Pakistan to show missile muscle

[maximuswarrior]

Since amount of black mailing from US a country faces is inversely proportional to range of it missiles ... I think we should test longer range missiles as well

Make no mistake. The long range missile will be tested. It is only a matter of time. Once Pakistan feels the need it will be done.

 

[WaLeEdK2]

not a single hit the target ...

You think that they were supposed to take down the flags? lol desperation. U can easily tell the first two missiles were targeting the flags farther behind and came close. The last one was right closer and came near the flags.

 

[maximuswarrior]

I never thought i would agree would you but surprise surprise i cant agree more. Though @The Deterrent disagrees but I have always advocated for Pakistan to develop an ICBM just in case shit hits the fan and it will some day considering how close US and India are getting and few paid lawmakers gunning for Pakistan's blood every now and than.

Just because we haven't officially announced our ICBM capability doesn't mean we don't have one. In the past, Pakistan has refrained from announcing this capability for obvious reasons, but there has been suspicion from our enemies on the development of this capability. Once a country possesses a matured missile program long range missiles are just a matter of formality. This is common knowledge. There is no doubt that Pakistan's next big achievement in its missile program is the official announcement of a long range missile. Pakistan will only announce the capability once the time is right. Pakistan won't compromise on its security and the world is changing rapidly. Long range missiles are an essential part of our security. They will be the ultimate seal alongside second strike capability.

 

[The Deterrent]

We are being made Mamoo for long time.

The Booster i noticed here was also noticed in 2013. But range increment only announced now.
This pic is from 2013 and booster visible.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/505704/pakistan-test-fires-hatf-ix-missile-ispr/

It's not a booster! Why would you need a booster when the main motor is good enough?

It's most probably one of the supports present between the canister and the missile, near the tail. For reference, see the pic below. Notice that there are too many of them in this case because C-602 is not a perfect cylinder. Also for C-602, most of them lie in the mid section. They're easily visible because they are ejected earlier along with the mid section.

 

[ShoutB]

You think that they were supposed to take down the flags? lol desperation. U can easily tell the first two missiles were targeting the flags farther behind and came close. The last one was right closer and came near the flags.

I think the flag was the target and point zero by this they were measuring the CEP.

So the CEP is close to 10 meters for Nasr 60km range missile.

This is bad.

 

[Safriz]

It's not a booster! Why would you need a booster when the main motor is good enough?

It's most probably one of the supports present between the canister and the missile, near the tail. For reference, see the pic below. Notice that there are too many of them in this case because C-602 is not a perfect cylinder. Also for C-602, most of them lie in the mid section. They're easily visible because they are ejected earlier along with the mid section.

I guess you are referring to skates which are used when launcher is not using a rail.

 

[maximuswarrior]

I think the flag was the target and point zero by this they were measuring the CEP.

So the CEP is close to 10 meters for Nasr 60km range missile.

This is bad.

LOL look at this Indian monkey acting like a precision expert.

 

[Army research]

I think the flag was the target and point zero by this they were measuring the CEP.

So the CEP is close to 10 meters for Nasr 60km range missile.

This is bad.

I'll give you the benefit of doubt and consider you're not trolling, basically what nasr is it's like a weapon delivery system. Say a nuke on it with destruction radius of 5 km or 10 idk how much a tactical nuke has basically it's supposed to take out an armoured battlegroup, so even if it hits 15-10 metre away from a flag (target set popping) it won't really matter. However a missile like brahmos or Pakistan's (Chinese made) C802, both precision hitting targets with damage radius of a few metres (anti ship missiles ) need to hit the target at the pin point target. If you have any other doubt feel free to ask me directly. If you randomly say something bad about a national pride people get crazy and sometimes people just don't know

 

[Army research]

Hey The Deterrent,

As you might know if you recognize me, I'm more knowledgeable about naval systems then I am Army weapons, but I've wondered something about NASR - is its tactical nuclear warhead still the best choice for anti-armor roles? 5 kilotons isn't a large warhead, being 1/3 the size of the Upshot Grabble test:

With modern MBTs being designed with overpressure systems and NBC protection, the residual radiological effects aren't a mojor impediment to an armored thrust anymore, thought the initial blast and radiological burst will cause damage and score kills depending on how tightly packed the armor is. I previously did a post on a 23 kiloton blast and its effects on armor, but NBC protection-void warships here - https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/paki...-2-cruise-missile.466682/page-19#post-9012453

Given the cost of production, maintenance and security for nuclear weapons, and the sophistication and lethality of modern anti-armor artillery rockets like the Sense and Destroy Armor round (basically a rocket launched CBU-105) for the M270 MLRS, are tactical nukes still the most effective means of countering armor?

China has its own SADARM projectile as well.

While I don't doubt the effectiveness of tactical nuclear weapons I am more skeptical of their value verse alternative counter-armor, counter-mass assault weapons like a SADARM.

I don't know if this answers you're question, but nasr has four missiles in on one vehicle ready to launch and there won't be one launcher so probably a salvo of small nukes, apart from the initial kills , personal opinion might be wrong , the radiation even if it doesn't destroy all the tanks might
1) give pak edge in numbers to destroy their MBT
2) every armoured thrust needs infantry to catch up with it to utilize the gains. The armour might enter urban centres but learning from history, without infantry armour can be countered by enemy infantry anti tank groups. One might argue that IFV and APC with NBC can't over come this however these cannot carry enough numbers to fully capture an important urban centre as cold start doctrine dictates , two they might also not be as effective in doing this as mbts
3)radiation even if it doesn't destroy enemy forces, safe in NBC protected vehicles , would make those paths inaccessible by supply columns and a large armoured thrust , would need Alot of fuel which cannot be delivered by air, and since PAF won't have air superiority to target supply columns like IAF, radiation would literally be a wall for supply to pass through

 

[ShoutB]

I'll give you the benefit of doubt and consider you're not trolling, basically what nasr is it's like a weapon delivery system. Say a nuke on it with destruction radius of 5 km or 10 idk how much a tactical nuke has basically it's supposed to take out an armoured battlegroup, so even if it hits 15-10 metre away from a flag (target set popping) it won't really matter. However a missile like brahmos or Pakistan's (Chinese made) C802, both precision hitting targets with damage radius of a few metres (anti ship missiles ) need to hit the target at the pin point target. If you have any other doubt feel free to ask me directly. If you randomly say something bad about a national pride people get crazy and sometimes people just don't know

I am not talking about what type of payload it takes. I am simply saying, if a 50-60km range multi barrel rocket launcher is to be designed, it will derive from the same technology which Nasr uses. It would rather be inferior in technology.

In such case if the guidance is having 10-15 meter CEP then it will miss all it's target.

I hope now it's easier to understand what I am trying to point out.

 

[Army research]

I am not talking about what type of payload it takes. I am simply saying, if a 50-60km range multi barrel rocket launcher is to be designed, it will derive from the same technology which Nasr uses. It would rather be inferior in technology.

In such case if the guidance is having 10-15 meter CEP then it will miss all it's target.

I hope now it's easier to understand what I am trying to point out.

Ah but this is an indigenous system with probably not sophisticated targeting equipment like INS/GPS or lazer, and even for a multi barrel , these missiles are high caliber , much more destructive than 122 mms, even if they hit 10 metre away from a tank, the sheer kinetic energy can topple or destroy a tank. If you're talking about developing precision multi barrels , those are completely different things which just need smart mention ie guided missiles

 

[HRK]

even if they hit 10 metre

10 meter is equivalent to 32 or 33 feets

plz don't fall for the bait he is playing his troll game, so plz don't entertain him or other members like him. I would ask you to watch the video again CEP of NASAR missile is good in fact very good.

 

[Army research]

10 meter is equivalent to 32 or 33 feets

plz don't fall for the bait he is playing his troll game, so plz don't entertain him or other members like him. I would ask you to watch the video again CEP of NASAR missile is good in fact very good.

Yeah I know, I was just enlightening him on the fact that even for non nuclear , a large missile like nasr even if 15 metre away would decimate a tank, I know that it's CEP is much less than 10

 

[ShoutB]

Ah but this is an indigenous system with probably not sophisticated targeting equipment like INS/GPS or lazer, and even for a multi barrel , these missiles are high caliber , much more destructive than 122 mms, even if they hit 10 metre away from a tank, the sheer kinetic energy can topple or destroy a tank. If you're talking about developing precision multi barrels , those are completely different things which just need smart mention ie guided missiles

I have till now literally not understood why did they even build it.
They knew that if they launch this missile India will retaliate with full force. Then what would be the benefit of using it? Whether they stop an advancing army or not, it won't make any difference after that.

Now the problem is they can't use it as MBRL because one may take it as a nuclear threat and may retaliate.

Coming to CEP of MBRL is very close to zero in case of Nasr it is clearly visible 8-9m. It may fall on some house nearby tank.

 

[Safriz]

Hey The Deterrent,

As you might know if you recognize me, I'm more knowledgeable about naval systems then I am Army weapons, but I've wondered something about NASR - is its tactical nuclear warhead still the best choice for anti-armor roles? 5 kilotons isn't a large warhead, being 1/3 the size of the Upshot Grabble test:

With modern MBTs being designed with overpressure systems and NBC protection, the residual radiological effects aren't a major impediment to an armored thrust anymore, they've been designed with radiological and nuclear device protection in mind, especially Russian and Western designs where the threat of tactical nukes was present on the hypothetical Eastern Europe arena, thought the initial blast and radiological burst will cause damage and score kills depending on how tightly packed the armor is.

I previously did a post on a 23 kiloton blast and its effects not on armor, but NBC protection-void warships here - https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/paki...-2-cruise-missile.466682/page-19#post-9012453

Given the cost of production, maintenance and security for nuclear weapons, and the sophistication and lethality of modern anti-armor artillery rockets like the Sense and Destroy Armor round (basically a rocket launched CBU-105) for the M270 MLRS, are tactical nukes still the most effective means of countering armor?

China has its own SADARM projectile as well.

While I don't doubt the effectiveness of tactical nuclear weapons I am more skeptical of their value verse alternative counter-armor, counter-mass assault weapons like a SADARM. I suppose tacking into account the value of a potential for a nuclear counter value strike is also an important part of the analysis though.

You do realize that any nuclear weapon below 10 Kt is essentially a Neutron bomb as most of it's high energy neutrons will escape because such weapons don't have outer dense uranium casing. The escaping high energy neutrons can be increased by introducing a fusion stage in the device and the weapon will spend more than 60% of it's energy in neutron production. Thats a Neutron bomb whcih is Nasr warhead.
It' snot designed to destroy Armour vehicles but to disable the man and machine by Neutron radiation.