[AirbusCapt]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

My uneducated assessment on this is as follows:-

A MRBM ballistic missile would typically fly at 2.50 to 3.0 kms/second. Let's say it has to fly 1000 kms across the parabolic curve that is about 6.5 minutes from launch pad to target. The target cruising even at a clipped 30 knots would move 2 nautical miles {3700 metres} in that time. Assuming no mid-course guidance correction capability and even a generous 500 metre CEP the target would still be well within the lethal destructive radius of 10kms of a 1-megatonne warhead. A missile with 4 MIRV warheads of 250 kilo tonnes each would have a destructive radius of 15 to 16 kms. So, I guess the lethality of the warhead covers for the lack of fine tuning of the terminal homing. Of course, the para above might be complete nonsense. I have no technical qualification on this subject.

The problem is that searching for a carrier group in the ocean is like searching for a needle in a haystack. If you find one, by the time you chart out its course, bearing and path, the group would have moved several nautical miles in evasive manuvers. Yes the crude idea of lobbying a nuclear warhead in the general zone may work, but the escalation would be tremendous.

An aircraft carrier is a floating city, unless you have a high energy direct hit, it is very difficult to sink one with conventional bombs. So a single "carrier killer" missile is more fantasy and less of a reality in modern warfare. The other workable idea is if the missile is constantly guided by a jam proof satillite signal which is locked on to the carrier group.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by AirbusCapt

The problem is that searching for a carrier group in the ocean is like searching for a needle in a haystack..

Not for the Americans and their allies, as they have real time satellites surveillance. I assume the Russians too? Not sure if it matches, or perhaps supersedes the American capabilities.

Jeroen

[ads11]

At the end of the day, when it comes to 'verified' carrier killers*, there's a reason most navies train both their attack submarine crews and their ASW capability. Until push comes to shove the debate around the efficacy of a ballistic missile based carrier targeting capability will remain conjecture**, with logical points on either side but no real way to know just how impactful each one is relative to the other. Until then you'll continue to see a premium paid on SSN's in particular. One need only look at the ripples from the RANs attempts to get their own via AUKUS.

*the most recent was the Swedes in their little Gottland class boats getting multiple 'hits' on a USN supercarrier in exercises, much to the chagrin of the USN (they ended up leasing the boat to study it for themselves, such was the success of the Swedes with their AIP submarine).

**there's value to that conjecture alone I reckon. Even if in reality that anti ship ballistic missile isn't worth it's salt, if it manages to get your opponent to think twice because of it, that alone is a success of sorts because it's perceived to be a risk.

I also feel that to a degree real time satellite surveillance is a capability that gets blown out of proportion a bit (or at least it's one that definitely get's Hollywood-ised a lot). In the 70s, the promise of satellite surveillance made platforms like the U-2 obsolete. Or so they thought. There's a reason that you have this entire cottage industry of MALE and HALE UAVs whose sole purpose is to provide real time surveillance (not to mention the venerable U2 still soldiering on). I'm not saying that the Americans for eg won't have access to really detailed satellite surveillance data, it's just that you need the whole mix of capabilities to really pinpoint a target, especially in a big old expanse like the Pacific. And like Jeroen alluded to, a big force multiplier for the Americans is their ability to call upon so many allies for data for eg. Even if the USAFs own satellite network has some coverage gaps, you can bet they'll be able to leverage allied satellite assets through the Five Eyes network for sure, if not others beyond that. Russia, China or India would very much be reliant on their own satellite networks for any anti ship ballistic missile targeting of a CBG. Maybe Russia and China share that kind of data but I doubt India and Russia share data of that sort.

[V.Narayan]

Mission Divyastra: MIRV Ballistic Missile

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/all-...rheads-5218773
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/...tiple-warheads

On March 11th, 2024 India successfully conducted the first flight test of Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicles (MIRV) with the Agni-5 Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. These warheads could be nuclear or non-nuclear. These Re-entry vehicles can target locations that are several hundred kilometres apart. The MIRV warhead separates from the missile after reaching the apex, the warheads, are guided and are capable of performing manoeuvres to try and evade missile defence systems. The Agni-5 missile has an operational range of at least 5,000 km according to official Indian sources. China claims the missile has a range of 8000 kms.

