What is the Terminal velocity of a Ballistic Missile Warhead? Mach 17 here.

[Mrc]

Well no no, certainly not, I'm not biased.I'll give you reasons, it is for you to believe them.
The latest indian strategic missiles posses following technologies origin of which can be verifiably traced to indian labs, indian patents etc.
1)degree of Use of composite in indian missiles is far higher than their Pakistani counterparts making it light.For instance Agni 4 at just 17t can throw a payload of 1t to 4000kms!
2) Use of compact FOG and RLGs again designed and productionized by RCI Hyderabad.
3)Use of flex nozzle instead of either jet vanes or external control surfaces
4)canisterization
5) Abandoning the use of truss structure in between two stages.
6)Abandoning the use of any external control or stabilization surface.

Yes these are improvements... ...
Use of composites and reduction of wright being important ones...but sayin a generation ahead is a very radicle statement

Most important tech these days and that will continue to be a major strategic factor in atleast next 25 years or so ... is ability to alter reentry trajectories...which can make a ballistic missile highly accurate (with its own strategic implications) or highly inaccurate if situation demands and war head yield allows... pakistan has also has done alot on warheads them selves ...miniturization to stealth shaping...

So both countries have progressed albeit in diifferent fields... ir directions...i dont agree with generation ahead comment

 

[The Accountant]

I i

Hi shaheen~
The narrator hasnt probably done any simulations.In case you need proper research papers,do let me know,I will fill you up with plethora of research papers on RV kinematics and dynamics. Instead of going by such "narrations" why dont you try proper research papers from AIAA or IEEE for a change?Believe me you will end up learning much more.ALthough for such an en devour you need pretty decent mathematics and perhaps coding abilities.
If you look at the graphs above,the RV velocity at height of around 70-80kms is close to 22-23Machs.The velocity just before entering into atmosphere is again dependent on the velocity of the RV at "burn-out".More the velocity at burnout,more will be the velocity just before re-entry into atmosphere.However as the RV descends into atmosphere,it looses kinetic energy and slows down.By the time RV actually reaches 0-500m altitude,it has come down to almost 7M(in the case of modern american ICBMs) and ~3M(in the case of pakistani IRBMs). So,below 15kms altitude,pakistani IRBMs would have most likely come down to 7-9M as can be seen from the graphs above.
The main point here is,interception doesnt take place as you're thinking,I will try to briefly describe it as a Control Engineer!
1)The main surveillance radar(DRDO's swordfish based on ELTA's greenpine) scans the volume using fan beams.Upon detection of any RV,the target information is
2)Passed onto a Fire control radar(MFTR) which can track a fast moving RV much more precisely(with higher resolution) vis-a-vis detection radar. This radar tracks the RV and computes firing solution.
3)Firing solution corresponds to finding probable cordinates where the RV will be in some future time.This is slightly tricky.But this can be done "assuming" a projectile like trajectory of RV--after all an RV is projectile in atmosphere(i.e it doesnt manuvre inside atmosphere).
4)Once this has been computed,interceptors are fired at this "probable cordinate",the GNC module of missile takes over and it steers the missile to this coordinate. I wont go deeper into the GNC algorithms.But In case you want,I can write another thread.
5)As the interceptor reaches this coordinate,the IIR or active radar goes active and starts searching for the RV.After this,its all about steering the interceptor so that it hits the incoming RV(which is coming in an projectile like trajectory).

Is it right to assume Pakistani ballistic missiles are coming like a projectile ?

The changes in design of shaheen 1A with removal of fins indicates that Pakistan has moved from projectile like BM to manovering warhead ... and i think its safe to assume that similar warheads will be used on later more advances versions i.e. ababeel and shaheen 3

 

[amardeep mishra]

Yes these are improvements... ...
Use of composites and reduction of wright being important ones...but sayin a generation ahead is a very radicle statement

Most important tech these days and that will continue to be a major strategic factor in atleast next 25 years or so ... is ability to alter reentry trajectories...which can make a ballistic missile highly accurate (with its own strategic implications) or highly inaccurate if situation demands and war head yield allows... pakistan has also has done alot on warheads them selves ...miniturization to stealth shaping...

