Successful Babur-3 test gives Pakistan ticket to elite nuke triad club

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Maybe the footage was taken from the tug (with a very long chain)?

 

[Basel]

I know it sound bitchy, but since we are discussing theoretical scenarios. Only one VLF facility that too at karachi is like

Turbat is also VLF station now if I m not wrong.

@The Deterrent I believe it was you led us to this earlier, but it appears that the Babur-3 SLCM test was done much in the same pattern as the MBDA SCALP Naval (for submarines):

"During September 2010, a high depth ignition test of SCALP Naval’s booster was organised by MBDA. The underwater test, which set the booster in operation for several seconds, was carried out at a significant depth in a Norwegian fjord using an instrumented model of a SCALP Naval rear section secured in a submerged structure."

http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-r...f-scalp-naval-in-its-submarine-configuration/

"Using an underwater platform simulating the launch conditions prevailing on the future Barracuda nuclear-powered attack submarine, this firing permitted all the intended test objectives to be demonstrated: the validation of the launch phase with the subsequent change of environment from water to air as well as the missile’s flight."

http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-r...of-scalp-naval-frances-future-cruise-missile/​

I think it's very telling that the ISPR release did not specify that a submarine - much less Agosta 90B - was used to test-fire the Babur-3. I think the ambiguity had more to do with poor communications skills in our PR ranks than any desire to just confuse people, but the term "underwater mobile platform" was specifically referring to a bespoke test system.

I am just curious about why the range was capped to 450 km. Is it because the Babur-3 was designed for a standard length torpedo tube (in the Agosta 90B)? In that case, there's limited room for the capsule, booster, and missile. If coupled with weight considerations (so as to maintain submarine speed), then a smaller and/or lighter - but shorter-range - turbofan makes sense. But surely, these restrictions wouldn't be in place with the next-gen SSPs, which could benefit from longer torpedo tubes? Or could these new SSPs use VLS that necessitate a (apparently) smaller Babur-3?

There was a video posted at PDF which shows how Tomahawk SLCM is launched and it's different procedure then AShM like SM-39, Harpoon, YJ-82 etc.

Range could be low due to various factors, or just full range not announced.

 

[Safriz]

@The Deterrent I believe it was you led us to this earlier, but it appears that the Babur-3 SLCM test was done much in the same pattern as the MBDA SCALP Naval (for submarines):

"During September 2010, a high depth ignition test of SCALP Naval’s booster was organised by MBDA. The underwater test, which set the booster in operation for several seconds, was carried out at a significant depth in a Norwegian fjord using an instrumented model of a SCALP Naval rear section secured in a submerged structure."

http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-r...f-scalp-naval-in-its-submarine-configuration/

"Using an underwater platform simulating the launch conditions prevailing on the future Barracuda nuclear-powered attack submarine, this firing permitted all the intended test objectives to be demonstrated: the validation of the launch phase with the subsequent change of environment from water to air as well as the missile’s flight."

http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-r...of-scalp-naval-frances-future-cruise-missile/​

I think it's very telling that the ISPR release did not specify that a submarine - much less Agosta 90B - was used to test-fire the Babur-3. I think the ambiguity had more to do with poor communications skills in our PR ranks than any desire to just confuse people, but the term "underwater mobile platform" was specifically referring to a bespoke test system.

I am just curious about why the range was capped to 450 km. Is it because the Babur-3 was designed for a standard length torpedo tube (in the Agosta 90B)? In that case, there's limited room for the capsule, booster, and missile. If coupled with weight considerations (so as to maintain submarine speed), then a smaller and/or lighter - but shorter-range - turbofan makes sense. But surely, these restrictions wouldn't be in place with the next-gen SSPs, which could benefit from longer torpedo tubes? Or could these new SSPs use VLS that necessitate a (apparently) smaller Babur-3?

MBDA makes those missiles for international market to be deployed on various types of submarines not one.
So it is feasible for them to invest in such specialist underwater vehicle to mimic submarine launch instead of using an actual submarine in which case they will have to use many types.
Is that the same case with Pakistan?

 

[HRK]

Maybe the footage was taken from the tug (with a very long chain)?

or may be Augosta-70 class submarine was used ..... just a wild wild guess.... as they also have 21 inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes ..... ???

http://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/hashmat_agosta_70.pdf?_=1341879210
according to this 21.7 in (550 mm) torpedo tubes ...

 

[The Deterrent]

@The Deterrent I believe it was you led us to this earlier, but it appears that the Babur-3 SLCM test was done much in the same pattern as the MBDA SCALP Naval (for submarines):

"During September 2010, a high depth ignition test of SCALP Naval’s booster was organised by MBDA. The underwater test, which set the booster in operation for several seconds, was carried out at a significant depth in a Norwegian fjord using an instrumented model of a SCALP Naval rear section secured in a submerged structure."

http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-r...f-scalp-naval-in-its-submarine-configuration/

"Using an underwater platform simulating the launch conditions prevailing on the future Barracuda nuclear-powered attack submarine, this firing permitted all the intended test objectives to be demonstrated: the validation of the launch phase with the subsequent change of environment from water to air as well as the missile’s flight."

http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-r...of-scalp-naval-frances-future-cruise-missile/​

I think it's very telling that the ISPR release did not specify that a submarine - much less Agosta 90B - was used to test-fire the Babur-3. I think the ambiguity had more to do with poor communications skills in our PR ranks than any desire to just confuse people, but the term "underwater mobile platform" was specifically referring to a bespoke test system.

