Hatf IX Nasr Missile Tested by Pakistan

[The Deterrent]

Well i suppose u know the concept of a nuclear fission. Well then on those grounds let me brush a few basics.The basic fission reaction that occurs in a nuclear explosion involves

(Neutron) + (Fissionable Isotope of large atom) → (Isotope of medium sized atom) + (Isotope of medium sized atom) + 3 or 4 (Neutron)

For a nuclear explosion to occur, the average number of the product neutrons that trigger another reaction needs to be greater than 1.

There are several things that can happen to neutrons that are produced as a product of a fission reaction

(1) They can move out of the region where the fissionable material is
(2) They can be absorbed by atoms other than the fissionable ones
(3) They are usually very fast moving -- they can bounce around off other atoms a bit and gradually get slowed down, OR
(4) If conditions are just right, they can collide with another fissionable atom, and produce another fission reaction.

If each reaction produces, say, 3.5 neutrons out for each neutron in, then there will only be a nuclear explosion if about 30% or more of those neutrons trigger another fission.
With a small lump of fissionable material, you will not get a nuclear hand grenade, Nearly all of the neutrons will travel straight out of the lump, maybe having a few collisions and warming things up, but more than 90% will take route (1) above.

For a medium size lump, routes (2) and (3) become more important. The lump will probably melt and make a bit of a mess, but not an explosion.

Quite a sizable lump of material is required for there to be any chance of an explosion. The actual size needed depends on shape and purity, but for a 100% pure sphere of fissionable material there is a "critical mass" (you may be able to find how much on the web -- I think it is somewhere in the region of 10-15 kg) required.

Now let's take 10Kg for the sake of discussion. I have not added to it the wight of firing mechanisms, shielding [Yup weapons too have shielding], safeguards and redundancies. So the question arises, what weight should a small self contained nuke weigh? Smallest, that can make a impact, 100 kg but it used ~100% enriched U235 and 350kg with abt 98.3% enrichment.

So at last, how much can Nasr carry as a warhead ? Sadly just 50kg.

So I suppose Pakistan are producing Californium-251 (cost of production $10,000,000 Per gram) for the warheads for Nasr ?

Pls shed some light on the topic
Eg:
(1). Type of Fission material ?
(2). Fission material weight ?
(3). yield?

Did you just try to SOMEHOW prove that Nasr is too small to deliver nukes??
In response to the really weird logic that you gave, I'm just gonna give a comparison.

The US W-74 is a 155mm artillery shell, and is sadly a plutonium based nuclear weapon. On the other hand, Nasr's warhead has a diameter of 300mm, which sadly can also deliver a nuke. So there isn't any use of PROVING anything, those nukes are real, not bluffs.

(1) Plutonium
(2) No official statement on the warhead weight.
(3) Subkiloton range (most probably)

P.S. Try to do some research before posting something serious...

 

[Bratva]

Did you just try to SOMEHOW prove that Nasr is too small to deliver nukes??
In response to the really weird logic that you gave, I'm just gonna give a comparison.

The US W-74 is a 155mm artillery shell, and is sadly a plutonium based nuclear weapon. On the other hand, Nasr's warhead has a diameter of 300mm, which sadly can also deliver a nuke. So there isn't any use of PROVING anything, those nukes are real, not bluffs.

(1) Plutonium
(2) No official statement on the warhead weight.
(3) Subkiloton range (most probably)

P.S. Try to do some research before posting something serious...

also he should know what is dirty bomb and if dirty bomb can explode than why not NASR can explode nuclear material.

 

[Pak47]

Can this system be used as Air Defence?

 

[hatf IX]

Can this system be used as Air Defence?

no . . . . .

need totally other type of guidance . . . . but . . . . . i think Pakistan should work on this

 

[v9s]

Well i suppose u know the concept of a nuclear fission. Well then on those grounds let me brush a few basics.The basic fission reaction that occurs in a nuclear explosion involves


Bla bla bla i'm a super chutia

That minimum critical mass you stated is required for a sustained nuclear reaction with no outside influence, i.e. if you put 2 sub-critical parts together with no change in heat, density, etc

Nuclear weapon designs allow you to reduce the critical mass because the other factors change (density, temp, usage of a damper, etc), for example:

By surrounding the fissionable material with a suitable neutron "reflector", the loss of neutrons can reduced and the critical mass can be reduced.

