Pakistan Icbm Missile Test In 2018 and 2019 Urdu & Hindi

[hacker J]

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.

All issue mentioned are correct but partialy,
1) lack of intent:- usa is not an enemy in near future, but looking at recent sore relations, us spying on pak and pak china ally status will ring alarm bells in washigton. Nothing can be said in future so just to be sure.
2) lack of technical support:- correct but that is because china does n see any benifit of providing such technology currently which can cause pak to be able to also target whole of china for the mattr of fact. But when time comes there could be hidden allies u never know.
3) lack of financial resources: correct, currently since pak doesn need it hence no need to divert funds from already small economy
4) technical knowhow: i dun believe that, pak already knows enough to create a missile capable of striking 10000 km apart but the question here is the technology needed for guidence. The missile created at current knowhow may have a cep of more than 50 km.

 

[The Deterrent]

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.

About NK, that is a mistaken assumption. NK's HS-14 ICBM flew 965 km downrange with an apogee of 3724 km. The reason for lofted trajectory test flights is the available testing space for initial tests. Anything greater than around 1000 km has to fly over Japan or China (while remaining clear of South Korea), so they need to be sure it won't crash midway. The HS-12 which flew over Japan was launched by their Strategic Artillery Forces as an exercise.
For an optimized trajectory, almost all western analysts are putting HS-14 at around 10,000km range, capable of hitting as far as New York. You can't dismiss this fact just by saying that they haven't tested it yet at full range. They most probably will as soon as they're confident that HS-14 is reliable enough.

About Pakistan, the navigational warnings reveal a lot about trajectories. Rest assured, there is no hidden masala in Pakistani solid-fuel motors which we can activate to add 1000 more kilometers to the range. They are what they are.

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.

More inaccuracies here, elaborated below.
Pakistan has:
1. No penetration aids as of present.
2. High Speed RVs (MRBM-class, no big deal, speed is a result of propulsion required for longer range).
3. No MaRVs (capable of maneuvering INSIDE atmosphere) as of present.
4. Faster response & launch times (absolutely true).
5. No capability to hit hard targets (as no MaRVs available for precision strikes) as of present.
6. Secure comms (no big deal, a must for nuclear command and control)

North Korea has:
1. No penetration aids as of present.
2. Much higher speed RVs (ICBM-class).
3. MaRV (tested aboard HS-5G [KN-18][derivative of Scud-C], essentially Pershing-II type MaRV for precision strikes, potential ASBM)
4. Much slower response & launch times (liquid-fueled systems)
5. Capability to hit hard targets with precision. (see #3)
6. Secure comms (no big deal, a must for nuclear command and control)

To be clear, both NK & Pakistan have their own priorities hence their own pros & cons. This doesn't means that anybody is ahead (overall).

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.

I'm not sure where I specifically mentioned (or even implied) that North Korean tech was 'better'. Care to elaborate?

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.

Elaborated above.

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?

Again, I didn't imply anywhere that they were better. I don't think you should take it hard if they tested an ICBM. Sure, mobilization of liquid-fueled missiles takes much longer, but by hours, not days. Of course their accuracy is crappy and they haven't perfected re-entry yet.
I'm not sure why you're even comparing the two countries. Both have their own enemy-specific designs and strategies, considering their own constraints.

4) technical knowhow: i dun believe that, pak already knows enough to create a missile capable of striking 10000 km apart but the question here is the technology needed for guidence. The missile created at current knowhow may have a cep of more than 50 km.

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.

 

[Safriz]

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.


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.

But you do realize that Pakistani strategic warhead on first Ghauri was 700kg and things may have improved since then.
Indian warheads are way too heavy by design, and that doesn't mean they are keeping it heavy to keep yield high. The strategic warheads on trident are a mere 300 kg.
It's all about good design.

About NK, that is a mistaken assumption. NK's HS-14 ICBM flew 965 km downrange with an apogee of 3724 km. The reason for lofted trajectory test flights is the available testing space for initial tests. Anything greater than around 1000 km has to fly over Japan or China (while remaining clear of South Korea), so they need to be sure it won't crash midway. The HS-12 which flew over Japan was launched by their Strategic Artillery Forces as an exercise.
For an optimized trajectory, almost all western analysts are putting HS-14 at around 10,000km range, capable of hitting as far as New York. You can't dismiss this fact just by saying that they haven't tested it yet. They most probably will as soon as they're confident that HS-14 is reliable enough.

