How many types of Ballistic missiles India has deployed?

[amardeep mishra]

Roll control systems. Its mainly used to control the roll angles.

*reaction control system

 

[shaheenmissile]

When we are talking about tactical nukes, the yield efficiencies of Plutonium versus Uranium do not come into play since the additional pressure needed to "extract" Pu-239 optimally comes at a weight compromise of additional explosive primer - such a tradeoff only becomes advantageous when you pass 20kt and above where the diminishing returns from using Pu vis a vis U start to fall significantly. The only reason to use Pu in such cases is its easier to produce compared to U.

Besides, Pakistan has not tested a Plutonium device so the point is a moot one to begin with.



Tritium boosting for this class of weapons double the yield of say 0.5kt yield of barely over critical mass material to about 1kt. After that this also suffers from major diminishing returns (given the compact volume vis a vis increased neutron flux density vis a vis material available for fission). You can check the specs of the American W-45 tactical warhead...and that was with the oblong shaped Robin Primary. The larger versions of this family (MADM) did reach 10 and 15kt yields but the mass of material increased a lot too, more than double (160kg) what was used in the smaller version (70kg) ( not feasible from what I see of Nasr's slim 400mm WS-2 based design.

An oblong shaped primary has also not been tested by Pakistan so again its a moot point....and an inefficient spherical geometry would only be worse. (China for example tested one only as late as 1992, much later than their 1964 "crude" test)

Besides most missile/warhead combinations in the range of Nasr size-wise going by history have a range of about 30 - 40 km for a 1 kt warhead using the same family of solid fuel that is still used today (thiokol and derivatives)....which may have improved incrementally at most.

We will need performance data for the Nasr missile to make any solid conclusions anyway and I would not venture to expect Pakistan has a tried and tested oblong design of pit (since it has only tested once). So I don't think personally we can expect much more than 1kt from the Nasr warhead. Of course Chinese help and assistance can change things, but that is another variable altogether.



Makes little difference. RDX was well established in world war 2 itself and its performance data (explosion power ~ detonation velocity vis a vis density) is not too different from the other ones used in modern day PBX's used for nukes (and is in fact still used).

Refer to:

Table of explosive detonation velocities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Explosive lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Polymer-bonded explosive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does make a difference is the change of geometry of the pit from circular to oblong (thus changing from concentric to linear implosion) but a country needs to test that particular design. India did so in 1998, 1974 test being the original circular implosion...(and part of the reason India confidently states it can scale up its fusion design to 200kt + Mirv them with suitable rocket carriers).

Whereas one would have to believe that Pakistan circumvented a basic circular design and tested an oblong design in its first test itself....which I find hard to believe....unless the design was given by the Chinese from their 1992 test.

Unless of course Pakistan is deciding to go fully with software projections and taking a gamble (assuming no Chinese assistance) that it will work when required....or go with the safe bet (circular) but keep the opponent guessing by stating a 5kt tactical capability. Its all part of MAD theory anyways.

If you have sources regarding any of this, I am all ears.

My friend you are thinking too much. Nasr Warhead is not designed for making big bang,it is made for chucking out large quantities of neutrons which will penetrate all types of armor,killing the crew inside

 

[Nilgiri]

Nasr Warhead is not designed for making big bang,it is made for chucking out large quantities of neutrons which will penetrate all types of armor,killing the crew inside

So now its a neutron bomb. Something no other country has and a tactical one at that...and again with no Pakistani testing. Keeps getting better and better. I must say Pakistanis love going with gambles on untested designs going by your claims.

 

[knight11]

So now its a neutron bomb. Something no other country has and a tactical one at that...and again with no Pakistani testing. Keeps getting better and better. I must say Pakistanis love going with gambles on untested designs going by your claims.

Strange how could Pakistan keep on developing these weapons, uranium based, plutonium based, neutron bomb without testing. And more surprisingly, the pakistani members, like @shaheenmissile have much insight knowledge of what they have or what are goint to achieve in future. My friend, don't know how you get all those information. You seems interested in the multiwarhead in Agni Series, and somehow wants to speculate and discuss only with the pictures. My question is how you get all these information for the pakistani, Does the same rules apply for the same.

