What's new

Did MODP mention MIRV as their 2016-17 production target?

Safriz

BANNED
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
20,845
Reaction score
-1
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Well it looks like that.
In their 2015-16 yearbook, their organisation "Directorate general of Munitions production" mentions
Multi warhead bombs as production target for 2016-17.
Does that mean MIRV? If so then does that mean Ababeel MIRV is already in serial production?
Screenshot_2018-01-10-03-27-28.png
 
Last edited:
.
Well it looks like that.
In their 2015-16 yearbook, their organisation "Directorate general of Munitions production" mentions
Multi warhead bombs as production target for 2016-18.
Does that mean MIRV? If so then does that mean Ababeel MIRV is already in serial production?
View attachment 447308

I think not, first, Ballistic Missile is not a bomb, and second, Ground to Ground Ballistic Missiles belongs to Army ,not Airforce. These Multi Warhead bombs may be Sensor fuzed weapons like CBU 97 and CBU 105.
 
.
I think not, first, Ballistic Missile is not a bomb, and second, Ground to Ground Ballistic Missiles belongs to Army ,not Airforce. These Multi Warhead bombs may be Sensor fuzed weapons like CBU 97 and CBU 105.
Highly unlikely to be comparative to cbu105 as it is highly complex tech... Most likely cluster bombs
 
.
Well it looks like that.
In their 2015-16 yearbook, their organisation "Directorate general of Munitions production" mentions
Multi warhead bombs as production target for 2016-17.
Does that mean MIRV? If so then does that mean Ababeel MIRV is already in serial production?
View attachment 447308

Strategic Weapons are not within the ambit of MODP. This has nothing to do with Ababeel.
 
.
Highly unlikely to be comparative to cbu105 as it is highly complex tech... Most likely cluster bombs
Cluster bombs are already around (e.g. HAFR-1/HAFR-2). I think this new thing could either be a tandem penetrating warhead (e.g. for Ra'ad/Babur) or something aiming to emulate the CBU-105.

It won't be a 100%, but the core of it might be doable.

1. The actual delivery platform for such sub-munitions is already available in the Ra'ad and the Chinese GB6, the latter basically being analogous to the JSOW platform. The GB6 can handle sub-munitions, but likely unguided ones such as the HAFR-1 and HAFR-2 or just free-fall cluster bomblets.

2. The main issue is achieving the guided top-attack element. I don't think Pakistan can emulate the BLU-108's skeet model, but they can try making bigger and less complex top-attack munitions that have drag parachutes and IIR seekers.

South Korea and Germany doing it with the KSTAM and SMArt-155. Though tank and artillery shells, but each shell has one or two cup-sized sub-munitions with parachutes for drag and IIR and/or mmW seekers for target acquisition.

3. Pakistan could look at re-using the HAFR-1 and HAFR-2 as the core munition, but attaching a drag mechanism (it's already there, no?) with an IIR seeker, the latter seeking targets before triggering ignition. This is less sophisticated than the CBU-105, KSTAM and SMArt-155, but it does give an analogous capability to them, albeit with fewer rounds and less area coverage.

@JamD
 
.
Cluster bombs are already around (e.g. HAFR-1/HAFR-2). I think this new thing could either be a tandem penetrating warhead (e.g. for Ra'ad/Babur) or something aiming to emulate the CBU-105.

It won't be a 100%, but the core of it might be doable.

1. The actual delivery platform for such sub-munitions is already available in the Ra'ad and the Chinese GB6, the latter basically being analogous to the JSOW platform. The GB6 can handle sub-munitions, but likely unguided ones such as the HAFR-1 and HAFR-2 or just free-fall cluster bomblets.

2. The main issue is achieving the guided top-attack element. I don't think Pakistan can emulate the BLU-108's skeet model, but they can try making bigger and less complex top-attack munitions that have drag parachutes and IIR seekers.

South Korea and Germany doing it with the KSTAM and SMArt-155. Though tank and artillery shells, but each shell has one or two cup-sized sub-munitions with parachutes for drag and IIR and/or mmW seekers for target acquisition.

