Realistically, peace between India and Pakistan has often been
tenuous
, with Islamabad frequently influenced by hardline elements in Rawalpindi who remain intent on disrupting stability in various forms. While the guns are currently silent—at least the heavy ones—this relative calm presents an opportune moment for India to reassess the situation. A key priority should be exploring measures to safeguard lives and property along the Line of Control and the International Border. This is a critical issue that warrants serious and sustained attention.STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS ADClick here for India-Pakistan Ceasefire LIVE updatesThis urgency has been highlighted by the events following Operation Sindoor, carried out on May 7, 2025, in which India targeted terror infrastructure deep inside Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in response to sustained provocations. The aftermath was grim: Pakistan launched heavy artillery and mortar shelling across the LoC and International Border, violating the ceasefire and resulting in the deaths of 15 people—including four children and a soldier in Poonch—and injuring over 57 others.More from India
Akash guards Indian skies: Army, Air Force using made-in-India missile to foil Pak’s air raid attempts
‘IMF reimbursing Pakistan terror’: J&K CM slams $1billion package, mourns loss of officerAddressing the media, Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah laid the responsibility for de-escalation squarely on Islamabad, citing the killing of 26 innocent tourists in Pahalgam on April 22, 2025, by terrorists allegedly backed by Pakistan. He also acknowledged the severe toll on civilians in Poonch, describing the district as among the worst hit by ceasefire violations.These developments raise a pressing question: If India has the technological capability to intercept missiles, drones and loitering munitions from across the border, why does intercepting conventional artillery remain a persistent challenge?Speed and trajectoryArtillery shells are extremely fast, often travelling between Mach 2 and Mach 5, depending on the calibre and the gun firing them. Their ballistic trajectory means they ascend and descend rapidly, leaving only a short window for detection and interception. In contrast, drones are slow and may loiter in the air for extended periods, while most missiles, especially cruise missiles, have more predictable or lower-altitude paths that give defenders more time to detect and respond.One of the main challenges with intercepting artillery is their small size and minimal radar or heat signature. Artillery shells are compact, made of metal and lack onboard propulsion or electronics that might emit signals. This makes them far more difficult to track compared to missiles, which often emit heat due to their engines, or drones, which have larger bodies and move at slower speeds, making them easier radar targets.STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS ADCost and volume of fireArtillery is inexpensive and can be fired in high volumes, allowing attackers to overwhelm defences with sheer numbers. It is not economically practical to use expensive interceptor missiles for every incoming artillery round. On the other hand, drones and missiles are more costly per unit, making it more feasible to justify the expense of intercepting them using dedicated air defence systems.Hard but not impossibleRohit Srivastava, in his analysis titled Intercepting Rocket Artillery – A New Dimension in Warfare for Indian Defence Industries, highlighted a significant shift in modern combat seen during the Russia-Ukraine conflict: the use of air defence systems to intercept rocket artillery.As the conflict intensified and ground battles took centre stage, long-range rocket artillery began to dominate the battlefield. In response, Russia started claiming it had successfully intercepted Ukrainian rockets, including those launched from multiple rocket launcher systems (MRLS) and even the advanced HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System).Intercepting HIMARS rockets is no small feat—they are designed for speed, have a small radar signature and reach high altitudes over short distances, all of which complicate detection and neutralisation. Yet, according to Russian claims, the Buk-M3 surface-to-air missile system was able to engage and destroy these elusive targets, suggesting a new capability in countering battlefield rocket threats.What is Buk-M3?The Buk-M3 is a modern Russian air defence system designed to shoot down aircraft, cruise missiles and even some smart weapons. It’s much more advanced than older versions and can work alone or with other defence systems.Introduced in 2016, it’s built on a tracked vehicle, so it can move quickly with army units on the battlefield. It uses the 9R31M missile, which has better speed, range (up to 70–85 km) and guidance. The missile can hit targets flying as low as 15 metres and as high as 35 kilometres. One of its biggest strengths is that it can track and shoot at multiple