Pakistan is eyeing sea-based and short-range nuclear weapons, analysts say

[kurup]

I know you are dumb but still can you please stop acting like a toddler.. Owning? Just coz india modified its software or guidance system doesn't mean it is indian.. There is a reason Brahmos range is under 300.. MTRC.. There is a reason russian doesn't use the downgraded,short ranged variant of yakhont.. And so on ...
Explained beautifully by @Secur. And others.

P.S: This thread isn't about Brahmos but Paks strategic naval weapons...

Last I remember all your points were refuted and U ran away from that thread .

If I was the poster I would have accepted it and correct my mistakes because I have shame .

Since we can't expect that from you , you are back with parroting the same $hit again .

 

[Hurter]

ok we will eat grass u should keep on drinking cow urine cola

ROFL

 

[asq]

Please excuse this post it has no content w.r.t the topic. Sorry PDF.


Well if that was true there would be no innovation to begin with. If everyone was just busy coping they would have just found out nothing works. Also if only there was 1 inventor and other just copying and adopting then the one inventing it would have the un due advantage of knowing everything about the product and can exploit it against others. Now, in the present context, we are doing something similar. People with grandiose theory will say that "Arjunk/LCA are waste of money and resource, look at us with so less resource we have this and this". Well they are true. In the short run you may have a good product but it's no way the best, neither is our product. But what we have done now is a step towards making the best.

I know there will be someone out there to quote what I said and say "Hey we JV and make such a good product, you could have done the same. Why reinvent ?". The answer is, JV inherently means that someone is doing x% of the job for you. Even if its not the critical tech, but it's a working component, a link in the chain which makes you product perform what it performs. So now if the JV partner backs out and you have all the critical components but lack some minor components, u still won't be able to extract the fullest potential of ur JV product. By being a complete in-house product your first few products may be bad or worse but you learn and are not dependent on anyone.

People then come with statements like "Indigenous ? My A$$ !! That thing contains 94% of foreign product not even the pedestal is of ur countries !!! Ha even my <<Foreign Product>> is more indigenous than that !!". Well first of all how did you calculate that percentage ?? Did u just find the weight of the foreign and local product and found its %age or counted the nos. ?? 'Boz even idiots would laugh at u if u did that. Here we work upon what you said in your post. We have some WIP sub systems in the stables and need to validate few other critical tech stuff which has already been developed. Hence we those stuff which are already been worked on by us and use them to test other critical stuff and also to set benchmark for our own WIP. Now "How it's diff from JV ?" Here we plan to develop the entire product and to validate few sub system we use quick prototyping and buy stuff. Whereas in JV u invest money for the entire product of which a %age is been used by some else to develop and produce what you cannot. I do not say one is inferior to the other. Both have different goals and have different outcomes.

In cars, in Military equipment, for civilian need, everything is a copy, many militarily invention are used for civilian uses these days, iu can bring up many products which are copies of products invented, and used these.days,

so let stop here, you and I agree to disagree. cupish

 

[Mughal-Prince]

aur Poland mea kidhar ?

Bus yara sumjha kero buchian bari solid hain idher

 

[Chanakyaa]

Hold ON :

SLAMABAD, Pakistan — In one of the world’s most volatile regions, Pakistan is advancing toward a sea-based missile capability and expanding its interest in tactical nuclear warheads , according to Pakistani and Western analysts.

The development of nuclear missiles that could be fired from a Navy ship or submarine would give Pakistan “second-strike” capability if a catastrophic nuclear exchange destroyed all land-based weapons.

So Now Tactical Nukes = Strategic Nukes ??

Allah Reham Kare !!!

 

[Dem!god]

ok we will eat grass u should keep on drinking cow urine cola

@Jungibaaz is this trolling allowed..

 

[The Deterrent]

Hold ON :

SLAMABAD, Pakistan — In one of the world’s most volatile regions, Pakistan is advancing toward a sea-based missile capability and expanding its interest in tactical nuclear warheads , according to Pakistani and Western analysts.

