K-4 submarine-launched ballistic missile test on January 31

[Peshwa]

In the case of SLCMs, yes they can be delivered via torpedo tube and take a vertical trajectory once they breech the water. In the case of harpoon, it's carried by a canister to the water's surface where the missile then breeches and is fired:

This is what the Harpoon looks like while still in its canister:

They are launched from torpedo tubes in the same manner as any other torpedo by submarines that lack a VLS system, like Japan's Soryu Class:

Primarily being an anti-ship missile, with the block II having the capacity to strike land targets, Harpoon takes on a more flat trajectory and opts for a sea-skimming attack run, though they also have a dive-on-target, top-attack mode too which sees them take a higher flight profile and dive on their target from above.

Other submarine launched missiles, ones also fired from torpedo tubes, and on newer boats VLS systems, have largely the same method of delivery, with some differences. Tomahawk isn't launched in an encapsulation or canister, but is ejected from the torpedo tubes via water-impulse (Torpedo tubes) or gas propulsion (VLS). It floats quickly to the surface where its booster ignite carrying the missile along to its target, often in the vertical climb we see with the recent Babur test:

Missiles fire from VLS tubes, like this Tomahawk Block III launched from SSN 774 take a more vertical initial climb, but level off during the duration of their flight. Notice the scoop and wings have yet to deploy.

That isn't always the case however. This photo from HMS Astute shows a TLAM Block III being launched from the submarine's torpedo tubes on a very high trajectory - just like the Babur video:

What we saw with Babur is within the norm for submarine launched missiles, though Babur was believed to have been launched via a submerged testing barge rather then a submarine.

Long story short: yes, it's possible to achieve a vertical trajectory with a torpedo tube launched cruise missile.

Gracias Madame!
Appreciate your input!

 

[foxtrot1]

K4 cannot be launched from torpedo tube.
let's not compare Pakistani SLCM 400 km range lulli missile with real IRBM K4.

 

[Peshwa]

In the case of SLCMs, yes they can be delivered via torpedo tube and take a vertical trajectory once they breech the water. In the case of harpoon, it's carried by a canister to the water's surface where the missile then breeches and is fired:

This is what the Harpoon looks like while still in its canister:

They are launched from torpedo tubes in the same manner as any other torpedo by submarines that lack a VLS system, like Japan's Soryu Class:

Primarily being an anti-ship missile, with the block II having the capacity to strike land targets, Harpoon takes on a more flat trajectory and opts for a sea-skimming attack run, though they also have a dive-on-target, top-attack mode too which sees them take a higher flight profile and dive on their target from above.

Other submarine launched missiles, ones also fired from torpedo tubes, and on newer boats VLS systems, have largely the same method of delivery, with some differences. Tomahawk isn't launched in an encapsulation or canister, but is ejected from the torpedo tubes via water-impulse (Torpedo tubes) or gas propulsion (VLS). It floats quickly to the surface where its booster ignite carrying the missile along to its target, often in the vertical climb we see with the recent Babur test:

Missiles fire from VLS tubes, like this Tomahawk Block III launched from SSN 774 take a more vertical initial climb, but level off during the duration of their flight. Notice the scoop and wings have yet to deploy.

That isn't always the case however. This photo from HMS Astute shows a TLAM Block III being launched from the submarine's torpedo tubes on a very high trajectory - just like the Babur video:

What we saw with Babur is within the norm for submarine launched missiles, though Babur was believed to have been launched via a submerged testing barge rather then a submarine.

Long story short: yes, it's possible to achieve a vertical trajectory with a torpedo tube launched cruise missile.

One last question:
If one were to fire an indigenous SLCM through the torpedo tube on a foreign built sub, would it require modifications to the sub or can it be mated with ease? I suppose the similarity in size to the torpedo would be one issue, but would the mission computing for the SLCM also have to be integrated with the sub?
And can countries make such modifications independently without the persmisson of the country of origin of the sub?

