senses Pakistan is about to go nuclear. I know analysts and think-tanks opinion cannot move you as you talk with experience, but what I argued instead is that India doesn't need to go nuclear at all. If India builds up a significant number of ballistic missiles, the first strike issue w.r.t Pakistani nukes will be solved, if Pakistan doesn't go bankrupt chasing defense parity with India.

                                Then, I'd like to see how these buggers continue their state policy of terrorism.
                                I don't quite understand what you're saying here. There is talk of getting rid of NFU, but after three reviews since 2003, it still remains and the reason is simple it preserves crisis stability. To do otherwise would increase crisis instability which is the last thing we need in this part of the world. We've discussed this here years back. Bharat ofc begs to differ on this.

                                What do you mean by India does not have to go nuclear at all ? if intel tells us the Paks are mating their nukes and readying them for deployment then we are faced with two choices. Either back off or dare them.
                                Last edited by Double Edge; 05 Jul 19,, 06:27.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X