I am just curious about why the range was capped to 450 km. Is it because the Babur-3 was designed for a standard length torpedo tube (in the Agosta 90B)? In that case, there's limited room for the capsule, booster, and missile. If coupled with weight considerations (so as to maintain submarine speed), then a smaller and/or lighter - but shorter-range - turbofan makes sense. But surely, these restrictions wouldn't be in place with the next-gen SSPs, which could benefit from longer torpedo tubes? Or could these new SSPs use VLS that necessitate a (apparently) smaller Babur-3?

The Naval SCALP test you are referring to was about booster ignition at high depths. No missile was involved in this case, in plain words, they secured the booster to a mechanism and submerged to the desired depth and ignited it. Now questions arise because normally the booster only fires after the missile emerges from water. However, there is another way of firing an SLCM, and that is by designing a booster that can ignite underwater and push the capsule out. Afterwards, the capsule just slides off (as shown in the SCALP photo).

The term 'underwater mobile platform' is the most accurate way to describe it. Don't know what to say more than that.

Given ISPR's current track record of specifying exact ranges, I believe it actually is 450km only. It might have to do with the shortening of length of the system (as diameter-wise it was good to go from day one). Yeah but S-26/30 won't have VLS.

@ 0:13 but I find it difficult some thing similar for babar-3 .....
View attachment 368530

reason pushing tug was missing in our case ... so until unless the firing system/ mechanism was autonomous & submersible it is difficult to believe it was not a submarine for babar-3 test
View attachment 368529

Now THAT, is a pontoon. However not a 'underwater mobile platform'.
BTW great find

 

[Safriz]

The Naval SCALP test you are referring to was about booster ignition at high depths. No missile was involved in this case, in plain words, they secured the booster to a mechanism and submerged to the desired depth and ignited it. Now questions arise because normally the booster only fires after the missile emerges from water. However, there is another way of firing an SLCM, and that is by designing a booster that can ignite underwater and push the capsule out. Afterwards, the capsule just slides off (as shown in the SCALP photo).

The term 'underwater mobile platform' is the most accurate way to describe it. Don't know what to say more than that.

Given ISPR's current track record of specifying exact ranges, I believe it actually is 450km only. It might have to do with the shortening of length of the system (as diameter-wise it was good to go from day one). Yeah but S-26/30 won't have VLS.


Now THAT, is a pontoon. However not a 'underwater mobile platform'.
BTW great find

I am not trying to prove anything here. But ISPR used a different term for that.
They called the system you are describing "underwater controlled propulsion" in press release.
The term "underwater, mobile platform" was separately used.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I am not trying to prove anything here. But ISPR used a different term for that
They called the system you are describing "underwater controlled propulsion" in press release.
The term "underwater, mobile platform" was separately used.

"Underwater controlled propulsion" could mean anything from just using hydrodynamics to push the encapsulated missile from the tube into the water and its floatability to surface... to an underwater rocket booster.

 

[The Deterrent]

I am not trying to prove anything here. But ISPR used a different term for that.
They called the system you are describing "underwater controlled propulsion" in press release.
The term "underwater, mobile platform" was separately used.

Yeah, the propulsion part was meant to be a booster. I was referring to the launching mechanism. Anyways, I believe it is time to put a lid on this topic.

 

[Safriz]

"Underwater controlled propulsion" could mean anything from just using hydrodynamics to push the encapsulated missile from the tube into the water and its floatability to surface... to an underwater rocket booster.

In any case if Pakistan has developed an autonomous underwater test platform which can propel itself and fire missiles,that's a great achievement as such a platform can be used for extensive testing of weapons before integration into upcoming Chinese subs.

 

[[--Leo--]]

To be honest i would say only reason they have reduced the range because of torpedo tube
torpedo length is (5.8m)
babur orignal length with booster (6.25m)

if they had some other lunching platform then why would they reduce the range this makes all clear
those who have doubt or confustion don't worry we will see more test of these one test doesn't cover all
and alot of question will asked from scientist so wait for it


thanks

 

[Safriz]

To be honest i would say only reason they have reduced the range because of torpedo tube
torpedo length is (5.8m)
babur orignal length with booster (6.25m)

if they had some other lunching platform then why would they reduce the range this makes all clear
those who have doubt or confustion don't worry we will see more test of these one test doesn't cover all
and alot of question will asked from scientist so wait for it


thanks

Babur's exact length was never officially mentioned i guess??

In one of the IDEAS exhibition it was also said tohave "retargetting capability"

 

[HRK]

torpedo length is (5.8m)

dear can you provide the source I tried to find the length of Torpedo tubes of both Agosta-70 & 90 sub but find no reliable source .... BTW read somewhere NATO standard for torpedo tube length is 6.6 meter ....

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Must be fired from our new Nuclear Submarine

 

[khansaheeb]

Indian and Hindu extermination is now inevitable. Congrats.

Nah , if we wanted to that we would have done it centuries ago.

 

[Shahid Khan khan]

Welldone Pakistan.