By using a neutron reflector, only about 11 pounds (5 kilograms) of nearly pure or weapon's grade plutonium 239 or about 33 pounds (15 kilograms) uranium 235 is needed to achieve critical mass.

Plus you can boost the weapon using tritium and deuterium.

This was done over 50 years ago: W54 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pak47]

no . . . . .

need totally other type of guidance . . . . but . . . . . i think Pakistan should work on this

Well i know obviously it can't be done with this guidance.. but seeing the video of its launch.. the first thing that comes to my mind is air defence.. and.. Yes.. i think it can be done with a different guidance system..

 

[Last Hope]

Why would you use a nuke to be used as a Surface-to-Air missile? You have long-range missiles which work perfectly fine like HQ-18.

 

[kṣamā]

self delete

 

[kṣamā]

Did you just try to SOMEHOW prove that Nasr is too small to deliver nukes??
In response to the really weird logic that you gave, I'm just gonna give a comparison.

The US W-74 is a 155mm artillery shell, and is sadly a plutonium based nuclear weapon. On the other hand, Nasr's warhead has a diameter of 300mm, which sadly can also deliver a nuke. So there isn't any use of PROVING anything, those nukes are real, not bluffs.

(1) Plutonium
(2) No official statement on the warhead weight.
(3) Subkiloton range (most probably)

P.S. Try to do some research before posting something serious...

Thanks 4 replying to the post non-trolingly. Well firstly donn you urself think there was some intellectual thinking done b4 posting [if not research, sorry I have other prior commitments ] else it would be a troling ?

Ok now back on topic. My first observation, according to many references in d.pk and outside there is a consistent figure on the payload capacity of 50kg conventional (ie, without shielding) . A quick search will pop up quite a large no of results. Now above I have discussed Uranium 235 reason enriching uranium is is cost effective and Pakistan has quite a few complexes to do so. I think, I impart my polestar of logic upon you.

Now that u have enlightened me its PU239, well may know better. Ok. I think there are two complexes for PU enrichment, rite? So you again may be correct.

Now I too had remembered those artillery shells for a reference on weight. Those shells, W-48 is 58kg(128lbs). The lightest is W-54 Davy Crockett warhead, 15kg but the catch is with shielding it weighted 68 kg. Now its should be noted that these people at UCRL (creators of W-54) were the aces of the game, then why did they abandoned the project and non of them saw a conflict, not even at sea or anti-sat role?? A few observations
1. They cost a (read "large no of") bomb(s).Exactly $425,000 (in 1973) a pop. Oh and yes pls add inflation to it.
2. Low yield seems trivial compared to weapons with yields in the kilotons or megatons, but it is actually far more dangerous than conventional explosives of equivalent yield due to the intense radiation emitted. A 20 ton fission explosion, for example, produces a very dangerous 500 rem radiation exposure at 400 meters from burst point, and a 100% lethal 1350 rem exposure at 300 meters. A yield of 10-20 tons is also equal to the yield of the lowest yield nuclear warhead ever deployed by the US -- the W-54 used in the Davy Crockett recoilless rifle.
3. In a single word SAFEGUARDS.

Apart from the obvious weight issue here are some more things to observe. From above you could see that at the cost of these one can buy a boat load of conventional CBUs like CBU-150. You can now rain down a **** load of them and no country will raise an eyebrow also India or any nuclear state cannot retaliate in nuclear to that, rite? So doesn't the scale tip in using conventional weaponry on infantry ??

Also First world nations are right on our throats on issue of safeguards. No one knows better than the scientist and the users. The compact designs all mentioned above have the greatest flaw that they do not contain the type of security as the bigger cousins enjoy. And that is a real deal breaker. We both know what a rouge nuclear device can do, it doesn't matter which side it belonged earlier. When it explodes it kills irrespective of the nationality, cast creed or skin color. No one will want such a thing even for an enemy. At least I won't.


"also he should know what is dirty bomb and if dirty bomb can explode than why not NASR can explode nuclear material."

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...missile-tested-pakistan-17.html#ixzz1zyNbwbSE

Well sir dirty bombs are exploded/scattered by a conventional explosive so that it could irradiate the area. They do not fission and neither do they yield any explosion due to fission. But the official reports it dose yield a subkiloton yield. If you propose that its basically a dirty-bomb-delivery system then, even if Indian forces do a tactical retreat, it will be a ecological disaster at your hands. Members from Japan, Russia and few from USA can be referred for the same. Also if they were to produce a dirty bomb then many cheaper replacements are available against PU239 or U235.

--------------------------------------
To all,
Pls reply if you have anything constructive to say. Pls do not troll. Both India and Pakistan.
regards

 

[Pak47]

Why would you use a nuke to be used as a Surface-to-Air missile? You have long-range missiles which work perfectly fine like HQ-18.

Ahh, you're right.. i completely took range out of the equation.

 

[Kompromat]

Well i suppose u know the concept of a nuclear fission. Well then on those grounds let me brush a few basics.The basic fission reaction that occurs in a nuclear explosion involves

(Neutron) + (Fissionable Isotope of large atom) → (Isotope of medium sized atom) + (Isotope of medium sized atom) + 3 or 4 (Neutron)

For a nuclear explosion to occur, the average number of the product neutrons that trigger another reaction needs to be greater than 1.

There are several things that can happen to neutrons that are produced as a product of a fission reaction

(1) They can move out of the region where the fissionable material is
(2) They can be absorbed by atoms other than the fissionable ones
(3) They are usually very fast moving -- they can bounce around off other atoms a bit and gradually get slowed down, OR
(4) If conditions are just right, they can collide with another fissionable atom, and produce another fission reaction.

If each reaction produces, say, 3.5 neutrons out for each neutron in, then there will only be a nuclear explosion if about 30% or more of those neutrons trigger another fission.
With a small lump of fissionable material, you will not get a nuclear hand grenade, Nearly all of the neutrons will travel straight out of the lump, maybe having a few collisions and warming things up, but more than 90% will take route (1) above.

For a medium size lump, routes (2) and (3) become more important. The lump will probably melt and make a bit of a mess, but not an explosion.

Quite a sizable lump of material is required for there to be any chance of an explosion. The actual size needed depends on shape and purity, but for a 100% pure sphere of fissionable material there is a "critical mass" (you may be able to find how much on the web -- I think it is somewhere in the region of 10-15 kg) required.

Now let's take 10Kg for the sake of discussion. I have not added to it the wight of firing mechanisms, shielding [Yup weapons too have shielding], safeguards and redundancies. So the question arises, what weight should a small self contained nuke weigh? Smallest, that can make a impact, 100 kg but it used ~100% enriched U235 and 350kg with abt 98.3% enrichment.

So at last, how much can Nasr carry as a warhead ? Sadly just 50kg.

So I suppose Pakistan are producing Californium-251 (cost of production $10,000,000 Per gram) for the warheads for Nasr ?

Pls shed some light on the topic
Eg:
(1). Type of Fission material ?
(2). Fission material weight ?
(3). yield?

No one would give you any info on the type of Warheads because its a state secret. Making TNWs are indeed a specialized technology only possessed by a handful of countries. We won't know whats inside it until an invading Indian IBG gets smoked.

 

[The Deterrent]

Thanks 4 replying to the post non-trolingly. Well firstly donn you urself think there was some intellectual thinking done b4 posting [if not research, sorry I have other prior commitments ] else it would be a troling ?

Ok now back on topic. My first observation, according to many references in d.pk and outside there is a consistent figure on the payload capacity of 50kg conventional (ie, without shielding) . A quick search will pop up quite a large no of results. Now above I have discussed Uranium 235 reason enriching uranium is is cost effective and Pakistan has quite a few complexes to do so. I think, I impart my polestar of logic upon you.

Now that u have enlightened me its PU239, well may know better. Ok. I think there are two complexes for PU enrichment, rite? So you again may be correct.

