Pakistan Shaheen 3 Can Hit Deep Inside India and Israel

[kaku1]

You should read this before posting anything

Actually there is

Have you ever read relative velocity?

 

[Ray_of_Hope]

Have you ever read relative velocity?

Please read the link which i had posted first

 

[kaku1]

Please read the link which i had posted first

Which link?

 

[Ray_of_Hope]

Which link?

http://www2.mae.ufl.edu/~uhk/ICBM.pdf

 

[kaku1]

http://www2.mae.ufl.edu/~uhk/ICBM.pdf

One question for you and for your PDF file.

You traveling in train, train running at 100 Kmph ( constantly) ,you throw the ball in front seat of yours.

And now train stop, you again throw the ball in front seat .

Did the range changes in both cases? If yes please explain.

 

[Ray_of_Hope]

One question for you and for PDF your file.

You traveling in train, train running at 100 Kmph ( constantly) ,you throw the ball in front seat of yours.

And now train stop, you again throw the ball in front seat .

Did the range changes? If yes please explain.

I had the same view as you have regarding this topic until @Sneaker provided me that PDF file yesterday.If someone can prove this wrong,I am ready to change my opinion too

 

[kaku1]

I had the same view as you have regarding this topic until @Sneaker provided me that PDF file yesterday.If someone can prove this wrong,I am ready to change my opinion too

Then you should change, your pdf never consider that, when a missile launch, it already have velocity of earth, and the missile propulsion system add velocity in V0.

 

[Ray_of_Hope]

Then you should change, your pdf never consider that, when a missile launch, it already have velocity of earth, and the missile propulsion system add velocity in V0.

OK.I`ll confirm it with my teacher

 

[RiazHaq]

#Pakistan successfully tests its first UCAV armed drone. Burraq fires, hits target with laser-guided missile Barq Pakistan’s first armed drone hits a bull's eye …


Pakistan’s first homegrown armed drone Friday successfully test-fired a laser-guided missile with a pinpoint precision, Samaa reported.

According to Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the military’s media wing, the indigenously developed advanced Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV) ‘Burraq’ armed with a new air-to-surface missile ‘Barq’, which means lightning, were tested at an undisclosed location Friday.

Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Raheel Sharif and other senior commanders were present onthe test site, said a tweet posted by DG ISPR Asim Bajwa.

After witnessing a successful test-fire, the COAS patted on the back of all the engineers/scientists who worked day in day out to stand Pakistan on the map of the developers of hi-tech UCAVs.

Bajwa quoted the army chief as terming it a great national achievement, which would help the armed forces rev up their anti-terror crackdown.

The drone, Burraq, which translates as "flying horse from the heavens" was jointly worked up by Pakistan Air Force (PAF) and the National Engineering and Scientific Commission (NESCOM), a civilian defence research and development organisation.

It is pertinent to note that United States has run a controversial drone programme against militant hideouts in northwestern tribal areas bordering Afghanistan since 2004.

Pakistan publicly opposes the missile strikes by US drones, terming them a violation of its territorial sovereignty and has long asked the US to give them the technology required to run their own programme.

Washington pressed Islamabad for years to wipe out the Islamist militant hideouts in the North Waziristan tribal area, which has long been a safe haven for Al-Qaeda and the homegrown Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) as well as foreign fighters such as Uzbeks and Uighurs.

Pakistan’s first armed drone hits a bull's eye

 

[Sneaker]

I had the same view as you have regarding this topic until @Sneaker provided me that PDF file yesterday.If someone can prove this wrong,I am ready to change my opinion too

The difference here is that the train is enclosed hence no external force acts on the ball (whole flight takes place with the system). The distances and time involved are so small that you can't possibly determine any change in range. Even throwing speed varies. Another difference is that ball is a non-powered flight. Hence the question is at best rhetorical and doesn't have any substance in it. Compare it with a bowler now.. can he bowl the ball at same speed standing still and running from a distance?

 

[RiazHaq]

Here's an Indian analyst's view of "The Consequences of a Pakistani Sea-Based Nuclear Second Strike Capability"

Last week, Franz-Stefan Gady provided a helpful round-up of the confusing evidence surrounding the existence of Pakistan’s sea-based second nuclear strike capability. Since 2012, when Pakistan created its Naval Strategic Force Command, there has been considerable concern, in India and elsewhere, that Pakistan is close to imminently operationalizing a sea-based second strike capability. Though analysts remain divided over the question of how far Pakistan has taken its sea-based deterrent (we know, for example, that Pakistan has neither the quantity nor quality of submarines to effectively implement this yet), it’s worth understanding the consequences of such a development on strategic stability in South Asia.

First, what we know now suggests that any Pakistani sea-based second strike capability will depend on a sea-launched variant of the Hatf-VII Babur cruise missile. The Hatf-VII, a medium-range subsonic cruise missile, tops out at a range of 700 km, meaning that a submarine-based launch system would need to operate in waters relatively close to the prospective enemy’s shores (in Pakistan’s case, India). This brings up a problem for Pakistan’s plans for a sea-based deterrent that more established nuclear powers with sea-based deterrents such as the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom haven’t faced. The credibility of a second strike capability lies in the difficult of detecting submarines carrying submarine-launch ballistic missiles. Undersea radars and other anti-submarine warfare techniques, already a major point of interest for the Indian armed forces, could undermine Pakistan’s sea-based deterrent.

