Why is Pakistan's missile program not as diverse?

[sathya]

LOL. Stop thanking me @he-man. If only you wouldn't troll, you'd be in my list of such people!

 

[SQ8]

hyperion@

Is there a way PDF can confer a special status to a knowledgable persons, instead of going through regular promotions ?

I am sure handful of persons are there, you can know them from their first post..

Yeah, its called the Think Tank.

 

[amardeep mishra]

i'm sure our nuclear planners are working on things like ICBMs, MIRV's etc but the meat & bones of our nuclear programs and development are concentrated on theatre nuclear weapons, cruise missiles (land,sea and air), short-range missiles and finally miniturization of nuclear warheads to ensure quick response and delivery by methods / systems available with us.

@fatman17

In the light of modern research especially international trend(i am talking about the IIT bombay seminar pics that i posted),a missile with 4-10 MIRVs would require atleast 2-3 tonnes of throw weight.Now the natural question that comes up is- how would pakistan increase the throw weight capacity of their missile? Consideration should be given to various other factors like the absence of a pakistani program to design a cryogenic engine(either STAGED COMBUSTION CYCLE or GAS GENERATOR CYCLE), or industrial maturity of pakistan in the field of composites (composite motor,shroud,and various other structural assembly)- now these are some of the factors that might help increase the throw weight of pakistani missiles
Another aspect of the ICBM is it's survivability(here i am talking about itz mobility and reaction time and not itz capability to overcome potential ABMs)- In that reagrds too,pakistani strategic missiles show a number of complications.some of them are-
1)None of them have been cannisterized(like the way india is cannisterizing A-4,A-5 and A-6 AND chinese DF-31).A cannisterized system drastically reduces the reaction time(and increases the shelf life) of missiles,for instance the reaction time of un-cannisterized agni-5 is close to 30mins whereas the same missile in a TCT-5 cannisterized launcher can be fired in less than 10mins(these figures again were given by none other the DG DRDO)!

2)pakistani strategic missiles still feature external control surfaces- fins,- this would pose a challenge while designing a canister for them(if at all they have such plan)

3)Again we are back to our initial argument i.e pakistani metallurgical research and itz industrial maturity to design a canisterized launching system on a high mobility truck

@Hyperion
I am tagging you because you claim to know about metallurgical challenges and metallurgy

 

[Hyperion]

Refer to various of @Oscar's posts regarding why you don't see much published research regarding such systems. Have faith that all the shortcomings that you've mentioned, have been addressed long-long-long ago..... maybe in the basement of a pizza shop that you'd never suspect. You need to understand that all those PhD's aren't sitting and crackling on peanuts, all the time. There is a reason why things are so calm on our side. Basically, you have two options to choose from, either we are as dumb as we portray ourselves to be, or there is something sinister in the works. The choice is yours. Choose wisely.

Another aspect of the ICBM is it's survivability(here i am talking about itz mobility and reaction time and not itz capability to overcome potential ABMs)- In that reagrds too,pakistani strategic missiles show a number of complications.some of them are-
1)None of them have been cannisterized(like the way india is cannisterizing A-4,A-5 and A-6 AND chinese DF-31)

2)pakistani strategic missiles still feature external control surfaces- fins,- this would pose a challenge while designing a canister for them(if at all they have such plan)

3)Again we are back to our initial argument i.e pakistani metallurgical research and itz industrial maturity to design a canisterized launching system on a high mobility truck

@Hyperion
I am tagging you because you happen to know about metallurgical challenges

 

[amardeep mishra]

why you don't see much published research regarding such systems. Have faith that all the shortcomings that you've mentioned, have been addressed long-long-long ago

Believe me that is not the way research is conducted! anyhow,i am a man of proof and experimentation and hence go by the words of published research

 

[kurup]

Refer to various of @Oscar's posts regarding why you don't see much published research regarding such systems. Have faith that all the shortcomings that you've mentioned, have been addressed long-long-long ago..... maybe in the basement of a pizza shop that you'd never suspect. You need to understand that all those PhD's aren't sitting and crackling on peanuts, all the time. There is a reason why things are so calm on our side. Basically, you have two options to choose from, either we are as dumb as we portray ourselves to be, or there is something sinister in the works. The choice is yours. Choose wisely.

We choose the first option as it is the truth .....

 

[Hyperion]

I'm a man of research as well, have multiple engineering + other degrees. Trust you me, this is how it goes on here - whether I/we like it or not is another story. Sure, some of my friends with amazing CV's, working @ such places would also like to register a few patents, however, it's not how the system works here.

Believe me that is not the way research is conducted! anyhow,i am a man of proof and experimentation and hence go by the words of published research

Excellent. Awesome for the both of us!

We choose the first option as it is the truth .....

 

[kurup]

Excellent. Awesome for the both of us!

But one of the point he raised is important .

Why does Pak BM still uses external control surfaces and truss bars (is it the correct terminology) for stage separations ??

 

[kaku1]

you underestimate our C4I setup. PAF began designing and creating it's AFNET in 2001-02. A lot has been done in this regard. Pakistan is much smaller than india and costs of creating such setup would obviously less and costs were spread over the years. So funding was never an issue



PAF Vs IAF Command and Control Systems | Page 5

and Judging by our AFNET overlay presented by PAF in IDEAS 2014, We are at phase III of our C4ISR. Army, Naval and Airforce assets are interlinked

So, you underestimating India's C4I?

Bro, even no one here, no one here, talk about India's C4I. It is so much secret, if it is revealed, the next day IB knocking its door.

 

[ni8mare]

Mate, my knowledge of Electronics is limited to 4 courses @ engineering. On the other hand, if you've any questions about metallurgy, super alloys, CNC's, manufacturing (all sorts and varieties), mechanics, thermodynamics (etc etc) economics, finance, forecasting, system simulations / probabilistic modeling and to an extent programing etc etc, I'm your guy!

Can't stand EE stuff.......

you are me kind of guy.......

 

[genmirajborgza786]

,pakistani strategic missiles show a number of complications.some of them are-
1)None of them have been cannisterized(like the way india is cannisterizing A-4,A-5 and A-6 AND chinese DF-31).A cannisterized system drastically reduces the reaction time(and increases the shelf life) of missiles,for instance the reaction time of un-cannisterized agni-5

most probably Canister version of missile silos are being developed by Pakistan , though at present the Babur cruise missile has been canisterized & tested ,the other being Nasr

canisters launch of Babur

a detailed video of the canister version of the babur cruise missile test

 

[SQ8]

either we are as dumb as we portray ourselves to be,.

The system was made to bluff from the get go. How the adversary interprets the bluff is the gamble. If they are overconfident and then find themselves with the proverbial blade in the scrotum then they they'll rue the day the step was taken, on the other hand if they keep away in fear of something that never really exists.. they too suits us.

Its simply a question of finding out, and that risk.. the calculations that go into it to get an exact idea.. is what has kept India at bay till today.

 

[kurup]

most probably Canister version of missile silos are being developed by Pakistan , though at present the Babur cruise missile has been canisterized & tested ,the other being Nasr

canisters launch of Babur

a detailed video of the canister version of the babur cruise missile test

Babur as well as Nasr uses hot launch ...... OTOH canister BM uses cold launch .

Pakistan is yet to master it .

 

[amardeep mishra]

most probably Canister version of missile silos are being developed by Pakistan , though at present the Babur cruise missile has been canisterized & tested ,the other being Nasr

canisters launch of Babur

Hi!
i dont think you get my point,when i said,"cannisterized launch" i was actually refering to "cold launch" as oposed to hot launch of babur you've posted above.In cold launch you've got a massive steam generator positioned at the bottom of the tube that forces the missile out and only then the missile is ignited.For instance to remove a 50 tonnes agni-5 missile out of the canister one would require a thrust of 300 tonnes- now that kind of thrust necessitates some really strong alloy in the fabrication of canister to evenly dissipate the heat and stress gradient all along the surface.
A cold launch concept is what is essentially employed in VLS of submarines(SSBNs and SSGNs).I think the reason why pakistan hasnt yet fielded itz babur in submarines is primarly because it LACKS a COLD LAUNCH system.And similarly canisterized launching system for ICBMs are inherently "cold launch"- ex- TCT-5 of india and DF-31 of china

 

[Hyperion]

Cold launch is used solely in SSBN's. DF31 is not cold launched, it's canister launched, just like Babur CM (don't know much about TCT-5)...... and btw, force distribution in a cold launch is not mitigated solely by 'stronger alloys', there are hundred different ways to skin this particular cat. Furthermore, don't you worry about Babur SLCM, the solutions are already there and they are innovative indeed.

Hi!
i dont think you get my point,when i said,"cannisterized launch" i was actually refering to "cold launch" as oposed to hot launch of babur you've posted above.In cold launch you've got a massive steam generator positioned at the bottom of the tube that forces the missile out and only then the missile is ignited.For instance to remove a 50 tonnes agni-5 missile out of the canister one would require a thrust of 300 tonnes- now that kind of thrust necessitates some really strong alloy in the fabrication of canister to evenly dissipate the heat and stress gradient all along the surface.
A cold launch concept is what is essentially employed in VLS of submarines(SSBNs and SSGNs).I think the reason why pakistan hasnt yet fielded itz babur in submarines is primarly because it LACKS a COLD LAUNCH system.And similarly canisterized launching system for ICBMs are inherently "cold launch"- ex- TCT-5 of india and DF-31 of china