What's new

Should we opt for the ICBM?

انگریز

BANNED
Feb 20, 2015
269
2
319
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
All those who studied basic math physics will know how a projectile moves? In a parabolic shape?
All ballistic misiles travel a parabolic path and are essentially projectiles after the stages fall off in 2-5 minutes or less. They travel on kinetic energy and under influence of Gravity.
So we all know that Ballicti missiles have a maximum range. But less known is the fact that they also have a minimum range , inside of which the parabolic path will lose shape and accuracy or even stability of missile cannot be guaranteed and parameters like angle of re-entry cannot be controlled and missile will have a much high risk of disintsgrating on re-entry.
For example Indian Agni 5 cannot hit any target within 2000 km of initial firing position.
Pakistan's Shaheen-2 cannot hit anything closer than 5-600.Km.
Likewise say for example we make a missile with 10,000 km range. It will have a minimum range of may be 5000 km.
So that ICBM will not be any threat to India and will be pointless.
 

Fenrir

FULL MEMBER
Jul 14, 2015
1,292
0
262
Country
Norway
Location
Norway
All those who studied basic math physics will know how a projectile moves? In a parabolic shape?
All ballistic misiles travel a parabolic path and are essentially projectiles after the stages fall off in 2-5 minutes or less. They travel on kinetic energy and under influence of Gravity.
So we all know that Ballicti missiles have a maximum range. But less known is the fact that they also have a minimum range , inside of which the parabolic path will lose shape and accuracy or even stability of missile cannot be guaranteed and parameters like angle of re-entry cannot be controlled and missile will have a much high risk of disintsgrating on re-entry.
For example Indian Agni 5 cannot hit any target within 2000 km of initial firing position.
Pakistan's Shaheen-2 cannot hit anything closer than 5-600.Km.
Likewise say for example we make a missile with 10,000 km range. It will have a minimum range of may be 5000 km.
So that ICBM will not be any threat to India and will be pointless.
Warhead buses will alter the calculus though, most modern missiles aren't unitary - they feature separating warhead buses (this isn't true for tactical and battlefield ballistic missiles like SCUD).

Take the Pershing II MaRV as an example. For all the talk of Hyper Sonic Glide Vehicles in future combat - and their development by the US and China, the Pershing II actually pioneered that concept with its MaRV, a maneuverable re-entry vehicle, and was able to hit targets beyond the missile's range because its re-entry bus could maneuver and glide to a target up to X distance (that's classified) beyond the missile's maximum range:

The MaRV, like a HGV, would pitch up and glide at high speed towards a target beyond the missiles maximum range - Pershing II was a MRBM with a range of 1,770 Km - that's the missile's range, its warhead could extend that further, it was also had an earth penetrating capability. It was incredibly accurate with a CEP of less than 30 meters.

The biggest difference between a MaRV and an HGV is range, not speed or maneuverability.

Because of its maneuverability, Pershing II was tested as an ASBM, but that program was terminated following several arms reduction treaties with the Soviet Union/Russia. The in turn means China's DF-21D is technically feasible, but still really difficult.















Your point about a minimum distance is valid, though that too can be altered, as noted in the "top-down attack" capability of some battlefield ballistic missiles such as ATACMS, but the maximum distance of a missile's warhead can be extended based on the type of warhead bus it carries:

Sorry, there isn't a larger version of this image, but it demonstrates ATACMS ability to pitch down mid-flight and strike a target beneath it:



So i believe the ICBM which can target most NATO members(excluding turkey for obvious reasons) in europe will keep america and NATO out of this region and they will think thrice before any misadventure. What do you think?
Would you define "this region" for me? Where does that begin and end, I'm not familiar with Pakistan's regional relations. Would Pakistan extend its nuclear umbrella to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia or any other regional nation? If not, then an ICBM wouldn't deter the US, let's leave out NATO since they wont act unilaterally or without provocation, but without a nuclear guarantee from Pakistan, those nations under-threat wouldn't be given a reprieve.

