I worked on the AGM-69_SRAM nearly 30 years ago in the USAF. India is certainly not the first to build a maneuverable supersonic missile. We quit making them because there wasn't enough benefit to supersonic. Subsonic gives a far greater range, and is about as hard to stop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-69_SRAM
A late 1950's Mach 2.1 cruise missile with a range of 785 miles or 400 in its Low Altitude Attack profile. Not so accurate, but with a warhead yield of up to 1.45 MT it probably would have sufficed.
India soundly defeated the U.S. in air-to-air combat in the Cope India 2005 wargames, their latest plane is also Russian equipment with modified Indian avionics\computers.
Yeah. Maybe. Or maybe the Air Force just wants to convince Congress to replace the F-16, which got its clock cleaned (so they claim) by the Sukhoi in those exercises.
"After today's test, India has become the first and only country in the world to have a manoeuvrable supersonic cruise missile in its inventory," Pillai said.
Like this one, it's a solid-rocket launched ramjet anti-ship cruise missile. It's a Mach 3 to 2.2 (high to low altitude) with a warhead (from a ship) a bit more than 50% bigger ... or it can carry a nuke. 120 km range vs. the 290 for this one. We (e.g. the USNavy) are supposed to be somewhat concerned about it.
Next year we should be seeing production of the Standard Missile 6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-174_Standard_ERAM), which would seem to be designed for these sorts of threats. E.g. it has a active seeker instead of the "semi-active" of it's previous breathen (the target must be illuminated by a ship's RADAR a bit before impact). Although I wouldn't be surprised if some of the earlier ones could do the job.
Cruise missiles and military robots is where it's at. The fact the military is still spending hundreds of billions every year on outdated technology such manned aircraft and warships is a farce greater than the financial bailout committed on the people's of america and the world.
It'll take poor countries like india developing cheap military tech to slap america into the reality of the 21st century.
I logged in just to say that, but you beat me to it.
India and China are developing missile systems that can take out an American carrier in a single strike. Which, as a former marine who likes to blow stuff up, I think is really cool by the way. The problem is our response. We attempt to develop a laser that will kill these missiles inbound.
All fine and dandy, IF it works, which I wouldn't stake my guys lives on. But that's not even the point. The point is . . . why not engage in a sober and deliberate SWOT evaluation of the carrier group itself. Is it still useful?
I don't know, I am not an Admiral. But I really do get the feeling that General Officers in our military are addicted to big, complicated, and expensive systems. Do we really need these? Especially given that we are going bankrupt right now.
It's almost as if the Social Security - Medicare people and the Military Industrial Complex really don't CARE that they are sinking us.
I think nuclear ICBM and MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is where it's at when it comes to large nation vs. nation conflicts. That is the reason Iran and North Korea want to desperately and at all cost join the nuclear club. Then they force a whole new approach to external politics on the world. India is in the nuclear club. Now they are just working on better (more reliable) delivery mechanisms of those warheads.
Now when it comes to asymmetrical warfare, reliable ground human intelligence + drones with rockets are probably most effective.
"Cruise missiles and military robots is where it's at. "
I work on robotics for the Indian defence research folks and while most of it is classified, I can say that military robotics is a hell of a lot more advanced in India than people might think.
I think you're mistaken. Cruise missiles, robots, and even nuclear weapons are a way to defend your home territory from other violent nation-states, perhaps at the cost of significant "enemy" civilian casualties. However, the nature of warfare is changing, if you look at the major conflicts in the last 20 years you see a lot more need for not just precision guided munitions hitting targets from afar but also smart, well-trained, well-equipped ground forces with the flexibility to respond to different situations.
The entire Russian army was fought to a stand-still in Afghanistan and later also in Chechnya by much smaller, less well equipment forces using modern insurgent techniques. The "press a button to win a war" methodology only works in the modern age if you're willing to carpet bomb the enemy and any civilians who happen to get in the way (see the horrible civil war in Sri Lanka as an example). If you're not willing to do that then you'll need more than just CPU guided munitions.
[+] [-] CapitalistCartr|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hga|16 years ago|reply
A late 1950's Mach 2.1 cruise missile with a range of 785 miles or 400 in its Low Altitude Attack profile. Not so accurate, but with a warhead yield of up to 1.45 MT it probably would have sufficed.
We had as many as 359 in service (1969).
[+] [-] rdtsc|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] metamemetics|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tman|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jared314|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] protomyth|16 years ago|reply
That seems wrong.
[+] [-] hga|16 years ago|reply
Like this one, it's a solid-rocket launched ramjet anti-ship cruise missile. It's a Mach 3 to 2.2 (high to low altitude) with a warhead (from a ship) a bit more than 50% bigger ... or it can carry a nuke. 120 km range vs. the 290 for this one. We (e.g. the USNavy) are supposed to be somewhat concerned about it.
Next year we should be seeing production of the Standard Missile 6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-174_Standard_ERAM), which would seem to be designed for these sorts of threats. E.g. it has a active seeker instead of the "semi-active" of it's previous breathen (the target must be illuminated by a ship's RADAR a bit before impact). Although I wouldn't be surprised if some of the earlier ones could do the job.
[+] [-] marshallp|16 years ago|reply
It'll take poor countries like india developing cheap military tech to slap america into the reality of the 21st century.
[+] [-] bilbo0s|16 years ago|reply
India and China are developing missile systems that can take out an American carrier in a single strike. Which, as a former marine who likes to blow stuff up, I think is really cool by the way. The problem is our response. We attempt to develop a laser that will kill these missiles inbound.
All fine and dandy, IF it works, which I wouldn't stake my guys lives on. But that's not even the point. The point is . . . why not engage in a sober and deliberate SWOT evaluation of the carrier group itself. Is it still useful?
I don't know, I am not an Admiral. But I really do get the feeling that General Officers in our military are addicted to big, complicated, and expensive systems. Do we really need these? Especially given that we are going bankrupt right now.
It's almost as if the Social Security - Medicare people and the Military Industrial Complex really don't CARE that they are sinking us.
[+] [-] rdtsc|16 years ago|reply
Now when it comes to asymmetrical warfare, reliable ground human intelligence + drones with rockets are probably most effective.
[+] [-] plinkplonk|16 years ago|reply
I work on robotics for the Indian defence research folks and while most of it is classified, I can say that military robotics is a hell of a lot more advanced in India than people might think.
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|16 years ago|reply
The entire Russian army was fought to a stand-still in Afghanistan and later also in Chechnya by much smaller, less well equipment forces using modern insurgent techniques. The "press a button to win a war" methodology only works in the modern age if you're willing to carpet bomb the enemy and any civilians who happen to get in the way (see the horrible civil war in Sri Lanka as an example). If you're not willing to do that then you'll need more than just CPU guided munitions.