Pakistan to soon deploy a nasty surprise for Indian Aircraft Carriers.

[CalmDown@all_Dude]

i prove it no CM-400AKG is hyper-sonic,

when did u prove it Please define with source not with a doubt

and you started claiming that RV of Pakistan is just free fall warheads whereas my claim is they have self-course correction capability and keep a check on target using GPS, inertial navigation, and other methods

Sir INS is it self the Inertial Guidance: This system is totally contained within the missile and is programmed prior to launch. Three accelerometers, mounted on a platform space-stabilised by gyros, measure accelerations along three mutually perpendicular axes; these accelerations are then integrated twice, the first integration giving velocity and the second giving position. The system then directs the control system to preserve the pre-programmed trajectory. This systems are used in the surface-to-surface missiles and in cruise missiles.

MRV(MULTIPLE RE-ENTRY VEHICLE)and MIRV(MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT RE-ENTRY VEHICLE);
A multiple reentry vehicle payload for a ballistic missile deploys multiple warheads in a pattern against a single target (as opposed to multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle, which deploys multiple warheads against multiple targets). The advantage of an MRV over a single warhead is that the damage produced in the center of the pattern is far greater than the damage possible from any single warhead in the MRV cluster, this makes for an efficient area attack weapon. The number of warheads makes interception by anti-ballistic missiles unlikely.

Improved warhead designs allow smaller warheads for a given yield, while better electronics and guidance systems allowed greater accuracy. As a result, MIRV technology has proven more attractive than MRV for advanced nations. Because of the larger amount of nuclear material consumed by MRVs and MIRVs, single warhead missiles are more attractive for nations with less advanced technology. The United States deployed an MRV payload on the Polaris A-3, as did the Royal Navy with the Chevaline upgrade. The Soviet Union deployed MRVs on the R-36 Mod 4 ICBM
Even the Israeli ICBM is speculated not tested to be MIRV .
The precise technical details are closely guarded military secrets, to hinder any development of enemy counter-measures. The bus's on-board propellant limits the distances between targets of individual warheads to perhaps a few hundred kilometers. Some warheads may use small hypersonic airfoils during the descent to gain additional cross-range distance.

 

[The Accountant]

when did u prove it Please define with source not with a doubt

Sir INS is it self the Inertial Guidance: This system is totally contained within the missile and is programmed prior to launch. Three accelerometers, mounted on a platform space-stabilised by gyros, measure accelerations along three mutually perpendicular axes; these accelerations are then integrated twice, the first integration giving velocity and the second giving position. The system then directs the control system to preserve the pre-programmed trajectory. This systems are used in the surface-to-surface missiles and in cruise missiles.

MRV(MULTIPLE RE-ENTRY VEHICLE)and MIRV(MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT RE-ENTRY VEHICLE);
A multiple reentry vehicle payload for a ballistic missile deploys multiple warheads in a pattern against a single target (as opposed to multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle, which deploys multiple warheads against multiple targets). The advantage of an MRV over a single warhead is that the damage produced in the center of the pattern is far greater than the damage possible from any single warhead in the MRV cluster, this makes for an efficient area attack weapon. The number of warheads makes interception by anti-ballistic missiles unlikely.

Improved warhead designs allow smaller warheads for a given yield, while better electronics and guidance systems allowed greater accuracy. As a result, MIRV technology has proven more attractive than MRV for advanced nations. Because of the larger amount of nuclear material consumed by MRVs and MIRVs, single warhead missiles are more attractive for nations with less advanced technology. The United States deployed an MRV payload on the Polaris A-3, as did the Royal Navy with the Chevaline upgrade. The Soviet Union deployed MRVs on the R-36 Mod 4 ICBM
Even the Israeli ICBM is speculated not tested to be MIRV .
The precise technical details are closely guarded military secrets, to hinder any development of enemy counter-measures. The bus's on-board propellant limits the distances between targets of individual warheads to perhaps a few hundred kilometers. Some warheads may use small hypersonic airfoils during the descent to gain additional cross-range distance.

when did u prove it Please define with source not with a doubt

Sir INS is it self the Inertial Guidance: This system is totally contained within the missile and is programmed prior to launch. Three accelerometers, mounted on a platform space-stabilised by gyros, measure accelerations along three mutually perpendicular axes; these accelerations are then integrated twice, the first integration giving velocity and the second giving position. The system then directs the control system to preserve the pre-programmed trajectory. This systems are used in the surface-to-surface missiles and in cruise missiles.

