The curious case of Nasr's terminal guidance

[CriticalThought]

Far more sophisticated alloys of Ni than NitiNOL.

Is it only used in the nose or the entire body?

 

[SQ8]

I am really interested in having an air launched version of Nasr. If GIDS can create a UAV for it, the army would be quite independent for CAS role.

Why do we need to strike at the heart of the formation? Taking out a number of forward units puts the rest in disarray. First, there is the psychological effect. Next, the terminated units form a natural physical barrier that forces the rear ones to maneuver around them. Now combine with an unexpected attack from the flanks and you have an enemy who doesn't know what hit him.

The whole point is, if we can achieve all this with just Nasr, imagine what we can accomplish when every element at our disposal works in unison. That is the main point of the thread. I fully support developnent of other longer range SRBMs.

Israel calls their version the rampage

Some really slick TiXiNi metallurgy resulted in a trusted release weapon. Great success for Nasr. Testimony to my brilliant teacher.

Where did Dr. B of the B clan(apparently having more than one pie with their fingers in) end up?
Very “real” person compared to many others I encountered through the social hello opportunity... least of those being the “Aiyee hav bought you ay rolax gifat” types.
Used to know him but then he just disappeared once my blue passport came on.

You have my deepest condolences for all that happened. It is not something that can be put in words, because words cant fix it. I only can offer my shoulder if you need it and a listening ear whenever you want it.

These things run so deep among us, deeper than anything else.... they can never be forgotten, so it is natural we feel the way we do when they are cruelly broken...and it will last always till we are with them again, some place better.... away from the reaches of the evil we have here among us:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/monu...in-peshawar-kp-cm.591982/page-5#post-11026388

Online is exaggerated a lot... after all we all operate in agreed upon decorum and rules.. or adverserial mode consistantly to assuage other frustration in life.

Real life has greater thought into it and since 26/11 PDF has been a forum for increasingly intoxicated thought

 

[messiach]

Very versatile but now outdated to SE ceramics.

Is it only used in the nose or the entire body?

 

[Safriz]

Israel calls their version the rampage


Where did Dr. B of the B clan(apparently having more than one pie with their fingers in) end up?
Very “real” person compared to many others I encountered through the social hello opportunity... least of those being the “Aiyee hav bought you ay rolax gifat” types.
Used to know him but then he just disappeared once my blue passport came on.


Online is exaggerated a lot... after all we all operate in agreed upon decorum and rules.. or adverserial mode consistantly to assuage other frustration in life.

Real life has greater thought into it and since 26/11 PDF has been a forum for increasingly intoxicated thought

So you're "Imreeki I was suspicious

 

[The Deterrent]

@The Deterrent please point out any inaccuracies.

Which leads to a surprising conclusion. Along with the other attributes cited in the official release, I believe it would be logical to conclude that Nasr is an all-weather missile. This capability, although not officially recognized, makes Nasr highly reliable against enemy threats that may emerge spontaneously.

Aren't missiles supposed to be 'all-weather' by default?

Finally, what about the terminal seeker? We don't see any IR/Visual sensors, and the warhead portion seems too small to carry any sort of radar guidance. Similarly, no laser sensors seem visible either. At most, the missile may be GPS guided, which would means it is prone to jamming by the enemy. At the very least, some type of inertial navigation must be present within the missile which seems to be more than enough at the small ranges for which the missile is designed.

Nasr represents a very judiciously selected set of characteristics that achieve a very potent effect using very simple components. This makes it ideal for mass production, and thus, a nightmare for advancing enemy columns. Even without a nuclear warhead, salvos of Nasr fired in tandem would see enemy fighting units decimated very quickly. No current armor is able to protect from strikes by warheads at Mach 4 - 5 speeds.

But the versatility of Nasr doesn't just end here. The videos merely show the missile disintegrating upon impact. But what would be the effect if a material with very high hardness is placed in the warhead? Tungsten Carbide is well known for both its hardness, and its brittleness. This means, it would shatter into fragments of extreme hardness if paired with a small explosive at impact. The resulting rain of extremely hard fragments at Mach 4 - 5 would have a meat grinder effect on the enemies.

Nasr was not built to be used against advancing columns.
You mention that it lacks any terminal seekers, but still believe that a ~300mm missile can directly hit tanks?

Not getting the point of this thread.

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

Nasr is all about the mobility, rapid-launch capability, low signature of the TEL and the in-flight maneuvering. Its purpose is to get the job done, smartly. I do agree that it could use a bit more range, but we're limited by the propulsion tech we have.

 

[CriticalThought]

Aren't missiles supposed to be 'all-weather' by default?

Not really. The all-weather qualification is explicitly attached. See, for example, the Wikipedia entry for Tomahawk. I believe the US military designation for such ammunitions is X-Weather.

Nasr was not built to be used against advancing columns.
You mention that it lacks any terminal seekers, but still believe that a ~300mm missile can directly hit tanks?

Correction. I said no terminal seekers are evident. I am interested if you can share insight.

In the absence of visible proof, I am forced to theorize: C4ISR systems provide real-time tracking from which future position of advancing columns is estimated and the area saturated with Nasr. Inertial navigation at short ranges can provide accurate guidance, and is immune to jamming, decoys, and spoofing, while remaining low cost. That's merely my theorization. I asked you for correction.

Not getting the point of this thread.

The point is to explicitly articulate what is left unexplained in videos, to spark interest and discussion, and better understand the scenarios under which Pakistan Strategic Forces intend to use Nasr.

Nasr is all about the mobility, rapid-launch capability, low signature of the TEL and the in-flight maneuvering. Its purpose is to get the job done, smartly. I do agree that it could use a bit more range, but we're limited by the propulsion tech we have.

Shouldn't the range increase if it is modified for launch from air?

 

[The Deterrent]

Not really. The all-weather qualification is explicitly attached. See, for example, the Wikipedia entry for Tomahawk. I believe the US military designation for such ammunitions is X-Weather.

My point was the every nuclear delivery system that Pakistan has is 'all-weather'. This is nothing new. Its not like previously ASFC was like "Saar ji bahir baarish ho rahi hai, zara dhoop nikal aye phir bismillah karte hain."

Correction. I said no terminal seekers are evident. I am interested if you can share insight.

In the absence of visible proof, I am forced to theorize: C4ISR systems provide real-time tracking from which future position of advancing columns is estimated and the area saturated with Nasr. Inertial navigation at short ranges can provide accurate guidance, and is immune to jamming, decoys, and spoofing, while remaining low cost. That's merely my theorization. I asked you for correction.

No can do.

Nasr has a CEP of a few meters, despite allegedly having GNSS. Relying only on INS will increase that CEP to tens of meters (hello maneuvering). Considering that in MOVING armored columns, tanks are usually <100 meters apart (no Fulda Gap in Pakistan), and will be even further apart (200-300m) because of the imminent threat...how do you expect to 'saturate' such a formation with a glorified MBRL, even if it was nuclear? Theorizing is not bad, it just needs to be realistic, practical and feasible. Kindly run the numbers next time.

The point is to explicitly articulate what is left unexplained in videos, to spark interest and discussion, and better understand the scenarios under which Pakistan Strategic Forces intend to use Nasr.

There you go.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/pakistan-to-show-missile-muscle.504857/page-10#post-9642012

Shouldn't the range increase if it is modified for launch from air?

Sure, but why risk 2 fighters worth tens of millions USD for 40-50 km increase in range, when a TEL can do the same job in a much more discreet manner?
Besides, better and tested platforms are already available.

 

[CriticalThought]

My point was the every nuclear delivery system that Pakistan has is 'all-weather'. This is nothing new. Its not like previously ASFC was like "Saar ji bahir baarish ho rahi hai, zara dhoop nikal aye phir bismillah karte hain."

OK. Thank you for the information, but I didn't find this explicitly mentioned anywhere. Anyway, for missile trajectories, the concern isn't rain, but rather wind.

As an extreme example, launches of space rockets are routinely canceled because of weather. Notice the word extreme in that sentence. In the videos, I particularly noted the stiff wind conditions under which the targets were hit.

No can do.

Nasr has a CEP of a few meters, despite allegedly having GNSS. Relying only on INS will increase that CEP to tens of meters (hello maneuvering). Considering that in MOVING armored columns, tanks are usually <100 meters apart (no Fulda Gap in Pakistan), and will be even further apart (200-300m) because of the imminent threat...how do you expect to 'saturate' such a formation with a glorified MBRL, even if it was nuclear? Theorizing is not bad, it just needs to be realistic, practical and feasible. Kindly run the numbers next time.

Thank you again. And again, I couldn't find any sources confirming the presence of the particular navigation system used. That said, for a range of mere 70 km, why would INS give such high error rates? Something like this:

https://aerospace.honeywell.com/en/...sensors/gg1320an-digital-ring-laser-gyroscope

should work very well at 70 km range. The key thing is, at Mach 4, it would take less than 52 seconds to reach target. Assuming a formation moving at 70 km/hr, it will move by approx. 1.16 km. If the missile is targeted at a position 1.16 km ahead of current position of the formation, armed with a fuel air thermobaric mixture, and used to saturate the area, the results will be devastating. And that is assuming we fire it from max range.

Sure, but why risk 2 fighters worth tens of millions USD for 40-50 km increase in range, when a TEL can do the same job in a much more discreet manner?
Besides, better and tested platforms are already available.

Well, aren't there any plans for CAS? If anything, using a missile such as Nasr would be more safer for CAS. The aircraft can fly in from Baluchistan, adopt a supersonic flight profile, and release from 120 km distance assuming 50 km increase in range. How is this less safe and discreet than TEL? Also, transport aircraft can be used to launch from height.

This is more a question: shouldn't indigenous production lower the costs for us? If we utilize it across the forces, shouldn't we benefit from economies of scale?

 

[The Deterrent]

OK. Thank you for the information, but I didn't find this explicitly mentioned anywhere. Anyway, for missile trajectories, the concern isn't rain, but rather wind.

As an extreme example, launches of space rockets are routinely canceled because of weather. Notice the word extreme in that sentence. In the videos, I particularly noted the stiff wind conditions under which the targets were hit.

SLVs are optimized for payload, and thats why they have low acceleration in the start. Besides they have larger bodies and therefore more prone to wind. Ballistic missiles are a different category.

Thank you again. And again, I couldn't find any sources confirming the presence of the particular navigation system used. That said, for a range of mere 70 km, why would INS give such high error rates? Something like this:

https://aerospace.honeywell.com/en/...sensors/gg1320an-digital-ring-laser-gyroscope

should work very well at 70 km range. The key thing is, at Mach 4, it would take less than 52 seconds to reach target. Assuming a formation moving at 70 km/hr, it will move by approx. 1.16 km. If the missile is targeted at a position 1.16 km ahead of current position of the formation, armed with a fuel air thermobaric mixture, and used to saturate the area, the results will be devastating. And that is assuming we fire it from max range.

Yeah well RLGs are not exactly cheap, and therefore used for more 'deserving' systems.

Again, run the numbers. Consider the payload, the blast radius and the dispersion of the column. Unless you have the resources to launch 1 missile per tank, this is useless (given ideal conditions). As I said before, even nuclear Nasrs (even 10kt) have minimum chances of being effective against an armored column on the move. You'd need at least a 100 such weapons for one IBG in order for this to work.

Well, aren't there any plans for CAS? If anything, using a missile such as Nasr would be more safer for CAS. The aircraft can fly in from Baluchistan, adopt a supersonic flight profile, and release from 120 km distance assuming 50 km increase in range. How is this less safe and discreet than TEL? Also, transport aircraft can be used to launch from height.

This is more a question: shouldn't indigenous production lower the costs for us? If we utilize it across the forces, shouldn't we benefit from economies of scale?

Again, better stand-off weapons are already available for CAS. Even glide bombs can give multiple times more payload and a similar stand-off range. Your proposal is okay, its just not an effective solution.

 

[CriticalThought]

SLVs are optimized for payload, and thats why they have low acceleration in the start. Besides they have larger bodies and therefore more prone to wind. Ballistic missiles are a different category.


Yeah well RLGs are not exactly cheap, and therefore used for more 'deserving' systems.

Again, run the numbers. Consider the payload, the blast radius and the dispersion of the column. Unless you have the resources to launch 1 missile per tank, this is useless (given ideal conditions). As I said before, even nuclear Nasrs (even 10kt) have minimum chances of being effective against an armored column on the move. You'd need at least a 100 such weapons for one IBG in order for this to work.



Again, better stand-off weapons are already available for CAS. Even glide bombs can give multiple times more payload and a similar stand-off range. Your proposal is okay, its just not an effective solution.

Thanks. Thermobaric bombs create localized vacuums and the devastation comes when surrounding air rushes in. This is how a saturation with thermobaric warheads would look like, and to me it seems like a devastating effect.

 

[The Deterrent]

Thanks. Thermobaric bombs create localized vacuums and the devastation comes when surrounding air rushes in. This is how a saturation with thermobaric warheads would look like, and to me it seems like a devastating effect.

View attachment 538281

Consider the payload, the (effective) blast radius and the dispersion of the column.

 

[CriticalThought]

Can you PLEASE open a PM? There are thoughts I'd rather not share.

 

[The Deterrent]

Can you PLEASE open a PM? There are thoughts I'd rather not share.

I'd rather not. I'm pretty sure whatever critical thoughts you're having, have been discussed before.
Cheers.

 

[CriticalThought]

I'd rather not. I'm pretty sure whatever critical thoughts you're having, have been discussed before.
Cheers.

Drop the attitude. You have no idea what my thoughts are and I have found you rather non-receptive of new ideas. I could prove you wrong, but I happen to understand what kind of thoughts would get me into trouble if shared on the internet.

 

[The Deterrent]

Drop the attitude. You have no idea what my thoughts are and I have found you rather non-receptive of new ideas. I could prove you wrong, but I happen to understand what kind of thoughts would get me into trouble if shared on the internet.