hacker J
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Messages
- 320
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
ok whatever makes you sleep better Btw Angi V isnt MIRV capable
yup not yet, at least on public paper.
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.
ok whatever makes you sleep better Btw Angi V isnt MIRV capable
Unfounded BS about MIRVs not being tested.2. No MIRV has been tested. Even Agni V is MIRV capable, but testing it with operatioal capability is entirely different thing.
HI @The DeterrentUnfounded BS about MIRVs not being tested.
High throw weight of Indian ballistic missiles is because of lack of sophisticated weapon design.HI @The Deterrent
Your remarks about A-5 are spot on. Dont mind the fan-boys though. The reason why I am writing this comment is simply because I believe MIRVs werent tested on the very first flight of ababeel. In all likelyhood, since it was the first pakistani vehicle with a 3rd liquid stage, they wanted to validate it--like how it is done anywhere else. More importantly they would like to validate the performance of bulged payload fairing in dynamic pressure region. For actually injecting the warheads into different trajectories, the bus needs to be put in different trajectories very precisely, a slight miss in the trajectory would mean the warheads would fall off the mark. Also since you know, warheads generally do not have any of their own rockets and are generally incapable of correcting their trajectories, hence the bus would need to be steered very very precisely. I am sure it would take Pakistan some more time to perfect it and actually try out some practical orbital maneuvers and injecting the warheads into different trajectories. But as soon as it is achieved, Pakistan would have a working MIRV capable system.
And yes, the nose cone shape of A-6 would change as you've pointed out, it will be more bell shaped than the current conical RV. Also the throw weight of A-6 would increase to a massive 3 tonnes! Which means A-6 would be able to impart required velocity and required angle at the required altitude to a 3tonnes payload-- thus ensuring a minimum range of 6000+ kms for the warheads.
Hi shaheen!High throw weight of Indian ballistic missiles is because of lack of sophisticated weapon design.
Sir if our planners could have understan then we would have been in a different situation ... infact our internal problems are partially being originated from same place ...I don't agree with that....
The second gravest threat to our security after internal issues is not India.... there is only one power in the world that can even think of war with an established nuclear state .... and it's not India ( sory to break Indian hearts here)
There is a fundamantal misunderstanding in your post. Our missiles are far far far far more advanced than anything the NORKs have. Ditto our warheads.What are the reasons?
Lack of funding or lack/limitations of Pakistan's technical/scientific/industrial knowledge and capable and a shortage of available qualified staff in the national institutions like NESCOM etc?
If a backwards, poor, and utterly isolated country with very limited industrial base (North Korea) can develop advance ICBMs with thermonuclear warheads on them, why can not Pakistan with bigger economy, larger population, more integration into global knowledge/scientific stream, and so on?
Asking from a purely technical/capability wise point of view. I know our strategic requirements would be very much different than NK's regime
@Hyperion @Oscar Your insights needed in this thread
With respect thats dead wrong. You are comparing a Mughal era cannon with a modern artillery piece and saying the former is better since its of a bigger Calibre.Since you compared Pakistan with North Korea here, I'll tailor my reply accordingly, comprising all major issues:
1. Lack of Intent:
US does not poses an existential threat to Pakistan. Despite what the people have been led to believe, Pakistani military (specifically the air force) still relies heavily on US , and considers the US as a partner. This does not means that the US is a good partner. But its nowhere close to being classified as nuke-able. Hence, there is no desire of effort to develop any kind of capability to target Continental United States.
OTOH, North Korea has a very bitter history with the US. To this date, US military runs drills with the South Koreans, practicing to decimated North Korean military. Hostile bases in South Korea, Japan, Guam etc and the CBGs pose a significant existential threat to North Korea, hence giving rise to a very strong motivation to deter the US directly on their own (previously USSR used to provide a nuclear umbrella).
2. Lack of Technical Support by Friendly Nations:
Despite the common belief, Pakistan only received Nodongs (Ghauris) and DF-11s (Ghaznavis) with complete ToT. Almost everything else has been developed using them as base technologies, and minimal support from China. And after the AQK fiasco, China almost permanently shut the doors on Pakistan as far as 'critical' technologies were concerned. Without such support, its extremely difficult to develop these technologies from scratch. It takes a LOT of time and money to develop mature & reliable systems like the G-5 have today. There is a reason why Pakistan is still stuck with the upgraded versions (Shaheen-III & Ababeel) of the baseline Shaheen-II. If it was that easy, Pakistan could have developed a new 2m diameter motor for Ababeel.
OTOH, North Korea has been receiving massive indirect technical aid from both Russia & China. Their nuclear physicists were trained in Russia. The present ICBMs, HS-12 & HS-14 (which took the world by surprise by being the first ICBMs to have successful flights), are propelled by 'illegally' obtained Soviet RD-250 engines developed by USSR- (now Ukraine)'s Yuzhmash for the R-36 ICBMs. The TELs are Chinese WanShan-series modified heavy movers for timber transport. One can lookup NK's solid fuel motor progress for comparison, which has only recently started in the form of PK-1 SLBM & PK-2 MRBM (of roughly 1000-1500km range), based on motors of Chinese JL-1 SLBM.
It is also important to mention here that North Korean ICBMs are liquid-fueled, which means they are highly efficient (i.e. higher ISPs of liquid engines), hence providing a 'fast-track' for developing long-range ICBMs. However this means that they require fueling prior to launch, therefore decreasing robustness. Furthermore, most nations developed thermonuclear capability within a decade of developing fission bombs, and as it is relatively easier to go from fission to fusion, it should be assumed that Pakistan also possesses provable thermonuclear devices awaiting full-scale tests.
3. Lack of Adequate Financial Resources:
Financial resources are often related directly with priorities, which in turn are decided by intents. In Pakistan, the current budget for development of strategic weapons and associated systems is a fraction of a fraction (yes thats fraction, twice) of the budget of the entire Pakistani military (yep, THAT small)...which is enough to keep India (the current & main existential threat) at bay. Surprisingly, Pakistan has cut a lot of corners to reduce costs, way more than expected. However, at present, Pakistan has no means to increase that budget by an amount (roughly by an order of magnitude) that would be adequate for developing ~10,000km range ICBMs.
OTOH, North Korea has been pouring massive resources (a significant percentage of their GDP) in the military and specifically nuclear & missile programs. This effort is directly driven by Kim's intent to develop a (somewhat) reliable deterrent. However, as a result you see an abysmal state of governance and poor conditions of the general public.
4. Inadequate Technical Infrastructure:
This is directly linked with intent and available financial resources, however there is no technical handicap or limitation in terms of design capability. The comparable North Korean infrastructure has been built by heavy funding and dependence on friendly nations, as stated above.
If ALL of these 'issues' (in quotation marks because the establishment does not believes they are issues) are addressed, Pakistan can also develop ICBMs capable of hitting continental United States.
No 2nd strike capability, US could nuke us and we wouldn't be able to harm them, you happy with that? We need a Samson option, if were going down were going to take you down as well.I think Pakistan has no need of ICBM because it has the only enemy in its neighbor which is totally in the range of exist MISSILES.
Well you can keep such assumptions to yourself. Its not like "Hey, lets put a 3-stage system together and fly it out to thousands of kilometers to check if the payload fairing works and third stage starts".The reason why I am writing this comment is simply because I believe MIRVs werent tested on the very first flight of ababeel. In all likelyhood, since it was the first pakistani vehicle with a 3rd liquid stage, they wanted to validate it--like how it is done anywhere else. More importantly they would like to validate the performance of bulged payload fairing in dynamic pressure region. For actually injecting the warheads into different trajectories, the bus needs to be put in different trajectories very precisely, a slight miss in the trajectory would mean the warheads would fall off the mark. Also since you know, warheads generally do not have any of their own rockets and are generally incapable of correcting their trajectories, hence the bus would need to be steered very very precisely. I am sure it would take Pakistan some more time to perfect it and actually try out some practical orbital maneuvers and injecting the warheads into different trajectories. But as soon as it is achieved, Pakistan would have a working MIRV capable system.
It is more of a choice-thing. Indian NCA & SFC don't seem to have a requirement for smaller/counter-force/tactical nukes. That might change soon.High throw weight of Indian ballistic missiles is because of lack of sophisticated weapon design.
Minimum trow weight is a ton. Meaning smallest Indian warhead weighs a ton.