New Construction at Pakistan’s Khan Research Laboratories Consistent with Known Centrifuge Sites

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

LPT

 

[T-Rex]

I think the way forward is onlyy deployment of icbm with mirv capability ...

The time is ripe but the leadership in Pakistan is the problem. Like most of the Muslim leaders they are not very bright.

 

[The Accountant]

The time is ripe but the leadership in Pakistan is the problem. Like most of the Muslim leaders they are not very bright.

I
Yes you are right ...

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

New Construction at Pakistan’s Khan Research Laboratories Consistent with Known Centrifuge Sites, IHS Markit Says

Thursday, September 15, 2016 9:47 am EDT

"This may be more than coincidence as A.Q. Khan, considered by many to be the founder of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, worked at URENCO before stealing centrifuge designs and returning to Pakistan to work on the country’s centrifuge programme"

LONDON (15 September, 2016) – Construction of a new site within the Khan Research Laboratories (KRL) in Kahuta, Pakistan, bears many similarities to known centrifuge facilities, according to analysis of commercial satellite imagery carried out by IHS Markit (Nasdaq: INFO), a world leader in critical information, analytics and solutions.

Project Alpha, a research group of King’s College London, asked IHS Jane’s Intelligence Review to examine commercially available satellite imagery of a newly built site at the KRL. Imagery taken by Airbus Defence and Space on 28 September, 2015 and then again on 18 April, 2016 show the progress of construction at the possible new uranium enrichment complex near Kahuta.

Where is it?

The area of interest is approximately 1.2 hectares and is located within the secure area of the KRL, in the southwestern part of the complex. Roughly rectangular in shape and approximately 140 metres by 80 metres, it is surrounded by scrubland and trees that provide an additional measure of security on the ground.

Site analysis

In addition to being located near to the KRL, a known centrifuge facility, the new building shares similarities with known centrifuge facility structures built by the URENCO enrichment consortium in Capenhurst (in the UK), Almelo (in the Netherlands) and Gronau (in Germany). “This may be more than coincidence as A.Q. Khan, considered by many to be the founder of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, worked at URENCO before stealing centrifuge designs and returning to Pakistan to work on the country’s centrifuge programme,” said Charlie Cartwright, an imagery analyst for IHS Jane’s.

On 28 September, 2015, satellite imagery showed that work on a large building structure had commenced, with a multi-bay steel frame structure visible in commercial imagery. “Bays” are structurally defined areas and may be used for a variety of equipment installations or machinery. At this time, 12 bays were visible.

The spacing of footings in the two bays at the northeastern end of the structure and the whole outer southeastern façade of the structure indicates a requirement for greater load-bearing capacity and greater strength, possibly to house or accommodate heavier ancillary equipment.

While no modern structural techniques are visible to compensate for the area’s seismic activity, footings in all cases appear to be substantial, with considerable quantities of ballast seen at the concrete batch plant area. This suggests that the structure’s foundations are likely to be substantial.

According to Cartwright, the building’s light frame structure and layout of wide bays “are wholly consistent with that of a centrifuge plant for uranium enrichment”, with the IHS Jane’s report noting that “the internal design would permit the accommodation of feed facilities, compressors, electrical control units, cascades and handling facilities for enriched uranium product and waste tails.”

Enhanced security

As well as being within KRL’s secure perimeter, additional security features of this new facility are evident with a northern perimeter wall, visible in satellite imagery, as are several watchtowers. Northeast of the site perimeter, IHS Jane’s has also identified two air defence installations. Although they had been present for at least three years, historical imagery suggests they were not manned during this period. Significantly, imagery from 2016 shows that they have since been refurbished and that they now appear to be manned.

Operations

The site is still under construction, which will continue for at least a further 12 months while plumbing, electrics and ducting for air conditioning installations are undertaken. As such, it is likely that the site will not be ready for occupation until at least late 2017 or early 2018.

“Although it is currently too early to definitively conclude the function and purpose of the new building from imagery alone, it is evident that it is a sensitive site,” said Karl Dewey, proliferation analyst at IHS Jane’s. “It is sited within an established centrifuge facility, has strong security and shows some of the structural features of a possible new uranium enrichment facility. This makes it a strong candidate for a new centrifuge facility,” Dewey added.

Project Alpha discovered the new site while preparing a new baseline study of Pakistan’s nuclear and missile programs.

“It is disappointing to see Pakistan apparently expand its uranium enrichment capacity outside of safeguards whilst not engaging seriously in discussions or negotiations over a fissile material cut-off treaty,” said Ian J Stewart, head of Project Alpha at King’s College London. “It is difficult to see how these actions are consistent with the principles of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a group of responsible nuclear exporters which Pakistan is seeking to join.”

Project Alpha is a research project based at King’s College London that works to understand and counter illicit trade in nuclear and missile technologies. Project Alpha also works to build capacity in governments and the private sector to counter proliferation-related trade. Previous studies by Project Alpha have focused on the covert procurement apparatuses used by the nuclear and missile programs of Iran and North Korea.

Subscribers to IHS Jane’s and IHS Jane’s Intelligence Review can access more satellite imagery analysis about the Kahuta site here

The above could be part of our program to produce Fusion bombs, H-bombs and thermonuclear weapons. A capability we have had my since at least early 2011:

http://isis-online.org/isis-reports...g-nuclear-weapons-time-for-pakistan-to-rever/

 

[Thorough Pro]

how effing stupid are the people who think we will build 1970's designs in 2016? Pakistan has moved on from uranium to plutonium, smaller warheads are a clear hint in that direction.

 

[LeGenD]

I think the way forward is onlyy deployment of icbm with mirv capability ... This will give nightmare to usa if they try to engage us ... Then we can focus on our economyy ...

Second capability we need is antiship ballistic missile ... It should be even more easy to defend politicqlly as we can always say its for india but actually it would be against anyone who try to be oversmart ...

And from where that money would come from?

There is a limit to how much deterrence and/or military capability we can achieve with our economy in its current state. We have done well so far, now time to prioritize economy and industry. They are essential ingredients or stepping stone towards achieving full-spectrum nuclear deterrence, if desired.

ICBMs are not cheap and/or easy to develop, my friend. And neither words can make it happen. We have yet to cross MRBM stage at present.

 

[The Accountant]

And from where that money would come from?

There is a limit to how much deterrence and/or military capability we can achieve with our economy in its current state. We have done well so far, now time to prioritize economy and industry. They are essential ingredients or stepping stone towards achieving full-spectrum nuclear deterrence, if desired.

ICBMs are not cheap and/or easy to develop, my friend. And neither words can make it happen. We have yet to cross MRBM stage at present.

Money has to be allocated ... Money will come from te same sources from where we arranged for nuclear weapons ...

Have you forgot what they done to iraq libya and syria ... All of them were great economies but could not done anything to pakistan and iran ...

Development of economy and stremgth are not mutually exclusive bothcan be worked upon simultaneously ...

If we buy your argument then we should not have developed nuclear weapons ... Can you imagine what would have india done is we were not happen to be a nuclear state ?

Furthermore, ICBM and MIRV are the most cost effective deterrent ... I am not asking to develop aircraft carrier ...

Defence is always based on threat not based on availability of funds ... Funds are arranged based on doctrines formed in response to threat perception ...

By each passing time threat of western aggressiveness are increasing and rather than making our defence strong we says no we will strengthen our eoconomy thats an illogical argument ...

 

[LeGenD]

Money has to be allocated ... Money will come from te same sources from where we arranged for nuclear weapons ...

And what sources are those?

Have you forgot what they done to iraq libya and syria ... All of them were great economies but could not done anything to pakistan and iran ...

Development of economy and stremgth are not mutually exclusive bothcan be worked upon simultaneously ...

