Pakistan Affairs post about SHAHEEN 3 Range

[countryman]

Well, correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that solid fuel technology has advanced to a stage where some modern ICBMs actually employ solid fuel technology. Currently, liquid fuel makes sense for payloads of multiple tonnes or where the trajectory is extremely high. The NK Hwasong uses liquid fuel because of its lifted trajectory.

Yes, numerous high performing solid propellant are available now, even have replaced traditional solid fuel in short range and in several medium range missiles. Yet most ICBMs still use same old composite for first stage and boosters. US, Russia, China use/have used both solid and liquid propellants for ICBMs where first and second stage usually use solid propellant, later stages are seen to be varying however terminal one is usually liquid. You know, it is like RPG. Despite better and more accurate alternatives, it is still widely used. Though, in my view trajectory have nothing to do with fuel rather it is determined by the target, range and characteristics of missile you're firing

 

[CriticalThought]

Yes, numerous high performing solid propellant are available now, even have replaced traditional solid fuel in short range and in several medium range missiles. Yet most ICBMs still use same old composite for first stage and boosters. US, Russia, China use/have used both solid and liquid propellants for ICBMs where first and second stage usually use solid propellant, later stages are seen to be varying however terminal one is usually liquid. You know, it is like RPG. Despite better and more accurate alternatives, it is still widely used. Though, in my view trajectory have nothing to do with fuel rather it is determined by the target, range and characteristics of missile you're firing

Yes, combining the two fuel types opens up many interesting strategies. This is not my area of expertise, but if an expert were to write on the topic, it should make for very interesting reading.

@The Deterrent if you could write an article, or point me to material which I can summarize for you, it would be interesting information how various fuel types dictate the trajectory and range of rockets, and what end uses are obtained from them.

 

[Reichsmarschall]

شاہین میزائل@

 

[Safriz]

شاہین میزائل@

All I known is that with 5500 Km range Agni-5 has first stage burnout time of 89 seconds. With 9000 km range Minuteman version 1 had first stage burnout time of 59 seconds.
Agni 5 pays penalty of carrying a very heavy and very large warhead which is housed in a canopy 3 meters tall and 1.5 meters wide.
Shaheen -3 we see 57 seconds of first stage burning in the ISPR video and it is still burning when video ends, so chances are it burns for 60 seconds or more which is 2/3rd of Agni-5 first stage burnout time but with a much lighter and smaller in size warhead which is housed in a canopy 2 meters tall and 0.76 m wide.
Pakistani Ghauri missile carried a strategic yield warhead of 700 Kg and since then decades have passed and Pakistan must have improved. Agni-5 warhead weight is said to be 1.5 tons.
You are free to make your guess.

 

[The Accountant]

The time cannot be more right than now for us to change this policy. The adversary needs to understand what will happen if they try to force their will on us specially now that the cat is out of the bag.

I dont think so that its the right time ... we have shown some poor diplomacy infact no diplomacy at all ... lets try some diplomacy first and use missile testing as a last resort ... however capability must be aquired at any cost ...

 

[CriticalThought]

I dont think so that its the right time ... we have shown some poor diplomacy infact no diplomacy at all ... lets try some diplomacy first and use it as a last resort ... however capability must be aquired at any cost ...

We need some powerful, preemptive diplomacy to get nations in our favour so America doesn't form a coalition of willing/unwilling against us.

 

[countryman]

We need some powerful, preemptive diplomacy to get nations in our favour so America doesn't form a coalition of willing/unwilling against us.

We desperately need that but what option we have that can be utilized to achieve this?

