What's new

SAM system based on Nasr missile

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is a good idea. Funds shouldn't be a probable. We have the expertise. So what's stopping us?
its @Zarvan he doesnt agree
he says why not buy a ready made system from China instead of converting a different missile with different role, motor, guidance system, warhead and speed to something it was never meant to be
 
.
its @Zarvan he doesnt agree
he says why not buy a ready made system from China instead of converting a different missile with different role, motor, guidance system, warhead and speed to something it was never meant to be
I agree and yes even Turkey has developed SAM system HISAR. Should be checked
 
.
on second thoughts, teh temperature and velocity of escaping gas may make it impossible... i am not sure but THAAD may use thrust vectoring.. its launch seems like that... or may eb we can use control like TOR which uses sudden gas emission (at launch) to manuever.. ? bcz settalite uses this technology.. and pak has made numerous satellites..
I know good control engineers are rare in pak (even in UK , many control eng are chinese)
@Technogaianist ur professional opinion on using thrust vectoring in missiles..

on 3rd thoughts ( :P if this kind of phrase exist)

the plane thrust vector control seems an ADD ON. i mean if we can develop this, we can use it on jf-17 whenevr mission reuires.. its not permanent...

An add-on kit is probably not useful or doable due to the unique stresses a missile would face during its flight time, add-on wings have been tried before:

This A-4 with wings crashed shortly after launch

Add-ons tend to throw off the aerodynamic performance of the missile.

Add-on motors are possible, and have been done on AShMs, but for SAMs, who may need to maneuver while in flight, add-on motors, veins or fins add extra weight that hampers the missile's performance.

Add-on motors tend to be dropped very soon after launch due to their aerodynamic inefficiency and weight.

SM-2 shedding its booster:
SM2-Blk-IV-Sep-1S.jpg


There are additional problems too beyond messing with the aerodynamics of the missile, which could make it unstable in flight during high-speed or high-G maneuvers:

1. storage: Quite a few modern missiles, like NASR, are stored in sealed canisters.

S-300:
6043e1f3416334dbbbd2c536261704e4.jpg


Combat crews aren't going to have access to the missile to strap on an thrust-vectoring motor kit unless they want to compromise the integrity of the storage canister, and potentially render the missile unusable or too big to fit in the canister.

2. Speed: SAMs need to be mobile or they're toast. Static defenses end up like this:

1024px-Destroyed_Iraqi_S-75_Dvina.JPEG


Because they need to be mobile and be able to respond rapidly, how soon could an add-on kit be put on a missile during combat actions? Too late and you end up dead.

3. Modern SAMs also tend to have thrust-vectoring kits already in-place on the missile:

cZXiY.jpg


The veins on the end of this Indian AAD are thrust-vectoring fins.

s-300-missile-thrust-vector.jpg


Same here on this HQ-9

i am not sure but THAAD may use thrust vectoring.. its launch seems like that

THAAD definitely has thrust vectoring, but it's a builtin capability, not an add-on kit.


790px-Wfm_thaad_diagram.svg.png


All-in-all, if you want a thrust vectoring missile, ballistic - like this Trident II D5:


Or SAM or A2A - like on this Japanese AAM 5:

800px-JASDF_AAM-5_TVC_behn_20131124.JPG


It's best to start from the ground up and build a missile with built-in thrust-vectoring capabilities. Add-on kits add weight, limit aerodynamic performance, may make the missile less stable and are typically not retained long enough to be of any help.

Are they possible? Yes, thrust-vectoring add-on kits are possible, but I'm not aware of a single SAM using them anywhere in the world.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
yes man...
1. probelm with handling if missiles are sealed...
2. combat crew can't strap them (motors impossible)
3. even if we could pre-strap (then sealed) them inefficiency and g-forces w'd be drastic..
but i though of it as a last resort of a country converting ballistic into SAMs
Thanx also that you start self-searching my post on a guess thread, manually
 
.
Interesting concept. I think that it would possible to convert the NASR into a high speed SAM with a neutron warhead. Neutron explosion fall out 60km high would be harmless on the ground and you don't have to worry about making the missile highly maneuverable or highly accurate since the EMP and the nuclear burst would destroy any enemy squadron or warheads in the 3 to 5km radius. Remember that the atmosphere is very thin at the 60km altitude so even a 1kt neutron warhead would prove to be as powerful as a 10kt neutron warhead.

Interesting concept indeed, no real danger of nuclear radiation reaching sea-level, no need for pin point surface to air accuracy, no need for expensive radars, no need for a super highly maneuverable missile, just need detect the general area where the enemy target is in the air and launch the missile in the general direction and let the neutron burst do the rest for you.
 
.
Yes why not it needs radars batteries and new motor and sensors nothing is impossible important thing we can convert it into anti ballistic missile shield
 
.
Yes why not it needs radars batteries and new motor and sensors nothing is impossible important thing we can convert it into anti ballistic missile shield
Exactly.

I'm pretty sure that a few generals in pindi and a few scientists at NESCOM have already thought of that. Who knows, maybe we already have it developed and deployed but are keeping quiet about it just like we've had the Ababeel MIRV missiles for a few years but just kept it quiet until now.
 
.
Nuclear tipped nasr would be a very inefficient way of taking down aircraft. The effective radius would be a few kms and aircraft can easily maintain a separation of 10s of kms.
 
.
I was thinking if it would be possible to develop Nasr into a SAM.

Will it need a new motor because it has to be more manueverable?

We have technology of missile ? Yes
We have technology of radar? Need time to muture
We have system to integrate these two? No
We have system for Friend and foe? No
We have tons of money to invest on it(even we know that it is not a perfect system let and still even US is struggling in it)? No

Now it is your choose either invest heavily on it or go for procurement
 
.
The Army and Air Force have different opinions on the value of a missile shield.
The Air Force position is that it protects their fixed bases from attack and permits the AF to be effective longer.

The Army's opinion is that can any missile shield invented or feasibly deployed have a chance to defeat a concentrated modern (2017 era) Indian BM attack? The Army's position is that it cannot.

Defenses from missile attack in the modern world do not exist yet. Add in modern missiles, with Maneuvering War heads, penetration Aids and MIRV' s and oh, the nuclear enviroment with irs high radiation bursts? Fuggit about it.
 
.
Aren't all missile systems capable of conducting different attacks/operations ? for example all shortrange of american standard AIM 9 series since B variant are capable of ground attacks on tanks just by modifying software only ?

Missile is a carrier with canard type wings and actuators etc. I think Pakistan only needs to invest rest is assured and can be achieved with failures and later success.
 
.
a sam based sd-10 would be perfect, a booster would give more range.
norway and the usa have done it with their nasams1/2
vidutinio-nuotolio-prieslektuviniu-raketu-sistema-nasams-2-566bfa38e6654.jpg

1200020786.1000x670.jpg

the nasam also has the honor of guarding the white house.
 
. . .
@JamD @Quwa
any development in this regard?

SAM System Based on Nasr: VERY Unlikely. Personally feel like this is a bad idea.

Indigenous SAM system development: Nothing concrete. Have heard some things but nothing that sounds like a mature system.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom