SHAHEEN III actual range 5000 KM ????

[Bad Guy]

There was other fanboy article I guess which suggested range of Agni 5 to be 8500 km.

 

[Blue Marlin]

I know exactly what Dr Samar is saying, and exactly what I am saying.
The range is 2950KM and not an inch beyond it.

i thought he said 2750km and not an inch beyond

2)Secondly pakistan would have to improve controls. They would have to let go external surfaces.Currently,pakistani missiles use external surfaces for stabilization and possibly jet vanes for control. This can be replaced by flex-nozzle with servo-mechanism,however it is much more complex arrangement and again none of the pakistani strategic missiles have been tested with this setup. Kindly note that external control surfaces increase drag!

well you find cntroll surfaces on particilarly on the first stage and even some icbm have controll surfaces

below is the gridfins of an ss-20 trbm (range 5500km)

even the falcon 9 has it

point being you can have control surfaces up untill you leave the atmosphere

 

[war&peace]

Aside from growing Balls for political will, I was talking pure technically, Increasing range is never the problem. Rocket science isn't that hard if you understand basics of engineering physics. Even Hamas can make 40 miles in their basement. It all takes, force balance and jet Propulsion calculations. Normal univeristy physics. Now when we are talking about IRBM and ICBM, the main problem is guiding it to target and atmosphere pressure calculation. Of which I think Pakistan is having trouble with guidance. May be Pakistan might use chinese satellite for their ICBM in future.

I have done some designs of rocket motors it is a recursive problem.

 

[amardeep mishra]

well you find cntroll surfaces on particilarly on the first stage and even some icbm have controll surfaces

below is the gridfins of an ss-20 trbm (range 5500km)

Hi dear @Blue Marlin
What you have pointed out is a grid fin or lattice fin,It is no doubt a better alternative to conventional planar fins.Since you're the one who have pointed it out,i assume your familiarity with aerodynamic characteristic of such a construct.Let me shed some light on that as well,on both advantages as well disadvantages. A grid fin,unlike conventional fin is arranged perpendicular to the flow--i mean the box structure holding the small criss-cross fin section is held perpendicular to the flow direction.The primary advantage of a grid cell is in supersonic or hypersonic regimes in fact it sucks at transonic regime.In fact the drag is considerably higher for grid cell in mach number ranging from 0.8 to 1.3,after that grid cell wins hands down!Another major dis-advantage of the grid cell is itz enhanced radar cross section! It scatters a lot of radar waves hence it produces considerably higher RCS vis-a-vis conventional fins.
Now coming to the part where it is actually attractive to use grid cell and that is smaller actuation energies required to move the fins as compared to conventional design.This allows for smaller sized (compact) actuators.Since the chord is small it can be folded back into the main body of the missile as you have shown above,i guess SS-20,missile.Now the reason why very smaller actuation energies are required is because,grid fins have smaller mean chord which results in smaller torque - QSCl*c(the small "c" or mean chord length is what makes it different).This means the actuator has to supply lesser torque to move the fins against the incoming flow. Whereas a conventional fin would require considerably higer torque to move it to new position against lets say supersonic or hyper sonic airflow!

This is specially advantageous when you're travelling in supersonic or better hyper sonic regime.In simple words,it is like this- it is easier to slam shut a door against normal weather(air-flow),however the task of shutting the door becomes difficult(requires more torque) when there is a storm or when you've to shut it against a high speed wind.
Now,the reason why i said,pakistan would have to improve controls in their strategic missiles is because they use conventional fins and not grid fins.Besides the modern trend is towards flex nozzles(i know you'd point to the falcon-9,but before you do that,i would like you to go through the control design of most modern ICBM- aka The Trident D-5 etc).A flex nozzle is always better than any external control or stabilization surface.
Lastly, Ofcourse one can have external control surfaces in the atmosphere perhaps till 80-90kms but a design(ICBM) with no external control surface is increasingly becoming a norm these days

 

[Blue Marlin]

