Pakistan's Nuclear Submarine Development | News and Discussions

[kurup]

A country which claims to master the technology of supersonic cruise missile by acquiring Brahmos - based on P800 Onik must be able , in theory , to produce a subsonic cruise missile with little or no effort , no ? After all , a person who can drive a vehicle with manual transmission must have no problems , none whatsoever with automatic . Yet , we saw how the first test of Nirbhay failed with another planned test flight in July 2013 , which hasn't happened until now .

We have had this conversation last time not far ago .

Your theory would hold only if the difference between subsonic and supersonic CM will be negligible .

Which I don't think so .

I only know of one hybrid which is the quasi ballistic - inheriting some flight profile characteristics of a cruise missile but still quite a ballistic one . Sure , take your time .

Saurav Jha: Given that the K-15 doesn't actually leave the atmosphere and undergoes powered flight for a part of its journey, how would you classify it?

Avinash Chander: The K-15 falls within the category of shaped trajectory systems.

Saurav Jha's Blog : Trends in missile development in India: an interview with DRDO's missile man Avinash Chander

 

[Secur]

We have had this conversation last time not far ago .

Your theory would hold only if the difference between subsonic and supersonic CM will be negligible . Which I don't think so .

Avinash Chander: The K-15 falls within the category of shaped trajectory systems.

I remember it , which is precisely I do not want to derail this thread on a topic already discussed to death there .

Well it isn't a theory , first of all , to make it abundantly clear . Because , there I explained it to you that indeed the difference is negligible , only the propulsion system . So if you claim that you are ahead in supersonic cruise missiles technology , there's no reason why you cant develop a subsonic one . Yet I see none developed indigenously .

It isn't a cruise missile then . Just another term for a ballistic missile integrating flight characteristics of a cruise one . @AhaseebA Need your opinion on ' shaped trajectory ' .

 

[kurup]

I remember it , which is precisely I do not want to derail this thread on a topic already discussed to death there .

Well it isn't a theory , first of all , to make it abundantly clear . Because , there I explained it to you that indeed the difference is negligible , only the propulsion system . So if you claim that you are ahead in supersonic cruise missiles technology , there's no reason why you cant develop a subsonic one . Yet I see none developed indigenously .

So by your words , if we integrate a turbojet or turbofan into brahmos , we can convert it into a sub-sonic missile.

It isn't a cruise missile then . Just another term for a ballistic missile integrating flight characteristics of a cruise one . @AhaseebA Need your opinion on ' shaped trajectory ' .

.......

 

[Secur]

So by your words , if we integrate a turbojet or turbofan into brahmos , we can convert it into a sub-sonic missile.

Sure , if the Kremlin allows you , but it isn't that simple to take a turbofan engine out from one and fit into another missile . Compatibility and integration mean something , now do they not ?

Still if a country has supersonic missile technology , it should have no problem with subsonic one because it has already mastered a higher level of technology . Would anyone believe me if I say that I can do differentiations and integrations but cant solve quadratic equations ? Think of it .

 

[kurup]

Sure , if the Kremlin allows you , but it isn't that simple to take a turbofan engine out from one and fit into another missile . Compatibility and integration mean something , now do they not ?

Still if a country has supersonic missile technology , it should have no problem with subsonic one because it has already mastered a higher level of technology . Would anyone believe me if I say that I can do differentiations and integrations but cant solve quadratic equations ? Think of it .

Your points seem fair . But I am no expert in the field . I will transfer it to some other guys . @Gessler , @Dillinger .


As for the conversation about efficiency of nuclear reactors in another thread .

Here is the efficiency of European Pressurized Reactor at 36.67% .

an electrical power output of around 1650 MWe (net) with thermal power 4500 MWt

If you want I can give data of some other reactors .

 

[Secur]

Your points seem fair . But I am no expert in the field . I will transfer it to some other guys . @Gessler , @Dillinger .

If you want I can give data of some other reactors .

@Dillinger would be able to explain it , any day

You were right about the reactor efficiency part , didn't I tell you there ?

 

[kurup]

@Dillinger would be able to explain it , any day

He can perform efficient discussion and wrap it around trolling , a rare capability I must say ......

You were right about the reactor efficiency part , didn't I tell you there ?

No , I don't remember so .

 

[Mitro]

@moderator
Please clean the thread lots of off topic
Discussion

 

[gslv mk3]

If I remember correctly, India began its SLV development in the 70s. Next, if the Indians did indeed have the tech in the 60s then it should have been no problem integrating it into their early missiles. This only casts more doubts on the indigenous-ness of the said SLV or the claim that it was solid fueled.

Usual jokes by Pakistani members.Yes India's SLV development started back in 70s,before that we had Rohini Sounding Rocket range which couls carry a payload of 100 kg to altitude of 550 km.We had Solid fuel technology when we started development of our Agni Range BMs(agni TD flew back in 92),but ISRO and DRDO are different ventures.

And you guess you know more about SLV than ISRO themselves?

The areas which you have stated are areas in which Pakistan isn't even interested to venture in and/or has no need to (at least, we have never never officially acknowledge the efforts to do so), except for the IRBM perhaps. Its interesting how you call it foul play when we acquire missile tech but somehow the Russian Brahmos is still all fair game...more over you forget the LO Ra'ad and the Babur, which came way before the Brahmos and still have no parallel in Indian inventory.

Better word would be-doesnt have capability to.And yes Brahmos engine is a modified russian onee and so is airframe,but it contains many Indian components,but let me ask you a question-who designed turbojet of babur?Do pakistan have capability to develop a turbofan?

Too many holes in this one. First, which shaman suddenly declared India's superiority in missile propulsion. Like I said before, we did bring the solid rocket motors way before you guys did and I'm sure our guys
haven't been sitting on their behinds sipping chai since then.

No,India did that long before-check out HS9 stage used as first stage of Agni TD,Agni II and Agni IV .That was dereived from first stage of Indian SLV which flew back in 1979!And even today advancement like worlds third largest SRB proves our technological advantage.

Second, India has claimed to be working on many things, but seldom do we see results, if any at all. I'll have to take the 'better R&D and
experience' as a shamanistic claim as well, i guess.

Failures sre not uncommon in these fields,but it is a truth that India has a much better R&D - be that any field - space ,nuclear power,electonics

Third, haven't you heard about the Pakistani satellites and our access to Beidou?

Pakistani access to Beidou,well I dont know much.But Pakistani space program has acheived sending a chinese manufactured sat-Paksat 1R made by great wall corporation on chinese SLVs

Foreign help or no foreign help, still doesn't take anything away from the fact that whatever concrete data we have on the same tier missiles puts Pakistani missiles ahead of India's. There are no copyrights or IPs in this arena. If the copied missile is better then it will give you a better boom as well. Because believe it or not, you won't be able to restrict the copier from using his weapons under claims that it is not original. And that initial, and maybe still continuing, foreign help only means that it's improbable that India has caught up.

I'm sure the Indians didn't have any foreign help in developing the SLV from Russia but I also see the SLBM producing, moon monitoring country still struggling to produce a proper LCA for their forces, which they so direly need. "Our SLBMs,ICBMs and Quasi ballistic missiles are.best in class"....well then I'm sure you must be intimately familiar with all the SLBMs,ICBMs and Quasi ballistic missiles in the world.

Foolish argument to say the least- Here we see India developing advanced category of missiles-ICBMs,SLBMs,Quasi Ballistic Missiles and Supersonic Cruise misailes.On what basis do you say you are better-only field in which Pakistan have an edge is subsonic CM.

You have effectively avoided discussion on SLBMs,SAMs and QBMs and wanted to direct the discussion towards conventional land based BMs-even in that field India has an edge-Remember Agni V and Agni III?
You are arguing that Pakistan is not intrested in SLBMs-here the topic is a Pakistani SLBM!

And I didnt say our ICBMs,QBMs and SLBMs are all best in class.What I meant is that Shaurya is worlds longest range QBM-and hence best in class,K 15 is probabily the only submarine launched quasi ballistic missile and K4 SLBM is said to be quasi ballistic-unique and one of best,again.

And so typical,you have started to bash LCA-LCA has met parameters set for it when its development started,but IAF want a more capable one now.But now let me ask you,can pakistan develop a fourth generation jet on its own?

 

[The Deterrent]

@Secur @kurup

Please don't argue about petty things. Potential of developing state of the art systems is on both sides of the border. As long as both nations have the weapons of deterrence, their source or nature does not matter.

1. India clearly possess more technologically advanced strategic nuclear delivery systems. Although Indians are lagging behind in terrain-hugging subsonic cruise missile technology, they'll soon catch up. But on the other hand Pakistan already possesses enough variety and technology to maintain the deterrence level, and has more than enough systems in the pipeline.

2. Shaurya/K-15 is a depressed trajectory ballistic missile, with enough maneuverability to be called quasi-ballistic. But it cannot be termed as a cruise missile.

 

[gslv mk3]

@DESERT FIGHTER

Can you please shut up if you doesnt know a thing?Shaurya as far as the info available on public domain says is a QBM which can have two different ranges by using two diffrent FBF and TN warheads.

And @Secur proved that Pakistan is ahead in subsonic CM while it is evident that India is ahead in supersonic and hypersonic domain.

thanks @AhseebA

 

[Secur]

Please don't argue about petty things.

Mate , its a continuity of discussion from another thread , you aren't getting the whole picture here actually . I only wanted to confirm the ' shaped trajectory ' point . I wasn't interested really to discuss it here . But lets not derail the thread further .

@Oscar @Aeronaut

Please , clean the thread .

 

[The Deterrent]

Mate , its a continuity of discussion from another thread , you aren't getting the whole picture here actually . I only wanted to confirm the ' shaped trajectory ' point . I wasn't interested really to discuss it here . But lets not derail the thread further .

Oh, didn't know that. My apologies if I offended you in any way.

 

[Thorough Pro]

A tiny sub would need a tiny plant and thus a tiny shield.

Stop living in fools paradise.
Do you know how much radiation shielding weighs?
That alone will sink Pakistan's tiny Agosta subs.

 

[kurup]

A tiny sub would need a tiny plant and thus a tiny shield.

But the problem is in developing a tiny nuclear plant compact enough to fit into this tiny sub .