Pakistani ICBM

[maximuswarrior]

Sooner or later Pakistan will be forced to show its ICBM it's inevitable

No doubt. In the jungle you gotta have all the tools to survive. ICBM is inevitable. We may not need an awful lot, but we need them regardless. It is an insurance policy. You always gotta have one.

Its not only about international pressure or resources. There is no requirement for the damn thing (a 5500km range ICBM). The patriots bleeding green and chanting about evil Muricans need to realize that for them you need a 10,000km+ class ICBM, for which we have no resources, unless they turn Pakistan into North Korea.

Pakistan's all current and foreseeable threats are addressable by 4000km-range system.

Our ICBM shouldn't be country specific.

We have much more effective means of tackling the Muricans. 17 years prove this without a shadow of a doubt.

In my opinion Pakistan should go the SLV route to test its ICBM capability without stirring the hornet's nest. They will get the message and so will we.

 

[waz]

I agree with the many posts on here asking for an SLV test. ICBM tests are not needed, a SLV sends the message in a passive aggressive way.

 

[The Deterrent]

'Capability' can be demonstrating by start testing SLVs. This will be a good alternative indication to icbm capability.

In my opinion Pakistan should go the SLV route to test its ICBM capability without stirring the hornet's nest. They will get the message and so will we.

I agree with the many posts on here asking for an SLV test. ICBM tests are not needed, a SLV sends the message in a passive aggressive way.

It is a misconception that a purpose-designed SLV can be readily used as an ICBM (or any BM). The payload capability and launch readiness are major factors preventing such dual-use. The SLV (that Pakistan will develop) will be focused towards its purpose, i.e. efficient payload delivery to orbit. This means that it will be liquid-fueled, multi-staged, heavier than anything developed before (>50tons, <300kg payload to LEO), immobile, unprotected, very complicated by design and will require days or even weeks to prepare before a launch. Even India will be able to spot and take out such a monstrosity in a hypothetical event of war, let alone our friends in the West.

People need to realize the difference between technology applications, and consider implementation complexities before making sweeping abstract statements like it is 'basically turning a screw away from an ICBM'. A clear example is the ISRO's first SLV, that delivered <50kg payloads to orbit and was modified later to develop the Agni TD (and later Agni-II) missile. The effective range of Agni-II, with an RV payload of 1000kg, was reduced to 2000km.
Since the early 1990s, ISRO has been launching 1000kg payloads to SS-LEO using the PSLV-G. Did that mean India had ICBM capability at that time? Furthermore, a PSLV launched 3 satellites in different orbits in 1999. Did that mean India had achieved MIRV capability?
No.

It is actually the ICBMs that can be converted to SLVs with minor modifications. Examples include Russian Dnepr SLV (derived from R-36 aka SS-18) and US Minotaur-IV SLV (derived from Peacekeeper). Pakistan can today put a <50kg satellite in LEO using a slightly modified Shaheen-3 as an SLV. Does that mean that Pakistan has an ICBM? No, because such payloads (~100kg on ballistic trajectory) are meaningless for strategic purposes, as Re-entry Vehicles containing nuclear warheads weigh several times as much.

SLVs send no messages.

A useful program Pakistan can work on is rebuilding its Shorter Range Missiles like Shaheen 1A with modern materials. Its a 12 meter long 1 meter diameter single stage missile. If its casing was made with modern a carbon casing and used modern propellants, an externally similar missile could have 2-3 times the range as before.

Then adding in the Chevlaine decoy enhanced warhead or Boost Glide warhead for dodging enemy ABM systems can really make a small very mobile system even more deadly. India wouldn't be sure with the system was a regular Shaheen 1A or an enhanced version. Then building 50-100 of thee missiles would tie up their intelligence agencies chasing to make sure they can do a successful counter-force first strike.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaheen-I

To Visualize What this missile would look like the exact same dimension 39 feet long and 40 inches diameter look at the cancelled US KEI missile. This is the exact same dimensions as the Shaheen 1A and you can see where Pakistan can really go with modern materials and propellants, and was turned into a 2 stage missile.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/images/kei-sm3-image01.jpg

The Shaheen 1 only has an apogee of 100 km.
http://www.astronautix.com/s/shaheen1.html

