Graphic of India and Pakistan's underwater nuclear deterrent

[$@rJen]

Babur 3 is just the beginning and demonstration that what PNS can do within its limited resources.... The range will be increased and SLBM will be also be incorporated once first sub with VLS becomes available. Pakistan will have range to attack the farthest point of India from Persian Gulf.

Are you aware what makes the range Extented ??? You've to add additional Boosters/proportions which will make the Missile Longer/bulkier and that'll have to fit in the Sub !!?? So there you go got another limitation witht he existing subs

Untill unless you don;t have a bigger sub that can accommodate them, you're still limited

 

[The Deterrent]

so slbm's are not a problem, but the vessel itself. lets say (hypothetically speaking) can pakistan build a missile similar to trident/m51 if ordered to?

LOL no, not at all. Trident II / M-51 are probably the most advanced SLBMs in the world. At first, the best we can manage is a system with capabilities similar to Shaheen-IA i.e. a 1-1.5m diamater, 5-6m length and ~700-1000km range with a unitary warhead. A decade or so down the lane we would be able to develop a 2-stage system with a 2000km range. But it all depends on the vessel. Developing an SLBM without a vessel is a moot point.

as for a ssbn ask china for help, the indians did the same with the russains and they admit it. they helped with the design of the sub, reactor and training of crew.

Its not that easy, India is a way ahead in terms of naval vessel development. We are only fiddling with frigates for now.

what about a conventional type 93 and build a nuclear variant. as a ssk it would be slightly bigger than the short-fin barracuda. not to fire slbm's but slcm where you have more range and endurance to target india's east coast.

Yeah, but again given that Pakistan's enemy is right next door, an SSGN wouldn't add much except endurance.

 

[Blue Marlin]

1. LOL no, not at all. Trident II / M-51 are probably the most advanced SLBMs in the world. At first, the best we can manage is a system with capabilities similar to Shaheen-IA i.e. a 1-1.5m diamater, 5-6m length and ~700-1000km range with a unitary warhead. A decade or so down the lane we would be able to develop a 2-stage system with a 2000km range. But it all depends on the vessel. Developing an SLBM without a vessel is a moot point.


2. Its not that easy, India is a way ahead in terms of naval vessel development. We are only fiddling with frigates for now.


3. Yeah, but again given that Pakistan's enemy is right next door, an SSGN wouldn't add much except endurance.

1. well in terms of range and payload, not in terms guidance, countermeasures and warhead ......... thats long way a way.
what about a slbm version of the shaheen 2/3 since they are already 2 stage but would need some work, first of which would be to close of the exposed 2nd stage, have foldable fins or even grid fins. and the actual launch.

2.true but where is pakistan building its 4 subs. and what about the proposed ship yard in port qasim? any news on that?

3. thats all you need endurance

 

[amardeep mishra]

I would've explained you the geopolitics and the consequences of openly declaring the R&D efforts, however you are too stubborn to understand that.

Hi @The Deterrent
If you think I am stubborn because I keep asking for verifiable credible proofs then perhaps I am stubborn. Because I have the same standards for our weapons too--unless and until I see credible proofs I wont believe! Now coming back to the geopolitics--I am very much convinced that pakistan should have no difficulty in following suite because india has already demonstrated underwater deterrence--and according to higher echelons of pakistani military establishment they do everything "in response to what india does". Now since they have come out with this video--the intention was to let the world know they have an SLCM-right? Now, just hold on and think for a moment--on one hand you want the rest of the world to "know" that we have achieved the SLCM capabability--a very commendable job indeed but on the other hand you fear if you let the rest of the world know various contribution of pakistani labs,industries and academia in this project then somehow it will turn bad and that you'll be sanctioned?Seriously? What kind of logic is that? The very fact that it has been published by ISPR means they dont fear any international repurcussions(I dont think there should be any--because itz a cruise missile targeted against india!) however they repeatedly failing to publish various contribution of pakistani research establishments,industries raises doubt as to "how" this system was engineered.

All procedures were followed, its only that it was declared for the public on a later date. And as for your "people" involved in the underwater launches, a prominent one of them couldn't even comprehend the idea of a torpedo-tube launched SLCM, and insisted that it was impossible because the "angle" was too diagonal. So please, spare us your apt video analysis.

How many underwater launches has pakistan conducted so far my friend? Dont you know it is a standard practice to have telemetry ships nearby? Now coming back to the question of firing it from submarine--well you'd need the source code of submarine's command and control architecture i.e SUBTICS. There is a reason why india couldnt integrate her own heavy weight torpedos in scorpenes submarine. They didnt share it(source code) with india even when we have much more financial leverage over them vis-a-vis pakistan.
Now you might claim it was fired from a "pontoon" just like how india does-right? But then india also releases videos of the "pontoon" along with "missile coming out of that pontoon"(refer to the video of brahmos SLCM). which agency in pakistan has the requisite know-how to design a pontoon simulating a torpedo tube.
PS- I wasnt talking about some random imagery experts but folks who were part of underwater launches.

 

[The Deterrent]

1. well in terms of range and payload, not in terms guidance, countermeasures and warhead ......... thats long way a way.
what about a slbm version of the shaheen 2/3 since they are already 2 stage but would need some work, first of which would be to close of the exposed 2nd stage, have foldable fins or even grid fins. and the actual launch.

Shaheen-2/3 are too long! (17m). An entirely new system would have to be designed if Pakistan ever decides to develop an SLBM.

2.true but where is pakistan building its 4 subs. and what about the proposed ship yard in port qasim? any news on that?

I'm afraid I don't know about that. Probably a new facilitiy will be set up.

3. thats all you need endurance

Only the cost (both financial and development) is too high. I'm not denying that it isn't being done, just questioning the effectiveness vis-a-vis costs and resource consumption.

Hi @The Deterrent
If you think I am stubborn because I keep asking for verifiable credible proofs then perhaps I am stubborn. Because I have the same standards for our weapons too--unless and until I see credible proofs I wont believe! Now coming back to the geopolitics--I am very much convinced that pakistan should have no difficulty in following suite because india has already demonstrated underwater deterrence--and according to higher echelons of pakistani military establishment they do everything "in response to what india does". Now since they have come out with this video--the intention was to let the world know they have an SLCM-right? Now, just hold on and think for a moment--on one hand you want the rest of the world to "know" that we have achieved the SLCM capabability--a very commendable job indeed but on the other hand you fear if you let the rest of the world know various contribution of pakistani labs,industries and academia in this project then somehow it will turn bad and that you'll be sanctioned?Seriously? What kind of logic is that? The very fact that it has been published by ISPR means they dont fear any international repurcussions(I dont think there should be any--because itz a cruise missile targeted against india!) however they repeatedly failing to publish various contribution of pakistani research establishments,industries raises doubt as to "how" this system was engineered.

O bhai, in Pakistan the military runs the ship! Have you ever seen a press release of NESCOM? Its always ISPR, because it is the only agency authorized to deal with public on this matter. The military doesn't want anything else to be declared, the military fears repercussions.
Now coming to the 'publishing' part, of course we are not doing anything NOVEL. For example, Babur was reverse-engineered from Tomahawk, but in bits and pieces. The engine was sourced from China, but the rest is ours (which frankly isn't a big deal). Alas, your obsession with literature has shut down some inlets.

How many underwater launches has pakistan conducted so far my friend? Dont you know it is a standard practice to have telemetry ships nearby? Now coming back to the question of firing it from submarine--well you'd need the source code of submarine's command and control architecture i.e SUBTICS. There is a reason why india couldnt integrate her own heavy weight torpedos in scorpenes submarine. They didnt share it(source code) with india even when we have much more financial leverage over them vis-a-vis pakistan.
Now you might claim it was fired from a "pontoon" just like how india does-right? But then india also releases videos of the "pontoon" along with "missile coming out of that pontoon"(refer to the video of brahmos SLCM). which agency in pakistan has the requisite know-how to design a pontoon simulating a torpedo tube.