Even then the threat of a retaliatory or escalator strike would likely back Pakistan down as it did with the Soviets and Russia when the US makes trouble in their "backyard" - same goes for the US being backed-down when the Russian's make trouble in ours.

Contrary to popular reasoning, two nuclear armed entities are at risk of confrontation more-so if they both have nuclear weapons, but not directly. Instead, via the Stability-Instability Paradox, the potential for proxy conflicts increases:

Stability–instability paradox

The stability–instability paradox is an international relations theory regarding the effect of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction. It states that when two countries each have nuclear weapons, the probability of a direct war between them greatly decreases, but the probability of minor or indirect conflicts between them increases. This occurs because rational actors want to avoid nuclear wars, and thus they neither start major conflicts nor allow minor conflicts to escalate into major conflicts—thus making it safe to engage in minor conflicts. For instance, during the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union never engaged each other in warfare, but fought proxy wars in Korea,Vietnam, Angola, the Middle East, Nicaragua and Afghanistan and spent substantial amounts of money and manpower on gaining relative influence over the third world.

This paradox tells us that nuclear weapons wouldn't actually deter the US from adventuring into Pakistan's neighborhood, unless Pakistan ensure a nuclear safety guarantee to its neighbors and is willing to risk an escalation with the US.

So to answer the question from my perspective, no, Pakistan does not need ICBMs, the cost would be too high to be justified and the necessity too low. Pakistan needs missile that can affect regional concerns, perhaps up to MRBM or IRBM, but it does not have concerns trans-continentally that would justify the acquisition of an ICBM

There is nothing different in ICBM and Satellite launcher both are same one delivered satellite and other can deliver bomb .
Precisely, a SLV is an ICBM without a guidance system - which is what separates missiles from rockets. Besides, investing in space allows Pakistan new avenues such as satellite communications, navigation and electronic intelligence, all of which make it far less brittle and allow it flexibility - such as communications satellites supporting AWACS and ground control, rather then relying on the latter two alone.

Japan's epsilon SLV is considered an ICBM, only without the warhead and guidance package, both of which can be supported if needed:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

انگریز

BANNED
Feb 20, 2015
269
2
319
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Hi @Technogaianist sir.
Dont you think the delta fins on Pershing II warhead are for trivial course adjustments for accuracy? Not for gliding or extending range?

You see , a ballistic missile re-enters atmosphere at speeds of mach 5+ . Do you think at those speeds any material of tge fins will be strong enough to make changes to the trajectory after entering atmisphere, so large that range is substantially extended?
Also dont you think that fins like that of Pershing II are surrounded in plasma and will have very limited effectivity ?

I do agree that MIRV mounted on a self propelled Warhead Bus travelling in orbit can fire warheads at angles and intervals as to increase the range . But that is a complicated technology which countries like Pakistan cant afford and dont need.
 
Last edited:

SecularNationalist

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 21, 2015
5,451
-6
8,729
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
All those who studied basic math physics will know how a projectile moves? In a parabolic shape?
All ballistic misiles travel a parabolic path and are essentially projectiles after the stages fall off in 2-5 minutes or less. They travel on kinetic energy and under influence of Gravity.
So we all know that Ballicti missiles have a maximum range. But less known is the fact that they also have a minimum range , inside of which the parabolic path will lose shape and accuracy or even stability of missile cannot be guaranteed and parameters like angle of re-entry cannot be controlled and missile will have a much high risk of disintsgrating on re-entry.
For example Indian Agni 5 cannot hit any target within 2000 km of initial firing position.
Pakistan's Shaheen-2 cannot hit anything closer than 5-600.Km.
Likewise say for example we make a missile with 10,000 km range. It will have a minimum range of may be 5000 km.
So that ICBM will not be any threat to India and will be pointless.
I am sure you did not read my post .If it is capable of hitting any NATO nation and american interests then the ICBM is perfectly viable.
Would you define "this region" for me? Where does that begin and end, I'm not familiar with Pakistan's regional relations. Would Pakistan extend its nuclear umbrella to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia or any other regional nation? If not, then an ICBM wouldn't deter the US, let's leave out NATO since they wont act unilaterally or without provocation, but without a nuclear guarantee from Pakistan, those nations under-threat wouldn't be given a reprieve.
If our ICBM is providing deterrence then it,s successful .Like the fear of being nuked will prevent america from doing things like salala attack,drone strikes (some believe they are approved by pak government though)etc
 