My naive friend,

Every state has its own foreign policy and geopolitical situation, and American response to it varies accordingly.

Iraq and Libya: OPEC and economic factors

Syria: Bashar al-Assad is responsible for the mess in his country. Foreign intervention followed after that.

Pakistan: War on Terror

Iran: Nuclear arms race in the Middle East

Want me to expand on each point?

If we buy your argument then we should not have developed nuclear weapons ... Can you imagine what would have india done is we were not happen to be a nuclear state ?

When have I ever asserted that we should not have developed nuclear weapons?

Furthermore, ICBM and MIRV are the most cost effective deterrent ... I am not asking to develop aircraft carrier ...

Cost-effective? You have no idea.

We need billions of USD for that program alone. The total defense budget of Pakistan is close to 8 billion USD mark on annual basis. It encompasses everything.

Defence is always based on threat not based on availability of funds ... Funds are arranged based on doctrines formed in response to threat perception ...

By each passing time threat of western aggressiveness are increasing and rather than making our defence strong we says no we will strengthen our eoconomy thats an illogical argument ...

External threats can motivate a state to do more. But not at the cost of its well-being. Money doesn't grow on trees.

We need a powerful economy and industrial capability to achieve true independence in the matters of foreign affairs, and to fund ambitious military projects.

 

[The Accountant]

And what sources are those?

Our existing resources,,, I mean are we not procuring Subs ? don't we have missile program ? Are we not procuring jets? you are questioning like I am talking about going to Mars,,, USD 8 billion budget is ofcourse smaller than India but its still a huge budget,,, furthermore, besides that we have several secret running programs under various other allocations ,,, and you have no idea about that,,, do you think finance for nuclear weapons were disclosed in our annual budget ,,,

My naive friend,

Every state has its own foreign policy and geopolitical situation, and American response to it varies accordingly.

Iraq and Libya: OPEC and economic factors

Syria: Bashar al-Assad is responsible for the mess in his country. Foreign intervention followed after that.

Pakistan: War on Terror

Iran: Nuclear arms race in the Middle East

Want me to expand on each point?

Whatever factors were there about Iraq, Lybia and Syria,, they were never a military threat to USA but were challenging USA oil based policy ,,, and USA destroyed them to stone age ,,, and they didn't have credible defence and resultantly USA destroyed them ...

Your post seems like you are living in a lala land ... start of CPEC is alone the reason USA want to destroy Pakistan ,, haven't you witnessed change in tone of USA after announcement of CPEC,,, we checkmate USA plans of blocking China in Malaka strait ... We check mate USA's plan to block China's oil passing through Indian ocean ...

and if you think USA will not come for Pakistan then you are living in a false paradise ... USA knows we can't hit them at their mainland ... Only they need a 9/11 type drama to come for Pakistan ... Or alternatively they will use India ...

If you can't see that coming than I am sorry for you ...

When have I ever asserted that we should not have developed nuclear weapons?

Possession of nuclear weapons is more expensive ... by your logic we should invest that fund into economy ...

Cost-effective? You have no idea.

We need billions of USD for that program alone. The total defense budget of Pakistan is close to 8 billion USD mark on annual basis. It encompasses everything.

I am sorry my friend but you have no idea... Do you know technologically the toughest part in preparation of MIRV is miniturisation of war head ,,, we have already done that in the form of Nasar ,,, infact I am of the view that we already possessed the capability of MIRV ...

For ICBM main issue is you need materligical advance material ... we can procure that from other countries offcourse not for missile program but through some intermidiary method ,,, we have done this plenty of time ...

We wold have need billions if we had to start from scratch ,,, but sir we already achieve miniturisation of war heads... we already have guidance systems ,,, we already have rocket motors .... what we need is to add one more stage and to have materligical advance rocket who can sustain temperature and pressure of ICBM ...

You can even use separable boosters to increase range of exisitng Shaheen 3 to a much larger extent ...

My point is there are lot of ways where you can achieve the capability ,,, the issue is here of political will not funds and not technology ...