About Pakistan, the navigational warnings reveal a lot about trajectories. Rest assured, there is no hidden masala in Pakistani solid-fuel motors which we can activate to add 1000 more kilometers to the range. They are what they are.


More inaccuracies here, elaborated below.
Pakistan has:
1. No penetration aids as of present.
2. High Speed RVs (MRBM-class, no big deal, speed is a result of propulsion required for longer range).
3. No MaRVs (capable of maneuvering INSIDE atmosphere) as of present.
4. Faster response & launch times (absolutely true).
5. No capability to hit hard targets (as no MaRVs available for precision strikes) as of present.
6. Secure comms (no big deal, a must for nuclear command and control)

North Korea has:
1. No penetration aids as of present.
2. Much higher speed RVs (ICBM-class).
3. MaRV (tested aboard HS-5G [KN-18][derivative of Scud-C], essentially Pershing-II type MaRV for precision strikes, potential ASBM)
4. Much slower response & launch times (liquid-fueled systems)
5. Capability to hit hard targets with precision. (see #3)
6. Secure comms (no big deal, a must for nuclear command and control)

To be clear, both NK & Pakistan have their own priorities hence their own pros & cons. This doesn't means that anybody is ahead (overall).


I'm not sure where I specifically mentioned (or even implied) that North Korean tech was 'better'. Care to elaborate?


Elaborated above.


Again, I didn't imply anywhere that they were better. I don't think you should take it hard if they tested an ICBM. Sure, mobilization of liquid-fueled missiles takes much longer, but by hours, not days. Of course their accuracy is crappy and they haven't perfected re-entry yet.
I'm not sure why you're even comparing the two countries. Both have their own enemy-specific designs and strategies, considering their own constraints.

The biconical nose cone of Shaheen-1A indicates radar seeker. The forward cone helps in focusing radar beam to find target. So yes there are things.

 

[The Deterrent]

But you do realize that Pakistani strategic warhead on first Ghauri was 700kg and things may have improved since then.

Of course things have improved.

Indian warheads are way too heavy by design, and that doesn't mean they are keeping it heavy to keep yield high.

I wouldn't make that assumption. Boosted fission designs are often heavier, and of course can be scaled up as much as allowed. Agni-III's 2000+kg payload might house a larger and powerful fission device.

The strategic warheads on trident are a mere 300 kg.
It's all about good design.

Well compared to the US of course both India and Pakistan haven't reached that level of miniaturization, let alone of 2-stage thermonuclear designs.

The biconical nose cone of Shaheen-1A indicates radar seeker. The forward cone helps in focusing radar beam to find target. So yes there are things.

I thought you had calculated that the biconical nose was a smaller RV, common in design with Shaheen-IIIs RV.
So which one is it, a radar seeker or a RV?

 

[Safriz]

Of course things have improved.

I wouldn't make that assumption. Boosted fission designs are often heavier, and of course can be scaled up as much as allowed. Agni-III's 2000+kg payload might house a larger and powerful fission device.


Well compared to the US of course both India and Pakistan haven't reached that level of miniaturization, let alone of 2-stage thermonuclear designs.

I thought you had calculated that the biconical nose was a smaller RV, common in design with Shaheen-IIIs RV.
So which one is it, a radar seeker or a RV?

Well you are fully aware which version of Shaheen-1A I am on about?
The one paraded on 23rd March.

 

[The Deterrent]

Well you are fully aware which version of Shaheen-1A I am on about?
The one paraded on 23rd March.

It was a badly made mock-up.

 

[Safriz]

It was a badly made mock-up.

It was this version, as seen flying in Yousaf Raza Gilani era.

And that's a real deployed missile not a mock up. Note the forward cone.

 

[The Deterrent]

It was this version, as seen flying in Yousaf Raza Gilani era.


View attachment 425393 View attachment 425393

And that's a real deployed missile not a mock up. Note the forward cone.

We have had this discussion before. That version was a stepping-stone to Shaheen-IA (biconic RV on Shaheen-I motor). It was never tested again.
Keeping aside the above, even if the Pakistani MaRV looks like that, how exactly does it stabilize AND maneuver?

 

[Pax Ottomana]

Just to offer a fellow Turkish perspective here; I think Pakistan absolutely does need a capable ICBM. If you're worried about "international backlash", don't be. Simply ask those who criticize you if they've fielded THEIR ICBMs without any testing. If you're worried about money, don't be. You already have a lot of the underlying technology. Once you demonstrate the ICBM, that's it. You don't even have to field that many of them so long as the "enemy" knows you have an in-kind response if they attempt the unthinkable. That extra deterrence will pay for the cost of the ICBM many times over going forward.

Please continue with your endeavors in all fields of defense, technology and aerospace. It's not just the people of Pakistan that depend on and bet their lives on your ability to excel at these, it's us Turks too and frankly the entire Ummah. We have very powerful and merciless enemies! You owe it to us all to seek to become as strong as you can be.

 

[Safriz]

We have had this discussion before. That version was a stepping-stone to Shaheen-IA (biconic RV on Shaheen-I motor). It was never tested again.
Keeping aside the above, even if the Pakistani MaRV looks like that, how exactly does it stabilize AND maneuver?

While the TEL looks the same as Shaheen -1 , I fail to see any reason why Pakistan would make a "bad copy" to parade it on two consecutive years?.
The copy still has to have same dimensions and shape as original thing or it won't fit the TEL.
I am not too sure how the MaRV will change trajectory, but guessing the sideways motors seen on all Shaheen series may help?
Here is a closeup of the bi-conical version of shaheen-1A I am on about.

 

[The Deterrent]

While the TEL looks the same as Shaheen -1 , I fail to see any reason why Pakistan would make a "bad copy" to parade it on two consecutive years?.
The copy still has to have same dimensions and shape as original thing or it won't fit the TEL.

The TEL is of course original. The mock-ups have the same general dimensions, but they don't have the details of real systems (except for a cable duct or inter-stage truss). Occasional f**k-ups happen as usual, just like the time when they paraded Shaheen-IIs with fins on second stage.
The reason to parade crude mock-ups is that real systems reveal too many details. Take a look at the paraded systems (Shaheen-IA & III, Babur & Nasr only) of the past two years (or since when parading resumed), and tell me if you can see any ports, retro-thrusters, patch-antennae or any body segments. They're more or less seamless & smooth.
Besides parading deployed units is risky.

I am not too sure how the MaRV will change trajectory, but guessing the sideways motors seen on all Shaheen series may help?

Nope, the RV has to spin for stability during reentry. Retro-thrusters cannot be used for changing trajectory while the RV is spinning. For MaRV, first the RV needs to be stabilized without using spinning, then the RV can be maneuvered via thrusters or external control surfaces. The simplest solution (for SRBM/MRBM-class missiles) is to add movable fins to the RV, for both stabilization & maneuvering. US Pershing-II & Chinese DF-15B are good examples.

Here is a closeup of the bi-conical version of shaheen-1A I am on about.

I know what you have been referring to.

 

[Cyberian]

Pakistan will only test an ICBM if it feels cornered, isolated internationally like it was in the 1990s. And, it won't just be an ICBM that Pakistan will be testing - but weapons that only the US, Russia and China currently posses.

 

[Safriz]

Pakistan will only test an ICBM if it feels cornered, isolated internationally like it was in the 1990s. And, it won't just be an ICBM that Pakistan will be testing - but weapons that only the US, Russia and China currently posses.

Stabilization of warhead after reentry is a function of re-entry speed.
Spinning the warned to create gyroscopic inertia is done only when it's Mach 10+ and Warhead does not change anything after re-entry.
Below that it's feasible to use wings and other means to change course as stresses won't be too high due to slower speed.
Shaheen and Shaheen-1 both have wings at the front for same reason.
Shaheem-1A doesn't have wing and chances are That it does it's trickery in upper atmosphere,say before 60km altitude and then does nothing.
That way it doesn't need any wings to use aerodynamic forces for course correction or dodge ABM like Shaheen and Shaheen-1 .
However it is clear that whatever i wrote here is speculation based on observation. That doesn't mean it actually happens or doesn't.

 

[Pax Ottomana]

Stabilization of warhead after reentry is a function of re-entry speed. Spinning the warned to create gyroscopic inertia is done only when it's Mach 10+ and Warhead does not change anything after re-entry.

Isn't the reentry speed almost always over mach 10 when it comes to ICBMs?

 

[Safriz]

Isn't the reentry speed almost always over mach 10 when it comes to ICBMs?

It much higher for ICBM. Mach 20 and above, but here we are talking about Pakistani Shaheen series which are SRBM and IRBM.