Maarkhoor

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 24, 2015
16,517
42
27,766
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Hi there)It,s no surprise we have the ICBM technology but we are not revealing it for some political reasons.Our missiles currently cover all India the main rival of Pakistan.But they don,t pose any threat or deterrence against the NATO or american allies.That,s the reason we have seen some gangsterism of NATO and america inside pakistan in the past.So i believe the ICBM which can target most NATO members(excluding turkey for obvious reasons) in europe will keep america and NATO out of this region and they will think thrice before any misadventure. What do you think?
Sorry if i said something naive or childish as i am not an expert in this field.
We have capability to built / test and field but we don't need at this time because of economy. We don't want to panic west and put our self under harsh sanctions which made our economy worst then Afghanistan. We are progressing country once our economy grows to the pint sure we test ICBM.
 

Arsalan

THINK TANK CHAIRMAN
Sep 29, 2008
18,252
65
23,664
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
We have human resource to get ICBMs but not funds.
Let us invite experts for their opinion.
@Arsalan @Horus @Zarvan @DESERT FIGHTER
I would say
We have human resource to get ICBMs AND THE funds.
but no need!!

ICBM will raise lot of geopolitical complexities. Many nations may feel the urge to counter that ICBM and different methods can/may be followed. While the ICBM will give us not so much needed strike ability over longer ranges, it will strain the much needed relations with the same nations. So in short, there is no need for us to develop ICBM. The immediate threat is covered and accounted for, what we need now is to develop better delivery systems, modify the existing missiles so that they have better protection against ABM system. Even develop more advanced missiles in the same range category if required. The funds must be shifted to this and not some ICBM that we do not need. A MIRV, MaRV, Hyper sonic re-entry vehicle are the new horizons that we should explore. Not to forget the need for better longer range cruise missiles with stealth capability, upgraded enemy missile defense evasion techniques and naval version of those cruise missiles. These are the things that are required on priority before an ICBM.
 

Burhan Wani

STAFF
Dec 27, 2013
6,601
22
8,573
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
I would say

but no need!!

ICBM will raise lot of geopolitical complexities. Many nations may feel the urge to counter that ICBM and different methods can/may be followed. While the ICBM will give us not so much needed strike ability over longer ranges, it will strain the much needed relations with the same nations. So in short, there is no need for us to develop ICBM. The immediate threat is covered and accounted for, what we need now is to develop better delivery systems, modify the existing missiles so that they have better protection against ABM system. Even develop more advanced missiles in the same range category if required. The funds must be shifted to this and not some ICBM that we do not need. A MIRV, MaRV, Hyper sonic re-entry vehicle are the new horizons that we should explore. Not to forget the need for better longer range cruise missiles with stealth capability, upgraded enemy missile defense evasion techniques and naval version of those cruise missiles. These are the things that are required on priority before an ICBM.
I Agreed.
Thank you for you opinion your posts are very informative.
Can we launch ballistic and cruise missile from submarine in near future?
 

Arsalan

THINK TANK CHAIRMAN
Sep 29, 2008
18,252
65
23,664
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
I Agreed.
Thank you for you opinion your posts are very informative.
Can we launch ballistic and cruise missile from submarine in near future?
Cruise missile - Yes!
Ballistic missile - No, not yet, not in near future. This do not seems to be the target as of now. All the focus is on submarine launched cruise missile, to develop that missile and acquire those submarines.
 

Burhan Wani

STAFF
Dec 27, 2013
6,601
22
8,573
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Cruise missile - Yes!
Ballistic missile - No, not yet, not in near future. This do not seems to be the target as of now. All the focus is on submarine launched cruise missile, to develop that missile and acquire those submarines.
Can you share how much time it will for first sub launched cruise missile.
 