Sorry I realize that's like 3 questions. Again, thanks in advnce

 

[foxtrot1]

One last question:
If one were to fire an indigenous SLCM through the torpedo tube on a foreign built sub, would it require modifications to the sub or can it be mated with ease? I suppose the similarity in size to the torpedo would be one issue, but would the mission computing for the SLCM also have to be integrated with the sub?
And can countries make such modifications independently without the persmisson of the country of origin of the sub?

Sorry I realize that's like 3 questions. Again, thanks in advnce

it was launched by Chinese

 

[Fenrir]

One last question:
If one were to fire an indigenous SLCM through the torpedo tube on a foreign built sub, would it require modifications to the sub or can it be mated with ease?

If you require the weapon to be hardlinked to the submarine, like Torpedo control wires which feed the torpedo midcourse updates and targeting info keeping their approach stealthy until they enter the terminal attack run, yes absolutely you'd need to modify the submarine's fire control system to accept the new weapon and allow it to talk with the torpedo.

I can't find any good pics of torpedo control wires, so here's one of the guidance section of a Russian UGST:

For SLCMs, typically you do want to be able to upload initial targeting information into them before launching, so they know what direction to travel in or so other assets don't need to act as a relay between the missile and its targeting info, but that's not strictly necessary.

An old Russian Cold War tactic was using naval aircraft as targeting relays. A submarine, like this Echo class guided missile boat would launch a cruise missile in a direction, often a direction spotted by naval aircraft like Tu-95 and an orbiting MPA or even another submarine or surface ship would then pickup the missile and guide it towards its target by providing updated directional input:

The TU-95F was capable of such targeting relay capabilities:

The missile didn't need targeting info pre-loaded into it by the submarine, it would be uploaded by other assets once in flight. The submarines were outfitted with their own FCS capable weapons though, since these were Russian boats using Russian weapons, and were fitted with their own sensors for independent targeting and operations:

They just weren't a necessity if coopting other assets.

Norway's Ula class submarine are being modified to fire the NSM, acting as a test-bed until the Ula replacement comes online in the mid-2020s. The Ulas themselves aren't likely to maintain the NSM in any operational capability. Their FCS is being modified to fire newer torpedoes, but isn't being modified to accommodate NSM because that's not needed:

I don't have a good pick of NSM-SL yet (actually a JSM, but marketed as NSM-SL), so here's an air-launched variant of the same missile:

To fire the NSM, the missile is encapsulated in a torpedo-esque shell, loaded into the tubes and launched just as any other torpedo would be. They can receive targeting info from other assets or automatically detect, ID, track and engage targets using a massive onboard library of Electronic, IIR and other spectrum signatures. It doesn't need to be told where to go by the submarine, other assets can tell it that for itself of it can figure out where it is using DSMAC and other forums of internal guidance like GPS. They are primed and readied prior to being loaded.

Does Pakistan have the relay capabilities needed? Who can say? But Babur is equipped with systems like GPS, INS and TERCOM that should allow it to be launched and engage a target without needing to mod the submarines FCS.

And can countries make such modifications independently without the persmisson of the country of origin of the sub?

Can they? Yes. Is it legal? Does it violate the purchasing agreement or void any aftermarket support? Most likely yes as well.

There are safeguards to prevent this type of tampering, but there are no absolutes and they can be overcome.

 

[Armstrong]

If you require the weapon to be hardlinked to the submarine, like Torpedo control wires which feed the torpedo midcourse updates and targeting info keeping their approach stealthy until they enter the terminal attack run, yes absolutely you'd need to modify the submarine's fire control system to accept the new weapon and allow it to talk with the torpedo.

I can't find any good pics of torpedo control wires, so here's one of the guidance section of a Russian UGST:

For SLCMs, typically you do want to be able to upload initial targeting information into them before launching, so they know what direction to travel in or so other assets don't need to act as a relay between the missile and its targeting info, but that's not strictly necessary.

An old Russian Cold War tactic was using naval aircraft as targeting relays. A submarine, like this Echo class guided missile boat would launch a cruise missile in a direction, often a direction spotted by naval aircraft like Tu-95 and an orbiting MPA or even another submarine or surface ship would then pickup the missile and guide it towards its target by providing updated directional input:

The TU-95F was capable of such targeting relay capabilities:

The missile didn't need targeting info pre-loaded into it by the submarine, it would be uploaded by other assets once in flight. The submarines were outfitted with their own FCS capable weapons though, since these were Russian boats using Russian weapons, and were fitted with their own sensors for independent targeting and operations:

They just weren't a necessity if coopting other assets.

Norway's Ula class submarine are being modified to fire the NSM, acting as a test-bed until the Ula replacement comes online in the mid-2020s. The Ulas themselves aren't likely to maintain the NSM in any operational capability. Their FCS is being modified to fire newer torpedoes, but isn't being modified to accommodate NSM because that's not needed:

To fire the NSM, the missile is encapsulated in a torpedo-esque shell, loaded into the tubes and launched just as any other torpedo would be. They can receive targeting info from other assets or automatically detect, ID, track and engage targets using a massive onboard library of Electronic, IIR and other spectrum signatures. It doesn't need to be told where to go by the submarine, other assets can tell it that for itself of it can figure out where it is using DSMAC and other forums of internal guidance like GPS. They are primed and readied prior to being loaded.

Does Pakistan have the relay capabilities needed? Who can say? But Babur is equipped with systems like GPS, INS and TERCOM that should allow it to be launched and engage a target without needing to mod the submarines FCS.


.
Can they? Yes. Is it legal? Does it violate the purchasing agreement or void any aftermarket support? Most likely yes as well.

There are safeguards to prevent this type of tampering, but there are no absolutes and they can be overcome.

So I thought you weren't here on PDF...guess you're here but just mad at me then.

Hence the no replies.

 

[Peshwa]

So I thought you weren't here on PDF...guess you're here but just mad at me then.

Hence the no replies.

Aye! You wait your turn sir! The lady is busy educating me on SLCM's.

If you require the weapon to be hardlinked to the submarine, like Torpedo control wires which feed the torpedo midcourse updates and targeting info keeping their approach stealthy until they enter the terminal attack run, yes absolutely you'd need to modify the submarine's fire control system to accept the new weapon and allow it to talk with the torpedo.

I can't find any good pics of torpedo control wires, so here's one of the guidance section of a Russian UGST:

For SLCMs, typically you do want to be able to upload initial targeting information into them before launching, so they know what direction to travel in or so other assets don't need to act as a relay between the missile and its targeting info, but that's not strictly necessary.

An old Russian Cold War tactic was using naval aircraft as targeting relays. A submarine, like this Echo class guided missile boat would launch a cruise missile in a direction, often a direction spotted by naval aircraft like Tu-95 and an orbiting MPA or even another submarine or surface ship would then pickup the missile and guide it towards its target by providing updated directional input:

The TU-95F was capable of such targeting relay capabilities:

The missile didn't need targeting info pre-loaded into it by the submarine, it would be uploaded by other assets once in flight. The submarines were outfitted with their own FCS capable weapons though, since these were Russian boats using Russian weapons, and were fitted with their own sensors for independent targeting and operations:

They just weren't a necessity if coopting other assets.

Norway's Ula class submarine are being modified to fire the NSM, acting as a test-bed until the Ula replacement comes online in the mid-2020s. The Ulas themselves aren't likely to maintain the NSM in any operational capability. Their FCS is being modified to fire newer torpedoes, but isn't being modified to accommodate NSM because that's not needed:

To fire the NSM, the missile is encapsulated in a torpedo-esque shell, loaded into the tubes and launched just as any other torpedo would be. They can receive targeting info from other assets or automatically detect, ID, track and engage targets using a massive onboard library of Electronic, IIR and other spectrum signatures. It doesn't need to be told where to go by the submarine, other assets can tell it that for itself of it can figure out where it is using DSMAC and other forums of internal guidance like GPS. They are primed and readied prior to being loaded.

Does Pakistan have the relay capabilities needed? Who can say? But Babur is equipped with systems like GPS, INS and TERCOM that should allow it to be launched and engage a target without needing to mod the submarines FCS.



Can they? Yes. Is it legal? Does it violate the purchasing agreement or void any aftermarket support? Most likely yes as well.

There are safeguards to prevent this type of tampering, but there are no absolutes and they can be overcome.

I'm saving this response for posterity!
Very informative and to the point!
Glad to have a knowledgeable member like you in our midst!

 

[Armstrong]

Aye! You wait your turn sir! The lady is busy educating me on SLCM's.

SLC...what?

I dunno what that is but how about this instead?

 

[Peshwa]

SLC...what?

I dunno what that is but how about this instead?

God damn hippie! LOL!

Beautiful thought nonetheless, respect!

 

[SDS1]

Changing the topic eh?, how petty.
You said a ballistic missile, didn't specify single stage or anything else. Anyway, here is another video (posted originally by @Fenrir )of a single stage short range missile. And watch the video carefully, listen to the guy. Vertical drop means higher accuracy. Although this one has a range of 160km - 300km, but it falls in the same category. And if you still want to argue, just remember Nasr has shorter range which means it has less time and altitude to perform such complicated maneuver..just goes on to show the might of Pakistani ballistic missile program!

Not changing top, Just asking Physic logics

A) have you seen the smoke trail in the frame in which missile go haywire and Shoot up straight? can you explain that?

B) Missile you mentioned are longer range, achieve height to achieve to do that...... The missile we are taking about 60KM , what is max height will achieve? you have missile pic?

moreover , High speed camera only shows initial face launching of missile and High speed camera failed when missile is hitting target.

C) Do you have clear Video of the other missiles which is hitting target are seen clearly, rather then Grainy ?

Like you seen how other missiles seeing till last point hitting the target. While in your video , no one can identity the missile , other then steak white line if it real missile of just other projectile?

your high Speed camera capture missile at launch time but failed on impact. deliberate attempt?

 

[IceCold]

If you require the weapon to be hardlinked to the submarine, like Torpedo control wires which feed the torpedo midcourse updates and targeting info keeping their approach stealthy until they enter the terminal attack run, yes absolutely you'd need to modify the submarine's fire control system to accept the new weapon and allow it to talk with the torpedo.

I can't find any good pics of torpedo control wires, so here's one of the guidance section of a Russian UGST:

For SLCMs, typically you do want to be able to upload initial targeting information into them before launching, so they know what direction to travel in or so other assets don't need to act as a relay between the missile and its targeting info, but that's not strictly necessary.

An old Russian Cold War tactic was using naval aircraft as targeting relays. A submarine, like this Echo class guided missile boat would launch a cruise missile in a direction, often a direction spotted by naval aircraft like Tu-95 and an orbiting MPA or even another submarine or surface ship would then pickup the missile and guide it towards its target by providing updated directional input:

The TU-95F was capable of such targeting relay capabilities:

The missile didn't need targeting info pre-loaded into it by the submarine, it would be uploaded by other assets once in flight. The submarines were outfitted with their own FCS capable weapons though, since these were Russian boats using Russian weapons, and were fitted with their own sensors for independent targeting and operations:

They just weren't a necessity if coopting other assets.

Norway's Ula class submarine are being modified to fire the NSM, acting as a test-bed until the Ula replacement comes online in the mid-2020s. The Ulas themselves aren't likely to maintain the NSM in any operational capability. Their FCS is being modified to fire newer torpedoes, but isn't being modified to accommodate NSM because that's not needed:

I don't have a good pick of NSM-SL yet (actually a JSM, but marketed as NSM-SL), so here's an air-launched variant of the same missile:

To fire the NSM, the missile is encapsulated in a torpedo-esque shell, loaded into the tubes and launched just as any other torpedo would be. They can receive targeting info from other assets or automatically detect, ID, track and engage targets using a massive onboard library of Electronic, IIR and other spectrum signatures. It doesn't need to be told where to go by the submarine, other assets can tell it that for itself of it can figure out where it is using DSMAC and other forums of internal guidance like GPS. They are primed and readied prior to being loaded.

Does Pakistan have the relay capabilities needed? Who can say? But Babur is equipped with systems like GPS, INS and TERCOM that should allow it to be launched and engage a target without needing to mod the submarines FCS.



Can they? Yes. Is it legal? Does it violate the purchasing agreement or void any aftermarket support? Most likely yes as well.

