'India must become partner in US missile defence'

[Baazi]

---

---

'India must become partner in US missile defence'

New Delhi, Feb. 16 (PTI): US missile experts on Thursday said India, like NATO and Japan, should become a development partner in the American missile defence system which was "far superior to any other such system".

Peter J Mantle and Dennis Dale Cavin said Japan had become a co-producing partner in the Patriot PAC III anti-missile shield, and would start receiving missile batteries by 2010.

"Our Government has made a classified presentation on the system to India and we as the industry were eager to follow through on it to explore possibilities of a Government-to-Government agreement," Cavin said.

"We look forward to India also joining as the co-partner in development of the missile shield," top missile executive of Lockheed-Martin said.

Taking part in a Roundtable discussion on 'Making-decision on Missile Defence' organised by the Observer Research Foundation here, in which Indian defence scientists also took part, the experts said India was facing a serious threat from short-range missiles, and the Government would have to take a decision on anti-missile defence.

Mantle, an eminent American missile expert, said in taking a decision on a missile defence system, the Government would have to choose which areas had to be covered by the anti-missile shield.

"It would have to be Government and military nerve centre, nuclear power plants and centres of economic growth generations," he said.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus...0702160348.htm

[A.Rahman]

will Moscow allow it ?

[Neo]

I don't understand the Americans!

They want to discourage missile development, the CTBT is there to prevent that from happening but if you become a partner in American missile shield programme and you'll get all the goodies! :wall:

[Contrarian]

How the hell can Moscow allow or disallow it? Its India's decision.

Neo, its an anti missile shield program, India would help in making PAC-3 systems, and would get the PAC-3 system, it wont get any missile. It would get a defensive weapon.

[Neo]

Neo, its an anti missile shield program, India would help in making PAC-3 systems, and would get the PAC-3 system, it wont get any missile. It would get a defensive weapon.

Malay,

The technology can easily be diverted from defensive to offensive, we've seen that before.

[Contrarian]

I know, but this is simply an anti missile and aircraft platform isnt it?
how would you convert say PAC III system offensive?? i am genuinely intersted to know, prolly i maybe wrong/

[vnomad]

They want to discourage missile development, the CTBT is there to prevent that from happening but if you become a partner in American missile shield programme and you'll get all the goodies!

I think you're referring to the MTCR(Missile Technology Control Regime) not the CTBT(Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty). There is a range limit below which missile sales are permissible under the MTCR. The PAC-3 comes in the permissible bracket. For example a plan for a JV with Israel on the Arrow II(which crossed the 300km limit and can be used offensively) came undone because of the MTCR.

[Neo]

Malay,

I'm not an expert in this field, probably Keysersoze, Munir or Blain would have more technical info if the conversion is possible or not.

For an amateur like me the difference between a SAM and ABM is the target, the former is used to target a flying object as the latter is meant to counter the SAM.
Basically both systems share the same dynamics, guidance and detection system, propulsion etc.

Add range to any of these and a more powerful propulsion system and you have an offensive weapon (well beyond the 300km) but this time with latest US technology.

[Neo]

I think you're referring to the MTCR(Missile Technology Control Regime) not the CTBT(Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty). There is a range limit below which missile sales are permissible under the MTCR. The PAC-3 comes in the permissible bracket. For example a plan for a JV with Israel on the Arrow II(which crossed the 300km limit and can be used offensively) came undone because of the MTCR.

My bad, I meant MTCR indeed. :redface:
I know PAC-3 comes inpermissable bracket but I'm concerned about the western thechnology that might be used to upgrade or develop new offensive(homegrown) designs.

[Bull]

This is a probablity, India can only work with US in such tech specific deals or indirect military systems like maritime planes or LPS.

Any purchase of aggressive weapons( F-16, hornets) would be seen as a India-US honeymoon ,which is not at all welcome.

[Neo]

Brahmos for example is a downgraded version of Russian Yakhunt; India easily modified it to Super Brahmos adding range to 1.000km without creating a new missile.

Same can be applied to ABM with US technology right?

[Bull]

Brahmos for example is a downgraded version of Russian Yakhunt; India easily modified it to Super Brahmos adding range to 1.000km without creating a new missile.

Same can be applied to ABM with US technology right?

There is no Super brahmos with 1000 km range.

[Neo]

Whats the planned upgraded version of Brahmos called?

[Contrarian]

Brahmos for example is a downgraded version of Russian Yakhunt; India easily modified it to Super Brahmos adding range to 1.000km without creating a new missile.

Its downgraded in range, its quite different otherwise. Its actually a heavily upgraded Yakhont. They just had to stick to the 300km limit cuz of the MTCR. The guidance is the main thing, its guidance computer system is quite remarkable, at such speed it is excellent.

That is not a planned upgrade!!
It would be a different missile, there is no name as of now, so its being called BrahMos MKII by people like us, cuz it will show remarkable speed, which is one of the main features of BrahMos.

[Cheetah786]

---

---

I don't understand the Americans!

They want to discourage missile development, the CTBT is there to prevent that from happening but if you become a partner in American missile shield programme and you'll get all the goodies! :wall:

They only want to discourage it for muslim countries.
yeah Americans are known to protect the treaties.as long as it not in there way.
Second may be just may be pakistanie should wake up and smell the coffee.which i doubt they will.