Arsalan

THINK TANK CHAIRMAN
Sep 29, 2008
18,252
65
23,664
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Can you share how much time it will for first sub launched cruise missile.
Frankly, i have no information about that.

However we can all make an educated guess. The missile will most likely be carried by the new submarines that are looking to get from China. The first of those subs are most likely to come around 3 to 4 years from now (being on safe side) and in the first year of sea trails and weapon testing we may see the submarine launched cruise missile being tested. So in short, it will take about 4-5 years for Pakistan to officially announce and then induct a SLCM.

Remember, this is no information, just a guess based on the reports we have. The deal for the submarines with all its details have not been made public officially as yet so there are a lots of "IF's" in the above assessment.
 

Burhan Wani

STAFF
Dec 27, 2013
6,601
22
8,573
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Frankly, i have no information about that.

However we can all make an educated guess. The missile will most likely be carried by the new submarines that are looking to get from China. The first of those subs are most likely to come around 3 to 4 years from now (being on safe side) and in the first year of sea trails and weapon testing we may see the submarine launched cruise missile being tested. So in short, it will take about 4-5 years for Pakistan to officially announce and then induct a SLCM.

Remember, this is no information, just a guess based on the reports we have. The deal for the submarines with all its details have not been made public officially as yet so there are a lots of "IF's" in the above assessment.
Any news regarding nuclear powered submarine.
 

Arsalan

THINK TANK CHAIRMAN
Sep 29, 2008
18,252
65
23,664
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Any news regarding nuclear powered submarine.
Lets not get our hope too high.
Again, nuclear sub is not something that will come on top of Pakistan Navy's priority list so we wont see that happening any time soon. The conventional sub from China are a priority, then we will perhaps look to get some heavier frigates with better AAW capabilities (i wont even say destroyers as yet, heavier frigates!! ) THEN, based on the performance of the Chinese subs Pakistan navy may look for more conventional submarines (from China or some western source, based on the performance of the ones we get) and/may be a couple of nuclear sub at that time.

This is what i feel we will see in coming years and you see there are no nuclear submarines in near future. AGAIN, this is NOT AN INFORMATION, just a guess based on the analysis of current situation and needs of PN.
 

Burhan Wani

STAFF
Dec 27, 2013
6,601
22
8,573
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Lets not get our hope too high.
Again, nuclear sub is not something that will come on top of Pakistan Navy's priority list so we wont see that happening any time soon. The conventional sub from China are a priority, then we will perhaps look to get some heavier frigates with better AAW capabilities (i wont even say destroyers as yet, heavier frigates!! ) THEN, based on the performance of the Chinese subs Pakistan navy may look for more conventional submarines (from China or some western source, based on the performance of the ones we get) and/may be a couple of nuclear sub at that time.

This is what i feel we will see in coming years and you see there are no nuclear submarines in near future. AGAIN, this is NOT AN INFORMATION, just a guess based on the analysis of current situation and needs of PN.
Any deal regarding anti missile defense system and surface-to-air missile system in near future?
 

544_delta

FULL MEMBER
Feb 8, 2014
804
-3
675
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
no, kya karoge ICBM le ke ? your current range already has most/all? of India covered :P


it'll only invite sanctions, fear, and all sorts of other nasty responses from the rest of the world (read "west"), even India have had to strategically limit their range so that it's just enough to reach the Chinese east coast but not all of western Europe, let alone the home of the world police.

though tech demos like the mars camera probe prove that our range can be extended anytime, jab mir-reegh pahunch gaye, DC, Lundon kya cheez hai ? ;)

long range missiles are mostly useless anyway, if anything, Pakistan should look to bolster it's space program.
Agreed. Western countries have excellent missile shields anyways so it will be a waste of resources.
 

Arsalan

THINK TANK CHAIRMAN
Sep 29, 2008
18,252
65
23,664
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Any deal regarding anti missile defense system and surface-to-air missile system in near future?
Not an appropriate thread to discuss that!
Also lot have been said and discussed about that in the relevant threads and you can find the required information there. :)
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom