New Delhi, 03
November 2003
At
the Combined Commanders Conference 2003, for the first time the
Defence Minister George Fernandes stated for public consumption,
that India was not afraid of Pakistan and the PM was clear that he
wished to resolve India’s borders with China and Pakistan, to
release funds for development in both countries. What got missed was
that the PM stated that our Foreign Policy needed reorientation, and
PM Vajpayee may not be good at military matters but in Foreign
policy he is a past master assisted by the able Brajesh Mishra. As
news snippets of India’s cooperation with Israel in the Air
Defence, Phalcon and now nuclear field are emerging in the media,
there is need to analyse the scenario.
It
must be noted that the nine Corps Commanders of Pakistan, who run
Pakistan and keep Gen. Musharraf in the chair and more recently the
Indian Express gave a full page listing of serving and retired Army
and military personnel that man Pakistan’s establishment. Unless
India’s establishment can reach out to Pakistan’s military and
Corps Commanders and get them somehow engaged in resolving Kashmir
the way we want it –– along the LOC, there is little hope of a
major breakthrough. The 12 new initiatives offered by PM as a
Deepavali offering have been analysed on this site. They merely
amounts to shadow boxing.
India
and Pakistan today face each other on some of the most varied and
inhospitable battlefields in the world in Kashmir, Siachen and
Rajasthan. Both armed forces have undergone force modernisations
with tanks, helicopters and artillery and re-organisation programmes
and have sought to bring their military establishments up to much
higher technological and operational standards, besides getting
nuclear ready. The Indian and Pakistani armed forces are two
extremely competent militaries and should not be underestimated.
India has an advantage in numbers as George Fernandes stated, but if
war was simply a numbers game, then 75–80% of the wars through
history, particularly in the early years of man when numbers
mattered, would not have been won by numbers. But it has been proved
that smaller, well trained, more disciplined and highly motivated
fighting forces, with technology can ensure victory. The Pakistan
Army is motivated with Jehad. They have to be kept motivated and the
Jehadis kept active with military support. This brings about a Catch
22 situation for India.
The
dynamics of Pakistan’s ‘Jihadi’ organisations, nurtured by the
military establishment, are such that if not deployed in Kashmir
they are likely to turn inwards, leading to heightened violence and
turmoil in that country. This Musharraf and his Generals do not
want. The Indian military has no say in policy so it feels compelled
to ‘degrade’ Pakistan’s military machine. They are convinced
that this alone would end cross-border terrorism and the security
threat on its flanks that is claiming thousands of lives each year.
According
to DIA estimates, more than 20,000 Islamic mercenaries, trained in
guerrilla warfare and armed with sophisticated weapons, are in
Pakistan today near the LOC and on the Afghanistan border, waiting
to be transported to the next ‘Jihad’. Musharraf had talked of
this force when India went in to Op Parakaram. And, if Kashmir is
taken away from them, the Pakistani junta is in trouble –– not
only are the insurgents trained in urban guerrilla warfare, but they
are wholly familiar with the inner workings of the Pakistani
military.
The
Jehadis will become Pakistan’s Frankenstein. This Catch 22
situation needs to be tackled by India by trying to reach out to the
Generals. The Arms race has begun in the sub continent and India and
Pakistan are accepted as nuclear powers. India is stronger and is
setting up missile batteries, which one can assume will be nuclear
tipped when needed. Hence it will seek technologies to become a
full-fledged nuclear power and have a robust Air defence. Israel
seems to have the answers now that the Phalcon deal is through.
Recent
media reports have suggested that Israel as the first “third
world” nation has the nuclear triad. Their German designed
submarines are now capable of firing nuclear tipped missiles.
Reports have indicated a modification of a United States missile
system but Israel possesses the 360 km range Popeye-3 and 400 km
range Delilah. Indian Navy is also poised to get the triad going.
From the opening years of the new millennium Israel was hotly
pursuing a sea based nuclear deterrent that has much better chance
of survival and opens up "strike options" and there was
even speculations that India was very cooperative to Israel in this
regard. Interestingly Israel recently stated its interest of sharing
submarine related technology with India and if this indeed includes
cruise missile technology capable of being fired from submarines,
the cooperation is worth considering.
In
the following paragraphs a short history of daring, intelligent and
adventurous Israeli nuclear weapons and missile defence program is
stated, as it is linked with the Security scenario of India in South
Asia if Israel offers support to India. Then Chinese and North
Korean tacit help to Pakistan cannot be ruled out. The Times of
India in its front page on Sunday 2 Nov had a news item that an
Indian engineer had been held for selling nuclear valve technology
that could land up in North Korea. In fact an excellent research
documentary BEHIND THE AXIS OF EVIL is doing the rounds highlighting
how Pakistan gave nuclear technology to N Korea in exchange for
supply of the No Dong missiles, with tacit Chinese help.
As
the first Gulf war showed, Israel’s lack of territorial strategic
depth like Pakistan makes it difficult to absorb a conventional
attack. The quantitative predominance of its hostile Arab neighbours
had resulted in Israel’s pursuit of the nuclear deterrent option
as the basis of national survival. Pakistan did the same. Israel
maintains a significant margin of conventional force by a reservist
military to ensure victory in a conflict without practical
application of the nuclear option. Pakistan does the same.
The
Israeli nuclear weapons program was launched during autumn 1956 in
the wake of ‘Suez Crisis’. At that point of time the Socialist
government of France led by Guy Mollet was deeply committed to the
survival of Israel. France like Israel felt disturbed by the
virulent growth of the Arab nationalism because of growing unrest in
French Algeria as again Israel felt isolated in the Middle East.
France thus decided to supply a plutonium-producing reactor to be
built at Dimona, in the Negev desert. In subsequent years with
French Atomic Energy Commission approval, Israel in collaboration
with the French firm St. Gobain Techniques Nouvelles built several
additional facilities at the Dimona site including the key
installation for extracting plutonium from the Dimona reactor spent
fuel.
Soon
France gave away key information on the design and manufacture of
nuclear weapons confirmed later by Francis Perrin, the scientific
head of French Atomic Energy Commission from 1951 to 1970 and
intimately involved with the French–Israeli nuclear program. Thus
with great and typical Israeli finesse the Israeli nuclear arsenal
have possibly developed in part through the testing of non-nuclear
components and computer simulation, and through acquisition of
weapon design and test information from abroad. Israel is thought to
have obtained data from France’s first nuclear test in 1960 and
may have obtained data from United States nuclear tests during the
same period including the tests of United States “boosted” and
thermonuclear weapons.
Although there is no conclusive proof of any full-scale nuclear test
by Israel, a signal detected on September 22, 1979 by a United
States VELA satellite monitoring over the South Atlantic was in fact
the flash from a low-yield nuclear explosive test, possibly of a
tactical nuclear weapon or the fission trigger of a thermonuclear
device. According to investigative journalist Seymour Hersh the
event was indeed an Israeli nuclear test and the third of a series.
The detection of the first two was obscured by storm clouds though
the last mentioned aspect faces challenge.
During October 1986, revelations of Israeli nuclear technician
Mordechai Vanunu to the ‘Sunday Times’ were notable. Vanunu
indicated that Israel has produced tritium and lithium deuteride
suggesting that Israel may have developed “boosted” nuclear
weapons. Seymour Hersh again in a 1991 publication, relying on
United States intelligence analysts and “knowledgeable”
Israelis, stated that Israel possessed significant number of
low-yield enhanced-radiation type warheads mainly in form of
artillery shells and land mines as well as full-fledged
thermonuclear weapons. An articulate 1994 report identified Nahal
Soreq as the Israeli installation for conducting research on nuclear
weapons design. Assembly is done at Yodefat. Nuclear gravity bombs
are sheltered at Kfar Zekharya while the tactical nuclear weapons at
Eilabun.
Israel
currently deploys two nuclear ballistic missile systems, 660 km
range two-stage solid-fuel Jericho-1 is deployed in shelters on
mobile launchers at facilities located mid way between Jerusalem and
Mediterranean. Also in the arsenal are 1,500 km range two-stage
solid-fuel Jericho-2. Moreover Israel’s Shavit space launch
vehicle can be modified to an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile,
carrying a 500 kg payload to a distance of 7,800 km. The Israeli
Heyl Ha’Avir (Air Force) deploys numerous aircrafts capable of
delivery of nuclear weapons. Presently the premier strike platform
is the F-15I Ra’am (Thunder). Based on United States F-15E Strike
Eagle the first Israeli squadron was declared operational during
1999. Israel is keen to order attrition aircraft before the line
closes. In accordance to “Begin doctrine” put forward by ex
Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Israeli F-16s destroyed the
Iraqi plutonium-producing Osiraq research reactor in a daring air
raid on June 7, 1981 to “block any attempt by adversaries to
acquire nuclear weapons”. Top cover was provided by the F-15s.
Again
for protection of the Israeli homeland from missile attacks from
adversaries with nuclear, chemical or biological warhead the
centerpiece of Israel’s layered system of strategic missile
defence called Homa is the Arrow 2 ATBM (Anti-Tactical Ballistic
Missile). Arrow 2 is meant to intercept tactical missiles just as
they start re-entering atmosphere after reaching the highest point
in their flight trajectory. Presently the best bet for terminal
defence against theatre ballistic missiles, the hypersonic (Mach 6)
United States–Israeli Arrow 2 that is undergoing extensive testing
and evaluation. It is at the same time operational under Israeli
Defence force. Two of the systems are deployed in central Israel
with a third shortly to join. They are deployed in such a manner
that the coverage of the systems overlaps over vital military,
commercial installations and concentrated civilian population.
Arrow
2 is launched vertically, giving each battery 360 degrees coverage.
The missiles can be launched separately or in salvos with the Green
Pine L-band, phased array, dual-mode detection and fire control
radar determining the intercept point and uplinking very accurate
data to the Arrow 2. After Arrow 2 is brought to the best engagement
point on the theatre ballistic missile, its Electro-optical sensor
acquires the target to allow very near pass and then activate the
fragmentation warhead. Arrow 2 has thrust vectoring control.
Green
Pine is said to be capable of tracking ballistic missiles from a
range of up to 500 km while intercept of the attacking missile may
occur 140 km away at an altitude of 60 km. The long range of Green
Pine radar system ensures that a second shot can be taken at the
incoming ballistic missile if the first shot fails to secure the
"kill". The ballistic missiles are again intercepted at a
much higher altitude to prevent them from disintegrating as they
approach lower altitude, thus "faking" multiple targets on
radar screens. Intercept can thus be endoatmospheric or
exoatmospheric. Israel also receives data from the United States DSP
(Defence Space Program) early warning satellites and Boeing RC-135
Cobra Ball intelligence aircraft.
The
Citron Tree FCC (Fire Control Centre) is capable of conducting
multiple, simultaneous interceptions and includes ten battle
stations. Launches are controlled by Hazelnut Tree launcher control
centre. Also at the horizon is the ASIP (Arrow System Improvement
Programme) being carried out jointly by Israel and United States.
Arrow 2 functions as the upper tier of a two-tier combined air
defence network. The lower tier comprises of United States and
Israeli Patriot PAC-2/PAC-3 and United States Navy ship borne AEGIS
systems.
Israel
has also focused on boost-phase interception of ballistic missiles
that ensures the highest percentage of success. The Israelis are
reportedly working on high-altitude HA-10 UAVs (Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles) that will fire missile interceptors toward the attacking
ballistic missiles during boost phase. They are directed by a
command-and-control system developed by Tadiran Electronics Ltd. and
the aircraft, in turn, feed a search and track system that can scan
the area to determine whether the enemy is firing a real missile or
a decoy. Their passive electro-optic sensors will have the
capability to detect and track ballistic missiles during their boost
phase. If the missile is fired towards Israel, the system decides
which UAV will fire its interceptor. Data fusion techniques will be
used to detect the most threatening target.
The
UAV then fires missiles being developed by the Israel Armament
Development Authority (Rafale), in a project called MOAB (Missile
Optimised Anti-Ballistic Missile System), toward the enemy rocket at
the boost phase. The attacking missile destroyed at that stage falls
on the aggressor's territory along with its NBC (Nuclear,
Biological, Chemical) payload. In this context the deterrent value
of a Boost-Phase Intercept System is well apparent. The UAV is armed
with extensive sensors for autonomous navigation and targeting and
is able to successfully complete its mission and return to base even
if the link from the controllers is cut off.
Recently,
the Israelis have shifted their attention to target the enemy’s
mobile missile launchers following the tactic of BLPI (Before Launch
Phase Intercept). There will be far fewer launchers than missiles.
Emphasis will be on developing a very high-speed, precise
air-launched missile. To carry this new missile, Israel wants to
refine the BPI concept. While MOAB/IBIS system is a combination of
UAVs with two AAMs (Air-to-Air Missiles) for the BPI role, now
Israeli planners envision a UAV that carries perhaps as many as 10
ASMs (Air-to-Surface Missiles) internally for a reduced radar
signature. Such a design may also require retractable landing gear,
stealth qualities and shaping and jet engines rather than
propellers. A second long-range UAV, designed to loiter over enemy
territory for up to 60 hours, would carry fused and multispectral
sensors designed to pull additional and more precise identification
and location information from the targets.
Disclaimer Copyright |