amardeep mishra
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2012
- Messages
- 1,323
- Reaction score
- 26
- Country
- Location
Roll control systems. Its mainly used to control the roll angles.
*reaction control system
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Roll control systems. Its mainly used to control the roll angles.
My friend you are thinking too much. Nasr Warhead is not designed for making big bang,it is made for chucking out large quantities of neutrons which will penetrate all types of armor,killing the crew insideWhen we are talking about tactical nukes, the yield efficiencies of Plutonium versus Uranium do not come into play since the additional pressure needed to "extract" Pu-239 optimally comes at a weight compromise of additional explosive primer - such a tradeoff only becomes advantageous when you pass 20kt and above where the diminishing returns from using Pu vis a vis U start to fall significantly. The only reason to use Pu in such cases is its easier to produce compared to U.
Besides, Pakistan has not tested a Plutonium device so the point is a moot one to begin with.
Tritium boosting for this class of weapons double the yield of say 0.5kt yield of barely over critical mass material to about 1kt. After that this also suffers from major diminishing returns (given the compact volume vis a vis increased neutron flux density vis a vis material available for fission). You can check the specs of the American W-45 tactical warhead...and that was with the oblong shaped Robin Primary. The larger versions of this family (MADM) did reach 10 and 15kt yields but the mass of material increased a lot too, more than double (160kg) what was used in the smaller version (70kg) ( not feasible from what I see of Nasr's slim 400mm WS-2 based design.
An oblong shaped primary has also not been tested by Pakistan so again its a moot point....and an inefficient spherical geometry would only be worse. (China for example tested one only as late as 1992, much later than their 1964 "crude" test)
Besides most missile/warhead combinations in the range of Nasr size-wise going by history have a range of about 30 - 40 km for a 1 kt warhead using the same family of solid fuel that is still used today (thiokol and derivatives)....which may have improved incrementally at most.
We will need performance data for the Nasr missile to make any solid conclusions anyway and I would not venture to expect Pakistan has a tried and tested oblong design of pit (since it has only tested once). So I don't think personally we can expect much more than 1kt from the Nasr warhead. Of course Chinese help and assistance can change things, but that is another variable altogether.
Makes little difference. RDX was well established in world war 2 itself and its performance data (explosion power ~ detonation velocity vis a vis density) is not too different from the other ones used in modern day PBX's used for nukes (and is in fact still used).
Refer to:
Table of explosive detonation velocities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Explosive lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Polymer-bonded explosive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What does make a difference is the change of geometry of the pit from circular to oblong (thus changing from concentric to linear implosion) but a country needs to test that particular design. India did so in 1998, 1974 test being the original circular implosion...(and part of the reason India confidently states it can scale up its fusion design to 200kt + Mirv them with suitable rocket carriers).
Whereas one would have to believe that Pakistan circumvented a basic circular design and tested an oblong design in its first test itself....which I find hard to believe....unless the design was given by the Chinese from their 1992 test.
Unless of course Pakistan is deciding to go fully with software projections and taking a gamble (assuming no Chinese assistance) that it will work when required....or go with the safe bet (circular) but keep the opponent guessing by stating a 5kt tactical capability. Its all part of MAD theory anyways.
If you have sources regarding any of this, I am all ears.
Nasr Warhead is not designed for making big bang,it is made for chucking out large quantities of neutrons which will penetrate all types of armor,killing the crew inside
So now its a neutron bomb. Something no other country has and a tactical one at that...and again with no Pakistani testing. Keeps getting better and better. I must say Pakistanis love going with gambles on untested designs going by your claims.
arent you self contradicting now? didn't you mention large neutron influx in a boosted fission device in the very long comment you wrote above? Thats exactly hoe neutron bombs work and thats exactly how Pakistan plans to stop Indian armed brigade without destroying a significant chunk of Pakistani land with lasting radioactive fallout,because Nasr will be used on Pakistani lands. Also no Mushroom cloud so not possible to confirm a nuclear detonation via satellites.So now its a neutron bomb. Something no other country has and a tactical one at that...and again with no Pakistani testing. Keeps getting better and better. I must say Pakistanis love going with gambles on untested designs going by your claims.
arent you self contradicting now? didn't you mention large neutron influx in a boosted fission device in the very long comment you wrote above? Thats exactly hoe neutron bombs work and thats exactly how Pakistan plans to stop Indian armed brigade without destroying a significant chunk of Pakistani land with lasting radioactive fallout,because Nasr will be used on Pakistani lands. Also no Mushroom cloud so not possible to confirm a nuclear detonation via satellites.