MRV(MULTIPLE RE-ENTRY VEHICLE)and MIRV(MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT RE-ENTRY VEHICLE);
A multiple reentry vehicle payload for a ballistic missile deploys multiple warheads in a pattern against a single target (as opposed to multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle, which deploys multiple warheads against multiple targets). The advantage of an MRV over a single warhead is that the damage produced in the center of the pattern is far greater than the damage possible from any single warhead in the MRV cluster, this makes for an efficient area attack weapon. The number of warheads makes interception by anti-ballistic missiles unlikely.

Improved warhead designs allow smaller warheads for a given yield, while better electronics and guidance systems allowed greater accuracy. As a result, MIRV technology has proven more attractive than MRV for advanced nations. Because of the larger amount of nuclear material consumed by MRVs and MIRVs, single warhead missiles are more attractive for nations with less advanced technology. The United States deployed an MRV payload on the Polaris A-3, as did the Royal Navy with the Chevaline upgrade. The Soviet Union deployed MRVs on the R-36 Mod 4 ICBM
Even the Israeli ICBM is speculated not tested to be MIRV .
The precise technical details are closely guarded military secrets, to hinder any development of enemy counter-measures. The bus's on-board propellant limits the distances between targets of individual warheads to perhaps a few hundred kilometers. Some warheads may use small hypersonic airfoils during the descent to gain additional cross-range distance.

Whats the point of copy pasting internet based material ? what is your point here?

 

[CalmDown@all_Dude]

Just a question that we have rumours that Pakistan has access to Chinese satellites providing live image so how hard is it to identify a CBG in Indian ocean through live satellite imagery, provided that general location of the CBG will always be tracked by Pakistan in hostile situation ...

Anti-ship ballistic missiles are different them normal ballistic missiles which are destined to fixed place ... Pakistan's MRBM will take around 30 minutes from launch till impact ... so within that time where will your CBG can move while it is already established fact that we will be monitoring live feed from Chinese missile and off-course antiship missile will be with active seeker ... don't tell me you believe that an anti-ship missile will be without active seeker

You said that MRBM can go upto March 7 i.e. hypersonic ... and on the same basis you claim that there could not be any active seeker on that ... bravo ... then what the hell your DARDO and Russia are claiming with Brahmos 2 hypersonic Mach 6 plus anti-ship missile ?
So for you the martians tech is available whereas for others its an unachievable martian tech whereas 2 countries are already using these techs ...

ABout Mach 10 claim ,,, if you follow missile then you will know what are the general speed of solid fuel based MRBM ... ICBM can go even much higher speed somewhere around Mach 17 ... but my friend you have no knowledge on the field ...

Because we already have the capability to change our course correction ... If you see our warheads has capability to adjust it course at the reentry phase using GPS and inertial navigation ... Our deployed warhead already had the capability to track the fixed target and do the course adjustment

we cant aquire seeker tech ... Shaheen 1A is a dummy missile as for course correction we have removed fins but as per you our warheads are not capable of course correction which is the basic steps towards MIRV ...

So be happy go and sleep well ...

I changed it to track the "fixed target" ... That was comprehension mistake ... change course is if warhead will keep on checking its course with reference to fixed target and if require can change its course ...

Kindly though some light of DF21 and DF26 series along with Iranian anti-ship ballistic missile ... You keep in denial mode

I am not confused ... Where did I said that Pakistan has anti-ship ballistic missile capability ? I am just challenging your claim that no such technology exists ... Iran and China already have and Pakistan is working on it ...

I am just challenging your claim that no such technology exists

Go through all of them and u will know It very well What is the point actully

 

[The Accountant]

Go through all of them and u will know It very well What is the point actully

As stated earlier countering your argument that anti-ship ballistic missile cannot be achieved ... I never claimed that we have the capability ... I was talking about the capabilities we have that can be helpful in achieving anti-ship ballistic missile tech ... Quote one post where I said we have the capability now ...

You need to understand the difference in future tense and present tense ...

 

[indianfighter1999]

Indian Navy is like 1000 times more powerful than pn... hell even Indian navy has more sattelites than whole pakistani state lol

 

[kinsr]

How is Pakistan going to defend its coastal batteries against inland threats from India. A barrage Brahmos will take out largely all major radar installations. PN will be half blind already.