Interestingly, this observation means that the actual specifications of the submarine being engineered for Pakistan’s sea-based deterrent, with the help of China, is less interesting than the actual delivery vehicle. Even if Pakistan manages to operate submarines on par with China’s Type 032 Qing-class or Type 041 Yuan-class, capable of launching longer-range land attack cruise missiles (a max range of 1,500 km), these missiles are only capable of being armed with “unitary tactical nuclear warheads,” according to globalsecurity.org – a far cry from the strategic nuclear deterrent necessary to credibly field a second strike capability. Experts note that Pakistan will need a submarine fleet comprising 14 vessels in order to keep one nuclear-armed sub on stand-by at all times. Back under Pervez Musharraf’s leadership, Pakistan planned to expand its fleet to 12 vessels.

Additionally, as Bruno Tertias noted in a thoughtful post over at the Lowy Interpreter last year, even if we generously acknowledge a credible strategic sea-based second strike capability to Pakistan, there is no reason to believe that conventional strategic stability logic would apply; i.e., sea-based second strike capabilities existing on both sides of the India-Pakistan nuclear balance would lead to better long-term stability.

Also worth noting is that currently, nuclear escalation in South Asia is not an entirely frictionless process given India’s mostly credible No First-Use doctrine and Pakistan’s claim that it keeps its warheads separated from its launchers (even though it maintains a First-Use policy for deterrent purposes). For a conflict across the Radcliffe Line to escalate into a full-blown strategic nuclear exchange, Pakistan’s National Command Authority (NCA) would have to explicitly authorize nuclear use. A Pakistani sea-based deterrent would make this traditional decoupling of warheads from launchers less viable and, as a result, make nuclear first-use by Pakistan more likely. Not only will this possibility cause Indian strategic planners to lose sleep, but it would draw considerable concern from the United States and other nuclear powers.


The Consequences of a Pakistani Sea-Based Nuclear Second Strike Capability | The Diplomat

 

[cloud_9]

"Pakistan Shaheen 3 Can Hit Deep Inside ......Israel"...............Did you hear that MEA and GoI?

 

[krash]

Yes and no. There are 2 effects 1 is increasing the range (due to earth's momentum) and 2 Decreasing range (due to earth's rotation). However, I think increase in range is always smaller than decrease in range (due to losses frictional and other losses) in eastward launch. Exact amount will be based on so many factors...


I would be if there was no atmosphere and other losses. But that is not the case in actual world.

Incorrect. That would only be the case if there were no gravity and hence no initial inertial velocity of the missile before being launched. Take for example a perfect ball which you toss it perfectly vertical in the air. Does it fall a little to the east of its launching point? Or does it fall directly back on the spot from where it was launched? The answer obviously is 'b'.

So the case of a missile launch on Earth has to be seen in isolation, as if the earth was standing still since the relative velocity of the missile and the Earth before the launch is zero.

 

[Sneaker]

Incorrect. That would only be the case if there were no gravity and hence no initial inertial velocity of the missile before being launched. Take for example a perfect ball which you toss it perfectly vertical in the air. Does it fall a little to the east of its launching point? Or does it fall directly back on the spot from where it was launched? The answer obviously is 'b'.

So the case of a missile launch on Earth has to be seen in isolation, as if the earth was standing still since the relative velocity of the missile and the Earth before the launch is zero.

Sorry. You were dead wrong here. Ball does land in a different position for all practical purpose. But if you are making some assumption like 1. No horizontal velocity component (that is, perfectly vertical) 2. No air/atmosphere/external force/internal forces 3. Uniform gravity, then yes, it will fall on same spot because of inertia. But sadly, these conditions are not true for a missile launch. Newton's 3rd law says object will maintain state of rest or uniform motion "until external force act" on the object. Missile has it's own power which constitutes that external force (along with atmosphere and other factors).

 

[krash]

Sorry. You were dead wrong here. Ball does land in a different position for all practical purpose. But if you are making some assumption like 1. No horizontal velocity component (that is, perfectly vertical) 2. No air/atmosphere/external force/internal forces 3. Uniform gravity, then yes, it will fall on same spot because of inertia. But sadly, these conditions are not true for a missile launch. Newton's 3rd law says object will maintain state of rest or uniform motion "until external force act" on the object. Missile has it's own power which constitutes that external force (along with atmosphere and other factors).

Obviously all those assumptions are made since none of them have anything to do with the earth's rotation or its movement through space. That is how you test anything, by keeping all the unrelated/external variables constant. Otherwise the probability of the ball landing a little to the west (against Earth's rotation), North, South or East of the launching point is exactly the same. When tasting a teaspoon of sugar you wouldn't mix it in a kilogram of coffee powder and then declare that the teaspoon of sugar is bitter not sweet.
.

1) Obviously it is. We are testing the effect of Earth's rotation and movement on a lofted object. I even said perfectly vertical. Introducing a horizontal force would end the experiment in a great big bowl of stupidity.

2) air/atmosphere/external force/internal forces have nothing to do with the Earth's rotation or movement and hence will always be kept constant, ideally at zero (except for gravity) in any credible experiment. The atmospheric pressure and air resistance will have no effect on the experiment whatsoever and I have no idea what you meant by the internal forces; the molecular forces in the ball will have nothing to do with the experiment.

3) The uniformity of gravity will not have any effect on a ball tossed vertically. On a moving missile the absence of uniformity in gravity will have the same effect on the missile whether its launched eastwards or westwards i.e. has nothing to do with the Earth's rotation and movement.


I still have no clue what your above post was about. Were we not discussing the effects or Earth's rotation and movement on a moving object?