While the KEI, altough an interceptor has an apogee as best as i can determine of 700-750 km per this graphic (Someone can correct me if i'm wrong)
https://www.nap.edu/openbook/13189/xhtml/images/p27-01.jpg
mass is only 7500kg
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/ant...allistic-missiles-ii-20-638.jpg?cb=1439480678

more information:
https://www.tonyrogers.com/weapons/kinetic_energy_missile_interceptor.htm

Its advanced propellant allows it to reach 6 km/sec speed after only a 60 second burn up to an apogee of 700-750 km; or fast enough to intercept an ICBM.
Range if turned into a ballistic missile could be 2200-2400 km. (I'm not a rocket scientist so someone will have to check the math).

Here is the calculator I used
http://www.convertalot.com/ballistic_trajectory_calculator.html

Also its 1 meter diameter makes it perfect to be turned into a SLBM for the PN.
BTW the following video can show you what a Canistered KEI version of the Shaheen 1A would look like

Great suggestions, however in case you didn't notice, Shaheen-IA is already what you're proposing. Its essentially an upgraded Shaheen-I using some of the technologies you mentioned. It is not practical to upgrade it further.

Regarding KEI, you're not factoring in for the payload. KEI has a very small payload, as its purpose is kinetic impact. If you add a realistic RV payload (~500kg), the calculated range will decrease dramatically.

 

[amardeep mishra]

It is a misconception that a purpose-designed SLV can be readily used as an ICBM (or any BM). The payload capability and launch readiness are major factors preventing such dual-use. The SLV (that Pakistan will develop) will be focused towards its purpose, i.e. efficient payload delivery to orbit. This means that it will be liquid-fueled, multi-staged, heavier than anything developed before (>50tons, <300kg payload to LEO), immobile, unprotected, very complicated by design and will require days or even weeks to prepare before a launch. Even India will be able to spot and take out such a monstrosity in a hypothetical event of war, let alone our friends in the West.

People need to realize the difference between technology applications, and consider implementation complexities before making sweeping abstract statements like it is 'basically turning a screw away from an ICBM'. A clear example is the ISRO's first SLV, that delivered <50kg payloads to orbit and was modified later to develop the Agni TD (and later Agni-II) missile. The effective range of Agni-II, with an RV payload of 1000kg, was reduced to 2000km.
Since the early 1990s, ISRO has been launching 1000kg payloads to SS-LEO using the PSLV-G. Did that mean India had ICBM capability at that time? Furthermore, a PSLV launched 3 satellites in different orbits in 1999. Did that mean India had achieved MIRV capability?
No.

It is actually the ICBMs that can be converted to SLVs with minor modifications. Examples include Russian Dnepr SLV (derived from R-36 aka SS-18) and US Minotaur-IV SLV (derived from Peacekeeper). Pakistan can today put a <50kg satellite in LEO using a slightly modified Shaheen-3 as an SLV. Does that mean that Pakistan has an ICBM? No, because such payloads (~100kg on ballistic trajectory) are meaningless for strategic purposes, as Re-entry Vehicles containing nuclear warheads weigh several times as much.

SLVs send no messages.



Great suggestions, however in case you didn't notice, Shaheen-IA is already what you're proposing. Its essentially an upgraded Shaheen-I using some of the technologies you mentioned. It is not practical to upgrade it further.

Regarding KEI, you're not factoring in for the payload. KEI has a very small payload, as its purpose is kinetic impact. If you add a realistic RV payload (~500kg), the calculated range will decrease dramatically.

Hi @The Deterrent
As a research student in Aerospace Engineering, I must admit, your points are spot on and you have clearly demonstrated why it is not possible to create an ICBM out of SLVs anymore--especially in this age of satellites orbiting all the time. I might disagree with you on a host of issues, but this one is absolutely spot on. What a lot of Pakistanis fail to realize is that ICBMs!=SLVs. For an SLV, the requirement is more towards efficiency and cost and since liquids (cryo, semi cryo, hypergolic: in decreasing order of ISPs) are more efficient than solids, it makes more sense to use them to place a heavier payload into orbit. In ICBM you need to be able to launch at a short notice with compact footprint of the missile. Solids offer not only higher thrust vis a vis liquids but also can be easily stored for prolonged period of time. Apart from quick reaction, ICBM need to have compact footprint which is much more difficult to achieve. Miniaturization is the key. In my opinion, Pakistan should first try to optimize the existing designs than working on ICBMs. There are various areas where Pakistan can actuallly improve like for instance-
(a) More efficient solid propellants.
(b) Lesser divergence losses at the nozzle: present gen of Pakistani strategic missiles have much higher nozzle divergence losses compared to similar Indian system. A cursory look at the divergence losses of Shaheen 3 and comparing it with Agni-2/4/5 would explain what I am saying.
(c) Complete thrust vectoring.
(d) Use of composites instead of maraging steel to make the missile lighter.
(e) MEMs based IMU package thereby reducing the weight of RV electronics.
(f) Letting go of the truss structure separating the stages.
(g) Cannisterization of shaheen-3

 

[Maxpane]

WASHINGTON - US National Director of Security Daniel Coats in his remarks before the Senate committee had said: “We remain concerned about Pakistan’s continued development control of nuclear weapons,” but did not express any concern about India’s nuclear programme, although the report notes that India had, in 2018, conducted its first deployment of a nuclear-powered submarine armed with nuclear missiles.

READ MORE:PM Imran Khan takes important financing decision of Naya Pakistan Housing Programme
The 2019 report mentions that “Pakistan continues to develop new types of nuclear weapons, including short-range tactical weapons, sea-based cruise missiles, air-launched cruise missiles, and longer range ballistic missiles.”

A 2016 Harvard Kennedy report on prevention of nuclear terrorism states that India’s nuclear security measures “may be weaker than those of Pakistan”.


READ MORE:Supreme Court announces verdict in the Aasia Bibi review petition
However, the risk of theft across the border “appears to be moderate”, while in Pakistan it “appears to be high”.

The overall threat from weapons of mass destruction is expected to continue growing in 2019, according to the US threat report, which claims that Pakistan and India’s growing nuclear arsenals “increase the risk of a nuclear security incident in South Asia”.

READ MORE:Pakistan PM Imran Khan is all praise for China's Xi Jinping
It adds that new types of nuclear weapons “will introduce new risks for escalation dynamics and security in the region”.

 

[IceCold]

WASHINGTON - US National Director of Security Daniel Coats in his remarks before the Senate committee had said: “We remain concerned about Pakistan’s continued development control of nuclear weapons,” but did not express any concern about India’s nuclear programme, although the report notes that India had, in 2018, conducted its first deployment of a nuclear-powered submarine armed with nuclear missiles.

READ MORE:PM Imran Khan takes important financing decision of Naya Pakistan Housing Programme
The 2019 report mentions that “Pakistan continues to develop new types of nuclear weapons, including short-range tactical weapons, sea-based cruise missiles, air-launched cruise missiles, and longer range ballistic missiles.”

A 2016 Harvard Kennedy report on prevention of nuclear terrorism states that India’s nuclear security measures “may be weaker than those of Pakistan”.


READ MORE:Supreme Court announces verdict in the Aasia Bibi review petition
However, the risk of theft across the border “appears to be moderate”, while in Pakistan it “appears to be high”.

The overall threat from weapons of mass destruction is expected to continue growing in 2019, according to the US threat report, which claims that Pakistan and India’s growing nuclear arsenals “increase the risk of a nuclear security incident in South Asia”.

READ MORE:Pakistan PM Imran Khan is all praise for China's Xi Jinping
It adds that new types of nuclear weapons “will introduce new risks for escalation dynamics and security in the region”.

They only see Pakistani nuclear weapons as a growing threat and not other countries who not only brought nuclear weapons to this region but also nuclearized the Indian ocean with deploying nuclear submarines.

