The curious case of Nasr's terminal guidance

[HRK]

We need to look at the role Nasr is supposed to play.
It's a weapon system designed to be used when Pakistani forces are on the back foot and Indians are advancing and Pakistani military has no means to stop the advancing enemy forces .
So
It's not MLRS and is not supposed to do MLRS job. It's job is to reliability punch a hole in Indian advancing columns who have the upper hand and have access to all sorts of offensive and defensive weaponry .
While Pakistani forces are being pummelled and out of oppositions.

I'm that scenario you need a very reliable weapon which can dodge enemy defenses and cause fairly larger scale damage
In my opinion nasr is pre programmed to make multiple trajectory changes during the flight so that the enemy radar cannot reliability track it and cannot predict its position in the next few tens of seconds for successful interception by a BMD.
However doing so costs kinetic energy which is the only force keeping nasr airborne . The burnout time of the weapon as per my observations is about 10 seconds and there is no power source to propel the missile after that and has to use the kinetic energy. The MLRS follows a parabolic trajectory which is an efficient way of using the kinetic energy from burnt out rocket fuel to get to maximum range. But nasr loses energy while making the multiple in-flight maneuvering Hence low range but very high reliability.
Range does not matter in the scenario in which nasr will be used as in that scenario out armed forces will be fighting a losing battle and enemy will be already close by .
Nasr will be the last ditch effort to punch a hole in enemy lines get behind them Cut off supplies and attack from behind and try to turn the tables
At that time Pakistan will already be on the way of losing the battle and in response to using nasr if India starts an all out nuclear exchange It won't matter for us as we would be already on the way to our doom.
With a tactical nuke mounted on nasr Pakistan will cause an air burst of high energy neutrons covering an area of 2-3 square kilometers per missile mainly disabling Indian ability to advance any further

dear I understand the scenario and the purpose of Nasr missile and I am not questing these .... the question which is disturbing me is not related to the role of Nasr or its conceptual use but it is exclusively related to NASR as a system demonstrating certain flight characteristic and capabilities in which something is missing (or not known publicly) which is reducing the range.

As it is known that Nasr does not follow pure ballistic trajectory it is somewhat quasi ballistic missile, some of the 400mm artillery rockets which follow pure ballistic trajectories are having range in 250+ Km while Indian Pharar missile with almost the same dimensions as Nasr have 150+ KM range, so something is different in NASR and I want to understand that difference.

Either
- Its warhead weight
- Or early flight manoeuvres to mask the position of launch battery and related C&C systems

(NOTE: these are just my guess I may be totally wrong)

 

[CriticalThought]

dear I understand the scenario and the purpose of Nasr missile and I am not questing these .... the question which is disturbing me is not related to the role of Nasr or its conceptual use but it is exclusively related to NASR as a system demonstrating certain flight characteristic and capabilities in which something is missing (or not known publicly) which is reducing the range.

As it is known that Nasr does not follow pure ballistic trajectory it is somewhat quasi ballistic missile, some of the 400mm artillery rockets which follow pure ballistic trajectories are having range in 250+ Km while Indian Pharar missile with almost the same dimensions as Nasr have 150+ KM range, so something is different in NASR and I want to understand that difference.

Either
- Its warhead weight
- Or early flight manoeuvres to mask the position of launch battery and related C&C systems

(NOTE: these are just my guess I may be totally wrong)

There is also the burn rate to consider - the rate at which it burns fuel. Higher rate means higher acceleration.

 

[HRK]

There is also the burn rate to consider - the rate at which it burns fuel. Higher rate means higher acceleration.

IF we assume difference in burn rate than it mean deficiencies either in fuel or with rocket motor of NASR which I think should be at least at par if not better with other 400 mm rockets systems rather inefficient than those

 

[CriticalThought]

IF we assume difference in burn rate than it mean deficiencies either in fuel or with rocket motor of NASR which I think should be at least at par if not better with other 400 mm rockets systems rather inefficient than those

An increased burn rate to gain higher acceleration is an advantage not a deficiency.

 

[HRK]

An increased burn rate to gain higher acceleration is an advantage not a deficiency.

I know what I was saying that IF the difference of Nasr range as compare to other 400 mm systems is because of burn rate than it mean Nasr have less efficient fule and rocket motor as compare to other systems.

I think should be at least at par if not better with than the other 400 mm rockets systems rather inefficient than those

 

[CriticalThought]

I know what I was saying that IF the difference of Nasr range as compare to other 400 mm systems is because of burn rate than it mean Nasr have less efficient fule and rocket motor as compare to other systems.

Assuming they achieve the same acceleration as Nasr.

 

[Safriz]

IF we assume difference in burn rate than it mean deficiencies either in fuel or with rocket motor of NASR which I think should be at least at par if not better with other 400 mm rockets systems rather inefficient than those

Burn rate has significantly improved from earlier versions
The missile does not carry as much fuel as other 400mm rockets.
It is evident from the picture I posted
The fuel compartment only goes to less than half of missile length

 

[HRK]

Assuming they achieve the same acceleration as Nasr.

acceleration would be a dependent variable depending on the total mass of the system and force applied, if we think on these line than Nasr is heavier either
- because of heavy payload, assuming mass of fuel, subsystems and body of nasr equivalent to any other 400 mm system
- Or its payload is in range of 200-250kg same as other 400 mm systems but Nasr is heavy due additional subsystems or heavy body frame

 

[CriticalThought]

acceleration would be a dependable variable depending on the total mass of the system, if thinks in these line than Nasr is heavier either
- because of heavy payload, assuming mass of fuel, subsystems and body of nasr equivalent to any other 400 mm system
- Or its payload is in range of 200-250kg same as other 400 mm systems but Nasr is heavy due additional subsystems or heavy body frame

If ratio of fuel to total weight is constant between Nasr and other systems, and Nasr achieves same or better acceleration, then we can reliably say there are no inefficiencies with burn rate.

 

[HRK]

If ratio of fuel to total weight is constant between Nasr and other systems, and Nasr achieves same or better acceleration, then we can reliably say there are no inefficiencies with burn rate.

which leave us only with the possibility that Nasr is heavier than other systems

 

[CriticalThought]

which leave us only with the possibility that Nasr is heavier than other systems

I wonder what those extra components could be.

 

[Safriz]

which leave us only with the possibility that Nasr is heavier than other systems

A nuclear weapon is always heavier than conventional
Specially the type nasr is using, matt need additional subsystems

The Americans had W66 warhead which was intended for similar purposes To produce large x-ray and neutron burst
The W66 was 18 inches in maximal diameter and 35 inches long, with a weight of approximately 150 pounds.
That's 45 cm dia and about 70 kilos
But to reach such refined designs the Americans carried out 1000 nuclear test explosions. Pakistani design cannot be that refined and has to be larger. I am assuming it's longer and heavier . Spread out longitudinal instead of circumference

 

[HRK]

I wonder what those extra components could be.

A nuclear weapon is always heavier than conventional
Specially the type nasr is using, matt need additional subsystems

Abdali missile was able to carry 500 Kg nuclear warhead (that was publicly known least heavy nuclear warhead before Nasr) upto 180 Km with different dimensions (0.5 m diameter and 9+ m height)

If we assume after the progression of so many years in Nuclear technology Pakistan succeed to develop sub kilo-newton warhead in 200-250 kg range than it should not reduce the range of Nasr, but if its heavier than this range then the question arise how much heavier the warhead is .... ?? is it in range of 250-300 kg or above ....?? which is impacting the range of Nasr as much as 1/3 of the range of other 400 mm systems

@The Deterrent ..... Missile wali Sarkar kuch kashf ..... kuch kiramaat ....

The Americans had W66 warhead which was intended for similar purposes To produce large x-ray and neutron burst
The W66 was 18 inches in maximal diameter and 35 inches long, with a weight of approximately 150 pounds.
That's 45 cm dia and about 70 kilos
But to reach such refined designs the Americans carried out 1000 nuclear test explosions. Pakistani design cannot be that refined and has to be larger. I am assuming it's longer and heavier . Spread out longitudinal instead of circumference

logical assessment....

 

[maxpayne]

Those days are gone when mechanical gyroscopes were used for internal navigation and induced large errors
Now with electronic gyros the accuracy is far better

Ring Laser Gyros..

 

[Fawad alam]

If Nasr is highly maneuverable and accurate at high speed than why not convert him as SAM?