3. Pakistan could look at re-using the HAFR-1 and HAFR-2 as the core munition, but attaching a drag mechanism (it's already there, no?) with an IIR seeker, the latter seeking targets before triggering ignition. This is less sophisticated than the CBU-105, KSTAM and SMArt-155, but it does give an analogous capability to them, albeit with fewer rounds and less area coverage.

@JamD
I would like to add some of the technical issues which under my opinion are critical...
1. Addition of seeker is the easiest but maneuvering the warhead as per seeker data is difficult in such a small warhead.

2. Warhead had to be small yet able to takeout steel turret of a tank is also difficult to achieve.

3. Tank moving at 50 kmph is to be taken care so a lot of variable factors will come into play...

However I agree that we already have cluster bombs so probably we are moving towards some downgraded tech of CBU 105 as India already has the capability and if we do not take care of it then our tank formation will take a deep hit
 
.
I would like to add some of the technical issues which under my opinion are critical...
1. Addition of seeker is the easiest but maneuvering the warhead as per seeker data is difficult in such a small warhead.

2. Warhead had to be small yet able to takeout steel turret of a tank is also difficult to achieve.

3. Tank moving at 50 kmph is to be taken care so a lot of variable factors will come into play...

However I agree that we already have cluster bombs so probably we are moving towards some downgraded tech of CBU 105 as India already has the capability and if we do not take care of it then our tank formation will take a deep hit
Partnering with China, South Africa or Turkey could help as well. I'd be shocked if there isn't at least a secret/low-key top-attack munition program in at least one of those countries, esp. China.
 
. .
I find the next item more interesting

EMP weapon? The heartening aspect is, if they are thinking about the bomb, they must also be thinking about defending from such attacks. Ruggidized electronics are very important on the modern battlefield.
 
.
EMP weapon? The heartening aspect is, if they are thinking about the bomb, they must also be thinking about defending from such attacks. Ruggidized electronics are very important on the modern battlefield.
That's important and the solution is already there which is mainly in format or optical wiring rather than electric and then protecting the circuits from any type of radiation... However it's an expensive solution
 
. .
Highly unlikely to be comparative to cbu105 as it is highly complex tech... Most likely cluster bombs
Pak already produces Cluster mutions/Bombs.

Cluster bombs are already around (e.g. HAFR-1/HAFR-2). I think this new thing could either be a tandem penetrating warhead (e.g. for Ra'ad/Babur) or something aiming to emulate the CBU-105.

It won't be a 100%, but the core of it might be doable.

1. The actual delivery platform for such sub-munitions is already available in the Ra'ad and the Chinese GB6, the latter basically being analogous to the JSOW platform. The GB6 can handle sub-munitions, but likely unguided ones such as the HAFR-1 and HAFR-2 or just free-fall cluster bomblets.

2. The main issue is achieving the guided top-attack element. I don't think Pakistan can emulate the BLU-108's skeet model, but they can try making bigger and less complex top-attack munitions that have drag parachutes and IIR seekers.

South Korea and Germany doing it with the KSTAM and SMArt-155. Though tank and artillery shells, but each shell has one or two cup-sized sub-munitions with parachutes for drag and IIR and/or mmW seekers for target acquisition.

3. Pakistan could look at re-using the HAFR-1 and HAFR-2 as the core munition, but attaching a drag mechanism (it's already there, no?) with an IIR seeker, the latter seeking targets before triggering ignition. This is less sophisticated than the CBU-105, KSTAM and SMArt-155, but it does give an analogous capability to them, albeit with fewer rounds and less area coverage.

@JamD


Correction bro.

HAFR is an anti runway missile.

Hijara is a cluster bomb.
992C2D6C-BDB7-4644-96A8-3964F3E5F7E7.jpeg



https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/should-pakistan-ban-air-dropped-cluster-bombs.145457/#post-2387085
 
. .
Pak already produces Cluster mutions/Bombs.




Correction bro.

HAFR is an anti runway missile.

Hijara is a cluster bomb.
View attachment 449098


https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/should-pakistan-ban-air-dropped-cluster-bombs.145457/#post-2387085
Yeah, but I was referring to how the HAFR has a drag and top-attack-like capability already, it's a matter of making a guided version of that with seeker and corresponding flight control system (to move the HAFR to its target). Not a small matter, but that's what I was referring to.
 
. .

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom