Pak ballistic missiles cannot be jammed

[Oqaab]

‘Pak ballistic missiles cannot be jammed’

By Hanif Khalid

ISLAMABAD: According to informed sources, the enemy will not be able to jam Pakistani ballistic missiles. The scientists and engineers of the country have made the most modern versions of Shaheen, Ghaznavi and Ghouri missiles with anti-jamming system. Pakistani experts have evolved this system on their own. The sources said that India-Israel nexus would not be a threat to Pakistan’s missile system. The experts have made another achievement by enhancing the speed of missiles up to 150 kilometres per minute due to which the anti-missile system of the enemy would become ineffective.

http://despardes.com/NewsExplorer/Pak_NewsBrief.html

=================================
This means Green pine and Arrow ABM will not be able to guide and destroy Pakistan missiles ..... :smokingc:

[Frozen Hell]

India doesn't have arrow or green pine, does it? I don't think they do-they are lucky they got phalcon deal!

[Oqaab]

India doesn't have arrow or green pine, does it? I don't think they do-they are lucky they got phalcon deal!

But India may get this ABM system. Indian and Israeli officials discussed about the one billion deal of Arrow missiles in Sharon's visit to India.

[The Watcher]

Damn oqaab, you come up with strangest news! Any other source reporting this?

[Oqaab]

Comeon yaar watcher, whats so strange about it ???

India was negotiating for Arrow ABMs and Phalcon radars. The deal of phalcon has been signed by the three countries but there is no confirmation of 1 or 1.5 billion deal of Arrow. U should kow this, since the links are now too old, its difficult for me to find out but I'll try to find for u.

[jupitor]

strange but interesting. but is this anti jamming facility effective only against indian countermeasures or also against israeli abmsystems?[b]

[Oqaab]

strange but interesting. but is this anti jamming facility effective only against indian countermeasures or also against israeli abmsystems?[b]

India isnt making any ABM system. It will only purchase Israeli ABM and Pakistani anti-jamming system will keep Pakistani missiles away from Arrow ABMs.

[Red aRRow]

I don't understand what is going on. Jamming is when interference to an electromagnetic wave is done by adding noise deliberately.
I think ballistic missiles have their guidance systems on board and are not being actively guided by an outside source (e.g. ground based radar). The systems on board are usually inertial. The coordinates of the target are fed in and once the missile is launched it has no contact with the outside world. (Well this is how I understand ballistic missiles...please correct me if I am wrong).
Now based on this theory, since the missile has its guidance system on board...it means it can be totally shielded from the outside world...and thus jamming is impossbile. Jamming is only possible when a missile is being actively guided, and to put it simply, the jammer interferes into the EM waves which are guiding the missile thus producing noise and preventing the necessary information (which is carried in the bandwidth) to reach the missile. So IMO jamming doesn't even come into play in case of ballistic missiles.

On the other hand the thing the author said about Pakistani missiles having high terminal speeds is true. In the final phase of the missile's descent towards its intended target ...the Shaheen series has the highest speeds. Thus making it impossible for any ABM system to counter it.

[Oqaab]

U r right shamayel that ballistic missiles are not easy to jam but I think the person who claimed this means that speedy Pakistani missiles will not be able come in Arrow's range.

[Red aRRow]

Yeah I knew this Hanif Khalid guy was talking BS about this jamming stuff. :roll

[corsair7772]

Im not sure abt Jamming but Ballistic missiles can be redirected a bit by interferin with frequenicies.

[gf0012-aust]

There are three methods of killing a ballistic missile

kinetic kill
disruptive kill
laser

the issue with ballistic missiles is to kill them before they hit atmospheric break. The whole idea of the airborne laser system is that BMEWS stations send the launch location to the airborne THED laser and then the laser destroys the missile at an early launch stage (airborne THED)

kinetic kills require a direct hit, this is difficult at re-entry speed and any earlier would require a system relatively close to the launch site (like the old nike-zeus system)

a disruptive kill only requires the detonation of a sufficient destabilising blast at a converging point (like patriot/arrow)

Ballistic missiles aren't "jam" proof. You would need to knock out a series of satellites (and these are in an orbit path beyond the range of sat killers)
Maybe there is confusion with the original poster about cruise missiles and Ballistic missiles. (or maybe its a variation of maskirovka) :)

[Awang se]

That is "jam" in the hard way. it requires a physical disruption to the missile. what they really meant is the soft jamming. like ECM or something like that. Following this statement, i can't help myself but to agree with Syamayel. There is no way to jam the missile electronicaly. The guidance were provided by gyros and onboard computers. Even the arming of warhead is done by accelerometer. There is no external guidance device intalled onboard the Ballistic Missile (provided no one fool enough to do so). Unlike cruise missile which fly at terrain following action and at subsonic speed, the Ballistic missile fly up high and then dive towards the target at enourmous speed. the flight time is also short which make the gyro a reliable guidance.

[gf0012-aust]

That is "jam" in the hard way. it requires a physical disruption to the missile. what they really meant is the soft jamming. like ECM or something like that. Following this statement, i can't help myself but to agree with Syamayel. There is no way to jam the missile electronicaly. The guidance were provided by gyros and onboard computers. Even the arming of warhead is done by accelerometer. There is no external guidance device intalled onboard the Ballistic Missile (provided no one fool enough to do so). Unlike cruise missile which fly at terrain following action and at subsonic speed, the Ballistic missile fly up high and then dive towards the target at enourmous speed. the flight time is also short which make the gyro a reliable guidance.

The next headache will be hypersonic PGM's, not so much subsonics like TLAMs etc.....

The electronic airspace is just getting busier every day.. :)

[corsair7772]

yea, infact its gotten so busy tht the IFF system of recognizing friend or foe isnt viable anymore.

[gf0012-aust]

Mate, I wouldn't get that despondent, they'll always work out ways to IFF assets... too many "blue on blues" otherwise...

[Su_37]

Well guys , Balastic missiles can be stopped , well ther are Anti-Anti jamming devices , i think their role is not to jam, they use hopping freqiencies. missiles can de killed by either misguid their navigation system or by anti missile sys.

[Awang se]

Well guys , Balastic missiles can be stopped , well ther are Anti-Anti jamming devices , i think their role is not to jam, they use hopping freqiencies. missiles can de killed by either misguid their navigation system or by anti missile sys.

In that case, you need to find a way to connect to the onboard guidance system, i still couldn't figure out how. maybe there someone out there who can. it is also possible to change the guidance data during pre-launch sequence. But that required a tap into the system that pass on telemetry data to the missile.

[gf0012-aust]

Well guys , Balastic missiles can be stopped , well ther are Anti-Anti jamming devices , i think their role is not to jam, they use hopping freqiencies. missiles can de killed by either misguid their navigation system or by anti missile sys.

In that case, you need to find a way to connect to the onboard guidance system, i still couldn't figure out how. maybe there someone out there who can. it is also possible to change the guidance data during pre-launch sequence. But that required a tap into the system that pass on telemetry data to the missile.

Awang se is correct. Its a closed system. The only way to counter it is to:

kinetic kill the ICBM
proximity kill the ICBM
fry the sats involved in the target acquisition update process
or, you could try shifting the target. ;)

[Awang se]

Mentioning about the kinetic kill, i heard about the magnetic propulsion. how is it turn out?

[gf0012-aust]

Mentioning about the kinetic kill, i heard about the magnetic propulsion. how is it turn out?

I think when technologies appear less in the public media, then the more likely that they are being worked on.

The US hid stealth UCAVs for 13 years (eg Boeings little "Klingon"), they showed them when they thought the technology was not of great influence on their own future projects.

An enormous amount of work was done in this area, and then public information "turned off".

The problem with the internet is that some people are of the belief that you can find anyting on everything. Its a "damocles sword" though.

But I'd argue that its alive and well.

[Su_37]

no . actually , misguding the gudiance system works from outside , it create an misguidence on the navigation system on board the missile to think about the target and coordinates of position.

Second thing is the Ionnisation , russian taken the lead in this technology , this is simple , the atmosphere was charged wiht -tive ion and that -tive ion will attract towards + ions i.e. planes, missiles etc

Third is to from controlled radiation bust to distroy electronic components.

[Awang se]

If that is the case, i could think of several countermeasure that can be mounted onboard my missile to avoid being lured by your countermeasures.

[gf0012-aust]

no . actually , misguding the gudiance system works from outside , it create an misguidence on the navigation system on board the missile to think about the target and coordinates of position.

Second thing is the Ionnisation , russian taken the lead in this technology , this is simple , the atmosphere was charged wiht -tive ion and that -tive ion will attract towards + ions i.e. planes, missiles etc

Third is to from controlled radiation bust to distroy electronic components.

You're intriguing me about how you think all of your proposals work and are capable of intercepting a ballistic missile.

1) a ballistic missile is travelling at greater than Mach 25, Explain to me how any ADS is going to pick it up, track it and kill it. I know of 2 methods and both of those are way out of the technological capability of the russians (who are the only nation able to come up with similar technologies IF they had the money, political will and political intent, as well as military will and intent)

2) Doesn't work except like Star Wars movies. But it is just as plausible as light sabres and death stars. I could point out a number of reasons as to why but I'm doubting the seriousness of your response anyway.

3) Radiation won't kill electronics. It will kill organic material. Alas there are no pilots on an ICBM. If they did they would have to build an enormous payload to cope with both the weapons basket and the pilot. A rocket that big is ready for a space shoot to go to the moon. Seeing that you don't want to kill the pilot, and all the controls are computer controlled. the only reason for the rocket pilot is to run interference, act as a fallback solution in the even of a complete systems redundancy failure, or to give you a running commentary on the scenary.

On the other hand EMP will fry your electronics and then we get back to a variation of (A1). Tell me how you are going to intercept a Mach 25 platform that may well have a MIRV capability and you have no idea when it will deploy or split and deploy? The US is the ONLY country with a technology that is designed to do this, and that technology is so adolescent that it is not remotely unit deployable.

There are only two other countries with functional ADS systems, the Russians and the Israelis. The Israeli system is known to be effective and working. Both the Russian and Israeli systems don't even remotely use anything like what you speak of.

The US, Australia and Japan are working on an ABM solution because parts of the solution are already built - but there is probably 10-12 years to go before a working solution can be rolled out.

Negatively charging the atmosphere may have wonderful side effects on everyones exposed water supplies, but it will do diddly to a weapons system. It would also give off such a strong energy signature that it would be dead before it could do anything else (and militarily I cannot see pos or neg ionisation doing anything except make the drinking water better or making it rain on the enemy) Hardly something that constitiutes a lethal level 4 threat.

[gf0012-aust]

qualifier for SU-27

radiation can kill electronics, but i was talking in context to the issue of its use as a ballistic missile killer.

sufficient radiation to do this would require a nuke tipped interceptor and that hasn't been a viable system for a while (the last active nuke tipped interceptor was around 1975)

the other issue is collateral damage. the Defense Threat Reduction Agency did a report that provided estimates of anticipated damage from high-altitude nuclear detonations by other countries over the continental US or its strategic points of influence.

eg 1, If North Korea, detonated a 50-kiloton device at 120 kilometers above its own territory, the estimated lifetime of a NOAA weather satellite in an 850-kilometre altitude orbit and 99-degree inclination would be reduced from 48 months to 0.8 months.

eg 2, an Orbcomm communications satellite at a 775-kilometer altitude and a 45-degree inclination would see its lifetime degraded from 84 months to 0.5 months.

At the 55 day mark - after such a detonation, the number of commercial satellites surviving in low-Earth orbit (LEO) would decline from about 450 (as of 2002) to zero. An Indian detonation of a similar device 250 kilometers above the Bay of Bengal would have similar results.

Nuke tipped interceptors fired below a LEO platform, or pre atmospheric would cause fall out on eartch and incur reatliation from countries affected.
On a ballisitic missile that is re-entering, a radiation strike would have no effect of degrading its approach.
Its not practical therefore to even consider a radiated solution. The country with a proven and consistent track record of tactical missile intercepts is Israel, and they use shrapnel warheads for a kill.

[Awang se]

I Think that is pretty much a general idea. But still, The percent of success is still quite low. There is an idea of using superheated air plasma to kill ballistic missile. They use laser to heat the air along the missile path. still, I don't really have much faith in this system.

[gf0012-aust]

I Think that is pretty much a general idea. But still, The percent of success is still quite low. There is an idea of using superheated air plasma to kill ballistic missile. They use laser to heat the air along the missile path. still, I don't really have much faith in this system.

its still embryonic, but if you look at the current laser weapons systems under trial, they all appear to use a superheat kill process.

the plasma guns under development will be interesting, at this stage they would have to mount them on a nuke powered aircraft carrier to get sufficiet power and reload times... ;)

[Red aRRow]

Charge the atmosphere into ions???? Uhhhh dude you want to see some lightning then wait for the monsoon season. It's less expensive. :roll :roll

Planes and Missiles have channels which will just conduct the lightning through them without offering any resistance.

[Awang se]

I Think that is pretty much a general idea. But still, The percent of success is still quite low. There is an idea of using superheated air plasma to kill ballistic missile. They use laser to heat the air along the missile path. still, I don't really have much faith in this system.

its still embryonic, but if you look at the current laser weapons systems under trial, they all appear to use a superheat kill process.

the plasma guns under development will be interesting, at this stage they would have to mount them on a nuke powered aircraft carrier to get sufficiet power and reload times... ;)

What kind of materials they use as the plasma? Can they be use inside atmosphere?

[gf0012-aust]

AFAIK yes, certainly the tests so far are all terran.