 

[The Deterrent]

Hi @The Deterrent
There are various areas where Pakistan can actuallly improve like for instance-
(a) More efficient solid propellants.
(b) Lesser divergence losses at the nozzle: present gen of Pakistani strategic missiles have much higher nozzle divergence losses compared to similar Indian system. A cursory look at the divergence losses of Shaheen 3 and comparing it with Agni-2/4/5 would explain what I am saying.
(c) Complete thrust vectoring.
(d) Use of composites instead of maraging steel to make the missile lighter.
(e) MEMs based IMU package thereby reducing the weight of RV electronics.
(f) Letting go of the truss structure separating the stages.
(g) Cannisterization of shaheen-3

Gimballed thrust-vectoring & better inter-stage does not provide Pakistan with any substantial advantage. Same is the case for canisterization, its better to not have fully assembled missiles for added security. Pakistan does not have intercontinental ambitions, neither is its military keen on investing in unnecessary features. If the payload can be delivered reliably to the required distance, having shiny add-ons doesn't matters.

Pakistan is already working on the remaining areas. How else would Shaheen-3 have almost double the range of Shaheen-2, despite being only a little longer.

 

[FuturePAF]

It is a misconception that a purpose-designed SLV can be readily used as an ICBM (or any BM). The payload capability and launch readiness are major factors preventing such dual-use. The SLV (that Pakistan will develop) will be focused towards its purpose, i.e. efficient payload delivery to orbit. This means that it will be liquid-fueled, multi-staged, heavier than anything developed before (>50tons, <300kg payload to LEO), immobile, unprotected, very complicated by design and will require days or even weeks to prepare before a launch. Even India will be able to spot and take out such a monstrosity in a hypothetical event of war, let alone our friends in the West.

People need to realize the difference between technology applications, and consider implementation complexities before making sweeping abstract statements like it is 'basically turning a screw away from an ICBM'. A clear example is the ISRO's first SLV, that delivered <50kg payloads to orbit and was modified later to develop the Agni TD (and later Agni-II) missile. The effective range of Agni-II, with an RV payload of 1000kg, was reduced to 2000km.
Since the early 1990s, ISRO has been launching 1000kg payloads to SS-LEO using the PSLV-G. Did that mean India had ICBM capability at that time? Furthermore, a PSLV launched 3 satellites in different orbits in 1999. Did that mean India had achieved MIRV capability?
No.

It is actually the ICBMs that can be converted to SLVs with minor modifications. Examples include Russian Dnepr SLV (derived from R-36 aka SS-18) and US Minotaur-IV SLV (derived from Peacekeeper). Pakistan can today put a <50kg satellite in LEO using a slightly modified Shaheen-3 as an SLV. Does that mean that Pakistan has an ICBM? No, because such payloads (~100kg on ballistic trajectory) are meaningless for strategic purposes, as Re-entry Vehicles containing nuclear warheads weigh several times as much.

SLVs send no messages.



Great suggestions, however in case you didn't notice, Shaheen-IA is already what you're proposing. Its essentially an upgraded Shaheen-I using some of the technologies you mentioned. It is not practical to upgrade it further.

Regarding KEI, you're not factoring in for the payload. KEI has a very small payload, as its purpose is kinetic impact. If you add a realistic RV payload (~500kg), the calculated range will decrease dramatically.

The range might drop from the ideal 2200-2400 km but would still be better than the 900 km of the Shaheen 1A.

The 500 kg warhead is definitely heavier than the 63 kg Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle shared with the GBI program (http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Ground-Based-Midcourse-Defense.html) Getting the terminal speed as fast or almost as fast as the KEI's 6 km/s in only 60 seconds will help avoid getting shot down easily by the S-400 or other Indian ABM systems.

The advanced propellant and better casing technologies can be applied to the SLV program. At the very least it would help make the missiles smaller at the same ranges, and therefore allow them to be more mobile and canisterized. If the missile remains at the same size but with the KEI enhancements, it should be able to lift a higher load; such as the Chevaline Warhead bus with the 27 decoy launchers. The goal is to be able to lift a vehicle that is as harder for the enemy to neutralize on the ground and defeat in the air, all within the core mission parameters of the SPD; Defense against Indian Aggression.

Also If Pakistan wants a longer range missile, by developing the KEI Shaheen 1A, it will have developed all the core technologies. It would then apply them to a SLV to perfect them, and in short order have the ICBM; if the need arises.

 

[The Deterrent]

The range might drop from the ideal 2200-2400 km but would still be better than the 900 km of the Shaheen 1A.

