How will Nasr's Neutron warhead neutralize advancing enemy columns...

[باپ]

IAF had to send their most advanced fighters along with laser and GPS guidance during Kargil war.
Initially they thought that striking Pakistani paramilitary Mujahid force will be easy and sent their old Mgs but then this happened.

Shoulder mounted SAM of Pakistan hot the IAF Mig and Downed it.

From this historical reference it can be ascertained that India has the habit of Undermining pakistani defebse capabilities and then paying for it.
hapeening even today and will continue to happen,and good for Pakistan.

 

[randomradio]

IAF had to send their most advanced fighters along with laser and GPS guidance during Kargil war.
Initially they thought that striking Pakistani paramilitary Mujahid force will be easy and sent their old Mgs but then this happened.

Shoulder mounted SAM of Pakistan hot the IAF Mig and Downed it.

From this historical reference it can be ascertained that India has the habit of Undermining pakistani defebse capabilities and then paying for it.
hapeening even today and will continue to happen,and good for Pakistan.

The IAF underestimated the mountains, not the people. The jets couldn't operate at high altitude.

IAF dropped only 9 LGBs throughout the war, so your argument falls flat.

 

[باپ]

The IAF underestimated the mountains, not the people. The jets couldn't operate at high altitude.

IAF dropped only 9 LGBs throughout the war, so your argument falls flat.

• Service ceiling: 17,800 m (58,400 ft) From wiki.

So how could it not operate at high altitude? Kargil hardly has peaks of 4000 Meters. The flight ceiling of Mig was still good 13000 Meters above it.
The lack of Judgement from IAf was about capabilities of Pakistani Shoulder mounter SAM,the deployment and war tactics of Pakistan.
Similar lack of Judgement prevails today.

 

[Signalian]

So you still stick with the argument that the army won't carry SAMs into a battlefield? Do you actually want me to take you seriously after that? Maybe all the SAMs PA use is for decoration, but not the case with the IA.

In fact Akash SAM had initially failed the army's tests because it couldn't accurately hit a target while maneuvering at battle tank speeds. But it performed beyond requirements for the IAF because they didn't want mobility. So what does that tell you? If you can figure out why the army wants their SAMs on tracked vehicles and the air force on wheeled vehicles, you will have your answer.



You are naive if you believe the IA won't carry SAMs into a battlefield. Pak has finite number of nukes and no time to make more after a war has started. If SAMs stop most or all the nukes, then you can guess what will happen next.

@Dazzler is right.

A few Burraq showing up armed with Barq picking up IA SAM's and/or PAF with Mar-1 ARM's targetting IA SAM's and/or AWACS blinding IA SAM radars and/or PA MLRS forcing IA SAM's to be on constant move instead of stopping and firing their missiles while on top of all this NASR firing salvos from different directions will make short work of IA SAM's and Armoured forces. Even one combination of any of above with NASR salvo is enough to keep IA SAM's busy and taken out while only one NASR missile getting through is enough to break the momentum.

 

[randomradio]

• Service ceiling: 17,800 m (58,400 ft) From wiki.

So how could it not operate at high altitude? Kargil hardly has peaks of 4000 Meters. The flight ceiling of Mig was still good 13000 Meters above it.
The lack of Judgement from IAf was about capabilities of Pakistani Shoulder mounter SAM,the deployment and war tactics of Pakistan.
Similar lack of Judgement prevails today.

Generally, aircraft like the Mig-27 and Jaguar are low altitude aircraft with heavy payload. They have been made heavier since the vanilla designs due to constant upgrades. That's why the Jaguars are getting new engines, primarily for better performance at medium altitude.

Air above mountains are rarefied, so there is a drastic decrease in altitude. Basic performance is also highly reduced. Plus that altitude is not with a strike payload. Both Jaguar and Mig-27 have very poor TWR, so their performance is degraded even more due to lack of engine power. Anyone with basic aircraft knowledge know this.

Out of many aircraft flying in the theater, only one fighter was brought down, and that was primarily because the pilot had to fly at a very risky altitude. This had nothing to do with Pak tactics or technology. So no one's underestimated Pak. But it's up to you if you want to live with a false sense of security, just like your Nasr.

 

[randomradio]

@Dazzler is right.

A few Burraq showing up armed with Barq picking up IA SAM's and/or PAF with Mar-1 ARM's targetting IA SAM's and/or AWACS blinding IA SAM radars and/or PA MLRS forcing IA SAM's to be on constant move instead of stopping and firing their missiles while on top of all this NASR firing salvos from different directions will make short work of IA SAM's and Armoured forces. Even one combination of any of above with NASR salvo is enough to keep IA SAM's busy and taken out while only one NASR missile getting through is enough to break the momentum.

SAMs will be moving with formations, so they are always on the move. In fact, these SAMs are capable of firing on the move, even at high speeds. Plus these formations will have dozens of vehicles whose sole purpose is EW. This EW will be blocking enemy communications. And all of these will be supported by Apaches, LCHs and scout helicopters.

Not to mention, all these formations are under IAF protection in the first place, so enemy formations will be under far greater threat because of the IAF.

The IBGs will be completely self-sustained. They have their own tanks, infantry, artillery, support vehicles etc, all networked. They are basically like 5 to 8 different small armies attacking you simultaneously. So the failure of one IBG won't directly affect the other.

These IBGs have 5000+ men, so these are bigger than the US Army's ABCTs and have better firepower and better air support. The IBGs are completely mechanized, so we are talking about more than 50000 troops that can move really quickly within a networked environment. Not to mention, these IBGs can self-support themselves with their sanctioned equipment.

As for Nasr, one or two won't do the job, you will need many just for one IBG. Cold Start is in all effects a corps level operation. And the tanks won't be destroyed by a few neutron bombs either. And this doesn't count how many Nasrs are defeated by EW and SAMs.

 

[alimobin memon]

I do not know if the weapon is succefully done, if produce enough high energy neutrons or even exist because I did not understand the video because of language. (Most of it tells the technical basics, thats for sure.)

I want to add one thing for sure. There is no one type of radiation.

Considering the radiation as ionising radiation we have a few types.

First one is ionising electromagnetic radiation. That is the radiation more energetic than violet light. Most of UV band, X rays, Gamma rays and extremly eergetic cosmic gamma rays are at this scale. We can shield ourselves with a solid and protect ourselves. Ordinary glass is enough for UV, lead is effective for more energetic rays.

Ionising particle radiation is another problem. Beta and alpha radiation is not so serious if the material radiates outside your body. But they are very dangerous inside your body. (Looking at 100 microgram of pollonium 210 is not a problem but if you inject it your body I advise you to shoot yourself at the head in 48 hours. At least thats a better death.)

There are more types I can write but to keep things simple; tanks are protected against those and even that protection is just realtive protection. (Do not trust that protection anytime, at least I wouldn't)

Neutrons are totally a diffirent story. They reaaly do not interract with matter as much as particles like protons or photons do. It is hard to stop them. Generally materials include hidrojen and carbon used to shield them but you will need a really thick layer of water with organic matter dissolved in it. (like humic acids because they include a lot of H and C and easy to find and produce) I am talking about meters in every dimention for an effective shield. To do that you will need a very very big aquarium with wheels that will carry the tank. When you want to fire, you will need to extract the tank from aquarium. Not practical I think.

Radiation shields stop a definite amount of radiation. For example if your shield stops %90 of 2 MeV gamma rays and if there is enough gamma rays to kill you with %10 then your shield will not make a diffirence. If total photon flux is the same and shield is effective at that flux it is ok.(When %10 do not do short term harm) But with the same flux if there is 10 MeV gamma rays then you are done because your shield will stop less photons now and gamma rays will pass the shield like there is no shield.