1. Pakistan has conducted only 1 underwater launch officially. Unofficially, of course there must have been ejection trials.
2. About telemetry ships. Firstly, don't romanticize the word 'telemetry' as if its something otherworldly. All you need is a one-way data-link and a reciever (of course its much more complex than that, but this is the gist of it). Secondly, the ship from the video was recorded must have the telemetry equipment. Besides, only one view of the surrounding was shown, probably because the video was recorded from the nearest ship.

3. Torpedoes need SUBTICS authorization because they need to establish a data-link via the optical-fibre a torpedo has for guidance. An SLCM doesn't needs anything like that, it is pre-programmed. That said, I'm probably the only Pakistani staunchly maintaining that no submarine was involved in this test launch.
4. More accurately, an "underwater mobile platform" was used. Again, the videos are made but not necessary to be released to the public. Maritime Technologies Complex, is the agency you are looking for. Oh wait, it must be fake, since nothing is available on the internet about it.

 

[amardeep mishra]

the indians did the same with the russains and they admit it. they helped with the design of the sub, reactor and training of crew.

Hi dear @Blue Marlin
Russians did not help with the sub design however they indeed helped india with miniaturization of a LWR(one that uses enriched uranium and natural water for both coolant and moderation). And yes it is accepted by various heads of BARC.

An SLCM doesn't needs anything like that, it is pre-programmed

Thats not entirely correct you need to plan everything and feed it to the cruise missile.Kindly read George M Sioris book on missile guidance and control-you would know.You would need to have data link to missile sitting in the canister to feed all the relevant data,mission planning etc.
@The Deterrent
Refer to page 529 of that book and you'd need CAM(clobber analysis module) and NAM(navigation accuracy module) modules running in the computer(outside of the missile)--in our case submarine command and control architecture.
CAM provides the capability to the mission planner to compute either probability of ground clobber given a specified ground clearance, or ground clearance given a specified probability of clobber. NAM on the other hand predicts accuracy and map crossing probabilities along the route of the mission from launch to target

 

[war&peace]

LOL no, not at all. Trident II / M-51 are probably the most advanced SLBMs in the world. At first, the best we can manage is a system with capabilities similar to Shaheen-IA i.e. a 1-1.5m diamater, 5-6m length and ~700-1000km range with a unitary warhead. A decade or so down the lane we would be able to develop a 2-stage system with a 2000km range. But it all depends on the vessel. Developing an SLBM without a vessel is a moot point.

I think there are far better and more intelligent people in our R&D organisation all the need is the sufficient funding ... They always performed better than their rivals and with much small budgets.

 

[Bratva]

My dear @Bratva
That is the problem,majority of you,find it "offensive" whenever I ask for proper engineering proof.I mean I dont understand this trend--Why does anyone has to feel offensive?I am not here to insult anyone or any country. If My mere asking for proof makes you so vulnerable to disgust or contempt then I would humbly suggest you to inspect your outlook. You labeled me ignorant,shallow and what not--just because I happened to have questioned the veracity of the ISPR video?Seriously? My dear friend, There are "standard" protocols that needs to be followed when a country goes for "test launch" of an underwater weapon system-- clearly those protocols werent followed in the case of babur-3-- thats what ticked me off. I have already debated this issue with lets say our people who have been "involved" in some of our underwater cruise/SLBM launches.
So,instead of "calling names" it would be really helpful if you could just prove me wrong by "verifiable and credible engineering literature" pertaining to whatever you wish to establish.Believe me I will be the more than happy to correct myself!
Thanks in advance!


Again in the video above one could "appreciably" see there was a stark "red/orange" color on the missile.The white color patch that one could see was due to roll moments.

Who Says Pakistan didnot followed proper protocols before launching Babur-3 or who says Pakistan Launched Babur-3 on the day Video was released ?


The Babur-3 video also shows start red white contrast. Hence the changing colors in the SLCM test video, I dont know how changing colors in previous videos doesn made them fake but this one.

And once again you are ranting and comparing your Civilian institutions with the Military institutions with Pakistan. Have you heard the term Classified R&D Literature which is never published to general public? Is it so hard to comprehend for likes of you ? . Just Like Internal Wikipedia research articles and papers of NSA which was leaked by Edward Snowden. If Snowden hasnt leaked those documents, Likes of you would have been arguing the same thing since lake of published research hence there is no such capability attained by NSA.

