• Friday, December 13, 2019

Shaheen III | News & Discussions.

Discussion in 'Pakistan Strategic Forces' started by The Deterrent, Jan 9, 2011.

  1. PWFI

    PWFI SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,209
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2009
    Ratings:
    +0 / 3,219 / -11
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    France
    Algeria zindabad
     
  2. raahaat7

    raahaat7 FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    131
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2013
    Ratings:
    +0 / 23 / -0
    Insha-Allah. Thanks for answering.
     
  3. The Deterrent

    The Deterrent PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Messages:
    3,174
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2011
    Ratings:
    +38 / 6,273 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Can't say.
    The latter.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  4. The Accountant

    The Accountant SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    5,717
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2016
    Ratings:
    +15 / 5,770 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    So if SUPARCO has limited role than it is to test ICBM capability in the disguise ???

    I was aware that Pakistan was working on 7500 range but stopped due to extrnal and economical pressures ...
     
  5. The Deterrent

    The Deterrent PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Messages:
    3,174
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2011
    Ratings:
    +38 / 6,273 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    No. SUPARCO lacks the technical expertise to build such a complex system from its own resources. There won't be any disguise, the purpose will be to get satellites in space as efficiently as possible.

    Nope, Pakistan never worked on such a system. There were some long-term future plans, discussions (back in early 2000s), but there was simply no motivation, besides the obvious financial & technical constraints & international repercussions.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  6. sparten

    sparten SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,577
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Ratings:
    +3 / 1,003 / -0
    Actually once you have made an IRBM of 3000 km range you have got all the technical ability to make an ICBM. All the challenges of ICBM have to be solved for IRBM also.

    Re SLV, multiple types of launcher, upto medium and heavy are planned. Rumour has it that AF and Navy will have separate systems.

    One crazy rumour I have heard which is very unlikely to be true but to God I wish would be is that PAF GDP, PN FAA and PA AA have been sounded out about providing a list of pilots suitable for astronaut training.

    While participation in the Chinese Shenzhou programme has been mooted and we earlier seriously considered sending a few officers on Shuttle training (Pressler put an end to any hopes of that), this rumour says that it's for local designed spacecraft.

    As I said crazy, and unlikely. But man a Gemini class craft is just about in our capabilities. One can dream.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  7. Reichsmarschall

    Reichsmarschall ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    9,412
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2016
    Ratings:
    +8 / 17,495 / -6
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
  8. The Deterrent

    The Deterrent PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Messages:
    3,174
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2011
    Ratings:
    +38 / 6,273 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  9. Reichsmarschall

    Reichsmarschall ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    9,412
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2016
    Ratings:
    +8 / 17,495 / -6
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    so it means we are going to test SLV this year? right?
     
  10. The Deterrent

    The Deterrent PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Messages:
    3,174
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2011
    Ratings:
    +38 / 6,273 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    [​IMG]
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  11. amardeep mishra

    amardeep mishra FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,308
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Ratings:
    +27 / 2,541 / -2
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    Hi @Narendra Trump
    I cant view the original video, but there are various factual inaccuracies and I will try to correct them, but as I can see, @The Deterrent has done most of the job.
    1) The white smoke trail you see is actually due to pressure difference, as you go up, the atmospheric pressure falls off drastically and hence the density, there will be a point when the density of exhaust will be higher than the density of the local atmosphere. Also kindly note, the nozzles are designed to operate "optimally" in a certain altitude zone. What I mean by optimality is the fact that when your rocket(nozzle) operate in this altitude region, you'll have least possible divergence losses from the nozzle, in any other case, there will be either over expansion or under expansion.

    2) Burnout time is not the real measure of range of the ICBM, what matters in defining the trajectory or range are-
    (a) Burnout Altitude
    (b) Burnout Angle
    (c) Burnout Velocity
    The burnout time depends on the acceleration of your motor, if lets say you've a motor with very high ISp values, then you'll likely have a lower burnout time. Also it depends on the amount of fuel carried on-board--which in turn dictates the size of the rocket.

    3) It is patently false to assume that solid motor has higher Isp than liquid motor. On the contrary even the most primitive liquid motor comprising of N2O4/UDMH has higher Isp than a solid motor of similar mass. In fact liquid in general burn much more "uniformly" and emit lesser unburnt particles vis-a-vis solids. The Isp figures progressively increase as we move from UDMH(hypergollic) to LOX/kerosene(semi-cryogenic) to LOX/LH(cryogenic). However there are various pros and cons of using liquid engine-
    for starters--Pros
    1) It has much higher thrust and lesser unburnt particles
    2) Throtleable i.e the thrust can be controlled

    Cons
    1) Takes enormous amount of time to fill the tanks.
    2) In case of hypergollics, the constituents are highly corrosive and dangerous, In the case of cryogenics, the technology required is very complex.
    3) Generally require a lot of volume.
    In the light of last three points, it is advisable from operational perspective that ICBMs be fuelled by solids rather than liquids. Thereby reducing the reaction time to launch a ICBM. With canisterization, the prep times can be further lowered to just a couple of mins. It is rumored that A-5 can be launched in as less as 10mins! But there are a whole range of issues that crop up when you have to store you missiles in a hermetically sealed silo for extended duration of time. Those issues might range from how to fill the RCS tanks to the type of metal alloys suitable for those tanks etc, etc.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2017
    • Thanks Thanks x 1