Now coming to AWACS, how good will be the detection ranges in a jamming prone environment. Other than that, the AWACS being a HVT will always be hounded by MKIs.

It's funny Pakistanis talk about 'saturation attack' , as the so called 'saturation attack' requires numbers. Numbers of fighters flying with a number of missiles. And neither of them comes cheap, even Chinese ones. Even if you acquired the numbers where would you store them as it requires specialized storage, which will further scale up the costs. And going by state of Pakistani economy, I find it hard to believe that Pakistan capable of acquiring the numbers unless, ofcourse, the Chinese are providing them for free, or the Pakistanis already started to redirect funds marked for CPEC.

 

[Dr Shaheryar]

Its funny how u mention that there will be saturated attacks on Pakistan. You forget our missiles can also penetrate in numbers. What will happen then. Oh sorry you are an Indian, you never think of someone firing back.

 

[kinsr]

Its funny how u mention that there will be saturated attacks on Pakistan. You forget our missiles can also penetrate in numbers. What will happen then. Oh sorry you are an Indian, you never think of someone firing back.

Instead of commenting on my capabilities kindly keep the discussion to the point I had raised.

Kindly point me to where I said a saturation attack on Pakistan. Probably you confused "a barrage" with a "saturation attack". I guess i should have a used "a volley" rather than "a barrage". Nonetheless, your shore based radars and missile batteries will be the first target in case of hostilities.

Of course you can fire all the subsonic stuff you want, but then again, how many? And I know your answer already, and that will be "We can fire enough to burn Indians" or something like that.

 

[Dr Shaheryar]

Useless commenting on you. As you will always say Indian bombs are Hanuman weapons. Nobody can touch them.

 

[kinsr]

Useless commenting on you. As you will always say Indian bombs are Hanuman weapons. Nobody can touch them.

As expected... [emoji4] [emoji4] [emoji4]

 

[War Thunder]

You did not answer my question, Typically all the MIRV enabled missiles are on ICBMs or long-range ballistic systems with a minimum strike range of over 6,000 km. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that Pakistan has developed an MIRV-enabled missile with a range of just over 2,000 km.

I love retards with absolutely no knowledge of how missiles and MIRV works and jumping up and down to support a delusional statement coming out of their own mind or wherever.

You do realize as long as a missile follows a standard Ballistic Missile Trajectory it can carry any number of warheads?

All MIRV enabled missiles don't have to be ICBM's....they happen to be ICBM's because the targets of their owner happen to be on the other side of the Globe...which is unlike Pakistan and indian situation.

Please for God sake get some knowledge and do some googling before posting a delusional statement to support a delusional argument...

Don't you know, a single tweet from PDF is meant to have Indians running for cover?

Bro, you are getting too technical with these clowns who just want to jump up and down so they can sleep comfortably in their beds without having to address the fact that their nation is an almost irrelevence now.

How are these einsteins planning on targeting a CBG in the open ocean that can travel at close to 30 knots?! ICBMs work against stationary targets but against a CBG they are next to useless. Pakistan doesn't even possess the space-based assets to locate an Indian CBG.

Since when did you need space based assets to detect a CBG or any Naval Grouping for that? what space assets existed in WWII?
And you do know things on the sea are much more easy to detect by land based and air based sensors these days even without space based assets, unlike back then.
Beside who told you Pakistan won't be sharing sensors with other countries like China or Saudi for example?


Every time you kids open your mouth with delusional tech talk...I just feel sorry for you

 

[Mrc]

Nonetheless, your shore based radars and missile batteries will be the first target in case of hostilities.

Nope... mobile batteries and radars won't be taken out ... houti rebels are still firing missiles 10 months after total air dominance by saudia.... f 15 eurofighters and tornadoes......

Dont argue in a fantasy world ... I would appreciate if you would improve your knowledge and contribute productively

 

[tarrar]

Pakistan has no choice but to acquire hardcore weapons to counter India & Pakistan has planned to all right so far & should continue to counter India in whatever way possible.

I am keen to know about the nasty surprise.

 

[.]

Damn not a single useful post in the first 13 pages.

In my opinion this is just a overhyped tweet , we all know the capabilities of a 10x economically capable country India.
IMO for Pakistan this is not happening anywhere after 2030 when SUPARCo gets the lift.
In the medium term if they lease Chinese satellites to safely track these carriers at sea then that's just wrong.
We shouldn't be asking others for our defence and this confidence in china has to stop we all know what they did in the kargil war which they never apologised about.