The proof was in video from starting to the end. Proper finished product which validates all the engineering concepts from underwater launch to Terrain flying to hitting the target accurately. All things verified. I mean going on such a rant again and again when such things has already been explained to you dozen times is getting boring

 

[amardeep mishra]

Have you heard the term Classified R&D Literature which is never published to general public? Is it so hard to comprehend for likes of you ?

As if countries like India,pakistan or china do something that is so advanced(vis-a-vis west) that they would need to classify their R&D. As for changing color of missile in ISPR video--Look at it properly-it DID NOT change any color in the first segment of the video-that is mere figment of your imagination friend!
ANyways nice talking to you!Good day-and dont get riled up instead try becoming an avid reader(of engineering literature and research papers) and use credible literature to back your claims.

Who Says Pakistan didnot followed proper protocols before launching Babur-3 or who says Pakistan Launched Babur-3 on the day Video was released ?

Maybe I have poor eyesight-I couldnt see any telemetry ships nearby. We dont even know what kind of ship it was from where the video was shot.
Anyways have a good day!

 

[Valar Dohaeris]

Hi @The Deterrent
If you think I am stubborn because I keep asking for verifiable credible proofs then perhaps I am stubborn. Because I have the same standards for our weapons too--unless and until I see credible proofs I wont believe! Now coming back to the geopolitics--I am very much convinced that pakistan should have no difficulty in following suite because india has already demonstrated underwater deterrence--and according to higher echelons of pakistani military establishment they do everything "in response to what india does". Now since they have come out with this video--the intention was to let the world know they have an SLCM-right? Now, just hold on and think for a moment--on one hand you want the rest of the world to "know" that we have achieved the SLCM capabability--a very commendable job indeed but on the other hand you fear if you let the rest of the world know various contribution of pakistani labs,industries and academia in this project then somehow it will turn bad and that you'll be sanctioned?Seriously? What kind of logic is that? The very fact that it has been published by ISPR means they dont fear any international repurcussions(I dont think there should be any--because itz a cruise missile targeted against india!) however they repeatedly failing to publish various contribution of pakistani research establishments,industries raises doubt as to "how" this system was engineered.

How many underwater launches has pakistan conducted so far my friend? Dont you know it is a standard practice to have telemetry ships nearby? Now coming back to the question of firing it from submarine--well you'd need the source code of submarine's command and control architecture i.e SUBTICS. There is a reason why india couldnt integrate her own heavy weight torpedos in scorpenes submarine. They didnt share it(source code) with india even when we have much more financial leverage over them vis-a-vis pakistan.
Now you might claim it was fired from a "pontoon" just like how india does-right? But then india also releases videos of the "pontoon" along with "missile coming out of that pontoon"(refer to the video of brahmos SLCM). which agency in pakistan has the requisite know-how to design a pontoon simulating a torpedo tube.
PS- I wasnt talking about some random imagery experts but folks who were part of underwater launches.

Seriously ? Are you paid for this ? Because nobody else would right so much long sentences only out of curiosity. You are asking us to give you proof so that you could trust on our SLCM capabilities ? But, why should we ? Do you pay taxes for our Defence RD programs ? Are you a citizen ? You should ask this question from your own country and your own military leadership that weather we are faking the launch or was it a real one. Also, ask them how much they know about how we conduct R&D on such kinds of projects. Our country and our military is not answerable to you about our capabilities and how we achieve then.

 

[Blue Marlin]

Russians did not help with the sub design however they indeed helped india with miniaturization of a LWR(one that uses enriched uranium and natural water for both coolant and moderation). And yes it is accepted by various heads of BARC.

i find it very hard to believe india was able to whip out a ssbn as its first sub on its own. the only ting concerning me is the level of russain help.

