Hatf-IX - Tactical Multi-Tube Ballistic Missile

[pmukherjee]

This is what it is. A short range missile. Not a guided/unguided rocket and definitely not multiple barreled or multi tube as this guy is saying.

 

[mjnaushad]

---------- Post added at 04:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 PM ----------

No PR94/2011-ISPR Dated: April 19, 2011
Rawalpindi - April 19, 2011:

Pakistan today successfully conducted the 1st flight test of the newly developed Short Range Surface to Surface Multi Tube Ballistic Missile Hatf IX (NASR). The missile has been developed to add deterrence value to Pakistan’s Strategic Weapons Development programme at shorter ranges. NASR, with a range of 60 km, carries nuclear warheads of appropriate yield with high accuracy, shoot and scoot attributes. This quick response system addresses the need to deter evolving threats.

The test was witnessed by Director General Strategic Plans Division, Lieutenant General (Retired) Khalid Ahmed Kidwai, Chairman NESCOM Mr Irfan Burney, senior officers from the strategic forces, scientists and engineers of strategic organizations.

On this occasion, the Director General Strategic Plans Division, Lieutenant General (Retired) Khalid Ahmed Kidwai said that the test was a very important milestone in consolidating Pakistan’s strategic deterrence capability at all levels of the threat spectrum. He said in that hierarchy of military operations, the NASR Weapon System now provides Pakistan with short range missile capability in addition to the already available medium and long range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles in its inventory.

The successful test has also been warmly appreciated by the President and Prime Minister of Pakistan, who have congratulated the scientists and engineers on their outstanding success.

 

[Markus]

Its not rule of thumb that a ballistic missile has to be launched vertically and that it has to go into space. The can be launched horizontally also.

Take example of this: MGM-140 ATACMS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (a horizontally launched missile system)

And also, just for info, kindly read about ballistics, it may give you an idea what ballistic missiles are.

Thanks for the info.

I just checked MGM-140 ATACMS, its says its a tactical system but it was not referred as ballistic system.

Also, any ballistic missile is a system that is guided during its inertial phase but when during the later stage it succumbs to gravity.

Given the flight path of todays system, the missile will need guidance in its complete flight to reach its target. If its ballistic, then by definition, it must follow gravity during its last stages.

Then I am confused as to how it can be called as ballistic.

 

[The Deterrent]

This is what it is. A short range missile. Not a guided/unguided rocket and definitely not multiple barreled or multi tube as this guy is saying.

Mr Talat Masud is talking about cruise missiles....what non-sense?....dont you see the new picture with NASR clearly written over it?

 

[bc040400065]

@ coldfire. where did you find this list of missiles?? Wikipedia??

I think these eezabs are just someones own speculations but nothing real about these. Only one that i have heard of is taimur ICBM. But the other one TIPU is not in this list. so some fanboys wish list i think.

 

[Windjammer]

This is what it is. A short range missile. Not a guided/unguided rocket and definitely not multiple barreled or multi tube as this guy is saying.

The footage being shown is not of today's test but the test launch of Shaheen-1 missile system.

 

[acetophenol]

good work

 

[The Deterrent]

@ coldfire. where did you find this list of missiles?? Wikipedia??

I think these eezabs are just someones own speculations but nothing real about these. Only one that i have heard of is taimur ICBM. But the other one TIPU is not in this list. so some fanboys wish list i think.

I have stated something about the the Pakistani ICBM here,do check it:
Pakistan's Nuclear Delivery Systems

 

[Moorkh]

It is feasible for an army like ours....we all know that how much we are lagging behind in conventional weapons.....probably the first time a country is trying to counter conventional weapons with nuclear ones.....imagine Indian army capturing an area in thar desert...now our army cannot fight back and we cannot get back our area .....suppose the airforce is not in that position because of low quantity+quality and very potent air defences...Nasr will provide very fast and assured destruction.

Remember that the missiles specialized for nuclear use are made keeping in view that there might be a defeat situation so we could use them as a last resort...

Does not sound like the brightest of ideas. India has already declared that any nuclear weapon usage against its forces will have a nuclear retaliation. If a nuclear shooting war is going to start the moment you use a nuke, why go for small ones, why not go for a knock out against India.

 

[JonAsad]

Thanks for the info.

I just checked MGM-140 ATACMS, its says its a tactical system but it was not referred as ballistic system.

Also, any ballistic missile is a system that is guided during its inertial phase but when during the later stage it succumbs to gravity.

Given the flight path of todays system, the missile will need guidance in its complete flight to reach its target. If its ballistic, then by definition, it must follow gravity during its last stages.

Then I am confused as to how it can be called as ballistic.

Do the easy thing- open the link and press ctrl+F, type ballistic in search field- press enter- then click the highlighted part (Tactical ballistic missiles of the United States)- you'll know which analogy the missile comes under-

I did it like that -

 

[The Deterrent]

Does not sound like the brightest of ideas. India has already declared that any nuclear weapon usage against its forces will have a nuclear retaliation. If a nuclear shooting war is going to start the moment you use a nuke, why go for small ones, why not go for a knock out against India.

Because logically,I think India should nuke Pak Army and the military installations in response...so i dont think India would instead nuke the general population...and of course each and every idea is not bright,e.g.
check out this
Davy Crockett (nuclear device) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and tell me how bright is this...

 

[Moorkh]

A more rational situation would be when both countries have launched nuclear missiles on each other already and now its legal to use nuclear weapons. In that case whats harm to use few nukes against Indian strongholds to neutralize them?

I wanted to know is there any possibility of launching this missile outside multi-barrel rocket launcher as a single missile? If so then this could be launched by few men instead of a vehicle.

once the war has become nuclear, the industrial and technical base required the wars will be nuked out. there will be no further war, not because no one is left to fight but because there is nothing left to fight with.

the tanks and planes wont move cos the refineries and oil reserves were blown up by nukes. they wont shoot cos the ordnance factories and munition dumps get blown up .how do u expect either of the armies to fight on in such a situation?

 

[TaimiKhan]

Thanks for the info.

I just checked MGM-140 ATACMS, its says its a tactical system but it was not referred as ballistic system.

Also, any ballistic missile is a system that is guided during its inertial phase but when during the later stage it succumbs to gravity.

Given the flight path of todays system, the missile will need guidance in its complete flight to reach its target. If its ballistic, then by definition, it must follow gravity during its last stages.

Then I am confused as to how it can be called as ballistic.

Its a Tactical Ballistic Missile System, it goes up, reaches a certain height with engine power and then comes back to the surface, to its target using the Ballistics. But while coming down and going up, its not only using ballistics but also guidance from other means to reach its target.

It would not be a ballistic missile, if its powered the whole time by an engine, but ATCAMS, NASR, Iskander, Prithvi, Abdali, Ghaznavi etc etc are all Ballistic Missiles. They use the ballistics for their flight as well as are guided through either GPS, INS, GLONASS etc etc.

The above mentioned missiles are all Tactical Ballistic Missiles as they are not powered by their rocket engines through out their flight.

And this NASR, Iskander and even Indian Shourya missiles are all Quasi Ballistic Missiles, that is they don't go up in the atmosphere, rather they fly within it and reach their target. And Quasi Ballistic Missiles have their own plus points.

Hope, this time i am clear enough to convey my point.

Artillery shells travel using ballistics, a rocket (unguided one) uses ballistics to travel to its target, and then SSM missiles (guided ones) which don't travel to their target fully on rocket engine use ballistics to travel rest of their path after reaching certain height with the help of their engine, but they get guidance from internal sources and external sources to be more accurate.

 

[The Deterrent]

once the war has become nuclear, the industrial and technical base required the wars will be nuked out. there will be no further war, not because no one is left to fight but because there is nothing left to fight with.

the tanks and planes wont move cos the refineries and oil reserves were blown up by nukes. they wont shoot cos the ordnance factories and munition dumps get blown up .how do u expect either of the armies to fight on in such a situation?

in present scenario,I think a hypothetical,possible war wouldn't last more than 3-7 days,before the International community jumps in...

 

[graphican]

You guys must had attacked back in 1998 after India tested its nuclear arsenal without any provocation at all. I hope you would remember the speech of PM Atal Behari Vajpaye and others in your own parliament and see what language and behavior they exhibited.. all without any provocation!

Not to forget, the attack on Indian Parliament by Kashmiris was taken as attack by Pakistan, also the attack on Samjhota Express was seen as attack by Pakistan, the murder of Sikhs in Kashmir at the time of President Clinton visited India was also taken as attack by Pakistan, the attack of Male Gaon was taken as attack by Pakistan and the list goes on.. and all of these proved untrue.

Even the Kargil War is different.. not to forget Kashmir border is "Line of Control" instead of Indian Border or Pakistani Border. So this argument doen't count here. for Mumbai Attacks, Pakistan from the first hour had offered India all the support and Joint Investigation to probe and punish culprits. What else could you have expected from Pakistan and what did India tried to do was "Surgical Strikes". Unfortunate isn't it.

Indian attitude is aggressive by nature. You are talking about not attacking Pakistan, I can list 10 of incident when you wanted but our firepower stopped you.. otherwise your army was so keen to conduct Surgical Strikes within hours after the incident. How unfortunate that without probing you guys produce conclusions and developments like Hataf-9 makes sure no misadventure is done. Thats the Safty-wall to be honest.