 

[shaheenmissile]

So now its a neutron bomb. Something no other country has and a tactical one at that...and again with no Pakistani testing. Keeps getting better and better. I must say Pakistanis love going with gambles on untested designs going by your claims.

arent you self contradicting now? didn't you mention large neutron influx in a boosted fission device in the very long comment you wrote above? Thats exactly hoe neutron bombs work and thats exactly how Pakistan plans to stop Indian armed brigade without destroying a significant chunk of Pakistani land with lasting radioactive fallout,because Nasr will be used on Pakistani lands. Also no Mushroom cloud so not possible to confirm a nuclear detonation via satellites.

 

[Nilgiri]

arent you self contradicting now? didn't you mention large neutron influx in a boosted fission device in the very long comment you wrote above? Thats exactly hoe neutron bombs work and thats exactly how Pakistan plans to stop Indian armed brigade without destroying a significant chunk of Pakistani land with lasting radioactive fallout,because Nasr will be used on Pakistani lands. Also no Mushroom cloud so not possible to confirm a nuclear detonation via satellites.

It can't be a 5kt yield AND a neutron bomb at the same time within this size. I'm looking at the W-66 warhead and the elastic tamper curves of Tu-carbide or DU here for yield/neutron optimization here.

That too it gets even more impossible with generation 1 spherical implosion design, which is the only one Pakistan has tested (like India did in 1974). Unless the Chinese transferred you their linear implosion design. Even then the max yield would be 1 kit or below to create any significant neutron flux (of course without a tamper in place).

Can i just clear up that your claim is that Nasr is Neutron flux design only? Earlier I was going by the assumption its just a low yield conventional nuke (with tamper).

 

[shaheenmissile]

It can't be a 5kt yield AND a neutron bomb at the same time within this size. I'm looking at the W-66 warhead and the elastic tamper curves of Tu-carbide or DU here for yield/neutron optimization here.

That too it gets even more impossible with generation 1 spherical implosion design, which is the only one Pakistan has tested (like India did in 1974). Unless the Chinese transferred you their linear implosion design. Even then the max yield would be 1 kit or below to create any significant neutron flux (of course without a tamper in place).

W-66 is an american design and that too you or anyone do not have access to actual design,the ones available on internet are not letting out any real secrets. In reality every country have their own design of nuclear weapons and if something did not work for one country does not mean it cant work for another country. Little changes in design have massive effects on various aspects of the nuclear weapon.All the implosion type devices you mention are very basic designs missing one major component,a neutron generator. Introduce a neutron generator in the mix and effect of the weapon increases many folds. Pakistan has been working on a sophisticated trigger mechanism which does not only rely on implosion,but the chain reaction is actually started by a neutron generator,to have maximum atoms broken quickly enough for maximum results in the same given amounts of fissile material. Another thing you are forgetting is that this is not 1970s. Computer simulations are far too powerful to warrant any actual tests of nukes.
You keep on saying Pakistan did not test a neutron device. Tell you what, a neutron device which does not produce any significant bang can be tested anytime as neutrons cannot be detected by seismic stations

 

[kṣamā]

W-66 is an american design and that too you or anyone do not have access to actual design,the ones available on internet are not letting out any real secrets. In reality every country have their own design of nuclear weapons and if something did not work for one country does not mean it cant work for another country. Little changes in design have massive effects on various aspects of the nuclear weapon.All the implosion type devices you mention are very basic designs missing one major component,a neutron generator. Introduce a neutron generator in the mix and effect of the weapon increases many folds. Pakistan has been working on a sophisticated trigger mechanism which does not only rely on implosion,but the chain reaction is actually started by a neutron generator,to have maximum atoms broken quickly enough for maximum results in the same given amounts of fissile material. Another thing you are forgetting is that this is not 1970s. Computer simulations are far too powerful to warrant any actual tests of nukes.
You keep on saying Pakistan did not test a neutron device. Tell you what, a neutron device which does not produce any significant bang can be tested anytime as neutrons cannot be detected by seismic stations

So basically you are jumping from one line of thinking to the other just for the sake of argument? Initially it was a U warhead, then it became PU warhead, next came PU warhead with plastic explosive, next was a tube type design, it later graduated to a neutron bomb!!
Damn son you are changing the type of warheads faster than G. R. R. Martin can kill characters!!

 

[shaheenmissile]

So basically you are jumping from one line of thinking to the other just for the sake of argument? Initially it was a U warhead, then it became PU warhead, next came PU warhead with plastic explosive, next was a tube type design, it later graduated to a neutron bomb!!
Damn son you are changing the type of warheads faster than G. R. R. Martin can kill characters!!

It was your friend who was implying that itsvan all uranium device. I always maintain that such small device cannot be produced without PU and boosted fission design,and that involves massive neutron flux,hence neutron bomb.

 

[Nilgiri]

W-66 is an american design and that too you or anyone do not have access to actual design,the ones available on internet are not letting out any real secrets.

Basic information is out there form which we can make some practical comparisons regarding volume to yield ballparks.

The internet is actually not the best place for this. Comprehensive Material data books w.r.t flux shielding give much more concise data on tamper design from which one can gauge their effects by virtue of their neutron absorption/density ratios.

I'm sorry, you have to admit that Pakistan got a linear implosion design from China to make anything of this nature in the first place.....unless it is severely overstating the yield of the Nasr warhead. Pakistan certainly hasnt tested a linear imposion design by any stretch of the imagination.

In reality every country have their own design of nuclear weapons and if something did not work for one country does not mean it cant work for another country.

There are certain basic realities w.r.t Neutron bombs and their transport through armour doped with Boron that you continue to ignore. Has nothing to do with other countries not making stuff work.....everyone realised the fundamental limits of tactical Neutron bombs in an anti-armour role in the 80s.....except Pakistan according to you.

All the implosion type devices you mention are very basic designs missing one major component,a neutron generator. Introduce a neutron generator in the mix and effect of the weapon increases many folds.

So you bring in yet one more complex piece of technology that Pakistan leaves to be unproven/untested....along with the other unproven/untested (unless China has done it for you)? Not to mention external neutron generators are going to take even more space (already at a premium) from the 25 cm nose cone. You do realise that the number of such generators in such a design would have to be physically tested for interference and scattering effects on the pit? Increase the number of such generators and you are going to increase the resulting problems (especially without physical testing) No amount of computer simulation is going to guarantee a working design at this level of complexity you are proposing.

Pakistan has been working on a sophisticated trigger mechanism which does not only rely on implosion,but the chain reaction is actually started by a neutron generator,to have maximum atoms broken quickly enough for maximum results in the same given amounts of fissile material.

Again all with no testing and only hearsay and rumor. Pakistani Nuclear scientists are just as good as you in throwing words around hoping some will stick. What they have actually developed is most probably an entirely different story.....but its obviously a big secret so who really knows?

You have massive trouble believing what India has accomplished given it first tested in 1974, yet here is Pakistan with the worlds first 25 cm tactical Neutron bomb with 5kt yield...that too variable neutron/yield because of the neutron generators (again never tested)! No intermediate test of oblong shaped pit either....I mean I can sort of understand if you admit China has provided you an oblong pit design....but you have to admit that first.

Another thing you are forgetting is that this is not 1970s. Computer simulations are far too powerful to warrant any actual tests of nukes.

Computer simulations are no substitute for real physical tests especially when it comes to pit geometry. There are certain things that can only be confirmed by physically testing, because of the problems of system interference, matter wave superposition within the pit (esp when its imploding) that all cause significant problems in the yield to initiation time curve (which is often interpolated when using a computer) among other issues. Thats why there have been several cases in nuclear weapon testing where fizzles and near-fizzles have occured even with previously proven designs (but with something changed or altered for attempted improvement). Just read up on the nuclear testing of the US during the 50s for example.

You keep on saying Pakistan did not test a neutron device. Tell you what, a neutron device which does not produce any significant bang can be tested anytime as neutrons cannot be detected by seismic stations

If Nasr is claiming 1kt - 5kt yield....even the 1kt explosion will be detected by any standard USGS seismograph in Asia...not to mention Indian seismographs....more from the impulse than the raw energy output. The fact that "only" 3 ton and 21 ton explosions in China were registered by seismographs 160 km away should tell you something. And we are talking kiloton here.

China's Tianjin blast sets off earthquake-recording instruments 100 miles away | World news | The Guardian

So maybe Pakistan has cold tested it, who knows....but you will have to cross your fingers it works in wartime...because no actual detonation has been proven here.