With neutrons last scenario happens. A shield ptotecting you from electromagnetic radiation, alpha, beta and protecting you from radioactive material by blocking it so it do not get inside you have radiation shield for alpha, beta, EM radiation and nuclear fallout. If there is no much neutron radiation around it is ok for short term. At least you can fight for a time. If there is enough neutrons to penetrate, then you are done. Because there is no way to effectivly protect an armoured vehicle from high flux high energy neutrons without using a ship size aquarium. (And some koi fish if you use japanese tanks. )

Crystal clear thanks mate (Y)

 

[Signalian]

SAMs will be moving with formations, so they are always on the move. In fact, these SAMs are capable of firing on the move, even at high speeds.

Completely wrong. Except Strela-10, none can fire on the move and Strela-10 cannot intercept CM. Tunguska can fire guns on the move which cannot stop CM.

Plus these formations will have dozens of vehicles whose sole purpose is EW. This EW will be blocking enemy communications. And all of these will be supported by Apaches, LCHs and scout helicopters.

Wrong again, as such a logistical support structure defies the the purpose of Cold start.

Not to mention, all these formations are under IAF protection in the first place, so enemy formations will be under far greater threat because of the IAF.

Wrong yet again. PAF will aggressively defend its airspace and to complement PAF fighters new long range AD systems are being added.

The IBGs will be completely self-sustained. They have their own tanks, infantry, artillery, support vehicles etc, all networked. They are basically like 5 to 8 different small armies attacking you simultaneously. So the failure of one IBG won't directly affect the other.

And Wrong again.

The 2-3 IBG's can only make way into south east Pakistan which is semi desert and desert region and chances are Nasr will be used in this region. The area in east and north east is not tank friendly due to traps, mines,other obstacles.

These IBGs have 5000+ men, so these are bigger than the US Army's ABCTs and have better firepower and better air support. The IBGs are completely mechanized, so we are talking about more than 50000 troops that can move really quickly within a networked environment. Not to mention, these IBGs can self-support themselves with their sanctioned equipment.

Delusional since you think that IA has better firepower and air support than US Forces !

As for Nasr, one or two won't do the job, you will need many just for one IBG. Cold Start is in all effects a corps level operation. And the tanks won't be destroyed by a few neutron bombs either. And this doesn't count how many Nasrs are defeated by EW and SAMs.

Wrong.
NASR wont be defeated inside Pakistan, its the IA soldiers who will be paying the price for crossing the border.

 

[randomradio]

Completely wrong. Except Strela-10, none can fire on the move and Strela-10 cannot intercept CM. Tunguska can fire guns on the move which cannot stop CM.

What are you talking about? Akash failed the army's trials initially because it missed while firing on the move. That's why IAF became the first customer, they didn't need mobility.

Wrong again, as such a logistical support structure defies the the purpose of Cold start.

Those are not logistics. Logistics is supplies of food, fuel and ammo.

Wrong yet again. PAF will aggressively defend its airspace and to complement PAF fighters new long range AD systems are being added.

I don't doubt that PAF will aggressively defend its territory. Whether it will be effective or not is a different subject. I would love to know what those new long range AD systems are.

And Wrong again.

The 2-3 IBG's can only make way into south east Pakistan which is semi desert and desert region and chances are Nasr will be used in this region. The area in east and north east is not tank friendly due to traps, mines,other obstacles.

It's not 2-3 IBGs, it's up to 8 IBGs, at least what is known openly, and these IBGs will be tasked to attack all across the Pak border, right from Jammu to Gujarat. IA has been exercising with 30000 to 60000 troops for an invasion, so we have a general idea about the numbers they plan to employ.

The army has constantly been conducting exercises with the IAF to test the air-land concept. Otoh, I rarely see Pak doing the same. The soldier modernization program is going to completely change the balance in India's favour, no different from what the IAF has already accomplished. You should check what Ajit Doval has said about the future of warfare. The soldier modernization program currently has the topmost priority, along with a new tactical battlefield communication system.

Delusional since you think that IA has better firepower and air support than US Forces !

Yes, because all of our capability is located near the war zone. If the US is expected to use the same kind of air power as IA during Cold Start, they will have to utilize most of the USN's carriers. We are talking about air support that's way bigger than the entire PAF.

Wrong.
NASR wont be defeated inside Pakistan

I actually don't know what you mean.

 

[باپ]

Generally, aircraft like the Mig-27 and Jaguar are low altitude aircraft with heavy payload. They have been made heavier since the vanilla designs due to constant upgrades. That's why the Jaguars are getting new engines, primarily for better performance at medium altitude.

Air above mountains are rarefied, so there is a drastic decrease in altitude. Basic performance is also highly reduced. Plus that altitude is not with a strike payload. Both Jaguar and Mig-27 have very poor TWR, so their performance is degraded even more due to lack of engine power. Anyone with basic aircraft knowledge know this.

Out of many aircraft flying in the theater, only one fighter was brought down, and that was primarily because the pilot had to fly at a very risky altitude. This had nothing to do with Pak tactics or technology. So no one's underestimated Pak. But it's up to you if you want to live with a false sense of security, just like your Nasr.

well written comment............................

 

[Signalian]

What are you talking about? Akash failed the army's trials initially because it missed while firing on the move. That's why IAF became the first customer, they didn't need mobility.

AKASH cannot fire on the move.
But lets say even if it does, it will not be able to withstand the salvos of NASR.

Those are not logistics. Logistics is supplies of food, fuel and ammo.

These are support vehicles nevertheless. I doubt the accompanying helos will make it far after they cross the border. Its not practical.

I don't doubt that PAF will aggressively defend its territory. Whether it will be effective or not is a different subject. I would love to know what those new long range AD systems are.

Search the PAF forum.

It's not 2-3 IBGs, it's up to 8 IBGs, at least what is known openly, and these IBGs will be tasked to attack all across the Pak border, right from Jammu to Gujarat. IA has been exercising with 30000 to 60000 troops for an invasion, so we have a general idea about the numbers they plan to employ.

Try to Read again and then reply. This part isnt worth replying again.

[/QUOTE]
The army has constantly been conducting exercises with the IAF to test the air-land concept. Otoh, I rarely see Pak doing the same. The soldier modernization program is going to completely change the balance in India's favour, no different from what the IAF has already accomplished. You should check what Ajit Doval has said about the future of warfare. The soldier modernization program currently has the topmost priority, along with a new tactical battlefield communication system.
[/QUOTE]
IAF can dance with IA 24/7 but when it crosses border, it will be toast by PAF.
and I am not new to this concept how IA,IAF,IN are made paper tigers by authors, its becoming lame now.

Yes, because all of our capability is located near the war zone. If the US is expected to use the same kind of air power as IA during Cold Start, they will have to utilize most of the USN's carriers. We are talking about air support that's way bigger than the entire PAF.

IAF has always been bigger than PAF. so nothing new here but IAF never achieved air superiority. Its not 1971 E-Pak.

I actually don't know what you mean.

NASR's can show up anywhere in Pakistan, any time and vanish after firing its salvo and terminating IBG assets.

 

[Alpha Fighter]

IAF can dance with IA 24/7 but when it crosses border, it will be toast by PAF.
and I am not new to this concept how IA,IAF,IN are made paper tigers by authors, its becoming lame now.



IAF has always been bigger than PAF. so nothing new here but IAF never achieved air superiority. Its not 1971 E-Pak.


NASR's can show up anywhere in Pakistan, any time and vanish after firing its salvo and terminating IBG assets.

IAF was Technically inferior then PAF in 71, PAF have planes which can fire A2A missiles , while IAF have planes which can only fire Bullets. Then also PAF never achieved Superiority over IAF.

