Pakistan Affairs post about SHAHEEN 3 Range

[Zarvan]

https://www.facebook.com/

This is the video of North Korea's Hwasong-14 ICBM.
Note the first stage burning up in atmosphere as seen at 1 minute 6 seconds in the video, the white smoke trail.
Obviously the stage must have separated before 66 seconds . The moment when a rocket stage burns all fuel and gets separated is called "Burnout time".
On the other hand Pakistan's Shaheen-3 first stage burns for at least 57 seconds , may be 60 seconds.
Yet North Korean Missile is said to have a range of 7000+ Kilometers, but Pakistani missile as a range of just 2750 Kilometers?
Its another thing that North Korean missile is liquid fueled and has slower acceleration, Pakisani Shaheen-3 is solid fueled and accelerates much faster and has a higher speed than Hwasong-14 at first stage Burnout.
Other thing is Pakistani Shaheen-3 has a larger second stage and also carries a third stage.
North Korean Missile has only a second stage and no third stage.
Pakistani Missile's Warhead is much lighter than the one carried by North Korean missile, so they need much more energy to carry their warhead to target, ours need lesser energy.
For same amount of acceleration ours will go further.
But lets all say that Pakistani Shaheen-3 has a range of 2750 Kilometers and not a meter more


This is what it says please your opinion is needed @The Deterrent @Horus

 

[CriticalThought]

There are many aspects to this.

1. The trajectory. The NK missile trajectory is a 'lifted' one. Meaning, it goes straight up into the air, thousands of kms, then comes down again. If Shaheen has a depressed trajectory, that would reduce its range.

2. It matters if you are going against the Earth's rotation or along with it.

3. You also need the appropriate control system for guidance/navigation of the missile.

All of these combine to determine a missile's reach.

And, of course, it serves our interests to keep the range within certain limits

 

[IceCold]

And, of course, it serves our interests to keep the range within certain limits

The time cannot be more right than now for us to change this policy. The adversary needs to understand what will happen if they try to force their will on us specially now that the cat is out of the bag.

 

[CriticalThought]

The time cannot be more right than now for us to change this policy. The adversary needs to understand what will happen if they try to force their will on us specially now that the cat is out of the bag.

A better way is to simply block their routes. You are not going to increase range to 12K any time soon. And even if you do, American BMD is at a level where they can intercept a missile if you give it enough time. It would be folly trying to threaten the Americans, because before you ever threaten them, Europe will feel threatened. We now have many business interests with Europe. Chief amongst them is POFs upcoming deal for CZ Bren. There are talks of Pakistan joining the TAI/Rolls Royce partnership for engine development. We have much to lose by antagonizing Europe.

If Europe is with us, we can look America in the eye and tell them to stop using us. More than nukes and missiles, we need good leadership.

@Vergennes @A.P. Richelieu @gambit @F-22Raptor

 

[IceCold]

A better way is to simply block their routes. You are not going to increase range to 12K any time soon. And even if you do, American BMD is at a level where they can intercept a missile if you give it enough time. It would be folly trying to threaten the Americans, because before you ever threaten them, Europe will feel threatened. We now have many business interests with Europe. Chief amongst them is POFs upcoming deal for CZ Bren. There are talks of Pakistan joining the TAI/Rolls Royce partnership for engine development. We have much to lose by antagonizing Europe.

If Europe is with us, we can look America in the eye and tell them to stop using us. More than nukes and missiles, we need good leadership.

The day US moves against us will the day for our honeymoon to be over with Europe as well. NATO is part of US plans. One would be naive to believe otherwise.

 

[CriticalThought]

The day US moves against us will the day for our honeymoon to be over with Europe as well. NATO is part of US plans. One would be naive to believe otherwise.

If you think about it, there are cracks appearing there. A very important aspect is the recent announcement of 'allied' countries for committing troops to Afghanistan. They all apologized. Europe is weary of war in Afghanistan. In Britain, my Pakistanis have been elected into the national government. If we play our cards well, we can deepen our relationship with Britain. These are all bridges that need to be built, opportunities that need to be utilized. We need top notch diplomats, politicians, in general, good governance. Trying to solve this through military means will be the ultimate stupidity.

 

[countryman]

Though it seems you asked question from specific members but I think you'll be OK if someone else takes part in discussion as well.

 

[fitpOsitive]

If you think about it, there are cracks appearing there. A very important aspect is the recent announcement of 'allied' countries for committing troops to Afghanistan. They all apologized. Europe is weary of war in Afghanistan. In Britain, my Pakistanis have been elected into the national government. If we play our cards well, we can deepen our relationship with Britain. These are all bridges that need to be built, opportunities that need to be utilized. We need top notch diplomats, politicians, in general, good governance. Trying to solve this through military means will be the ultimate stupidity.

Very nice sir. For top notch guys, induction on merit is the first step, no?

 

[CriticalThought]

Very nice sir. For top notch guys, induction on merit is the first step, no?

Induction on merit of people who are also good Muslims, patriotic, and above all God Fearing.

 

[countryman]

We can create 5000 or 6000 or 7000 KMs range rocket using same rocket model we're using for Shaheen, however, it will be very inefficient. Solid fuel becomes disadvantage when weight to thrust ration increases. We'll need very fat rocket motor first, maybe we can just attach additional boosters to first-stage.

More efficient rockets are liquid propellant rockets when it comes long range. Ghauri series would have been the basis of our ICBM - which Pakistan have abandoned most probably due to external pressure. But, personally, I think we should focus on liquid fuel rockets - though medium range not exceeding 3000 KM but perfected technology, and cruise missiles - especially engine. New anti-ballistic missile systems are maturing gradually and once the reliable ABM is developed - solid fuel rockets will lose many advantages.

 

[CriticalThought]

We can create 5000 or 6000 or 7000 KMs range rocket using same rocket model we're using for Shaheen, however, it will be very inefficient. Solid fuel becomes disadvantage when weight to thrust ration increases. We'll need very fat rocket motor first, maybe we can just attach additional boosters to first-stage.

More efficient rockets are liquid propellant rockets when it comes long range. Ghauri series would have been the basis of our ICBM - which Pakistan have abandoned most probably due to external pressure. But, personally, I think we should focus on liquid fuel rockets - though medium range not exceeding 3000 KM but perfected technology, and cruise missiles - especially engine. New anti-ballistic missile systems are maturing gradually and once the reliable ABM is developed - solid fuel rockets will lose many advantages.

Each type has pros and cons. Solid fueled rockets can be deployed rapidly. For short to intermediate ranges, there is no need to shift to liquid fuel.

 

[The Deterrent]

https://www.facebook.com/

This is the video of North Korea's Hwasong-14 ICBM.
Note the first stage burning up in atmosphere as seen at 1 minute 6 seconds in the video, the white smoke trail.
Obviously the stage must have separated before 66 seconds . The moment when a rocket stage burns all fuel and gets separated is called "Burnout time".
On the other hand Pakistan's Shaheen-3 first stage burns for at least 57 seconds , may be 60 seconds.
Yet North Korean Missile is said to have a range of 7000+ Kilometers, but Pakistani missile as a range of just 2750 Kilometers?
Its another thing that North Korean missile is liquid fueled and has slower acceleration, Pakisani Shaheen-3 is solid fueled and accelerates much faster and has a higher speed than Hwasong-14 at first stage Burnout.
Other thing is Pakistani Shaheen-3 has a larger second stage and also carries a third stage.
North Korean Missile has only a second stage and no third stage.
Pakistani Missile's Warhead is much lighter than the one carried by North Korean missile, so they need much more energy to carry their warhead to target, ours need lesser energy.
For same amount of acceleration ours will go further.
But lets all say that Pakistani Shaheen-3 has a range of 2750 Kilometers and not a meter more


This is what it says please your opinion is needed @The Deterrent @Horus

That is a very oversimplified argument, and almost on the line of idiocy. Here's why:

The white smoke trail can be of the same liquid engine. What happens is that in upper atmosphere, the exhaust gases have a higher density than the surrounding air, hence the trail begins to appear whitish. This happens with our Ghauris too so it isn't anything different. To support my argument, you have to look at the rough sketch of HS-14's internal design:

(Courtesy: Norbert Breugge http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/Hwasong-14/index.htm)

This is a MASSIVE first stage. It likely burns for at least two minutes (a more realistic estimate is about 150s), before burnout.

Please try to consider other technical factors before comparing apples and pine-freakin-apples.

 

[CriticalThought]

Well I agree with you. But in my personal opinion, I have seen many many good people, damn good for their nations, who were not muslims. White color in our flag, in my humble opinion, is not the symbol of rights for minorities, rather a symbol of oppression. Islam and fear of Allah is our base, and justice and specially merit should be our weapon of mass destruction.
BTW, out of topic.

Yes, let's agree to disagree. That discussion will derail the thread.

 

[countryman]

Each type has pros and cons. Solid fueled rockets can be deployed rapidly. For short to intermediate ranges, there is no need to shift to liquid fuel.

I exactly said the same, however, my response was for the context post. Solid fuel rockets are best for short range, OK for medium range as well and of course their is no need to replace medium range solid fuel missiles with liquid fuel missiles at least for now. Though, in future missiles will need better control and maneuverability on every stage due to stronger defense system - that is why we're focusing on cruise missiles lately. Maybe the work is going on Gauri as well - but we need perfected liquid propellant rocket engine for later stages, not essentially for lift off as long as we remain withing 3000 KM limit.

 

[CriticalThought]

I exactly said the same, however, my response was for the context post. Solid fuel rockets are best for short range, OK for medium range as well and of course their is no need to replace medium range solid fuel missiles with liquid fuel missiles at least for now. Though, in future missiles will need better control and maneuverability on every stage due to stronger defense system - that is why we're focusing on cruise missiles lately. Maybe the work is going on Gauri as well - but we need perfected liquid propellant rocket engine for later stages, not essentially for lift off as long as we remain withing 3000 KM limit.

Well, correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that solid fuel technology has advanced to a stage where some modern ICBMs actually employ solid fuel technology. Currently, liquid fuel makes sense for payloads of multiple tonnes or where the trajectory is extremely high. The NK Hwasong uses liquid fuel because of its lifted trajectory.