targets at once, making it effective against large-scale attacks. It also has improved radar to detect low-flying or stealthy threats and resist electronic interference. Though not as long-ranged as Russia’s S-300 or S-400 systems, the Buk-M3 fills the gap between short- and long-range defences and plays a key role in protecting troops on the move.STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS ADAs warfare evolves, countries must start focusing not just on anti-missile defence but also on stopping rocket artillery like MRLS. Israel’s Iron Dome is a leading example. While India’s Akash system is sometimes compared to it, they have important differences that could affect real combat performance.Iron Dome: A better fit for countering Pakistani artillery?The Iron Dome, developed by Israel, is specifically designed to intercept smaller, short-range threats like rockets, mortars and artillery shells. It excels in point defence, particularly against large-scale rocket barrages, with a proven track record in real-world combat situations. Its primary mission is to protect civilian areas and critical infrastructure from incoming projectiles, particularly in urban environments. The system has demonstrated its effectiveness during Israel’s conflicts with Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis, and even Iran.In contrast, India’s Akash missile system is a medium-range surface-to-air missile (SAM) platform built to target a broader range of aerial threats such as aircraft, helicopters, drones and precision-guided munitions. While Iron Dome focusses on short-range, high-volume attacks, Akash is designed for larger, more complex threats, offering multi-target engagement capabilities and broader air defence coverage for both stationary and mobile operations.The Iron Dome has an operational range of up to 70 kilometres and can intercept targets at altitudes up to 10 kilometres, making it ideal for neutralising local, short-range threats. On the other hand, Akash operates within a range of 4.5 to 25 kilometres and can engage targets at altitudes ranging from 100 metres to 20 kilometres. This gives Akash a broader vertical coverage, allowing it to target high-altitude threats like fast-moving aircraft and certain ballistic missiles.STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS ADIron Dome systems are typically stationary, strategically placed around key infrastructure or population centres. This setup is highly effective in protecting specific areas but lacks flexibility in rapidly changing battlefield environments. In comparison, Akash is mounted on mobile launch platforms, offering the ability to quickly reposition, which enhances its survivability and reduces vulnerability to enemy counterattacks.While details on Iron Dome’s electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) are scarce, it is assumed to have basic capabilities to operate in electronically contested environments, particularly against simpler threats like unguided rockets. Akash, however, is equipped with more advanced ECCM systems, making it resistant to jamming, spoofing and other electronic warfare tactics. This makes Akash more effective against adversaries using advanced electronic disruption methods.Although Iron Dome and Akash are sometimes compared, they fulfill different roles in their respective defence systems. Akash is a more versatile system capable of handling diverse, complex aerial threats, while Iron Dome is highly specialiced for intercepting smaller, short-range projectiles, particularly in scenarios involving heavy, high-volume rocket and mortar attacks, as noted by Vidit Kumar in Indian Defence Times.STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS ADGiven its proven ability to intercept short-range rockets and artillery shells, the Iron Dome could be highly effective in sensitive border regions like Uri, Poonch and Kupwara among others. In these areas, where Pakistani artillery fire remains a persistent threat, Iron Dome’s rapid response and precision may offer advantages over systems like Akash or even the S-400, which are optimised for different types of aerial threats.Each Iron Dome interceptor costs between $40,000 and $50,000, making sustained deployment expensive. However, the system’s effectiveness in protecting civilian areas has been demonstrated repeatedly. Developed by Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems with US support, the Iron Dome reflects the kind of high-tech, layered defence India might consider replicating.With growing defence cooperation between India, Israel and the US, a technology transfer agreement or a domestically produced variant at lower cost could be a strategic next step. Until such a solution becomes viable, vulnerable regions like Poonch may remain exposed to Pakistan’s indiscriminate and often brutal cross-border shelling.STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS ADTagsHamasHezbollahHouthisIndiaIsraelPakistanEnd of Article
Source article:
Why India needs an Iron Dome to neutralise Pakistan’s shelling at the border
