What's new

Shaheen III | News & Discussions.

Please do not laugh at me
I met i guy whose relative works in missile programs of Pakistan, he told me that Shaheen III is already tested in early 2004 and now its operational with more than 4000 Km range :woot: I will meet this guy again for some more details :chilli:

Some missile programs are already developed, including Shaheen 3 and Ghauri 3, however they are not openly test-fired because of pressure.
 
.
Please do not laugh at me
I met i guy whose relative works in missile programs of Pakistan, he told me that Shaheen III is already tested in early 2004 and now its operational with more than 4000 Km range :woot: I will meet this guy again for some more details :chilli:

I do not know if it was or was not but if it was tested and still kept undisclosed then there must have been a reason behind it which could be critical to the security of Pakistan and in result you. Please refrain from acting like broken faucets. I get that you're excited but please think before you post on public forums such as this one.
 
.
Please do not laugh at me
I met i guy whose relative works in missile programs of Pakistan, he told me that Shaheen III is already tested in early 2004 and now its operational with more than 4000 Km range :woot: I will meet this guy again for some more details :chilli:

Kindly do not spread misinformation. Shaheen-III is under-development, and no weapon system with capabilities greater than those of Shaheen-II has ever been tested from Pakistani soil.
Moreover, there is only one version of Ghauri missile operational with the Army Strategic Forces Command, with a maximum range of 1300 km.

Some missile programs are already developed, including Shaheen 3 and Ghauri 3, however they are not openly test-fired because of pressure.

That is not true. Ghauri-III was scrapped up during development. Even the Ghauri-II didn't advance beyond the testing phase.
Shaheen-III will be tested as soon as it is ready.
 
.
Kindly do not spread misinformation. Shaheen-III is under-development, and no weapon system with capabilities greater than those of Shaheen-II has ever been tested from Pakistani soil.
Moreover, there is only one version of Ghauri missile operational with the Army Strategic Forces Command, with a maximum range of 1300 km.



That is not true. Ghauri-III was scrapped up during development. Even the Ghauri-II didn't advance beyond the testing phase.
Shaheen-III will be tested as soon as it is ready.

What would be the max range of Shaheen III - Guidance system, MIRV?
 
.
What would be the max range of Shaheen III - Guidance system, MIRV?

Shaheen-III is actually the same upgraded Shaheen-II we heard about a while ago. I don't know about its range and guidance system for sure.
Nope, no MIRVs. Shaheen-III is going to be somewhat the Pakistani Agni-IV (which is a major upgrade to Agni-II).
 
.
What would be the max range of Shaheen III - Guidance system, MIRV?

I guess actual maximum ranges are always classified. However, we can expect it to be anywhere from 3,500km to 5,500km (within the IRBM domain). As for MIRV, it is most widely speculated that Shaheen 1A is MIRV capable. It was even announced that Shaheen 1A can carry multiple warheads simultaneously which most likely points to the missile being MIRV capable.

Facts:

1. Funding for Ghauri III was stopped in the mid of 2000 (source: Abdul Qadeer Khan) when 50% development was complete by Musharraf.
2. Shaheen series, being solid fueled, has always been more advanced then the Ghauri Series and therefore we began to focus more on Shaheen series rather than Ghauri series. No wonder we have more Shaheen series missiles with the Armed forces.
3. Shaheen 1A still wasn't tested to maximum range. It's range is stated to be a maximum of 2,500 km's with the ability to carry multiple warheads simultaneously (MIRV). However, much like speculations are ripe about the actual maximum range of Indian ICBM, the actual maximum range of Shaheen-1A is classified (read 3,500kms)
4. Shaheen 1A also has the ability to evade ABM systems even at terminal guidance with little boosters on the sides that can be used to correct the path during terminal phase or to evade ABM systems. With such a Missile, ABM systems can never predict the path of the Missile for engagement especially when the evasion is at many mach.

How hard it is to develop an ICBM after Shaheen II, that already has 2 stage solid fuel engine, is anybody's guess. Also, we can all calculate the consequences, direct or indirect, of Pakistan testing a capable ICBM with the range of hitting any target around the globe.

Next stage, SLBM/SLCM. That would be awesome, especially now that we have declared our plans to develop a Nuclear powered submarine and the setting up of the Naval Strategic Arm which would eventually be responsible for the 3rd strike capability (after mobile/hardened land based missiles). A complete Nuclear trident.
 
.
I guess actual maximum ranges are always classified. However, we can expect it to be anywhere from 3,500km to 5,500km (within the IRBM domain). As for MIRV, it is most widely speculated that Shaheen 1A is MIRV capable. It was even announced that Shaheen 1A can carry multiple warheads simultaneously which most likely points to the missile being MIRV capable.