W-66 is an american design and that too you or anyone do not have access to actual design,the ones available on internet are not letting out any real secrets. In reality every country have their own design of nuclear weapons and if something did not work for one country does not mean it cant work for another country. Little changes in design have massive effects on various aspects of the nuclear weapon.All the implosion type devices you mention are very basic designs missing one major component,a neutron generator. Introduce a neutron generator in the mix and effect of the weapon increases many folds. Pakistan has been working on a sophisticated trigger mechanism which does not only rely on implosion,but the chain reaction is actually started by a neutron generator,to have maximum atoms broken quickly enough for maximum results in the same given amounts of fissile material. Another thing you are forgetting is that this is not 1970s. Computer simulations are far too powerful to warrant any actual tests of nukes.It can't be a 5kt yield AND a neutron bomb at the same time within this size. I'm looking at the W-66 warhead and the elastic tamper curves of Tu-carbide or DU here for yield/neutron optimization here.
That too it gets even more impossible with generation 1 spherical implosion design, which is the only one Pakistan has tested (like India did in 1974). Unless the Chinese transferred you their linear implosion design. Even then the max yield would be 1 kit or below to create any significant neutron flux (of course without a tamper in place).
So basically you are jumping from one line of thinking to the other just for the sake of argument? Initially it was a U warhead, then it became PU warhead, next came PU warhead with plastic explosive, next was a tube type design, it later graduated to a neutron bomb!!W-66 is an american design and that too you or anyone do not have access to actual design,the ones available on internet are not letting out any real secrets. In reality every country have their own design of nuclear weapons and if something did not work for one country does not mean it cant work for another country. Little changes in design have massive effects on various aspects of the nuclear weapon.All the implosion type devices you mention are very basic designs missing one major component,a neutron generator. Introduce a neutron generator in the mix and effect of the weapon increases many folds. Pakistan has been working on a sophisticated trigger mechanism which does not only rely on implosion,but the chain reaction is actually started by a neutron generator,to have maximum atoms broken quickly enough for maximum results in the same given amounts of fissile material. Another thing you are forgetting is that this is not 1970s. Computer simulations are far too powerful to warrant any actual tests of nukes.
You keep on saying Pakistan did not test a neutron device. Tell you what, a neutron device which does not produce any significant bang can be tested anytime as neutrons cannot be detected by seismic stations
It was your friend who was implying that itsvan all uranium device. I always maintain that such small device cannot be produced without PU and boosted fission design,and that involves massive neutron flux,hence neutron bomb.So basically you are jumping from one line of thinking to the other just for the sake of argument? Initially it was a U warhead, then it became PU warhead, next came PU warhead with plastic explosive, next was a tube type design, it later graduated to a neutron bomb!!
Damn son you are changing the type of warheads faster than G. R. R. Martin can kill characters!!
W-66 is an american design and that too you or anyone do not have access to actual design,the ones available on internet are not letting out any real secrets.
In reality every country have their own design of nuclear weapons and if something did not work for one country does not mean it cant work for another country.
All the implosion type devices you mention are very basic designs missing one major component,a neutron generator. Introduce a neutron generator in the mix and effect of the weapon increases many folds.
Pakistan has been working on a sophisticated trigger mechanism which does not only rely on implosion,but the chain reaction is actually started by a neutron generator,to have maximum atoms broken quickly enough for maximum results in the same given amounts of fissile material.
Another thing you are forgetting is that this is not 1970s. Computer simulations are far too powerful to warrant any actual tests of nukes.
You keep on saying Pakistan did not test a neutron device. Tell you what, a neutron device which does not produce any significant bang can be tested anytime as neutrons cannot be detected by seismic stations