

India at the forefront of a new arms race? - dnsworks
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/315099,india-test-fires-brahmos-supersonic-cruise-missile.html#ixzz0iq7D9ZaK

======
CapitalistCartr
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>

~~~
hga
And what about the AGM-28 Hound Dog:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-28_Hound_Dog>

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).

------
metamemetics
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.

~~~
tman
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.

------
jared314
Supersonic is still slower than a laser.

------
protomyth
"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.

That seems wrong.

~~~
hga
Well, factually is it; what about the P-270 Moskit AKA SS-N-22 Sunburn:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-270_Moskit> ?

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
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still spending hundreds of billions every year on outdated technology such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.

~~~
InclinedPlane
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.

~~~
Zev
_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._

(In my admittedly limited knowledge,) I don't know if Afghanistan is the best
example of the United States (I'll assume this is the state being discussed
from marshallp's "the military") not being able to adapt; the Afghan
mujahideen received a lot of training and weapons from the CIA, through
Pakistan's IFI.

OTOH, (again, in my admittedly limited knowledge,) Chechnya is a very good
example of a more "modern" style of war; Russia only really gained the upper
hand and managed to force a ceasefire after the Chechen rebels lost popularity
(which was after they took something like 1,500 people hostage, including
mothers with newborns).

~~~
Perceval
There were actually two Chechen wars and they were fought differently. The
First Chechen War was fought with the regular Russian Army being used
indiscriminately against Chechens. Instead of intelligently targeting the
separatist forces, Russian tank columns simply shelled Chechen cities. Despite
the heavy death toll (into the 100s of thousands), the Chechens won a semi-
autonomous republic in the terms of the ceasefire.

The Second Chechen War began when Putin was installed following Yeltsin. The
Chechen republic was predictably corrupt and poor following the devastation of
the first war. Stupidly, the top military commander of the Chechens, Shamil
Basayev, launched an incursion into the neighboring republic of Dagestan.
Putin was then able to 'finish the job' in Chechnya. The Russian strategy in
the second war was different—they used the intelligence services and local
proxies to fight the war rather than depending primarily on army conscripts.
They installed a Chechen named Ramzan Kadyrov in as the head of Chechnya, and
he fought the separatist Chechens working hand-in-hand with the Russian FSB
(successor to the KGB). The second war was a success for the Russians—they had
a reliable client in Kadyrov, the Chechen strategies got more desperate (e.g.
the seige in Beslan), and the top commanders of the separatists were betrayed
and killed (Aslan Maskhadov and Shamil Basayev principally).

The Chechen separatists are still out there, but the fighting is very low
level. Their current commander, Doku Umarov, hasn't led a major assault on
Kadyrov or Russia yet. I don't think the Chechen cause rose or fell with their
popularity. I think it had more to do with the anti-insurgent strategy pursued
by Russia.