So both countries have progressed albeit in diifferent fields... ir directions...i dont agree with generation ahead comment

hI @Mrc
Of course you can disagree with whatever I am saying.Thats alright! But,what exactly is your own experience with these strategic systems?Kindly be honest!
As for your remarks about "altering re-entry trajectories"--do you have any idea what you're saying?A slight nudge in the path and the RV will hit the target way off mark! We're not imagining a situation wherein RV is like a racing car and it will dodge interceptors like a speeding car does on a highway or expressway.
And I request you to write in more structured manner.Also do attach proofs for whatever you're saying.So in case you do not agree with the statement that latest indian strategic missiles are not a generation ahead of their pakistani counterparts,then do furnish reasons for the same--preferably with "proofs"!
I am afraid you've got no clue as to what control challenges are in terms of "altering the trajectory" of RV in atmospheric regime.Kindly read some decent engineering book.

 

[Mrc]

hI @Mrc
Of course you can disagree with whatever I am saying.Thats alright! But,what exactly is your own experience with these strategic systems?Kindly be honest!
As for your remarks about "altering re-entry trajectories"--do you have any idea what you're saying?A slight nudge in the path and the RV will hit the target way off mark! We're not imagining a situation wherein RV is like a racing car and it will dodge interceptors like a speeding car does on a highway or expressway.
And I request you to write in more structured manner.Also do attach proofs for whatever you're saying.
I am afraid you've got no clue as to what control challenges are in terms of "altering the trajectory" of RV in atmospheric regime.Kindly read some decent engineering book.

I request you educate your self on this matter

 

[amardeep mishra]

I request you educate your self on this matter

Hi @Mrc
I am fully aware of what I am saying.MaRV is not as easy as you think.and Pakistan or India certainly do not have yet realized MaRVs.So we must not take into account systems that are not part of arsenal,under testing or under design.
What you fail to realize at the moment,is the fact that,a MaRV lets say was designed to "dodge" an ABM,then for that it would require a "seeker". And for "dodging" to be successful,it would have to initiate a change of course at a predetermined distance from the interceptor--so much so that the proportional guidance laws of the interceptor simply cant render the kind of turn rate needed to intercept the RV.The turn rate of interceptor is limited by structural limits.
Now once the RV has initiated a change in course--it is essentially flying in a different trajectory and if it continues on this trajectory,it will miss it's intended target.So,the GNC will again initiate change of course to come back to the trajectory it was flying or use the seeker to locate its target--so as to not miss its target.Also remember this has to take place in matter of 90-100seconds!
There are a lot of challenges associated with implementing it in "atmosphere".
Now it would be really helpful if you can "furnish proof" as to why you think latest indian strategic missiles are not a generation ahead of their pakistani counterparts.

 

[Mrc]

Hi @Mrc
I am fully aware of what I am saying.MaRV is not as easy as you think.and Pakistan or India certainly do not have yet realized MaRVs.So we must not take into account systems that are not part of arsenal,under testing or under design.
What you fail to realize at the moment,is the fact that,a MaRV lets say was designed to "dodge" an ABM,then for that it would require a "seeker". And for "dodging" to be successful,it would have to initiate a change of course at a predetermined distance from the interceptor--so much so that the proportional guidance laws of the interceptor simply cant render the kind of turn rate needed to intercept the RV.The turn rate of interceptor is limited by structural limits.
Now once the RV has initiated a change in course--it is essentially flying in a different trajectory and if it continues on this trajectory,it will miss it's intended target.So,the GNC will again initiate change of course to come back to the trajectory it was flying or use the seeker to locate its target--so as to not miss its target.Also remember this has to take place in matter of 90-100seconds!
There are a lot of challenges associated with implementing it in "atmosphere".
Now it would be really helpful if you can "furnish proof" as to why you think latest indian strategic missiles are not a generation ahead of their pakistani counterparts.

If u dont even know this much... dont act like an expert

 

[amardeep mishra]

If u dont even know this much... dont act like an expert

You still haven't answered my question. Oh, please, you have no clue what I know. Get rid of your petty nationalism and open your eyes.
Now please furnish proof, you've already wasted a lot of my time

 

[Mrc]

You still haven't answered my question. Oh, please, you have no clue what I know. Get rid of your petty nationalism and open your eyes.
Now please furnish proof, you've already wasted a lot of my time

Find it your self... i m not your head master. Next time come prepared

 

[The Accountant]

Hi @Mrc
I am fully aware of what I am saying.MaRV is not as easy as you think.and Pakistan or India certainly do not have yet realized MaRVs.So we must not take into account systems that are not part of arsenal,under testing or under design.
What you fail to realize at the moment,is the fact that,a MaRV lets say was designed to "dodge" an ABM,then for that it would require a "seeker". And for "dodging" to be successful,it would have to initiate a change of course at a predetermined distance from the interceptor--so much so that the proportional guidance laws of the interceptor simply cant render the kind of turn rate needed to intercept the RV.The turn rate of interceptor is limited by structural limits.
Now once the RV has initiated a change in course--it is essentially flying in a different trajectory and if it continues on this trajectory,it will miss it's intended target.So,the GNC will again initiate change of course to come back to the trajectory it was flying or use the seeker to locate its target--so as to not miss its target.Also remember this has to take place in matter of 90-100seconds!
There are a lot of challenges associated with implementing it in "atmosphere".
Now it would be really helpful if you can "furnish proof" as to why you think latest indian strategic missiles are not a generation ahead of their pakistani counterparts.

Even in layman terms your arguments do not hold grounds ... let me refute your remarks in layman terms one by one ..
1. First of projection of a projectile is possible but a monovering RV with such an incredible speed is not only difficult to project but almost impossible to intercept with current capabilities of india ...
2 you safely assume that RV needs a seeker to avoid interceptor but in real sense to defeat current interceptor arsenal of india RV has just to make its path unpredictable ...
3 you also assumes that if a RV changes its course than it means it have to come back whereas i dont find any logical reason for that ... key capability of a ballistic missile is its incredible speed as you yourself stated that the method of interception is to project the path of projectile but a RV designed to take 4 to 5 path changes to reach its desired path there is no way interceptors missiles of indian could react to such a change in path ...

4 regarding generation ahead of indian missile system let it be very clear that Pakistan guidance system is much accurate ... we have miniturized weapons (nasar and ababeel) ... there are no external stabilizers in reentry vehicles hence less drag and ability to manover is always there ... and i didnt know that applying composites makes a missile ahead of others as composites are not something out of the world its just cost and benefit analysis .. Pakistan do not intend to increase range of missile therefore can compromise on weight to keep the cost on control ...

Either you are not a professional at all or you are so much biased that you are making arguments against even simple scientific knowledge which a person with basic understanding of physics can understand is nothing but unrealistic assumptions ...

 

[Mrc]

Even in layman terms your arguments do not hold grounds ... let me refute your remarks in layman terms one by one ..
1. First of projection of a projectile is possible but a monovering RV with such an incredible speed is not only difficult to project but almost impossible to intercept with current capabilities of india ...
2 you safely assume that RV needs a seeker to avoid interceptor but in real sense to defeat current interceptor arsenal of india RV has just to make its path unpredictable ...
3 you also assumes that if a RV changes its course than it means it have to come back whereas i dont find any logical reason for that ... key capability of a ballistic missile is its incredible speed as you yourself stated that the method of interception is to project the path of projectile but a RV designed to take 4 to 5 path changes to reach its desired path there is no way interceptors missiles of indian could react to such a change in path ...

4 regarding generation ahead of indian missile system let it be very clear that Pakistan guidance system is much accurate ... we have miniturized weapons (nasar and ababeel) ... there are no external stabilizers in reentry vehicles hence less drag and ability to manover is always there ... and i didnt know that applying composites makes a missile ahead of others as composites are not something out of the world its just cost and benefit analysis .. Pakistan do not intend to increase range of missile therefore can compromise on weight to keep the cost on control ...

Either you are not a professional at all or you are so much biased that you are making arguments against even simple scientific knowledge which a person with basic understanding of physics can understand is nothing but unrealistic assumptions ...

Another key board warrior

 

[Safriz]

Indian MARV for A-2

Pakistani MARV on Shaheen original in 1999

 

[The Deterrent]

Pakistani MARV on Shaheen original in 1999

Those fins on the RV were fixed, they were meant to provide stabilization during re-entry. Both versions of Shaheen-I (and Ghaznavi too) used them instead of spin-stabilization.

On another note, to-date Pakistan has never experimented with an RV capable of maneuvering inside the atmosphere. PSAC/TCS or PBV equipped maneuvering in space is a different matter.

 

[amardeep mishra]

Even in layman terms your arguments do not hold grounds ... let me refute your remarks in layman terms one by one ..
1. First of projection of a projectile is possible but a monovering RV with such an incredible speed is not only difficult to project but almost impossible to intercept with current capabilities of india ...
2 you safely assume that RV needs a seeker to avoid interceptor but in real sense to defeat current interceptor arsenal of india RV has just to make its path unpredictable ...
3 you also assumes that if a RV changes its course than it means it have to come back whereas i dont find any logical reason for that ... key capability of a ballistic missile is its incredible speed as you yourself stated that the method of interception is to project the path of projectile but a RV designed to take 4 to 5 path changes to reach its desired path there is no way interceptors missiles of indian could react to such a change in path ...

4 regarding generation ahead of indian missile system let it be very clear that Pakistan guidance system is much accurate ... we have miniturized weapons (nasar and ababeel) ... there are no external stabilizers in reentry vehicles hence less drag and ability to manover is always there ... and i didnt know that applying composites makes a missile ahead of others as composites are not something out of the world its just cost and benefit analysis .. Pakistan do not intend to increase range of missile therefore can compromise on weight to keep the cost on control ...

Either you are not a professional at all or you are so much biased that you are making arguments against even simple scientific knowledge which a person with basic understanding of physics can understand is nothing but unrealistic assumptions ...

Hi @The Accountant
I'm amazed to see your "layman analysis". Wow!what an argument! Keep posting such "layman analysis". And scientific community will never run out of entertainment.
On a serious note though, I can only hope you "understand" atleast 50% of what you've written above.
Do not worry I am not gonna "refute" your "layman analysis" because it'll be brutal wastage of my time. Happy analysis!

Those fins on the RV were fixed, they were meant to provide stabilization during re-entry. Both versions of Shaheen-I (and Ghaznavi too) used them instead of spin-stabilization.

On another note, to-date Pakistan has never experimented with an RV capable of maneuvering inside the atmosphere. PSAC/TCS or PBV equipped maneuvering in space is a different matter.

These folks make MaRV look like piece of cake!sure they know aerospace!
That underlined "inside" part is very important and I guess that's where these folks go nuts. Till now neither indian or Pakistani RV has the capability to maneuver "inside" atmosphere.I don't know why these folks have difficulty understanding it.I'm afraid they watch too much of Mr Samar mubarakmand or maybe they follow a lot of blogs. Either way, one must never loose grips of reality

 

[Safriz]

Those fins on the RV were fixed, they were meant to provide stabilization during re-entry. Both versions of Shaheen-I (and Ghaznavi too) used them instead of spin-stabilization.

On another note, to-date Pakistan has never experimented with an RV capable of maneuvering inside the atmosphere. PSAC/TCS or PBV equipped maneuvering in space is a different matter.

Er...... No. The ones on Shaheen original were movable but the design was quickly abandoned with Shaheen-1 crop delta fixed fins.
There were movable fins on Abdali too in original design, which was later changed.
On multiple occasions ISPR has said their missiles can evade ABM .
How do you think that's done?

Hi @The Accountant
I'm amazed to see your "layman analysis". Wow!what an argument! Keep posting such "layman analysis". And scientific community will never run out of entertainment.
On a serious note though, I can only hope you "understand" atleast 50% of what you've written above.
Do not worry I am not gonna "refute" your "layman analysis" because it'll be brutal wastage of my time. Happy analysis!


These folks make MaRV look like piece of cake!sure they know aerospace!
That underlined "inside" part is very important and I guess that's where these folks go nuts. Till now neither indian or Pakistani RV has the capability to maneuver "inside" atmosphere.I don't know why these folks have difficulty understanding it.I'm afraid they watch too much of Mr Samar mubarakmand or maybe they follow a lot of blogs. Either way, one must never loose grips of reality

Hi,
Aerodynamic manoeuvre can be done between 100-60 km above ground where air is thin enough not to cause too much mechanical or thermal stress, and RV is fast enough to make use of very thin air.

You are confusing MARV with HGV or hypersonic glided vehicle

HGV is very difficult. But MARV isn't. Pershing missile had it in 70s and so did many soviet and Chinese missiles.

 

[The Deterrent]

Er...... No. The ones on Shaheen original were movable but the design was quickly abandoned with Shaheen-1 crop delta fixed fins.
There were movable fins on Abdali too in original design, which was later changed.
On multiple occasions ISPR has said their missiles can evade ABM .
How do you think that's done?

Do you have any evidence to support your claim? If you are to be believed, why did Pakistan introduced fixed fins on Shaheen-I v2? Why would anyone want to step down from a much more advanced system?

Abdali is still in development. Besides it is a tactical system, and doesn't has separable RV. Actually it is finding difficulty in being placed in Pakistan's present doctrine, as the combination of Nasr and Ghaznavi already provide similar capabilities.

ABM evasion doesn't just happens in the terminal stages (inside atmosphere). India's PDV is exo-atmospheric, so the Shaheen series is theoretically capable of evasive maneuvers outside the atmosphere until before re-entry.