Incremental upgrades in Pakistani Nuclear missiles over the years

[Safriz]

Ababeel Dimensions if the first two stages were 1.4 meter wide Shaheen-2 stages (in small)

Ababeel dimensions if first two stages were 1.5 meter wide from shaheen-3 (In bold)

Approximate ababeel missile size

How Abaeel missile will fit on an existing Shaheen-3 TEL

 

[DesiWarrior]

That incremental advancement is an irrefutable evidence of indigenous R&D program.

Tell that to all the retards I have to deal with in the Indian missile thread where everyone claiming all Pakistani missiles to be Chinese copies.

 

[war&peace]

Tell that to all the retards I have to deal with in the Indian missile thread where everyone claiming all Pakistani missiles to be Chinese copies.

That's the main difference between us the Humans and the Indians.. We are not obsessed with them so I don't normally go to their threads but when they come here and post their usual none-sensical crap then I take them to the laundry but not all Indians are like that some of them really good people..

 

[Hassan Guy]

Even the Nukes have gone more advanced.

From the bigger and heavier uranium based nukes,

Miniaturized, lighter, and more advanced plutonium based nuclear warheads have been produced.

 

[Safriz]

Comparison of size ,Ababeel, S-1A , S-3.

From visual comparison it looks very likely that the first two stages of Ababeel are the reliable and tested Shaheen-3 stages. The third stage and Payload faring is new.
This combination of old and new makes the system cheap,reliable and quick to produce.

 

[Safriz]

Just a minor correction Ababeel 1 is developed on SIII with approximate length of 25 meters.

Can't be 25 m long.
That size wont fit on any TEL.

 

[My-Analogous]

I predicted the future.

Baba ji what is the name of this beast?

 

[Cool_Soldier]

If size comparison is correct, then definitely range would be at least 3000+ Km for Ababeel.

 

[GumNaam]

If size comparison is correct, then definitely range would be at least 3000+ Km for Ababeel.

Shhhhhhhhh...

 

[Cool_Soldier]

I am quiet now.

 

[Safriz]

Ghaznavi in deployed formation

 

[LeGenD]

Thats the best figure for tracking in my knowledge even for US radars...

http://www.strategic-culture.org/ne...ystem-superior-weapon-crucial-deterrence.html

You have no idea.

American network-centric surveillance capabilities are beyond the grasp of many a commoner or foreigner. They stretch from surface (land or water) to space around the world. A glimpse of it: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2014/pdf/bmds/2014sensors.pdf

Let us consider the example of THAAD system. It is equipped with state-of-the-art AN/TPY-2 radar system (one of the best in the world). However, THAAD can accept cues from the AEGIS BMD Combat System, as well as from satellites and other external sensors (including JLENS) to further extend the battle space and defended area covered. THAAD can also operate in concert with the lower-tier missile defense systems such as PAC-3 to provide increased levels of effectiveness.

In short, if THAAD's own radar system fails to track a missile during its reentry (unlikely), it will get the relevant information from another system and proceed with its intercept mission. This is the beauty of network-centric warfare.

More importantly, no kind of missile can escape detection from American surveillance assets: http://gizmodo.com/5989481/there-isnt-an-icbm-around-that-can-sneak-past-this-radar-array

An ICBM approaches 7 km/s speed on average during the course of its flight so speed tracking limit is likely to be around 10 - 12 km/s mark for the most powerful radar systems out there; possibly even above that. So real-time tracking is there and it has paved way for development of the capability to intercept an ICBM even during the mid-course phase of its flight, no matter how fast:

The Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) is made up of a three-stage, solid fuel booster and an Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV). When launched, the booster missile carries the kill vehicle toward the target's predicted location in space. Once released from the booster, the 152 pound (69 kg) EKV uses data received in-flight from ground-based radars and its own on-board sensors to hit the incoming missile directly by ramming the warhead with a closing speed of approximately 15,000 mph (24,000 km/h).

Source: http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Ground-Based-Midcourse-Defense.html

Live intercept of an ICBM in outer-space: http://www.boeing.com/features/2014/08/bds-gmd-test-08-19-14.page

 

[Mrc]

You have no idea.

American network-centric surveillance capabilities are beyond the grasp of many a commoner or foreigner. They stretch from surface (land or water) to space around the world. A glimpse of it: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2014/pdf/bmds/2014sensors.pdf

Let us consider the example of THAAD system. It is equipped with state-of-the-art AN/TPY-2 radar system. However, THAAD can accept cues from the AEGIS BMD Combat System, as well as from satellites and other external sensors (including JLENS) to further extend the battle space and defended area covered. THAAD can also operate in concert with the lower-tier missile defense systems such as PAC-3 to provide increased levels of effectiveness.

In short, if THAAD's own radar system fails to track at some point during the course of its flight, it will get the relevant information from another asset and lock. This is the beauty of network-centric warfare.

More importantly, no missile can escape detection from American surveillance assets: http://gizmodo.com/5989481/there-isnt-an-icbm-around-that-can-sneak-past-this-radar-array

So tracking is there and it has paved way for development of capability to intercept an ICBM out in the space during the mid-course phase of its flight, no matter how fast:

The Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) is made up of a three-stage, solid fuel booster and an Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV). When launched, the booster missile carries the kill vehicle toward the target's predicted location in space. Once released from the booster, the 152 pound (69 kg) EKV uses data received in-flight from ground-based radars and its own on-board sensors to hit the incoming missile directly by ramming the warhead with a closing speed of approximately 15,000 mph (24,000 km/h).

Source: http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Ground-Based-Midcourse-Defense.html

Live intercept of an ICBM in outer-space: http://www.boeing.com/features/2014/08/bds-gmd-test-08-19-14.page

Now that is the speed of the interceptor and you know that an interceptor is not supposed to chase a target from behind; interceptor closes-in from a different angle and timing is the key. So if an interceptor is that fast, missile tracking ability is noticeably above that speed limit.

Flight speed of 7 km/s is average for an ICBM; tracking limit is likely to be around 10 km/s (or above that) for the most powerful radar systems out there.

If russians or chinese launch an assault US will not manage to stop 1 percent of missiles...

Yes these things may be good qgainst north koreans and iran...

 

[LeGenD]

If russians or chinese launch an assault US will not manage to stop 1 percent of missiles...

Yes these things may be good qgainst north koreans and iran...

Russia: Yes

China: not there yet (China doesn't have a huge inventory of ICBM capable of hitting US mainland)

Existing American ABM defenses can stop a limited barrage of ICBM. However, next-generation of ABM technologies will be laser-based. There is a limit to fighting a bullet with bullet defensive philosophy. So laser technology is the next logical step. In the end, a time will come when MAD doctrine will be obsolete.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Existing American ABM defenses can stop a limited barrage of ICBM. However, next-generation of ABM technologies will be laser-based. There is a limit to fighting a bullet with bullet defensive philosophy. So laser technology is the next logical step. In the end, a time will come when MAD doctrine will be obsolete.