 

[Ultima Thule]

Yes, numerous high performing solid propellant are available now, even have replaced traditional solid fuel in short range and in several medium range missiles. Yet most ICBMs still use same old composite for first stage and boosters. US, Russia, China use/have used both solid and liquid propellants for ICBMs where first and second stage usually use solid propellant, later stages are seen to be varying however terminal one is usually liquid. You know, it is like RPG. Despite better and more accurate alternatives, it is still widely used. Though, in my view trajectory have nothing to do with fuel rather it is determined by the target, range and characteristics of missile you're firing

only Russia and china have liquid fuel ICBM but china developing solid fuel ICBM to replace liquid ones, USA and Europe don't have liquid fuel ICBM yes liquid fuel can carry more warheads or weight but liquid fuel is a dangerous and unreliable systems liquid fuel missiles can't store fuel for indefinite time, fuel them at the launch, which takes several hours to complete and its a dangerous process, whereas solid fuel can fire at any time for their lifespan and highly reliable system

 

[The Accountant]

We desperately need that but what option we have that can be utilized to achieve this?

The only option we have is to put right people for the right job and not your chaha, mama taya on key positions ... a broad strategy and then power authority to those people to wxcute it with strong accountability ..

 

[Darth Vader]

https://www.facebook.com/

This is the video of North Korea's Hwasong-14 ICBM.
Note the first stage burning up in atmosphere as seen at 1 minute 6 seconds in the video, the white smoke trail.
Obviously the stage must have separated before 66 seconds . The moment when a rocket stage burns all fuel and gets separated is called "Burnout time".
On the other hand Pakistan's Shaheen-3 first stage burns for at least 57 seconds , may be 60 seconds.
Yet North Korean Missile is said to have a range of 7000+ Kilometers, but Pakistani missile as a range of just 2750 Kilometers?
Its another thing that North Korean missile is liquid fueled and has slower acceleration, Pakisani Shaheen-3 is solid fueled and accelerates much faster and has a higher speed than Hwasong-14 at first stage Burnout.
Other thing is Pakistani Shaheen-3 has a larger second stage and also carries a third stage.
North Korean Missile has only a second stage and no third stage.
Pakistani Missile's Warhead is much lighter than the one carried by North Korean missile, so they need much more energy to carry their warhead to target, ours need lesser energy.
For same amount of acceleration ours will go further.
But lets all say that Pakistani Shaheen-3 has a range of 2750 Kilometers and not a meter more


This is what it says please your opinion is needed @The Deterrent @Horus

and your source is Facebook post from a propaganda page

 

[countryman]

only Russia and china have liquid fuel ICBM but china developing solid fuel ICBM to replace liquid ones, USA and Europe don't have liquid fuel ICBM yes liquid fuel can carry more warheads or weight but liquid fuel is a dangerous and unreliable systems liquid fuel missiles can't store fuel for indefinite time, fuel them at the launch, which takes several hours to complete and its a dangerous process, whereas solid fuel can fire at any time for their lifespan and highly reliable system

Russia have mainly solid fuel ICBMs, however, there recent developments are hybrid. China have both solid fuel as well as liquid propellant ICBMs in inventory, however, they focused on solid fuel rocket motors in their recent development. You're right about US and France and difficulty in handling liquid propellant rockets but mono-propellants don't require such intensive procedure.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Russia have mainly solid fuel ICBMs, however, there recent developments are hybrid. China have both solid fuel as well as liquid propellant ICBMs in inventory, however, they focused on solid fuel rocket motors in their recent development. You're right about US and France and difficulty in handling liquid propellant rockets but mono-propellants don't require such intensive procedure.

But risk is high as compare to solid fuel missile

there recent developments are hybrid

are you talking about bus or something else? if you have some examples please share it to me thank you

 

[countryman]

The only option we have is to put right people for the right job and not your chaha, mama taya on key positions ... a broad strategy and then power authority to those people to wxcute it with strong accountability ..

Do you mean we've no options?

 

[Zarvan]

and your source is Facebook post from a propaganda page

I was just asking not mentioning anything

and your source is Facebook post from a propaganda page

Secondly when I bring a Military related news that doesn't mean I also know about the weapon and all the details of that weapon I just get the news and tell that

 

[Darth Vader]

I was just asking not mentioning anything


Secondly when I bring a Military related news that doesn't mean I also know about the weapon and all the details of that weapon I just get the news and tell that

There is a difference in News and Sharing Random posts From facebook Bud