Now I too had remembered those artillery shells for a reference on weight. Those shells, W-48 is 58kg(128lbs). The lightest is W-54 Davy Crockett warhead, 15kg but the catch is with shielding it weighted 68 kg. Now its should be noted that these people at UCRL (creators of W-54) were the aces of the game, then why did they abandoned the project and non of them saw a conflict, not even at sea or anti-sat role?? A few observations
1. They cost a (read "large no of") bomb(s).Exactly $425,000 (in 1973) a pop. Oh and yes pls add inflation to it.
2. Low yield seems trivial compared to weapons with yields in the kilotons or megatons, but it is actually far more dangerous than conventional explosives of equivalent yield due to the intense radiation emitted. A 20 ton fission explosion, for example, produces a very dangerous 500 rem radiation exposure at 400 meters from burst point, and a 100% lethal 1350 rem exposure at 300 meters. A yield of 10-20 tons is also equal to the yield of the lowest yield nuclear warhead ever deployed by the US -- the W-54 used in the Davy Crockett recoilless rifle.
3. In a single word SAFEGUARDS.

Apart from the obvious weight issue here are some more things to observe. From above you could see that at the cost of these one can buy a boat load of conventional CBUs like CBU-150. You can now rain down a **** load of them and no country will raise an eyebrow also India or any nuclear state cannot retaliate in nuclear to that, rite? So doesn't the scale tip in using conventional weaponry on infantry ??

Also First world nations are right on our throats on issue of safeguards. No one knows better than the scientist and the users. The compact designs all mentioned above have the greatest flaw that they do not contain the type of security as the bigger cousins enjoy. And that is a real deal breaker. We both know what a rouge nuclear device can do, it doesn't matter which side it belonged earlier. When it explodes it kills irrespective of the nationality, cast creed or skin color. No one will want such a thing even for an enemy. At least I won't.

My friend the only weapons that ever saw a CONFLICT were the Fat Man and Little Boy designs. Yet the US produced hundreds of designs and thousands of nukes.

1. Cost issues? Pakistan's SPD receives enough funds to do more than maintaining the minimum deterrent capability. Remember, NESCOM is not DRDO. Their claims are solid, and are only made once the product is successful.

2. Yeah thats the point. Scare the enemy, thats what it is about. You see, Nasr and other TNWs are all about bringing the nuclear threshold to the minimum level.

3. So you think safe guards can only be employed inside a weapon? What about the outside? Can't they be safeguarded in secure containers?
Don't tell me that you think that someone is going to walk out of a SMG base with a Nasr warhead in his backpack.

Agreed, but who is going to sell us those advanced CBUs? Forgot that US won't do that, neither will its allies?

You guys just consider the SIZE before while raising the concerns. Maybe you think that the 'bigger cousins' are too heavy to be carried away quietly, eh?
No one can use Pakistan's nukes without authentication, NO ONE. Not only we have multi-layered outer protection, but also PAL-based triggers and multiple arming codes. All those things require a freakin' authentication from a dozen freakin' Armed Forces personnel.

Yeah, now you are going to say that 'what if that 'dozen' goes rogue?'
Well, sweet dreams.

 

[Bratva]

Thanks 4 replying to the post non-trolingly. Well firstly donn you urself think there was some intellectual thinking done b4 posting [if not research, sorry I have other prior commitments ] else it would be a troling ?

Ok now back on topic. My first observation, according to many references in d.pk and outside there is a consistent figure on the payload capacity of 50kg conventional (ie, without shielding) . A quick search will pop up quite a large no of results. Now above I have discussed Uranium 235 reason enriching uranium is is cost effective and Pakistan has quite a few complexes to do so. I think, I impart my polestar of logic upon you.

Now that u have enlightened me its PU239, well may know better. Ok. I think there are two complexes for PU enrichment, rite? So you again may be correct.

Now I too had remembered those artillery shells for a reference on weight. Those shells, W-48 is 58kg(128lbs). The lightest is W-54 Davy Crockett warhead, 15kg but the catch is with shielding it weighted 68 kg. Now its should be noted that these people at UCRL (creators of W-54) were the aces of the game, then why did they abandoned the project and non of them saw a conflict, not even at sea or anti-sat role?? A few observations
1. They cost a (read "large no of") bomb(s).Exactly $425,000 (in 1973) a pop. Oh and yes pls add inflation to it.
2. Low yield seems trivial compared to weapons with yields in the kilotons or megatons, but it is actually far more dangerous than conventional explosives of equivalent yield due to the intense radiation emitted. A 20 ton fission explosion, for example, produces a very dangerous 500 rem radiation exposure at 400 meters from burst point, and a 100% lethal 1350 rem exposure at 300 meters. A yield of 10-20 tons is also equal to the yield of the lowest yield nuclear warhead ever deployed by the US -- the W-54 used in the Davy Crockett recoilless rifle.
3. In a single word SAFEGUARDS.

Apart from the obvious weight issue here are some more things to observe. From above you could see that at the cost of these one can buy a boat load of conventional CBUs like CBU-150. You can now rain down a **** load of them and no country will raise an eyebrow also India or any nuclear state cannot retaliate in nuclear to that, rite? So doesn't the scale tip in using conventional weaponry on infantry ??

Also First world nations are right on our throats on issue of safeguards. No one knows better than the scientist and the users. The compact designs all mentioned above have the greatest flaw that they do not contain the type of security as the bigger cousins enjoy. And that is a real deal breaker. We both know what a rouge nuclear device can do, it doesn't matter which side it belonged earlier. When it explodes it kills irrespective of the nationality, cast creed or skin color. No one will want such a thing even for an enemy. At least I won't.


"also he should know what is dirty bomb and if dirty bomb can explode than why not NASR can explode nuclear material."

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...missile-tested-pakistan-17.html#ixzz1zyNbwbSE

Well sir dirty bombs are exploded/scattered by a conventional explosive so that it could irradiate the area. They do not fission and neither do they yield any explosion due to fission. But the official reports it dose yield a subkiloton yield. If you propose that its basically a dirty-bomb-delivery system then, even if Indian forces do a tactical retreat, it will be a ecological disaster at your hands. Members from Japan, Russia and few from USA can be referred for the same. Also if they were to produce a dirty bomb then many cheaper replacements are available against PU239 or U235.

--------------------------------------
To all,
Pls reply if you have anything constructive to say. Pls do not troll. Both India and Pakistan.
regards

You should have thought more before writing those lines. Dude, it's all about priorities and strategic needs, Is there any country near to USA who have CSD? That's why they abondened the project coz they don't needed that small warheads.

 

[kṣamā]

No one would give you any info on the type of Warheads because its a state secret. Making TNWs are indeed a specialized technology only possessed by a handful of countries. We won't know whats inside it until an invading Indian IBG gets smoked.

Well the thing is, experts can guess the type and make of the warhead even when they left out of the loop. Though its not that I am considering myself as an "Expert".

Said that, a few factual realities. Plutonium cannot be enriched, ie one cannot purify Pu239 after a certain level. The type and size of warhead we are talking about is extremely small and complex. Firstly the core used is about exclusively 98% to ~100% pure plutonium.That level of purification is extremely difficult to attain. The pointer to the fact only two countries were able to do so where US and USSR both of whom had a backyard full of uranium enrichment plants/power plants and to purify the Pu239 they had special purpose scientific reactors. Latter they even purified that by electro-refining. This was 50yrs ago.

Today USA and Russia are still the unchallenged kings of nuclear throne. Players like France, Germany and Japan are fast trying to overtake them. These nations have a very large no of research reactors. Basically these reactors increase the %age of Pu-239 in the fuel mix. A fuel mix with 96% Pu-239 is one of the most purified form of Pu and used bu US NAVY for weapons and propulsion. So why not refine it till 99% which has higher power density when used in onboard reactor ? and in weapons it has higher yield without spiking ? Answer to both of them "Cost ineffective".

Today India has 6 research reactors (under BARC, others unknown to me) Pakistan has 2 (correct me if I am wrong). If we add to it the total no of fast breeder reactors present here in India (which also provides Pu-239 but at 93%), even then we (both Pakistan And India combined potential) do not have the stock pile of those nations. Also neither we both posses the technology to refine it over 96% let alone "98% to ~100%"

So why was all this discussed?? Payload vs warhead wt. what I am trying to say over here is even when it is labeled as nuclear tipped we will have to take the claim with a pinch of salt. Also neither the 300mm artillery ie, MLRS of USA and Russia do not have nuke tipped rockets. Though they do have thermobaric weapons which may suite your operational requirements.

 

[Nishan_101]

Man there are only fears that US has reached about 65 nautical miles from Gawadr and we are unable to do anything although we are allies, so called. But people are suggesting that they are here to finish the game forever.