Facts:

1. Funding for Ghauri III was stopped in the mid of 2000 (source: Abdul Qadeer Khan) when 50% development was complete by Musharraf.
2. Shaheen series, being solid fueled, has always been more advanced then the Ghauri Series and therefore we began to focus more on Shaheen series rather than Ghauri series. No wonder we have more Shaheen series missiles with the Armed forces.
3. Shaheen 1A still wasn't tested to maximum range. It's range is stated to be a maximum of 2,500 km's with the ability to carry multiple warheads simultaneously (MIRV). However, much like speculations are ripe about the actual maximum range of Indian ICBM, the actual maximum range of Shaheen-1A is classified (read 3,500kms)
4. Shaheen 1A also has the ability to evade ABM systems even at terminal guidance with little boosters on the sides that can be used to correct the path during terminal phase or to evade ABM systems. With such a Missile, ABM systems can never predict the path of the Missile for engagement especially when the evasion is at many mach.

How hard it is to develop an ICBM after Shaheen 1A, that already has 2 stage solid fuel engine, is anybody's guess. Also, we can all calculate the consequences, direct or indirect, of Pakistan testing a capable ICBM with the range of hitting any target around the globe.

Next stage, SLBM/SLCM. That would be awesome, especially now that we have declared our plans to develop a Nuclear powered submarine and the setting up of the Naval Strategic Arm which would eventually be responsible for the 3rd strike capability (after mobile/hardened land based missiles). A complete Nuclear trident.

Khush ker dia bhai. :tup:
 
.
3. Shaheen 1A still wasn't tested to maximum range. It's range is stated to be a maximum of 2,500 km's with the ability to carry multiple warheads simultaneously (MIRV). However, much like speculations are ripe about the actual maximum range of Indian ICBM, the actual maximum range of Shaheen-1A is classified (read 3,500kms)

FALSE.

It does NOT have a range of 2,500 km. That was just Pakistani media misreporting as usual.
It doesn't have MIRV capability either.

Just look at the missile. It cannot accommodate more than one warhead. And it's only slightly heavier than Shaheen 1.
 
.
4. Shaheen 1A also has the ability to evade ABM systems even at terminal guidance with little boosters on the sides that can be used to correct the path during terminal phase or to evade ABM systems. With such a Missile, ABM systems can never predict the path of the Missile for engagement especially when the evasion is at many mach.

Hmm interesting- is it confirmed?-
 
.
yaar aik sawal kya pocha sb bhag gaye hud hai-
 
.
I guess actual maximum ranges are always classified. However, we can expect it to be anywhere from 3,500km to 5,500km (within the IRBM domain). As for MIRV, it is most widely speculated that Shaheen 1A is MIRV capable. It was even announced that Shaheen 1A can carry multiple warheads simultaneously which most likely points to the missile being MIRV capable.

You are highly exaggerating the capabilities of Shaheen-IA based on amateur reporting. It is an MRBM of 1000-1200 km range (also mentioned by Dr. Mand) and delivers a unitary ~1000 kg payload.


3. Shaheen 1A still wasn't tested to maximum range. It's range is stated to be a maximum of 2,500 km's with the ability to carry multiple warheads simultaneously (MIRV). However, much like speculations are ripe about the actual maximum range of Indian ICBM, the actual maximum range of Shaheen-1A is classified (read 3,500kms)
Negative. ISPR never released the official range, and the reports of it being MIRVed are FLAWED.

How hard it is to develop an ICBM after Shaheen 1A, that already has 2 stage solid fuel engine, is anybody's guess. Also, we can all calculate the consequences, direct or indirect, of Pakistan testing a capable ICBM with the range of hitting any target around the globe.

Again, Shaheen-IA is a SINGLE stage solid-fueled missile. And the ICBM stuff is pure nonsense, get you facts right.

You guys confusing me now-

Which ballistic missile of Pakistan is MIRV capable?-
and Which can evade ABM systems?-

Please-

NONE of the missiles Pakistan currently possesses is MIRV capable. Shaheen-IA and Shaheen-II are reported to be capable of evading ABMs, although it is not confirmed.
 
.
FALSE.

It does NOT have a range of 2,500 km. That was just Pakistani media misreporting as usual.
It doesn't have MIRV capability either.

Just look at the missile. It cannot accommodate more than one warhead. And it's only slightly heavier than Shaheen 1.

MIRV does not mean that you place multiple warheads of the same size as the single one, from before, in the missile. The multiple warheads are all smaller than the single and combine to roughly reach the size of the single. You won't be able to know if a particular missile has been MIRVed just by looking at it. The reason behind MIRVing one's missiles is not to increase the potency by increasing the total yield of the weapon nor does it mean that you would be targeting multiple targets, say city A and city B, with one single missile. The multiple warheads are smaller than the single with roughly the same total yield as the single. The concept behind MIRV is that a single warhead dropped in the center of a general target area, say a city, is less potent than multiple warheads (with the same total yield as the single) dropped around and about that same general target area. This is because the radiation received from a nuclear explosion is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the explosion and the blast pressure is inversely proportional to the cube of the distance from the explosion. Simply put the blast pressure and radiation effects of the blast decrease dramatically as you move away from the point of detonation. Hence multiple smaller warheads dropped around the target area give a much more potent effect than a single larger warhead dropped dead in the center.

The US's Peacekeeper MIRV:

W87_MX_Missile_schematic.jpg


The re-entry vehicles' path from one of the Peacekeeper tests:

Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg


The Minuteman III MIRV:
Minuteman_III_MIRV_path.svg


Some pretty awesome pictures here:
http://blog.markloiseau.com/2012/05/mirv-reentry-pictures/
 
.
^ Deployment of MIRVs simply requires more space on the RV bus, even if smaller warheads are used. Shaheen-IA is simply not big enough to accommodate them. Besides, being a 1200 km max range missile, it won't gain enough altitude to deploy RVs for INDEPENDENT targeting.
 
. .
From defencenews 2011


ISLAMABAD - In response to India's pursuit of missile defenses,
Pakistan has expanded its countermeasure efforts, primarily through
development of maneuvering re-entry vehicles. The Army Strategic
Forces Command, which controls Pakistan's ballistic missiles, has since
at least 2004 said it wanted to develop such warheads; analysts now
believe these are in service. Mansoor Ahmed, lecturer at the Department of Defence and Strategic
Studies at Islamabad's Quaid-e-Azam University, said that in addition
to maneuverable warheads, multiple independently targetable re-
entry vehicles (MIRVs) may be developed to stay ahead of India's
"multilayered ballistic-missile defense system" and potential future
countermeasures. "This, coupled with submarine-launched,
nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, would ensure
the survivability of its nuclear deterrent and
enhance the effectiveness of its missile force
that can beat any Indian defenses," he said. When asked about the threat posed by India's anti-ballistic missile
(ABM) program, Harsh Pant, reader of international relations at the
Defence Studies Department, King's College London, said it depended
on the capability India eventually acquired. "Many in India see an Indian missile defense capability as the only
effective way to counter what they consider as Pakistan's 'nuclear
blackmail,'" he said. He cited the ongoing conflict in Kashmir, the 1999 Kargil conflict and
the November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks as examples.Strategic
Disadvantage These incidents "demonstrated for many the inability of
India to come up with an appropriate response to the stability-
instability paradox operating on the subcontinent that has put India
at a strategic disadvantage vis-à-vis Pakistan." He further explained, "A missile defense system would help India
blunt Pakistan's 'first use' nuclear force posture that had led Pakistan
to believe that it had inhibited India from launching a conventional
attack against it for fear of its escalation to the nuclear level. With a
missile defense system in place, India would be able to restore the
status quo ante, thereby making a conventional military option against Pakistan potent again."Such a missile defense system and a
second-strike capability "would enhance the uncertainties of India's
potential adversaries, regardless of the degree of effectiveness of
missile interception, and would act as a disincentive to their resort to
nuclear weapons," he said. Asked whether Pakistan's countermeasures would be effective
against such ABM systems, Pant replied, "most definitely." He said, "According to various reports, Pakistan has been developing
MIRV capability for the Shaheen-II ballistic missiles and [the] Shaheen-
III missile is under development." He also explained there was a further danger for India in Pakistan's
countermeasure efforts. "Although the current capability of Pakistani missiles is built around
radar seekers, the integration of re-entry vehicles would make these
extremely potent and defeat the anti-ballistic missile defense systems.
This would be especially true of Indian aircraft carriers that would
become extremely vulnerable," he said. While measures to maintain the credibility of the land-based arm of
the deterrent may prove to be adequate, the security of the future
sea-based arm of the nuclear triad is not as clear-cut. Analysts have for years speculated that the Navy will equip its
submarines with a variant of the Babur cruise missile armed with a
nuclear warhead. However, whether a cruise-missile-based arm of
the nuclear triad at sea would be effective and survivable in the face
of Indian air defenses is uncertain. The Soviet Union developed a counter to the BGM-109 Tomahawk
nearly 30 years ago in the form of the MiG-31 Foxhound, which had a
powerful look down/shoot down radar and a potent missile system.
The Indian Air Force claims its Su-30MKI Flanker has similar
capabilities. When this was put to analyst Usman Shabbir of the Pakistan Military
Consortium think tank, he said the interception of cruise missiles is
not so simple."I think Babur will form the sea-based arm of the
Pakistani nuclear deterrent" he said, "but the problem in targeting
subsonic cruise missiles is that they are harder to detect due to their
lower radar cross-signature, low-level navigation, and use of waypoints to circumvent more secure and heavily defended areas." "By the time you detect them, there is not much time left to vector
aircraft for interception." However, Shabbir conceded it would be possible for an airborne
interceptor to shoot down a missile like Babur. "An aircraft already
on [patrol] might be lucky to pick it up on its own radar well in
advance [if looking in the correct direction], or vectored to it by
ground-based radar."

From defencenews 2011


ISLAMABAD - In response to India's pursuit of missile defenses,
Pakistan has expanded its countermeasure efforts, primarily through
development of maneuvering re-entry vehicles. The Army Strategic
Forces Command, which controls Pakistan's ballistic missiles, has since
at least 2004 said it wanted to develop such warheads; analysts now
believe these are in service. Mansoor Ahmed, lecturer at the Department of Defence and Strategic
Studies at Islamabad's Quaid-e-Azam University, said that in addition
to maneuverable warheads, multiple independently targetable re-
entry vehicles (MIRVs) may be developed to stay ahead of India's
"multilayered ballistic-missile defense system" and potential future
countermeasures. "This, coupled with submarine-launched,
nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, would ensure
the survivability of its nuclear deterrent and
enhance the effectiveness of its missile force
that can beat any Indian defenses," he said. When asked about the threat posed by India's anti-ballistic missile
(ABM) program, Harsh Pant, reader of international relations at the
Defence Studies Department, King's College London, said it depended
on the capability India eventually acquired. "Many in India see an Indian missile defense capability as the only
effective way to counter what they consider as Pakistan's 'nuclear
blackmail,'" he said. He cited the ongoing conflict in Kashmir, the 1999 Kargil conflict and
the November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks as examples.Strategic
Disadvantage These incidents "demonstrated for many the inability of
India to come up with an appropriate response to the stability-
instability paradox operating on the subcontinent that has put India
at a strategic disadvantage vis-à-vis Pakistan." He further explained, "A missile defense system would help India
blunt Pakistan's 'first use' nuclear force posture that had led Pakistan
to believe that it had inhibited India from launching a conventional
attack against it for fear of its escalation to the nuclear level. With a
missile defense system in place, India would be able to restore the
status quo ante, thereby making a conventional military option against Pakistan potent again."Such a missile defense system and a
second-strike capability "would enhance the uncertainties of India's
potential adversaries, regardless of the degree of effectiveness of
missile interception, and would act as a disincentive to their resort to
nuclear weapons," he said. Asked whether Pakistan's countermeasures would be effective
against such ABM systems, Pant replied, "most definitely." He said, "According to various reports, Pakistan has been developing
MIRV capability for the Shaheen-II ballistic missiles and [the] Shaheen-
III missile is under development." He also explained there was a further danger for India in Pakistan's
countermeasure efforts. "Although the current capability of Pakistani missiles is built around
radar seekers, the integration of re-entry vehicles would make these
extremely potent and defeat the anti-ballistic missile defense systems.
This would be especially true of Indian aircraft carriers that would
become extremely vulnerable," he said. While measures to maintain the credibility of the land-based arm of
the deterrent may prove to be adequate, the security of the future
sea-based arm of the nuclear triad is not as clear-cut. Analysts have for years speculated that the Navy will equip its
submarines with a variant of the Babur cruise missile armed with a
nuclear warhead. However, whether a cruise-missile-based arm of
the nuclear triad at sea would be effective and survivable in the face
of Indian air defenses is uncertain. The Soviet Union developed a counter to the BGM-109 Tomahawk
nearly 30 years ago in the form of the MiG-31 Foxhound, which had a
powerful look down/shoot down radar and a potent missile system.
The Indian Air Force claims its Su-30MKI Flanker has similar
capabilities. When this was put to analyst Usman Shabbir of the Pakistan Military
Consortium think tank, he said the interception of cruise missiles is
not so simple."I think Babur will form the sea-based arm of the
Pakistani nuclear deterrent" he said, "but the problem in targeting
subsonic cruise missiles is that they are harder to detect due to their
lower radar cross-signature, low-level navigation, and use of waypoints to circumvent more secure and heavily defended areas." "By the time you detect them, there is not much time left to vector
aircraft for interception." However, Shabbir conceded it would be possible for an airborne
interceptor to shoot down a missile like Babur. "An aircraft already
on [patrol] might be lucky to pick it up on its own radar well in
advance [if looking in the correct direction], or vectored to it by
ground-based radar."
 
.
Back
Top Bottom