Thats not entirely correct you need to plan everything and feed it to the cruise missile.Kindly read George M Sioris book on missile guidance and control-you would know.You would need to have data link to missile sitting in the canister to feed all the relevant data,mission planning etc.
@The Deterrent
Refer to page 529 of that book and you'd need CAM(clobber analysis module) and NAM(navigation accuracy module) modules running in the computer(outside of the missile)--in our case submarine command and control architecture.
CAM provides the capability to the mission planner to compute either probability of ground clobber given a specified ground clearance, or ground clearance given a specified probability of clobber. NAM on the other hand predicts accuracy and map crossing probabilities along the route of the mission from launch to target

indeed you do need cam and nam to talk to the missile but since this is a test such information would be programed into the missile before launch. every missile needs some kind of guidance and communication. from a sub launch harpoon to a trident d2 slbm.[/QUOTE]

 

[Bratva]

As if countries like India,pakistan or china do something that is so advanced(vis-a-vis west) that they would need to classify their R&D. As for changing color of missile in ISPR video--Look at it properly-it DID NOT change any color in the first segment of the video-that is mere figment of your imagination friend!
ANyways nice talking to you!Good day-and dont get riled up instead try becoming an avid reader and use credible literature to back your claims.

When the missile came out of water, It had a white color'due to angle of camera which was perpendicular to missile . Just like in the Ground test videos during initial ascend of the missile when it went vertical it was giving white colors and camera was perpendicular to missile .

I mean Im pretty sure you have not watched any of the ground test videos or else you would have noticed the initial ascend colors in both scenarios.

Talk about properly researching a subject at hand!

As if countries like India,pakistan or china do something that is so advanced(vis-a-vis west) that they would need to classify their R&D. As for changing color of missile in ISPR video--Look at it properly-it DID NOT change any color in the first segment of the video-that is mere figment of your imagination friend!
ANyways nice talking to you!Good day-and dont get riled up instead try becoming an avid reader(of engineering literature and research papers) and use credible literature to back your claims.


Maybe I have poor eyesight-I couldnt see any telemetry ships nearby. We dont even know what kind of ship it was from where the video was shot.
Anyways have a good day!

Did you see any telemetry ships nearby in North korea test of SLBM ? This is the most absurd excuse or curiousity I'm hearing from you.

 

[amardeep mishra]

Did you see any telemetry ships nearby in North korea test of SLBM ? This is the most absurd excuse or curiousity I'm hearing from you.

Pardon me @Bratva
Just for my quick reference,what is your latest qualification in terms of research? Do you even know what kind of things go before putting up that missile in underwater silo? Why would you bring NK's example here--I am sure you would know the missile they test is R-27"zyb" in their conventional subs. They were not the ones who did any R&D on R-27. Or the submarine for that matter. Thats the reason why you couldnt see any telemetry ships there.
But when a country does go for test launches of SLCM/SLBMs that they painstakingly designed(not the likes of NK for christ sake!) --they would indeed want telemetry ships nearby. They would also need ships to position the pontoon at the right place-- to be honest none of the ships were visible in the test.
As I said,good day!

 

[faithfulguy]

Be a Man and accept the fact...

Brahmos is property of Brahmos Corp,A JV of Russia and India.Oniks was used to develop this missile as base.It has limited range of 290 km though it can be increased upto 600 KM.It can be made to carry Nuclear Weapons as there is no issue to co develop a Nuclear Capable missile by 2 MTCR signed Country or selling one,just like USA sold its Trident missiles to UK.

Why you're nagging that Brahmos is "Yakhont" even though you know quiet well that Yakhont doesn't possess similar capability like Brahmos.It doesn't have underwater launch capability or steep dive one??Is it extremely necessary to troll in every single thread to derail it???

Brahmos is an export downgrade of Yakhont. That is why Russia continues to use its own domestic product and refuses .Brahmos.

 

[amardeep mishra]

i find it very hard to believe india was able to whip out a ssbn as its first sub on its own. the only ting concerning me is the level of russain help.

Well,i cant do anything if you find hard or easy. India is transparent enough to accept if any help was taken or not. Besides it took good 3 decades to put first ship in water!--we are talking about 30 years on the development.

information would be programed into the missile before launch.

@Blue Marlin
Kindly read the book before writing things you have no idea about! Thanks in advance!