Pakistan Icbm Missile Test In 2018 and 2019 Urdu & Hindi

[hacker J]

ok whatever makes you sleep better Btw Angi V isnt MIRV capable

yup not yet, at least on public paper.

 

[The Deterrent]

2. No MIRV has been tested. Even Agni V is MIRV capable, but testing it with operatioal capability is entirely different thing.

Unfounded BS about MIRVs not being tested.
Agni-V is NOT capable of delivering MIRVs. A complete redesign of the payload bus would be required, giving a weird dumb-bell shape to the payload section, with a significant reduction in range. That's why Agni-VI (an upgrade to Agni-V) is being developed which uses all composite stages to save mass and a 2m diameter cylindrical 3rd stage to make space for the wide MIRV-bus.

 

[Imran Khan]

fan boys want missiles jets ICBMs SAMs ships subs as always what is new ?

 

[Code_Geass]

we might need a ICBM but we surely dont have to announce it ATM.
it will be diplomatic headache
we need to grow in stature 1st

 

[!eon]

They have money but no balls
They would not even work for space rocket out of fear

 

[[--Leo--]]

Waste of money should build SLV and spend more money on RnD on radars and air defence system

 

[amardeep mishra]

Unfounded BS about MIRVs not being tested.

HI @The Deterrent
Your remarks about A-5 are spot on. Dont mind the fan-boys though. The reason why I am writing this comment is simply because I believe MIRVs werent tested on the very first flight of ababeel. In all likelyhood, since it was the first pakistani vehicle with a 3rd liquid stage, they wanted to validate it--like how it is done anywhere else. More importantly they would like to validate the performance of bulged payload fairing in dynamic pressure region. For actually injecting the warheads into different trajectories, the bus needs to be put in different trajectories very precisely, a slight miss in the trajectory would mean the warheads would fall off the mark. Also since you know, warheads generally do not have any of their own rockets and are generally incapable of correcting their trajectories, hence the bus would need to be steered very very precisely. I am sure it would take Pakistan some more time to perfect it and actually try out some practical orbital maneuvers and injecting the warheads into different trajectories. But as soon as it is achieved, Pakistan would have a working MIRV capable system.
And yes, the nose cone shape of A-6 would change as you've pointed out, it will be more bell shaped than the current conical RV. Also the throw weight of A-6 would increase to a massive 3 tonnes! Which means A-6 would be able to impart required velocity and required angle at the required altitude to a 3tonnes payload-- thus ensuring a minimum range of 6000+ kms for the warheads.

 

[Safriz]

HI @The Deterrent
Your remarks about A-5 are spot on. Dont mind the fan-boys though. The reason why I am writing this comment is simply because I believe MIRVs werent tested on the very first flight of ababeel. In all likelyhood, since it was the first pakistani vehicle with a 3rd liquid stage, they wanted to validate it--like how it is done anywhere else. More importantly they would like to validate the performance of bulged payload fairing in dynamic pressure region. For actually injecting the warheads into different trajectories, the bus needs to be put in different trajectories very precisely, a slight miss in the trajectory would mean the warheads would fall off the mark. Also since you know, warheads generally do not have any of their own rockets and are generally incapable of correcting their trajectories, hence the bus would need to be steered very very precisely. I am sure it would take Pakistan some more time to perfect it and actually try out some practical orbital maneuvers and injecting the warheads into different trajectories. But as soon as it is achieved, Pakistan would have a working MIRV capable system.
And yes, the nose cone shape of A-6 would change as you've pointed out, it will be more bell shaped than the current conical RV. Also the throw weight of A-6 would increase to a massive 3 tonnes! Which means A-6 would be able to impart required velocity and required angle at the required altitude to a 3tonnes payload-- thus ensuring a minimum range of 6000+ kms for the warheads.

High throw weight of Indian ballistic missiles is because of lack of sophisticated weapon design.
Minimum trow weight is a ton. Meaning smallest Indian warhead weighs a ton.

 

[amardeep mishra]

High throw weight of Indian ballistic missiles is because of lack of sophisticated weapon design.

Hi shaheen!
Since I am not an expert in warhead design, I will refrain from commenting on either Indian or Pakistan warhead design. But considering the fact that India has been working on plutonium based designs for more than 4-5 decades now, I see no reason why the design will be any less sophisticated than what is being used by Pakistani SFC. And here I am being very very conservative. Also note, Pakistani transition to Plutonium is a recent phenomenon whereas India took the plutonium route from the very beginning.
Secondly the 1 tonnes weight is the weight inclusive of bus, RCS, guidance and control electronics to speak of. Also kindly note, we do not know the level of miniaturization attained by NESCOM in the field of guidance package and actuators.

 

[barbarosa]

I think Pakistan has no need of ICBM because it has the only enemy in its neighbor which is totally in the range of exist MISSILES.

 

[The Accountant]

I don't agree with that....

The second gravest threat to our security after internal issues is not India.... there is only one power in the world that can even think of war with an established nuclear state .... and it's not India ( sory to break Indian hearts here)

Sir if our planners could have understan then we would have been in a different situation ... infact our internal problems are partially being originated from same place ...

However i think we need not to disclose the capability ...

 

[sparten]

What are the reasons?

Lack of funding or lack/limitations of Pakistan's technical/scientific/industrial knowledge and capable and a shortage of available qualified staff in the national institutions like NESCOM etc?

If a backwards, poor, and utterly isolated country with very limited industrial base (North Korea) can develop advance ICBMs with thermonuclear warheads on them, why can not Pakistan with bigger economy, larger population, more integration into global knowledge/scientific stream, and so on?

Asking from a purely technical/capability wise point of view. I know our strategic requirements would be very much different than NK's regime

@Hyperion @Oscar Your insights needed in this thread

There is a fundamantal misunderstanding in your post. Our missiles are far far far far more advanced than anything the NORKs have. Ditto our warheads.

1) We have not tested an ICBM. Niether have the NORKS. They have tested a missile to on a trajectory, which mathematically could give it ICBM range. We have tested missiles to xyz range and not released info about trajectory.

2) Once you get to about 2500 KM range, you have done all the work needed to get a missile to an ICBM class. The challenges beyond this point are not range, that is easily done. The challenges are i) accuracy (due to gravity drift and atmospheric losses), ii)rentry (you need to force the RV to reenter, otherwise it will at the speeds it is at, enter a highly eccentric Earth orbit) and iii) Rentry heat.These challenges are met when you design an IRBM with a range of 2500-3000 KM, getting further poses no new challenges.

3) Our missiles have seen constant improvments. We have sophisticated penetration aids, high speed RV's, Maneoverable RV's, faster response and launch times, accuracy permitting hard targeting, secure comms, none of which the NORKS have.

Since you compared Pakistan with North Korea here, I'll tailor my reply accordingly, comprising all major issues:

1. Lack of Intent:
US does not poses an existential threat to Pakistan. Despite what the people have been led to believe, Pakistani military (specifically the air force) still relies heavily on US , and considers the US as a partner. This does not means that the US is a good partner. But its nowhere close to being classified as nuke-able. Hence, there is no desire of effort to develop any kind of capability to target Continental United States.

OTOH, North Korea has a very bitter history with the US. To this date, US military runs drills with the South Koreans, practicing to decimated North Korean military. Hostile bases in South Korea, Japan, Guam etc and the CBGs pose a significant existential threat to North Korea, hence giving rise to a very strong motivation to deter the US directly on their own (previously USSR used to provide a nuclear umbrella).

2. Lack of Technical Support by Friendly Nations:
Despite the common belief, Pakistan only received Nodongs (Ghauris) and DF-11s (Ghaznavis) with complete ToT. Almost everything else has been developed using them as base technologies, and minimal support from China. And after the AQK fiasco, China almost permanently shut the doors on Pakistan as far as 'critical' technologies were concerned. Without such support, its extremely difficult to develop these technologies from scratch. It takes a LOT of time and money to develop mature & reliable systems like the G-5 have today. There is a reason why Pakistan is still stuck with the upgraded versions (Shaheen-III & Ababeel) of the baseline Shaheen-II. If it was that easy, Pakistan could have developed a new 2m diameter motor for Ababeel.

OTOH, North Korea has been receiving massive indirect technical aid from both Russia & China. Their nuclear physicists were trained in Russia. The present ICBMs, HS-12 & HS-14 (which took the world by surprise by being the first ICBMs to have successful flights), are propelled by 'illegally' obtained Soviet RD-250 engines developed by USSR- (now Ukraine)'s Yuzhmash for the R-36 ICBMs. The TELs are Chinese WanShan-series modified heavy movers for timber transport. One can lookup NK's solid fuel motor progress for comparison, which has only recently started in the form of PK-1 SLBM & PK-2 MRBM (of roughly 1000-1500km range), based on motors of Chinese JL-1 SLBM.

It is also important to mention here that North Korean ICBMs are liquid-fueled, which means they are highly efficient (i.e. higher ISPs of liquid engines), hence providing a 'fast-track' for developing long-range ICBMs. However this means that they require fueling prior to launch, therefore decreasing robustness. Furthermore, most nations developed thermonuclear capability within a decade of developing fission bombs, and as it is relatively easier to go from fission to fusion, it should be assumed that Pakistan also possesses provable thermonuclear devices awaiting full-scale tests.

