Evolution of Pakistan's tactical nukes

[The Deterrent]

It's a bit far fetched, but nuclear detonation is triggered through:

1. Explosion that reduces volume, thus concentrating neutron production causing chain reaction.
2. Introduction of neutron source that provides a deluge of neutrons.

'Explosion' (implosion type device) with Pu is the most efficient and smallest weapon design. Any other device type (gun type, or your fictional 'neutron source injection' type) is too big for tactical systems.

In order to circumvent the problems with electronics:

a. Delayed fuses could be used. These would be materially delayed rather than electronically delayed, set to reach full explosion after a given amount of time.
b. Delayed mechanical injection of neutron source.

Basically, if electronics is a problem, then mechanics should be considered.

Do you even realize how a implosion type fission device works? It can't be made without the circuitry to simultaneously detonate all the explosive lenses around the core (with an accuracy of microseconds), and thats the most basic part. What about arming systems? High-voltage supply for the trigger?

Have some mercy on Oppenheimer's soul.

I have seen videos of a Turkish rail gun and size doesn't seem to be a problem.

The only problem is that it is designed to shoot small calibre metal slugs, not ~300mm shells with nukes.

An increase of approx. 100% over Nasr is definitely significant.

Nope, its not. Sadly the world doesn't works the way you want it to. Do me a favor, and read up a bit on EMGRs and nuclear weapon design, before jumping to conclusions based on your wild theories.

 

[JamD]

I don't know whether it'll help the discussion but a long time ago I was very interested in rail-guns and I read a NASA study in which they wanted to launch small satellites using railguns. The issue was the ridiculous amounts of Gs. So they had increased the barrel length significantly (suppose to be on the side of a mountain or something) so the projectile/satellite has enough distance to accelerate over, with lower Gs. I don't think that idea went past the feasibility stage. If I recall they had proposed 4 km long barrel to bring the Gs down to some level they hoped to make the electronics work at. Any "nuclear railgun" will not have the luxury of a barrel that long.

 

[Fawadqasim1]

Aren't nukes abit volotile to being shot through a rail gun?

I told him so in another thread but he likes this idea

The warhead should be encased within a Farady cage to protect from the high EM interference.

And what about crazy gss

 

[Fawadqasim1]

Agreed, it would be harder for counter-artillery radars to track Mach 5-7 projectiles.

This is the figurative representation of the present BAE Systems' EMRG:
View attachment 391944
Further details: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Rail_Gun.php

Coming to why 'nuclear' EMRG is infeasible, specifically for a country like Pakistan:

1. Projectile's Physical Packaging: To-date, there have been no demands by the militaries of US/PRC of an explosive charge aboard such a projectile, as the kinetic energy of the projectile is enough to damage/destroy the relevant intended targets. Assuming such a requirement does arise, and that too nuclear in nature, it will be extremely difficult to design such a projectile. Taking the smallest 155mm tactical nuke as an example, it would require a reasonably large projectile (250-300mm) to house such a package. This further increases the size of the launch vehicle, way beyond tactical mobility parameters.

2. Projectile Electronics: Inability to develop expensive extremely high-G ( > 50,000Gs, reference: General Atomics' Blitzer's 60,000Gs) resistant electronics. Procurement is questionable, since this kind of equipment is currently under-development by the leading military R&D giants (US & PRC). The US Navy issued the following requirements for the electronics package of such a projectile in 2012:


3. Power Supply Issues: The EMRG prototypes currently under development are housed aboard naval vessels, having large enough power supply (reference: DDG-1000 USS Zumwalt's 80mW). The weapon prototype itself requires 15-30mW of power in addition to massive capacitor banks. Supplying a tactical, 'mobile' (shoot-n-scoot?) system with such amounts of electrical resources severally hinders its effectiveness.

4. Mobility Constraints: Extending point 1 & 3, the size of such a system would be too big to be effective for its intended purpose. Compare with the present 155mm EMRG prototype with HVP inert projectile (note: the barrel length is 10m)

Now, coming to why such a 'nuclear' EMRG is impractical, specifically for a country like Pakistan:

1. Design and development of such a complex system, from scratch, considering the technical capabilities of Pakistan as a 3rd world country...is a fanboy's dream. Bear in mind that the system under-consideration would need a ~300mm calibre
2. The financial resources required for such a system beyond Pakistan's reach.
3. The velocity advantage (Mach 7 for a ~160km range system) is questionably low, since the existing Nasr missile already has a maximum velocity of Mach 3-4 (reference: typical MBRLs have ~Mach 3 maximum velocity).
4. The mobility disadvantage is high and renders such a system ineffective for its intended use by Pakistan.
5. The only argument favoring such a EMRG-based tactical nuke is the interception of Nasr missiles, which can be avoided by simply saturating the BMD (IF ANY) by using low-cost MBRLs or non-nuclear Nasrs.

In short, ham se na ho paey ga.

and you need a carbide hard not steel hard explosive lense for it forget about levitated pit.so you need a radically different design. From what we have now and by we I mean the whole nuclear map. So its not a joke