There are safeguards to prevent this type of tampering, but there are no absolutes and they can be overcome.

Thanks for the detailed response. It should help lay rest to some of the absurd claims being made repeatedly just for the sake of it.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

Gracias Madame!
Appreciate your input!

Hope you got all you answers.

Ofcourse India is not confident in launching K4 (in development & experimental) missile from a submarine. That is the problem of developing things on own and buying stuff.

Again, Ford vs Merc went over your head. If you want to talk about Mustang, I would speak about AMG, not Merc. Please, focus when you refute.

False bravado? When spoken with range, EEZ zones, weapon systems used by OTHER nations?

So you do agree there are limited number of submarines to deploy. Now try to think what that means for other nations. Easier to track. Satellites and Planes are not for show.

But what you said is true. Pakistan will always strike first. Something Indian Government will count on.

Veering off topic.

If India cannot put together a workable and operational second strike capability, after all these years and with very active Russian, American and Israeli help, then there is something seriously wrong at the institutional level in India. In Pakistan, we dont believe in reinventing the wheel, we improve, innovate and make things better which saves us time, and more importantly the embarrassments.

A ford that can take me from A to Z is more valuable then a 1950s merc mounted on bricks with no tyres and engine.


You can build you strategies over lollypop that ISRP give you about the range of Babur 3. Yes officially its 450KM , just like Shaheen 3 was 2750km, not a single KM above that. Even at 450 KM, its more then enough to hit what is required of it.

Question you need to ask yourself, we have demonstrated our second strike capabilty with our subs, you dont even have a operation second strike capability. Three agosta 90Bs are more then enough to take care of India. And as I said that situation will drastically change after arrival of 8 Hangour class subs.

Already been done. You dont need to see nothing, it's been in weapon trials to fire out K-series. You didnt see the first 9+ test firing of the K15s, till the very last trials of it, doesnt mean it didnt happen.

http://www.spsnavalforces.com/exclusive/?id=197&h=Arihant-Successfully-Executes-Weapon-Ejection

There are questions mark over Indian claims of firing missiles from Arihant. Unless India can publically show that it achieved such feat, these claims will be at best for Indian public consumption. At a time, when Pakistan has publically demonstrated its second strike capability using a sub, Indians should be asking their government to come clean about the status of your nation capability.

For where do you think the video is taken?

Unfortunately, I wasn't involved in the planning of the Babur 3 test so I wont be able to entertain your question but how this is relevant?

 

[thesolar65]

Can someone tell when is the launch date for INS Aridhman, I mean 2nd Arihant?

 

[deckingraj]

There are questions mark over Indian claims of firing missiles from Arihant. Unless India can publically show that it achieved such feat, these claims will be at best for Indian public consumption. At a time, when Pakistan has publically demonstrated its second strike capability using a sub, Indians should be asking their government to come clean about the status of your nation capability.

Are you trolling or showing immense lack of knowledge?? Irrespective of the actual status why would anything like above would happen?? All of us can only make calculated guess..and that's the best we can go...If you believe India doesn't have a second strike capability then so be it...there are many apprehensions on India's nuclear tests as well...Now it is up to you(read adversary) to believe those apprehensions or India's official claim..no??

 

[Taimoor Khan]

Are you trolling or showing immense lack of knowledge?? Irrespective of the actual status why would anything like above would happen?? All of us can only make calculated guess..and that's the best we can go...If you believe India doesn't have a second strike capability then so be it...there are many apprehensions on India's nuclear tests as well...Now it is up to you(read adversary) to believe those apprehensions or India's official claim..no??

Sunshine, my argument are based on FACTS. Fact of the matter is that India has very openly, rather boosted about its test firing of missiles from submerged platforms (Static pontoons) . So there is no element of secrecy about Indian intents or program here. BUT for some very strange reason, never ONCE, India publically fired its missiles from its subs, any sub really!!

And yes as an adversary I will raise and put spanner in the works of Indian delusions. Thats my job as adversary. If your kind can go to lengths to prove the Babur 3 test was fake and how it changed it colour, I am actually raising a very valid point.

Ponder over it!