The 500 kg warhead is definitely heavier than the 63 kg Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle shared with the GBI program (http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Ground-Based-Midcourse-Defense.html) Getting the terminal speed as fast or almost as fast as the KEI's 6 km/s in only 60 seconds will help avoid getting shot down easily by the S-400 or other Indian ABM systems.

The advanced propellant and better casing technologies can be applied to the SLV program. At the very least it would help make the missiles smaller at the same ranges, and therefore allow them to be more mobile and canisterized. If the missile remains at the same size but with the KEI enhancements, it should be able to lift a higher load; such as the Chevaline Warhead bus with the 27 decoy launchers. The goal is to be able to lift a vehicle that is as harder for the enemy to neutralize on the ground and defeat in the air, all within the core mission parameters of the SPD; Defense against Indian Aggression.

Also If Pakistan wants a longer range missile, by developing the KEI Shaheen 1A, it will have developed all the core technologies. It would then apply them to a SLV to perfect them, and in short order have the ICBM; if the need arises.

Increasing the payload multiple times decreasing the range (and terminal velocity) respectively.

As I already said, these technologies (high-energy fuel, composite body) are already in use. That is how Shaheen-IA evolved over Shaheen-I, and Shaheen-3 evolved over Shaheen-2.

The SLV will be liquid-fueled.

 

[FuturePAF]

Increasing the payload multiple times decreasing the range (and terminal velocity) respectively.

As I already said, these technologies (high-energy fuel, composite body) are already in use. That is how Shaheen-IA evolved over Shaheen-I, and Shaheen-3 evolved over Shaheen-2.

The SLV will be liquid-fueled.

Ok, got it. All that's left to do is develop a Chevaline style warhead bus with the 27 decoy launchers to improve survivability against ABM systems.

 

[amardeep mishra]

Pakistan is already working on the remaining areas. How else would Shaheen-3 have almost double the range of Shaheen-2, despite being only a little longer.

Hi @The Deterrent
There's no doubt that current lot of Pakistani missiles can do their job. Of course even a scud would do the job. I'm not claiming that Pakistani missiles can't do their job. My main concern was those related to optimisation. Pakistani missiles are centered around SpaB-140B solid rocket that is casted from maraging steel as you can see in the pictures below. Now I've not yet run into any reports that claim that Shaheens have started using all composite. Now SpaB-140 is a decent rocket, however it's divergence losses at sea level is way too apparent - much more than its Indian strategic counterparts. Divergence losses are the spread in the exhaust plumes coming out of the nozzle. All the nozzles are designed to operate optimally at a certain altitude, however a nozzle exhibiting higher loses at sea level would result in even higher losses as the missile goes up and gains altitude.
Now the reason why shaheen 3 can throw upto 2750km is probably because a lengthened 2nd stage resulting in a higher Vbo (burn out velocity).
http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/SpaB_aerospace_motors/index.htm

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/Pakistan-China/index.htm

Also increasing the specific impulse would most definitely result in lowering of total weight and compact footprint. I know for a fact that composite double base propellants are being used in K4/5 - these are radically different from those in Agni. So a higher ISP solid propellant would most certainly reduce the footprint of the missile. Also kindly note, thrust and efficiency are two very different parameters, in order to increase Vbo, you need to either increase the thrust of your rocket or reduce the weight (by means of composites). Developing a higher ISP propellant is much more challenging task. You can increase the diameter of your rocket to increase thrust, however for an increase in ISP you would need a hell lot of research. Pakistan hasn't demonstrated any change in the rocket diameter, so I tend to believe that Pakistani strategic rocketry is based on SpaB-140B and hence share similar ISPs.

 

[AUz]

It is a misconception that a purpose-designed SLV can be readily used as an ICBM (or any BM). The payload capability and launch readiness are major factors preventing such dual-use. The SLV (that Pakistan will develop) will be focused towards its purpose, i.e. efficient payload delivery to orbit. This means that it will be liquid-fueled, multi-staged, heavier than anything developed before (>50tons, <300kg payload to LEO), immobile, unprotected, very complicated by design and will require days or even weeks to prepare before a launch. Even India will be able to spot and take out such a monstrosity in a hypothetical event of war, let alone our friends in the West.