The development of nuclear missiles that could be fired from a Navy ship or submarine would give Pakistan “second-strike” capability if a catastrophic nuclear exchange destroyed all land-based weapons.

So Now Tactical Nukes = Strategic Nukes ??

Allah Reham Kare !!!

Try paying attention to the words first, before quoting them hurriedly to prove your point.
Sea (submarine)-based nuclear (cruise) missiles are very different from (battlefield) tactical nuclear weapons. Pakistan has achieved enough miniaturization capability to develop strategic nukes which can be delivered by cruise missiles.

 

[Chanakyaa]

Try paying attention to the words first, before quoting them hurriedly to prove your point.
Sea (submarine)-based nuclear (cruise) missiles are very different from (battlefield) tactical nuclear weapons. Pakistan has achieved enough miniaturization capability to develop strategic nukes which can be delivered by cruise missiles.

So If I am Correct, You Mean to Suggest :

#1. Pakistan Can Deliver Nukes via Cruize Missiles

#2. Cruize Missiles are NOT TACTICAL WEAPONS

Plz Enlighten Me.

 

[The Deterrent]

So If I am Correct, You Mean to Suggest :

#1. Pakistan Can Deliver Nukes via Cruize Missiles

#2. Cruize Missiles are NOT TACTICAL WEAPONS

Plz Enlighten Me.

1. Yes. Babur GLCM is 520mm in diameter, it shouldn't be hard to develop a more powerful thruster to propel it through and out of the water, all while the missile is encapsulated.

2. Depends on the yield. If the weapon yield is ~50kt and its target is a countervalue one, then it is strategic; be it a cruise or a ballistic missile.

 

[Chanakyaa]

1. Yes. Babur GLCM is 520mm in diameter, it shouldn't be hard to develop a more powerful thruster to propel it through and out of the water, all while the missile is encapsulated.

Sir, Its NOT About Fitting a Radar in Nose Cone.
Have you Considered the Weight of the Nukes ? Plz Dont tell me Its a Secret/Uknown.

Plus, Why Talk of the Super Bomb of 1000 MT , which is "shouldn't be hard to develop" ? Lets Talk on What we have in Hand.

2. Depends on the yield. If the weapon yield is ~50kt and its target is a countervalue one, then it is strategic; be it a cruise or a ballistic missile.

You Contradicted Yourself.

A. Can a 50 KT Weapon be carried by Pakistani Cruize Missile. ( Plz do Note , 50 KT ) , It will have Huge Weight.
Plz No Imaginary Figures/Sources. Lets Talk Real.

B. Say, if Your SLCM CAN Carry 1 - 15 KT Weapon. Its NO Longer a STRATEGIC Weapon, As You Suggested.

A =/= B ( If its Strategic Wepon It Cant be Carried by a Cruize Missile.. If its NOT a STRATEGIC Weapon .. Then its TACTICAL.. WHich it ACTUALLY IS ).

PS : And Im Eager to Know....

C. Does Pakistan Have a 50 KT Weapon ? Source Plz.

 

[The Deterrent]

Sir, Its NOT About Fitting a Radar in Nose Cone.
Have you Considered the Weight of the Nukes ? Plz Dont tell me Its a Secret/Uknown.

Plus, Why Talk of the Super Bomb of 1000 MT , which is "shouldn't be hard to develop" ? Lets Talk on What we have in Hand.

I was referring to the problem of fitting it in 533mm torpedo tubes.
The payload capacity is well defined (300kg, some sources claim 450kg), and is the first limiting factor on increasing the yield. So please don't tell me that somehow Pakistan will try to fit in an "overweight" warhead.

"In hand", you say? Read your posts above and see for yourself what India has "in hand".
When it comes to Pakistan, NESCOM has always delivered solutions out of the blue. If we can develop a cruise missile, we can definitely modify it for a submerged launch. There isn't any rocket science involved.

You Contradicted Yourself.