Hi dear @Blue Marlin
What you have pointed out is a grid fin or lattice fin,It is no doubt a better alternative to conventional planar fins.Since you're the one who have pointed it out,i assume your familiarity with aerodynamic characteristic of such a construct.Let me shed some light on that as well,on both advantages as well disadvantages. A grid fin,unlike conventional fin is arranged perpendicular to the flow--i mean the box structure holding the small criss-cross fin section is held perpendicular to the flow direction.The primary advantage of a grid cell is in supersonic or hypersonic regimes in fact it sucks at transonic regime.In fact the drag is considerably higher for grid cell in mach number ranging from 0.8 to 1.3,after that grid cell wins hands down!Another major dis-advantage of the grid cell is itz enhanced radar cross section! It scatters a lot of radar waves hence it produces considerably higher RCS vis-a-vis conventional fins.
Now coming to the part where it is actually attractive to use grid cell and that is smaller actuation energies required to move the fins as compared to conventional design.This allows for smaller sized (compact) actuators.Since the chord is small it can be folded back into the main body of the missile as you have shown above,i guess SS-20,missile.Now the reason why very smaller actuation energies are required is because,grid fins have smaller mean chord which results in smaller torque - QSCl*c(the small "c" or mean chord length is what makes it different).This means the actuator has to supply lesser torque to move the fins against the incoming flow. Whereas a conventional fin would require considerably higer torque to move it to new position against lets say supersonic or hyper sonic airflow!
View attachment 309737
This is specially advantageous when you're travelling in supersonic or better hyper sonic regime.In simple words,it is like this- it is easier to slam shut a door against normal weather(air-flow),however the task of shutting the door becomes difficult(requires more torque) when there is a storm or when you've to shut it against a high speed wind.
Now,the reason why i said,pakistan would have to improve controls in their strategic missiles is because they use conventional fins and not grid fins.Besides the modern trend is towards flex nozzles(i know you'd point to the falcon-9,but before you do that,i would like you to go through the control design of most modern ICBM- aka The Trident D-5 etc).A flex nozzle is always better than any external control or stabilization surface.
Lastly, Ofcourse one can have external control surfaces in the atmosphere perhaps till 80-90kms but a design(ICBM) with no external control surface is increasingly becoming a norm these days

a missile in the boost phase duration of the fight wont cause much problem in terms of rcs, but infrared satalites are the problem. the grid fin is my preferd choice due to large cross section and its lack of drag (dependanton the flight angle).

ok so back to you point of the fins weel it depends on the range of the missile. because the range of the missile is <3000km is does not matter.

example close to your home, the agni-II as you can see there are controll surfaces on both the bottom of the first stage and also the warhead its-self. the range of the missile is similar to the shaheen 3, (2500km)
only a 250 km differance. this would tell me that missiles that have a range of <3000 will have controll surfaces whilst missiles with a range above 3000km wont as theres no need for them and body thrusters and a flex nozzels would be used as a substitute. advance millses below 3000 km would also have body thrusters

look at the agni 3 range 3500-4000km and look no body thrusters

 

[amardeep mishra]

example close to your home, the agni-II as you can see there are controll surfaces on both the bottom of the first stage and also the warhead its-self. the range of the missile is similar to the shaheen 3, (2500km

That my dear friend is because agni 2 was designed more than 2decades back! And back then, indian research hadn't progressed to the level where they could use flex nozzles.Hence a more conservative approach of external control/stabilization surface was chosen. None of the modern indian strategic missiles have external control surfaces.I'm talking about A3,4,5 and upcoming A6

PS- I can't see any of your pics in your most recent post, kindly re post them again

 

[Blue Marlin]

That my dear friend is because agni 2 was designed more than 2decades back! And back then, indian research hadn't progressed to the level where they could use flex nozzles.Hence a more conservative approach of external control/stabilization surface was chosen. None of the modern indian strategic missiles have external control surfaces.I'm talking about A3,4,5 and upcoming A6

PS- I can't see any of your pics in your most recent post, kindly re post them again

hi
the check again the pic are on the server this time not from othere sites.

well if you look at other designs of mrbm they too have visable controll fins most recently iran

 

[amardeep mishra]

well if you look at other designs of mrbm they too have visable controll fins most recently iran

All I can say is they use older technology!

 

[C130]

so you are saying Shaheen III has greater range than Musudan?

what is the weight of the warhead it carries?? I would guess 500kg?

 

[Blue Marlin]

All I can say is they use older technology!

i used iran as an example mind you no one makes mrbm's anymore and for those who do theres no need in developing newerones as the current one can be upgraded.

 

[tarrar]

I don't understand why people use so many question marks.

 

[amardeep mishra]

large cross section and its lack of drag (dependanton the flight angle).

Actually the drag in grid fin is more heavily dependent upon the mach regime than the AoA. You must read about its performance in mach regime of 0.8-1.3

 

[Syed_Adeel]

Hence I have asked for newer version of report be provided by the OP

The facebook source is inaccessible.

If you get the latest source then share will us also

 

[LeGenD]

Yeah According to Unnamed Informed Sources of Blog Writer over Indian Govt Agency.Nevertheless it tested 11 times out of which 9 are Successful Tests. Its Better Rate than ThAAD which Failed Six times over 15 tests.
Nevertheless Now India Join MTCR We will Get Sensitive Materials and Guidance Technology From Member countries

You must be joking.

THAAD is among the few ABM systems in the world that have 100% successful target intercept rate in a fault-less situation.

FYI: http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-defense-systems/u-s-missile-defense-intercept-test-record/

More details here: http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/testrecord.pdf (PDF format)

---

The failures you pointed out were of THAAD's initial interceptor prototypes; when THAAD's design was premature and far from complete. And those failures were largely due to technical/mechanical faults: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2000/dot-e/other/00thaad.html

Those failures don't count as examples of failing to intercept the target missile in a fault-less situation.

 

[Hamza913]

I heard about being 5,000km literally ever since the first successful launch. Wouldn't be surprised if it was the truth. Oh and just so you guys can get a good picture of what that's like: