Nirbhay: The most awaited cruise missile

[Sergi]

Due to change in indian war doctrine, Pakistan is focusing on tactical nuclear weapons than strategic one. That's why Bhrahmos can act as just like nirbhay tactical nuclear weapon. The weapons are developed according to doctrine. And Pakistan's weapons are mostly for defense purposes, minimum deterrence.

Indian Nuclear Doctorine:
India will not use nuclear weapons to attack any state it will only be used to counter attack ( No first use )Any use of Nuclear/Biological/Chemical weapon on Indian forces or civilians inside or outside the territory of Union of India will be responded by Massive nuclear counter attack by Indian Armed forces. India will not use Nuclear weopn against a non nuclear state.

 

[Bratva]

They need US satellites access to guide the missile in terrain hugging mode. Lets not talk about it !!

Just to brust your bubble, This year Babur test achieved 2 meter CEP without any Satellite guidance. DSMAC, TERCOM and INS guidance systems are used in Babur.

 

[peep]

Just to brust your bubble, This year Babur test achieved 2 meter CEP without any Satellite guidance. DSMAC, TERCOM and INS guidance systems are used in Babur.

sorry to say but there was no bubble in first place.. Check OrionHunter's post. I have thanked him for the info which explained TERCOM..

 

[kṣamā]

Well Pakistan has a "nuke" even for this missile ...

Nuclear-Capable Nasr tactical weapon system of Pakistan Army ..

What makes you think that Pakistan won't have a 'nuke' for a missile as big as Babur? People who are "insiders" have repeatedly told posters that Pakistan has been focusing , for years now , on "small" , "tactical", "battle-field" nuclear-weapons that would be used against Indian Forces on Pakistani land...So yes , I will obviously believe that Babur is indeed nuclear-capable...and Nasr too ...

That is Pakistan's strategy...and a wise one.... Pakistan WILL incinerate Indian conventional superiority by using these 'low-yield' nuclear weapons on the battle-field , if the push really comes to shove...

Hope such situation never arises though...

Here is some insight in Pakistan's evolving tactical nuclear doctrine ... (Remember , Pakistan also maintains the strategic doctrine of 'first-strike' on enemy) ...

Pakistan has developed smartest nuclear tactical devices

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 ?

 

[Safriz]

Don't tell me dude, u pakistanisgive an argument just for the sake of it no logic no brains into what ur saying, bus mooh khola aur gobar..
No safety into making nuclear weapons?? Diwali ke phatake hein kya?? What if there is some difficultly in the missile u launch which burst mid air over ur territory ??

Btw I don't think india or pakistan has still the capability of assembling a nuke of 250 kg or less to fit in their respective cruise missiles, never the less pakistan might have 4-5 of them offshelf from the chinese

I wont argue such a useless comment..
Your name should be "WTF" not "WHF"

 

[Dillinger]

You are comparing two totally different technologies...
One needs all the safety in the world as it has to generate electricity and humans working around it..
The other has to go kaboom....not much safety needed..
So yes pakistan has been buiding miniature nuclear warheads which is not a cutting edge technology..its 1950 tech.

He is correct on this point, miniaturization of warheads is a process that all nuclear states eventually succeed in doing on the other hand building a safe civilian nuclear reactor is quite a different challenge. One must also see this in context of the budget constraints that Pakistan faces, it is only natural for them to invest in enhancing their nuclear weapons capability at the moment at the cost of a massive civilian nuclear facilities buildup- the kind which India is pursuing. Whatever one may say about it, the Pakistani planners are doing what they assess to be required for maintaining a rough parity with India in a defensive posture- and so far they have been successful. Point to concede, be it US aid or Chinese help the Pakistani's have heavily relied upon the realist paradigm to build up their defenses (whether their threat perception is justified or not is not even relevant, that is something that Pakistan as a nation is free to decide/contemplate upon- it is naive to think that their planners and strategists are not doing their job properly) and are doing the best they can given the circumstances.

With the induction and testing of the Prahaar and the Nasr BRBM/TCBM systems both countries have already demonstrated that they indeed do have the capability to develop and produce miniaturized warheads- which as Safriz pointed out is not exactly as cutting edge as people deem it to be- if anything posters should refer to papers written by the likes of Andre Gsponer and Jean-Pierre Hurni to understand the concept and technicalities behind such a process (in fact one of their papers even directly talks of the Indian nuclear weapons program in part)- these tactical warheads have so far not been tested specifically or repeatedly and that is a whole different matter but I will concede that till a battery of tests is conducted we may not be able to tweak and/or ascertain all the parameters involved.

 

[Emmie]

They need US satellites access to guide the missile in terrain hugging mode. Lets not talk about it !!

Seriously you shouldn't post comments at-least in this thread, considering your info it looms you have no clue whatsoever how cruise missile are operated..

On topic - Good for India, I wish ya guys all the very best.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Hmmm.... interesting phrasing- "stated" part is most curious, could give credence to those who have claimed the official range is much less than the actual range but played down for political reasons.

The BrahMos supersonic cruise missile has a stated range of 290 km.

 

[aboutimeee]

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 ?

Pretentious much?

W33 - American nuclear artillery shell with a diameter of 8 inch. ---> First produced in 1957
W48 - American nuclear artillery shell with a diameter of 6.1 inch. ---> First produced in 1963.
thats about this much
I....................................................................................................................I

This is 2012 by the way, over half a century on...

 

[faithfulguy]

Pretentious much?

W33 - American nuclear artillery shell with a diameter of 8 inch. ---> First produced in 1957
W48 - American nuclear artillery shell with a diameter of 6.1 inch. ---> First produced in 1963.
thats about this much
I....................................................................................................................I

This is 2012 by the way, over half a century on...

Back then, US can perform as much nuclear tests as it desires. Nowadays, countries cannot perform any more nuclear tests.

 

[kṣamā]

Pretentious much?

W33 - American nuclear artillery shell with a diameter of 8 inch. ---> First produced in 1957
W48 - American nuclear artillery shell with a diameter of 6.1 inch. ---> First produced in 1963.
thats about this much
I....................................................................................................................I

This is 2012 by the way, over half a century on...

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.

 

[Icewolf]

Great nice job India

 

[IndoUS]

Back then, US can perform as much nuclear tests as it desires. Nowadays, countries cannot perform any more nuclear tests.

And this is one thing I never understood why can't countries who are already in possession of nuclear weapons can't test them underground.

 

[sexy gun]

And this is one thing I never understood why can't countries who are already in possession of nuclear weapons can't test them underground.

1. They loose the moral ground to finger in other's affairs ( read IRAN )

2. Other nuclear/non-nuclear nations will create a ruckus and make that country a pariah !!

 

[david blain]

Is babur a Loitering missile ?