A. Can a 50 KT Weapon be carried by Pakistani Cruize Missile. ( Plz do Note , 50 KT ) , It will have Huge Weight.
Plz No Imaginary Figures/Sources. Lets Talk Real.

B. Say, if Your SLCM CAN Carry 1 - 15 KT Weapon. Its NO Longer a STRATEGIC Weapon, As You Suggested.

A =/= B ( If its Strategic Wepon It Cant be Carried by a Cruize Missile.. If its NOT a STRATEGIC Weapon .. Then its TACTICAL.. WHich it ACTUALLY IS ).

PS : And Im Eager to Know....

C. Does Pakistan Have a 50 KT Weapon ? Source Plz.

Ah, right. If you'd only stop trying so hard to point out contradictions instead of listening to the other person..

A. Huge weight? We have transitioned from Uranium-based cores to Hybrid cores to Plutonium-based cores, thanks to the plutonium production plants at Khushab. All this is REAL, verified by international experts. So yeah, a 50kt nuke can be carried by a Pakistani cruise missile.

B. Yes.
Right, all-knower.

C. Pakistan claimed a yield of 45kt in 1998. Now we know that it was lesser, but probably it was the target yield of the test. It has been 16 years since then, so I think that capability has been achieved.


I have been following Pakistan's capabilities for a long long time now, but if you want sources, I have none. I don't expect you to agree with me, neither it is my intention to do so. So continue to believe that whole of Pakistan's NCA and SFC are clueless and dumb. They'll surprise you soon.

 

[Chanakyaa]

I was referring to the problem of fitting it in 533mm torpedo tubes.
The payload capacity is well defined (300kg, some sources claim 450kg), and is the first limiting factor on increasing the yield. So please don't tell me that somehow Pakistan will try to fit in an "overweight" warhead.

The Limiting Factor is the Weight of the Warhead. What is the Weight of the Nuclear War Head in Babur ? And Which Warhead .. How do You KNow.. Give me Suurces.

Let me Tell You.
The Best Cruize Missile in the World , Tomahawk has a Warhead of 1 - 5 KT ( Fission Device ) . Pakistani's have Better ?

Check This : W84 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In hand", you say? Read your posts above and see for yourself what India has "in hand".

You tell me, Which one We DONT Have ?

When it comes to Pakistan, NESCOM has always delivered solutions out of the blue. If we can develop a cruise missile, we can definitely modify it for a submerged launch. There isn't any rocket science involved.

Yes You Can.
I Want To KNow How and WHICH Nuclear Warhead of 50 KT Sit in Babur.

Ah, right. If you'd only stop trying so hard to point out contradictions instead of listening to the other person..
A. Huge weight? We have transitioned from Uranium-based cores to Hybrid cores to Plutonium-based cores, thanks to the plutonium production plants at Khushab. All this is REAL, verified by international experts. So yeah, a 50kt nuke can be carried by a Pakistani cruise missile.

Give Me Figures. No Talks Plz.
What is the Weight of Your 50KT Warhead ?

C. Pakistan claimed a yield of 45kt in 1998. Now we know that it was lesser, but probably it was the target yield of the test. It has been 16 years since then, so I think that capability has been achieved.

Pakistan Tested Shaheeen Way Back..... Do we Have an ICBM Now ?
Plz Talk on Facts Not Estimates.

I have been following Pakistan's capabilities for a long long time now, but if you want sources, I have none. I don't expect you to agree with me, neither it is my intention to do so. So continue to believe that whole of Pakistan's NCA and SFC are clueless and dumb. They'll surprise you soon.

Thats Deviation. And Loose Talk.

 

[The Deterrent]

The Limiting Factor is the Weight of the Warhead. What is the Weight of the Nuclear War Head in Babur ? And Which Warhead .. How do You KNow.. Give me Suurces.

I don't know. I told you the payload capacity is 300-450kg. Obviously maximum allowed capacity will be used.
Google the sources, and stop acting like a kid.

Let me Tell You.
The Best Cruize Missile in the World , Tomahawk has a Warhead of 1 KT. Pakistani's have Better ?

Have you totally lost it? Tomahawk variants BGM-109A & BGM-109G both carried W80 & W84 variable yield warheads respectively, with maximum yields of 150kt each.

You tell me, Which one We DONT Have ?

MIRVed A5, Multiple Functional SSBNs with operational SLBMs.

Yes You Can.
I Want To KNow How and WHICH Nuclear Warhead of 50 KT Sit in Babur.

I cannot help you there, you'd have to visit the labs for that.
On my behalf, it was an estimate.

Give Me Figures. No Talks Plz.
What is the Weight of Your 50KT Warhead ?

I told you, I don't have sources.

Pakistan Tested Shaheeen Way Back..... Do we Have an ICBM Now ?
Plz Talk on Facts Not Estimates.

We do not have a requirement for an ICBM, that is a "FACT".

Thats Deviation. And Loose Talk.

No, thats me, tired of your childish comprehension issues.

 

[Chanakyaa]

I don't know. I told you the payload capacity is 300-450kg. Obviously maximum allowed capacity will be used.Google the sources, and stop acting like a kid.

Does a Kid Ask for Sources ?

Have you totally lost it? Tomahawk variants BGM-109A & BGM-109G both carried W80 & W84 variable yield warheads respectively, with maximum yields of 150kt each.

Read Again. Then Tell Me Do You Have a BOOSTED FISSION DEVICE ?

MIRVed A5, Multiple Functional SSBNs with operational SLBMs.

A5 Mirv is Almost Ready.. Pehaps Next Month, They will Test.
INS ARihant is Ready , Sagarika is Ready

We do not have a requirement for an ICBM, that is a "FACT".

Ofcourse. Then WHy MAke Estimates. ? If Pakistan has made any Progress in Nukes . Plz Show It.
The YEARS Logic is Flawed. Even after 100 Years Somalia cant be USA.

No, thats me, tired of your childish comprehension issues.

Well, Imagination is Adult.. and Asking for Sources is Childish ?

 

[The Deterrent]

Does a Kid Ask for Sources ?

If you REALLY want to know about the sources, why don't you try just a little bit to look them up yourself? If you don't find one, I'll be happy to help (but mention what you exactly want to know).

Read Again. Then Tell Me Do You Have a BOOSTED FISSION DEVICE ?

Read again? You said that Tomahawk (nuclear) had a yield of 1kt!! How about admitting your stubbornness before changing the topic?
And yes, Pakistan did claim back in '98 to test a tritium-boosted fission weapon. Again, you only have to google it for your "thirst" of "sources".

A5 Mirv is Almost Ready.. Pehaps Next Month, They will Test.
INS ARihant is Ready , Sagarika is Ready

Let me give you a dose of your own medicine.
Almost Ready =/= "In Hand". There, you just contradicted yourself.

A5 will take minimum 1 year before any MIRVed testbed is actually tested aboard it. Right now it is being pushed for canisterized qualification tests so that production may begin, of the unitary warhead variant.
I said "Multiple Functional SSBNs". Has INS Arihant cleared weapon trials of Sagarika?
Thats what you don't have "IN HAND".

Ofcourse. Then WHy MAke Estimates. ? If Pakistan has made any Progress in Nukes . Plz Show It.
The YEARS Logic is Flawed. Even after 100 Years Somalia cant be USA.

Oh, right genius. So you want us to "show" our progress. Why don't you suggest a way of showing that? Maybe conducting another series of tests? Or publicly boasting about nukes (as DRDO does often) by a country struggling against terrorism so that you can start again with your trolling?
Have some common sense and stop arguing just for the sake of the argument. Pakistan now has 4 functional plutonium reactors at Khushab, from 1 back in '98. Thats progress for you.

Well, Imagination is Adult.. and Asking for Sources is Childish ?

I'm not here to convince you or provide you with sources just because you want to belittle Pakistan. You don't want to believe it? Be my guest.

I'd prefer if we stop this discussion here, I have answered your questions.