Now things are changed, Technological IAF is superior.

More silly rhetoric..

Does India have infinite number of nukes?

Try installing your SAM without air superiority or avoiding ground threats, inside the enemy territory. Do u even know what word "threat perception" stands for? If so, which I doubt, can you calculate the amount and levels of threat your invading army and SAM units will face?

* PAF fighters backed with AWACS and comm jammers, radar and deception jammers
*SAM and MLRS units
* gunships
* guided ballistic and cruise missiles, especially Abdali and ghaznavi, Nasr etc
* strike corps, armour, infantry, atgm units.

And this is the tip of the iceberg.

Well Surely,
A) India have very Heavy nukes ,
B) Indian Long range , SAM can destroy PAF AWACS in PAK Airspace.
C) Indian also have SAM / MLRS that can destroy anything 60 / 100 KM areas ahead of its units.
D) Heli Gunships, etc...

I am sure India will have more MBRL's rockets then PAK.

 

[Hamza913]

IAF was Technically inferior then PAF in 71, PAF have planes which can fire A2A missiles , while IAF have planes which can only fire Bullets. Then also PAF never achieved Superiority over IAF.

Now things are changed, Technological IAF is superior.

The PAF never had technological superiority to the IAF. In fact, the IAF has usually had the upper hand technologically. In 1965, MM Alam flew his Sabre and crushed multiple IAF Hawker Hunters in under a minute. Anyone who knows anything about aircraft will tell you the Hunter should have been stomping all over the Sabre's, but it was the other way around.

In 1971, the PAF bought the F-104 Star-fighter. A horrible plane when it comes to A2A combat. The IAF had better planes in 1971, but again, it suffered higher casualties.

The only reason Pakistan never achieved air superiority over the IAF was because the IAF was always a far bigger force with better technology. But due to better training, the PAF has always been able to handle the IAF.

 

[Dazzler]

IAF was Technically inferior then PAF in 71, PAF have planes which can fire A2A missiles , while IAF have planes which can only fire Bullets. Then also PAF never achieved Superiority over IAF.

Now things are changed, Technological IAF is superior.



Well Surely,
A) India have very Heavy nukes ,
B) Indian Long range , SAM can destroy PAF AWACS in PAK Airspace.
C) Indian also have SAM / MLRS that can destroy anything 60 / 100 KM areas ahead of its units.
D) Heli Gunships, etc...

I am sure India will have more MBRL's rockets then PAK.

There is no rocket science in it, India being the aggressor will be at a disadvantage of being on the enemy territory while Pakistan being the defender will have the benefit of being on the home turf having all the resources available in a very short time. But you guys are so high on rhetoric that you fail to see a very basic reality.

 

[Alpha Fighter]

The PAF never had technological superiority to the IAF. In fact, the IAF has usually had the upper hand technologically. In 1965, MM Alam flew his Sabre and crushed multiple IAF Hawker Hunters in under a minute. Anyone who knows anything about aircraft will tell you the Hunter should have been stomping all over the Sabre's, but it was the other way around.

In 1971, the PAF bought the F-104 Star-fighter. A horrible plane when it comes to A2A combat. The IAF had better planes in 1971, but again, it suffered higher casualties.

The only reason Pakistan never achieved air superiority over the IAF was because the IAF was always a far bigger force with better technology. But due to better training, the PAF has always been able to handle the IAF.

oh Really, F-104 Star is can fire heat seeking A2A missiles. Which Planes are better then F-104 in IAF that time?

There is no rocket science in it, India being the aggressor will be at a disadvantage of being on the enemy territory while Pakistan being the defender will have the benefit of being on the home turf having all the resources available in a very short time. But you guys are so high on rhetoric that you fail to see a very basic reality.

Well.... resources can and will be avaliable in Short Notice , that why India in investing in Air more & long range weapon ,

concept of Cold start is , high mobility by small leathel troops , hold position till resources not reach from back.