People need to realize the difference between technology applications, and consider implementation complexities before making sweeping abstract statements like it is 'basically turning a screw away from an ICBM'. A clear example is the ISRO's first SLV, that delivered <50kg payloads to orbit and was modified later to develop the Agni TD (and later Agni-II) missile. The effective range of Agni-II, with an RV payload of 1000kg, was reduced to 2000km.
Since the early 1990s, ISRO has been launching 1000kg payloads to SS-LEO using the PSLV-G. Did that mean India had ICBM capability at that time? Furthermore, a PSLV launched 3 satellites in different orbits in 1999. Did that mean India had achieved MIRV capability?
No.

It is actually the ICBMs that can be converted to SLVs with minor modifications. Examples include Russian Dnepr SLV (derived from R-36 aka SS-18) and US Minotaur-IV SLV (derived from Peacekeeper). Pakistan can today put a <50kg satellite in LEO using a slightly modified Shaheen-3 as an SLV. Does that mean that Pakistan has an ICBM? No, because such payloads (~100kg on ballistic trajectory) are meaningless for strategic purposes, as Re-entry Vehicles containing nuclear warheads weigh several times as much.

SLVs send no messages.



Great suggestions, however in case you didn't notice, Shaheen-IA is already what you're proposing. Its essentially an upgraded Shaheen-I using some of the technologies you mentioned. It is not practical to upgrade it further.

Regarding KEI, you're not factoring in for the payload. KEI has a very small payload, as its purpose is kinetic impact. If you add a realistic RV payload (~500kg), the calculated range will decrease dramatically.

Hi @The Deterrent
There's no doubt that current lot of Pakistani missiles can do their job. Of course even a scud would do the job. I'm not claiming that Pakistani missiles can't do their job. My main concern was those related to optimisation. Pakistani missiles are centered around SpaB-140B solid rocket that is casted from maraging steel as you can see in the pictures below. Now I've not yet run into any reports that claim that Shaheens have started using all composite. Now SpaB-140 is a decent rocket, however it's divergence losses at sea level is way too apparent - much more than its Indian strategic counterparts. Divergence losses are the spread in the exhaust plumes coming out of the nozzle. All the nozzles are designed to operate optimally at a certain altitude, however a nozzle exhibiting higher loses at sea level would result in even higher losses as the missile goes up and gains altitude.
Now the reason why shaheen 3 can throw upto 2750km is probably because a lengthened 2nd stage resulting in a higher Vbo (burn out velocity).
http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/SpaB_aerospace_motors/index.htm

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/Pakistan-China/index.htm

Also increasing the specific impulse would most definitely result in lowering of total weight and compact footprint. I know for a fact that composite double base propellants are being used in K4/5 - these are radically different from those in Agni. So a higher ISP solid propellant would most certainly reduce the footprint of the missile. Also kindly note, thrust and efficiency are two very different parameters, in order to increase Vbo, you need to either increase the thrust of your rocket or reduce the weight (by means of composites). Developing a higher ISP propellant is much more challenging task. You can increase the diameter of your rocket to increase thrust, however for an increase in ISP you would need a hell lot of research. Pakistan hasn't demonstrated any change in the rocket diameter, so I tend to believe that Pakistani strategic rocketry is based on SpaB-140B and hence share similar ISPs.

@messiach Mam, your insights on the thread (Pakistan's capability, or lack thereof, to develop an ICBM)???

I linked some good posts above.

Your input would be greatly appreciated. Regards.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

They only see Pakistani nuclear weapons as a growing threat and not other countries who not only brought nuclear weapons to this region but also nuclearized the Indian ocean with deploying nuclear submarines.

It's not important what mortals see or say, it's important what HE SEEs or SAYs....

 

[messiach]

SLV conversion was even possible a dozen yrs ago.

@messiach

Your input would be greatly appreciated. Regards.

 

[Hamza913]

We don't need an ICBM. We have the capability to build one if required.

Its time to focus on civilian space exploration by developing SLVs.

I disagree. We should try to develop the ability to be able to hit as many countries as possible, you never know when a new foe could arise.