With an increasingly belligerent and I dare say irresponsible China on our Northen border this is what the doctor ordered. Given our need for an independent foreign policy not tied to the apron strings of USA or Russia we need to have our very own credible nuclear deterrent. It is the only language Xi Jinping understands.

Photo below of the range & reach of a Agni-V


Photo below of the MIRV Agni launch on 11th March 2024

[pandabear]

What I understand for any country with space capabilities, missile ranges are just numbers lowered to be on the good books of the sanctimonious bullies who may throw the sanction weapon. Modern day capabilities that are really needed are to control these missiles mid air at lower altitudes, read as hypersonics and not adopt the usual predictable parabolic trajectory. Range numbers should really don't matter for India but yes, multiple war heads on a single missile is a leap forward. Is my understanding correct?

[SmartCat]

Indian MIRV is a counter to China's anti-ballistic missile defense system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile

First thing is, as soon as we are talking long range ballistic missiles, we are always talking about nuclear missile. It doesn't make financial sense to use a $50 million missile to deliver 1 or 2 tons of conventional explosives.

Since MIRV can render anti-ballistic defense systems less effective, it increases India's nuclear deterrence with respect to China. Just in case hawkish decision makers in China get too confident about the capabilities of their missile defense systems.

[Fuldagap]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

Indian MIRV is a counter to China's anti-ballistic missile defense system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile

First thing is, as soon as we are talking long range ballistic missiles, we are always talking about nuclear missile. It doesn't make financial sense to use a $50 million missile to deliver 1 or 2 tons of conventional explosives.

Since MIRV can render anti-ballistic defense systems less effective, it increases India's nuclear deterrence with respect to China. Just in case hawkish decision makers in China get too confident about the capabilities of their missile defense systems.

A Brahmos was 'accidently' fired few years back. Cost us atleast 24 crores INR. Defence and detterence are seldom about financial sense. A purpose well served strategically makes no visible sense to the masses.

Theoretically, China is ahead of India as far as misslies, anti missile systems and radars are concerned. On paper even their navy is superior to ours.

On paper, Israel was no match to the Arab countries in the last 4 major wars, even with the backing of Russia/USSR. The tank war of the famed 6 day war is a case in point. But Israel proved it otherwise with surgical precision in terms of knowledge and application of that knowledge even in odd times with scarcity of resources.

An Agni V currently has been successful in sending a message that though India has NFU policy of nuclear weapons, it is quite capable to target and destruct moveable or immovable, soft or hard targets alike.

A 200 gm computer processor onboard such misslies is capable enough these days to hit with precision even moving targets. Earlier such misslies used to be aimed at nuclear facilities of the enemy.

Tact and strategy have always turned the tables against much superior enemies in history. The Indian navy being one of the finest in the world in terms of hardcore capabilty, it plays/played a pivotal role in turning tables.

[arnieshwartz]

I believe it is a matter of great national pride that India is now in the company of a handful of countries possessing the MIRV technology, given its complexity. The development of the indigenous cryogenic engine was another instance, again, given the complexity and especially considering that the U.S. moved to ensure the technology was denied to us.

I am of the firm belief that India needs credible nuclear deterrence against China, who have been pretty brash in asserting their territorial claims in recent times. As they continue to build their military might, we might see more escalations along the border and a reminder, no matter how small, that India can meet might with might, goes a long way in keeping the bully under control. Most of the important economic centers of China are on its eastern seaboard, and Agni V brings all those regions within striking distance.

[SSridhar]

Agni-V, MIRV and China

https://www.c3sindia.org/post/agni-v...5-c240fa9f972d

[ads11]

Originally Posted by SSridhar

Agni-V, MIRV and China

https://www.c3sindia.org/post/agni-v...5-c240fa9f972d

Thanks for sharing, fairly detailed article this. Good primer on the state of play with Agni 5. Did chuckle at the rather florid language at times from the author. I used to consider think tank pieces to be circumspect but not in this case.