Hypothetical | Developing Hatf-1B like MGM-140 ATACMS ?

[Kompromat]

Now, its clearly a hypothetical scenario that recently crossed my mind.

Lockheed Martin's ATACMS missile system is almost identical to SUPARCO/KRL's HATF-1B in capabilities.

ATACMS

Specifications

Length | Approximately 13 ft

Diameter | Approximately 24 in.

Range | 300 km

Propellant | Solid fuel rocket motor

Guidance | Inertial Navigation
with GPS

Warhead | Precision unitary Load Two missiles per M270A1 launcher — one missile per HIMARS launcher. 230KG HE/M-74 Bomblets.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hatf-1B

Specifications

Originated From | Pakistan

Basing | Road-mobile

Length | 19 ft 8 in

Diameter | 22 in

Payload | Single warhead, 500 kg

Warhead | HE, submunitions [Bomblets], chemical

Propulsion | Solid propellant

Range | 70/100 km (Haft 1/1A and 1B)

Status | Operational

In Service | 1992

Navigation | Inertial guidance system

Accuracy | Metric

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As, you can see that both rockets have almost identical configuration. My question is that, since HATF-1 is now irrelevant to our strategic forces , because better missiles have taken its place, would it be a good idea to upgrade it to ATACMS standards and use it as a 'conventional artillery' weapon, with high accuracy, shoot and scoot mobility, advanced HE/Submunitions, replacing the Nuclear warhead, to be deployed against the Indian forces [Armor/infantry/infrastructure], in case of an invasion ?

Proposal.

* Reduction to the weight of the missile.
* Upgrading its propellant system
* Upgrading its internal guidance + GPS [COMPASS] to achieve high accuracy.
* Reducing the warhead to max 250 kg conventional HE/Submunitions warhead.
* Reduction in weight, of the missile & warhead = extended range upto 250-300 kms?
* Multiple mobile launchers, carrying 2x Hatf 1 LAMS.
* Mass produced, using existing infrastructure, resulting in low costs.


Applications.

Conventional attack, against invading enemy armor/infantry/infrastructure. Standoff long range high precision artillery strikes against terrorist hideouts and to take out cross border artillery and other installations.

* It can be a cost effective, potent weapon in Cold Start scenario for the Army.
* It can also be used against the insurgents in COIN/AT ops.

-------------------------------------------

Any suggestions ?

@Oscar @gambit @jhungary @AhaseebA @500 @asad71 @Irfan Baloch @Xeric @Icarus




Best Regards.

 

[The Deterrent]

I believe Hatf-1 has been retired in all aspects, as it didn't show up anywhere in the past 10 years or so. The Hatf-2 Abdali is not only more capable (180km range), but also not being used by the ASFC, as Hatf-3 Ghaznavi meets the same requirements for nuclear role.

For Launcher:
The recent developments in Hatf-2's test flights suggest that it is being modified for canister-launched configuration.
Initially, the missile was launched through a long rail-supported platform:

But now, you can see that the launch rail has been drastically shortened to almost equal length of the missile, and the tail fins have also been modified to be as small as possible:

A canister can be developed around the new launch rail, and two of the canisters can be mounted on one or two erecting platforms.

For Guidance:
The modifications to improve guidance can also be achieved as they already have been implemented in Hatf-9 Nasr missile. But since maneuvering fins are not present on the latest Abdali variant, I'm not sure how will the missile maneuver in the terminal stage.

For Warhead:
Pakistan already produces cluster bomblets for artillery shells and certain BMs, so that shouldn't be a hurdle either.

 

[Kompromat]

@AhaseebA

* Can Hatf-2's range be increased to up to-300 kms if the warhead is smaller? like 250kgs instead of 500? - How would it impact the range?

* How Hard it is to have a maneuverable vehicle - design changes maybe?

* Are you certain about canister launch variant? - Can we have 2 Hatf-2 missiles on a vehicle?
Something like this.

* How hard would it be to integrate Nasr like forward fins, and a highly accurate [Metric accuracy] guidance system? - Current accuracy is 15 M - which can be further improved.

* How would Ballistic trajectory be changed - what if the other side presumes it to be a nuclear attack?

* Would it be cost effective enough?

* What are our capabilities to mass produce such a modified conventional Hatf-2 ?


Thanks in advance.

 

[The Deterrent]

@AhaseebA

* Can Hatf-2's range be increased to up to-300 kms if the warhead is smaller? like 250kgs instead of 500? - How would it impact the range?

It would mean developing an entirely new variant. More flight tests to validate performance=more development cost. I can't really say how much increase in range that much reduction of warhead payload would cause. It would be better to produce a few Ghaznavis with conventional payloads and improved guidance using existing production mechanism, if 300 km is what is required.

* How Hard it is to have a maneuverable vehicle - design changes maybe?

I'm not saying it is hard. I just don't know how it will maneuver. For example in the boost phase the exhaust vanes are used for pitching over, but after that apparently there is no mechanism for modifying trajectory.
However, if the tail fins are modified to be used for maneuvering like in other tactical BMs (LORA/Iskander), it can be done. I guess we have to wait for a clearer picture of the tail of the new Abdali variant.

* Are you certain about canister launch variant? - Can we have 2 Hatf-2 missiles on a vehicle?
Something like this.

Yes, I am. - It depends, the main hurdle should be developing separate erector mechanisms. Like these ones on the PLA B-611 TBM.

However, a single strengthened erector mechanism can also be developed (like that on Nasr vehicle and the system whose image you posted).

* How hard would it be to integrate Nasr like forward fins, and a highly accurate [Metric accuracy] guidance system?

It shouldn't be. The small fins on front edge of missile body (just where the warhead section begins) were present before, but now they have been removed. This leads us to assume that most probably the tail fins have been modified for maneuverability. Guidance systems these days are strap-ons, they are not too difficult to mount on existing systems. A little internal modification is necessary.

* How would Ballistic trajectory be changed - what if the other side presumes it to be a nuclear attack?

There is no need - The "other side" would never have enough time to report it to the higher command, take a decision and strike back. So it doesn't matters.

* Would it be cost effective enough?

It depends on the requirement. If PA really needs something like this, cost shouldn't be a problem, as the only new thing to be manufactured here is the erector mechanism and the canisters. Facilities for manufacturing other systems are already present.

* What are our capabilities to mass produce such a modified conventional Hatf-2 ?

Again it depends on the requirement.

Thanks in advance.

My pleasure .

 

[Black Eagle 90]

Now, its clearly a hypothetical scenario that recently crossed my mind.

Lockheed Martin's ATACMS missile system is almost identical to SUPARCO/KRL's HATF-1B in capabilities.

ATACMS

Specifications

Length | Approximately 13 ft

Diameter | Approximately 24 in.

Range | 300 km

Propellant | Solid fuel rocket motor

Guidance | Inertial Navigation
with GPS

Warhead | Precision unitary Load Two missiles per M270A1 launcher — one missile per HIMARS launcher. 230KG HE/M-74 Bomblets.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hatf-1B

Specifications

Originated From | Pakistan

Basing | Road-mobile

Length | 19 ft 8 in

Diameter | 22 in

Payload | Single warhead, 500 kg

Warhead | HE, submunitions [Bomblets], chemical

Propulsion | Solid propellant

Range | 70/100 km (Haft 1/1A and 1B)

Status | Operational

In Service | 1992

Navigation | Inertial guidance system

Accuracy | Metric

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As, you can see that both rockets have almost identical configuration. My question is that, since HATF-1 is now irrelevant to our strategic forces , because better missiles have taken its place, would it be a good idea to upgrade it to ATACMS standards and use it as a 'conventional artillery' weapon, with high accuracy, shoot and scoot mobility, advanced HE/Submunitions, replacing the Nuclear warhead, to be deployed against the Indian forces [Armor/infantry/infrastructure], in case of an invasion ?

Proposal.

* Reduction to the weight of the missile.
* Upgrading its propellant system
* Upgrading its internal guidance + GPS [COMPASS] to achieve high accuracy.
* Reducing the warhead to max 250 kg conventional HE/Submunitions warhead.
* Reduction in weight, of the missile & warhead = extended range upto 250-300 kms?
* Multiple mobile launchers, carrying 2x Hatf 1 LAMS.
* Mass produced, using existing infrastructure, resulting in low costs.


Applications.

Conventional attack, against invading enemy armor/infantry/infrastructure. Standoff long range high precision artillery strikes against terrorist hideouts and to take out cross border artillery and other installations.

* It can be a cost effective, potent weapon in Cold Start scenario for the Army.
* It can also be used against the insurgents in COIN/AT ops.

-------------------------------------------

Any suggestions ?

@Oscar @gambit @jhungary @AhaseebA @500 @asad71 @Irfan Baloch @Xeric @Icarus




Best Regards.

Few minutes ago I have said it in a comment... Thanks for making it a post.

I believe Hatf-1 has been retired in all aspects, as it didn't show up anywhere in the past 10 years or so. The Hatf-2 Abdali is not only more capable (180km range), but also not being used by the ASFC, as Hatf-3 Ghaznavi meets the same requirements for nuclear role.

For Launcher:
The recent developments in Hatf-2's test flights suggest that it is being modified for canister-launched configuration.
Initially, the missile was launched through a long rail-supported platform:

But now, you can see that the launch rail has been drastically shortened to almost equal length of the missile, and the tail fins have also been modified to be as small as possible:

A canister can be developed around the new launch rail, and two of the canisters can be mounted on one or two erecting platforms.

For Guidance:
The modifications to improve guidance can also be achieved as they already have been implemented in Hatf-9 Nasr missile. But since maneuvering fins are not present on the latest Abdali variant, I'm not sure how will the missile maneuver in the terminal stage.

For Warhead:
Pakistan already produces cluster bomblets for artillery shells and certain BMs, so that shouldn't be a hurdle either.

A nice move....

 

[500]

As, you can see that both rockets have almost identical configuration. My question is that, since HATF-1 is now irrelevant to our strategic forces , because better missiles have taken its place, would it be a good idea to upgrade it to ATACMS standards and use it as a 'conventional artillery' weapon, with high accuracy, shoot and scoot mobility, advanced HE/Submunitions, replacing the Nuclear warhead, to be deployed against the Indian forces [Armor/infantry/infrastructure], in case of an invasion ?

Your proposition of upgrading already built missile is hardly possible. U would need change everything, leaving just shell. That would be more expensive and complicated than building a new missile from scratch.

 

[Arsalan]

I think it wont be cost effective by any means.

Moreover i also agree with @AhaseebA that Hatf-I seem to have been completely decommissioned. Shelf life maybe???
Moreover there are more potent platforms now available to fill in this role. even for the ATACMS role, the already present multi-tube Nasr seem to be a more favorable contender.

Also as [MENTION]500[/MENTION] suggest, i don't think modification of an already existing platform, even Abdali and Ghaznavi, and on this large scale will be feasible financially. It will have to undergo all the testing and evaluations once again in the end.
In my view developing a system along the lines of Nasr with increased range will be the answer to this requirement.

As for the idea of ATACMS like platform in PA, i totally agree that it is a must have and better to keep it conventional and even declare that it is not and cannot carry nukes. This will give a true tactical conventional missile system to tackle any Cold Start miss-adventure is anyone is still persistent to go on with it in first place.

 

[asad71]

1. Any mention of Cold Start or Riposte alarms me. These, to my view, are designed by the Arms Peddlers and the Old Colonialists to push into the old colonies through their native political cronies and the military leaders under their influence. WCC (Western Christian Civilization) in fact survives on conflicts, wars, famines, disease, pestilence, mass immorality, etc they promote among nations.

2. Missiles and rockets are very much required by Pakistan, but the doctrine must be one to fight on till victory. Fighting for stalemate is a betrayal of the sacrifices people make in lives and property.

3. Hatif II and III would be good for BD either to acquire or deploy under an arrangement with Pakistan. With these weapons our geographical shape allows us to reach much of the offensive bases India rings around us.

 

[asad71]

Your proposition of upgrading already built missile is hardly possible. U would need change everything, leaving just shell. That would be more expensive and complicated than building a new missile from scratch.

Yep, send them to us,BD.

 

[Kompromat]

@500

No, i didn't mean to 'upgrade existing inventory' , but to use perhaps a redesigned Hatf-1B , its solid rocket fuel system, specifically designed as a mid range 'conventional' , highly accurate, rocket artillery system.

We have a large stockpile of ATGMs and other anti tank weapons apart from Tanks. What we really need is a conventional system to suppliment Nasr Missile.

Something we can launch with an anti armor bomblet payload from the mountains in Balochistan province, from stand off ranges, and hit the Indian armor formations invading or borders in Punjab/Sindh lines with great precision and deadly results.

We can also use such a system like a shock and awe weapon, deploy them on MEL's close to the Indian border, to blow up their bridges,fuel dumps, ammo dumps, runways, food bunkers, oil refineries and everything else that, exists on the map, our intel guys can geotag, or can be targeted using small targeting UAV's deployed behind enemy lines.

If we have such a system to tag along with Yurmuk and A-100E MBRLs, SPH, Tanks, anti armor infantry, IFVs , AH-1 Cobras etc , we would have enough 'conventional' firepower to stop,engage, isolate and destroy Indian IBGs. This in turn will also not 'bleed our strategic deterent', hene, reducing the possibility of a nuclear/neutron exchange.

@asad71

Pakistan seeks good relations with BD. If your govt is willing to normalize ties. I see no issue in selling SRBMs , which meet international missile transfer control treaty demands.

Peace.

 

[Zarvan]

Now, its clearly a hypothetical scenario that recently crossed my mind.

Lockheed Martin's ATACMS missile system is almost identical to SUPARCO/KRL's HATF-1B in capabilities.

ATACMS

Specifications

Length | Approximately 13 ft

Diameter | Approximately 24 in.

Range | 300 km

Propellant | Solid fuel rocket motor

Guidance | Inertial Navigation
with GPS

Warhead | Precision unitary Load Two missiles per M270A1 launcher — one missile per HIMARS launcher. 230KG HE/M-74 Bomblets.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hatf-1B

Specifications

Originated From | Pakistan

Basing | Road-mobile

Length | 19 ft 8 in

Diameter | 22 in

Payload | Single warhead, 500 kg

Warhead | HE, submunitions [Bomblets], chemical

Propulsion | Solid propellant

Range | 70/100 km (Haft 1/1A and 1B)

Status | Operational

In Service | 1992

Navigation | Inertial guidance system

Accuracy | Metric

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As, you can see that both rockets have almost identical configuration. My question is that, since HATF-1 is now irrelevant to our strategic forces , because better missiles have taken its place, would it be a good idea to upgrade it to ATACMS standards and use it as a 'conventional artillery' weapon, with high accuracy, shoot and scoot mobility, advanced HE/Submunitions, replacing the Nuclear warhead, to be deployed against the Indian forces [Armor/infantry/infrastructure], in case of an invasion ?

Proposal.

* Reduction to the weight of the missile.
* Upgrading its propellant system
* Upgrading its internal guidance + GPS [COMPASS] to achieve high accuracy.
* Reducing the warhead to max 250 kg conventional HE/Submunitions warhead.
* Reduction in weight, of the missile & warhead = extended range upto 250-300 kms?
* Multiple mobile launchers, carrying 2x Hatf 1 LAMS.
* Mass produced, using existing infrastructure, resulting in low costs.


Applications.

Conventional attack, against invading enemy armor/infantry/infrastructure. Standoff long range high precision artillery strikes against terrorist hideouts and to take out cross border artillery and other installations.

* It can be a cost effective, potent weapon in Cold Start scenario for the Army.
* It can also be used against the insurgents in COIN/AT ops.

-------------------------------------------

Any suggestions ?

@Oscar @gambit @jhungary @AhaseebA @500 @asad71 @Irfan Baloch @Xeric @Icarus




Best Regards.

Pakistan should develop these kind of MRLS to fire these kind of Missiles and their are also rumors we are this kind of MRL from USA via Jordan so we should try to develop our own one too

 

[Kompromat]

@AhaseebA

Try this one

 

[gambit]

As, you can see that both rockets have almost identical configuration. My question is that, since HATF-1 is now irrelevant to our strategic forces , because better missiles have taken its place, would it be a good idea to upgrade it to ATACMS standards and use it as a 'conventional artillery' weapon, with high accuracy, shoot and scoot mobility, advanced HE/Submunitions, replacing the Nuclear warhead, to be deployed against the Indian forces [Armor/infantry/infrastructure], in case of an invasion ?

Proposal.

* Reduction to the weight of the missile.
* Upgrading its propellant system
* Upgrading its internal guidance + GPS [COMPASS] to achieve high accuracy.
* Reducing the warhead to max 250 kg conventional HE/Submunitions warhead.
* Reduction in weight, of the missile & warhead = extended range upto 250-300 kms?
* Multiple mobile launchers, carrying 2x Hatf 1 LAMS.
* Mass produced, using existing infrastructure, resulting in low costs.


Applications.

Conventional attack, against invading enemy armor/infantry/infrastructure. Standoff long range high precision artillery strikes against terrorist hideouts and to take out cross border artillery and other installations.

* It can be a cost effective, potent weapon in Cold Start scenario for the Army.
* It can also be used against the insurgents in COIN/AT ops.

-------------------------------------------

Any suggestions ?

@Oscar @gambit @jhungary @AhaseebA @500 @asad71 @Irfan Baloch @Xeric @Icarus




Best Regards.

Am no Army guy but am willing to take a stab...

When troops are on the move, they are going to be spread out. Or that they SHOULD be. And I cannot emphasize enough the significant change that Desert Storm made to modern warfare in that if the troops are as highly mobile as the Allied forces were, they are not going to be deterred, let alone stopped, by ballistic missiles that have predictable landing points, probably those where the troops USED TO BE.

Surface to surface ballistic missiles, just like artillery, are best against fixed or slow moving targets. Why should they be fixed? Like an airfield or a logistic depot. Why should they be slow moving? Terrain could be a problem. It does not matter if the target is a standing army or a few squads of terrorist fighters.

 

[The Deterrent]

@AhaseebA

Try this one

Woah! Thanks man!

The tail fins are definitely different than normal ones, there are two sections in each fin...a thicker base and a fin clamped inside it. But the picture is not clear enough to show any actuator underneath or a side view to show that the fin is not entirely clamped to the body (i.e. stationary). So one can only assume that the fins may be movable, but nothing can be said for sure.