3. Lack of Adequate Financial Resources:
Financial resources are often related directly with priorities, which in turn are decided by intents. In Pakistan, the current budget for development of strategic weapons and associated systems is a fraction of a fraction (yes thats fraction, twice) of the budget of the entire Pakistani military (yep, THAT small)...which is enough to keep India (the current & main existential threat) at bay. Surprisingly, Pakistan has cut a lot of corners to reduce costs, way more than expected. However, at present, Pakistan has no means to increase that budget by an amount (roughly by an order of magnitude) that would be adequate for developing ~10,000km range ICBMs.

OTOH, North Korea has been pouring massive resources (a significant percentage of their GDP) in the military and specifically nuclear & missile programs. This effort is directly driven by Kim's intent to develop a (somewhat) reliable deterrent. However, as a result you see an abysmal state of governance and poor conditions of the general public.

4. Inadequate Technical Infrastructure:
This is directly linked with intent and available financial resources, however there is no technical handicap or limitation in terms of design capability. The comparable North Korean infrastructure has been built by heavy funding and dependence on friendly nations, as stated above.


If ALL of these 'issues' (in quotation marks because the establishment does not believes they are issues) are addressed, Pakistan can also develop ICBMs capable of hitting continental United States.

With respect thats dead wrong. You are comparing a Mughal era cannon with a modern artillery piece and saying the former is better since its of a bigger Calibre.

In reality our missiles have seen constant improvement and are at least as advanced from a NORK missile than a modern artillery is from a Mughal cannon.

In the last decade we have developed systems for survivability against ABMs, ability to engage time sensitive targets, sufficient accuracy to destroy even the most hardened of targets, permitting rapid retargeting, very short response time from order to launch, MIRV's, MARVs etc.

The North Koreans have the ability, at best, maybe after several days notice and work, to send a nuke within a few miles of a city. And you think they have better technology than us? Seriously?

 

[EpiiC]

I think Pakistan has no need of ICBM because it has the only enemy in its neighbor which is totally in the range of exist MISSILES.

No 2nd strike capability, US could nuke us and we wouldn't be able to harm them, you happy with that? We need a Samson option, if were going down were going to take you down as well.

 

[Mrc]

According to latest report published by American Intelligence organization specializing in Nuclear Ballistic missiles , Indian Nuclear deterrence may not be as strong as they portray.
US Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center compiles data on Nuclear ballistic missiles of world powers and the data is used by US policy makers.
The published data shows that India only has 10 Launchers of Agni-1, 2 and 3, a total of 30 launchers. Agni-4 and 5 are not deployed yet and no launchers produced, except the prototype used in tests.
On the other hand their data on Pakistani Ballistic missiles shows that almost all missiles have 50 Launchers and Pakistan has far more variety than India.
Their data also shows Shaheen-3 and Ababeel as underemployed and that makes sense as both Missiles are relatively new and may need a few more tests before deployment.
Specially Ababeel MIRV may be tested with an entire new motor next time as the current one is borrowed from Shahee-3.

Copied from Pakistan affairs

 

[The Deterrent]

The reason why I am writing this comment is simply because I believe MIRVs werent tested on the very first flight of ababeel. In all likelyhood, since it was the first pakistani vehicle with a 3rd liquid stage, they wanted to validate it--like how it is done anywhere else. More importantly they would like to validate the performance of bulged payload fairing in dynamic pressure region. For actually injecting the warheads into different trajectories, the bus needs to be put in different trajectories very precisely, a slight miss in the trajectory would mean the warheads would fall off the mark. Also since you know, warheads generally do not have any of their own rockets and are generally incapable of correcting their trajectories, hence the bus would need to be steered very very precisely. I am sure it would take Pakistan some more time to perfect it and actually try out some practical orbital maneuvers and injecting the warheads into different trajectories. But as soon as it is achieved, Pakistan would have a working MIRV capable system.

Well you can keep such assumptions to yourself. Its not like "Hey, lets put a 3-stage system together and fly it out to thousands of kilometers to check if the payload fairing works and third stage starts".
Test flights are expensive activities, and it is preferred to test everything that can be tested.

High throw weight of Indian ballistic missiles is because of lack of sophisticated weapon design.
Minimum trow weight is a ton. Meaning smallest Indian warhead weighs a ton.

It is more of a choice-thing. Indian NCA & SFC don't seem to have a requirement for smaller/counter-force/tactical nukes. That might change soon.