And can you please tell me which is more cost effective way of telling USA (a probable aggressor) that if you try to hit us we have capability to give you pain as well ?

If USA threat can be addressed by strengthening our economy then please go ahead ...

External threats can motivate a state to do more. But not at the cost of its well-being. Money doesn't grow on trees.

We need a powerful economy and industrial capability to achieve true independence in the matters of foreign affairs, and to fund ambitious military projects.

I can't agree more on this ,,, But there is a misconception ,,, what economic development has to do with military development ??? I am finance professional ,, I bet I understand business and economy much better than you do ... Sir isn't it a fact that military industrial complex of Pakistan is providing millions of jobs and have 100 of industrial complex running under it ??? So if we stop funding those dont you think joblessness will increase ???

Our core issue is corruption and lack economy ... You have given tax exemption to 70% of agriculture economy,,, now persons can have thousand of acres of lands,, billions in assets and income but have to contribute nothing to treasury ,, So you need correction in your economic model not need to reduce defence expenses ...

 

[The Deterrent]

@The Accountant

The above image is of a UGM-133 Trident II (D5) Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile. Each one of these missiles carry 4 Mark-5 MIRVs, each containing a W88 thermonuclear warhead of 475 kilotons yield, up to 12,000 km away. The Ohio-class SSBNs (Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine) carry 24 of these SLBMs each, and the US Navy operates 14 of these SSBNs in service (roughly a third is on active patrolling at any given instant).

Kindly do the math every time you think of somehow 'nuking' the US mainland.

 

[amardeep mishra]

@The Accountant

The above image is of a UGM-133 Trident II (D5) Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile. Each one of these missiles carry 4 Mark-5 MIRVs, each containing a W88 thermonuclear warhead of 475 kilotons yield, up to 12,000 km away. The Ohio-class SSBNs (Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine) carry 24 of these SLBMs each, and the US Navy operates 14 of these SSBNs in service (roughly a third is on active patrolling at any given instant).

Kindly do the math every time you think of somehow 'nuking' the US mainland.

Hi @The Deterrent
It gets difficult to control myself from writing on topics I work on or have worked in past especially when someone makes drastic remarks such as Mr Accountant. I'll write elaborately on some of the main engineering challenges that Pakistan would run into if she ever decides to work on let's say ICBM,ABM or MIRVs.these challenges are from Indian context but equally applicable to Pakistan as well.
I'm currently simulating for ABM's(exo atmospheric) kill vehicle control system.Divert attitude control system.

 

[The Deterrent]

Hi @The Deterrent
It gets difficult to control myself from writing on topics I work on or have worked in past especially when someone makes drastic remarks such as Mr Accountant. I'll write elaborately on some of the main engineering challenges that Pakistan would run into if she ever decides to work on let's say ICBM,ABM or MIRVs.these challenges are from Indian context but equally applicable to Pakistan as well.
I'm currently simulating for ABM's(exo atmospheric) kill vehicle control system.Divert attitude control system.

Humor me on the MIRVs part.

 

[amardeep mishra]

Humor me on the MIRVs part.

Hi man! Right now I'm traveling in train to Chennai hence can't write elaborately on phone! I'll surely write it once I log on from my system. I can't talk about MIRV from metallurgical perspective as I'm not educated enough in that field.I can however talk from the point of view of systems engineering and control system design in some decent depth. And propulsion systems in moderate depth.

 

[amardeep mishra]

@The Deterrent
Ok let me see what I can compose here in train.let's start with MIRV.
I'll divide my post in two sections-one from propulsion perspective and another from control perspective.again since I'm not a metallurgical engineer,I won't be able to comment on the size,weight,beta coefficient of the warheads.
(A) propulsion
In order to be able to impart certain velocity to the MIRV bus, the rocket should be big enough. Now by big enough I mean solid rocket should be able to inject the MIRV bus system into a elliptical orbit with center of earth being one of the focii. This injection should be done at a particular velocity,particular altitude and at a particular angle. The thrust of the motor determines the former and the control system determines the latter. Now , to impart a specific velocity,Pakistan would have to first add a third stage to the already existing 2nd stage. Now that adds to weight penalty. And if the weight isn't controlled,we'll miss our velocity and Angle requirements at the time of burn out. To fight weight,countries go for all composite stage and nozzles. This reduces weight without compromising on the structural integrity of the rocket. Kindly bear it in mind that solid rockets undergo radial pressure all along the length during the time of operation. In order to substitute maraging steel with composites in a massive missile with dia exceeding 1.5m would require some decent composite and filament winding machine. Pakistan hasn't demonstrated any composite stage to suggest that they're seriously looking at composites to add a 3rd stage to already existing missile.

B) from control perspective.
If we want to incorporate independence in all the RVs then each one of them should have their own reaction control system .this sometimes comes under attitude correction. Normally there is an arrangement of throttalable liquid engines in the form of English letter "H"(towards the tail of RV) that can render motion in both longitudinal and lateral planes of RV. However it's another matter that we usually require roll to be imparted to the RV just before re entry so that it can be spin stabilized.
Since there is no need to track a target actively in MIRVs, there are no "divert thrusters" as well.this simplifies our control complexity very much. In order to target let's say 4 cities in a radius of let's say 1500kms the RVs need to be imparted small nudges(active thrust firing at particular angles) sometimes in the middle of their original elliptical trajectory(that was imparted to them by main solid motor just before burnouts) in order to bring them to different elliptical trajectories so that they can fall onto 4 different cities.
From system engineering perspective,Pakistan would have to design all of this and accommodate in the RV with weight constraint not going above 500kgs.
Now challenges get amplified if you're planning to keep your ICBM stored in silos or canisters for extended period of time. Kindly note that in canisterized system missile is hermetically sealed and hence there is no means of filling the RCS tanks. Also you can't keep the RCS tank pre filled for long duration as it'll lead to degradation etc and would amount to compromising with integrity of the missile. Hence novel metallurgical solutions are needed and different countries deal with it in different ways.

 

[The Accountant]

We are not planning to nuke usa mainland ... we never would ... do you think we are planning to nuke india ... but what if india attacks and our all traditional defences failed what would we do .. we will retaliate with a nuclear strike ... and thats what stoping india for mis adventures ...

Similarly we will not initiae any war with us ... i am not a taliban type guy living in a fantasy world and thinking that we can beat us ...

Sir i am saying that if we donf have proper deterrent we can be next iraq ...

Lets hypothetically assume us attacks us then how r u going to defend yourself ... please dont assume that china will engage militarily ... we have to be ready for every possibility ...

Us and iraq were once best friend ... same could be done o js if we dont have any deterrent ...

Hi @The Deterrent
It gets difficult to control myself from writing on topics I work on or have worked in past especially when someone makes drastic remarks such as Mr Accountant. I'll write elaborately on some of the main engineering challenges that Pakistan would run into if she ever decides to work on let's say ICBM,ABM or MIRVs.these challenges are from Indian context but equally applicable to Pakistan as well.
I'm currently simulating for ABM's(exo atmospheric) kill vehicle control system.Divert attitude control system.

Sir you are most welcome to correct me ...

By the way my post was never about engineering challenges ... i am sure there must be a lo of challenges and i am in no position to comment on them ... position i am taking is the need ... we drastically need icbms to counter all threats ... there are so.e technologies which we have already ahieved ... for example plotonium based warheads ... minituarisex warhead ... MRB missiles ... guidance system ... you cat deny that ... there are other challenges as well ... might be more complex and difficult to address ... however still other countries have achieved it we can

For composite parts you are right that we dont have idustrial base ... but can you please till me which industry of pakistan is capable of manufacturing material required for shaheens ? we imported such material under cover of various commercial and research organizations ... same approach could be use for other materials not available locally ...