WMD & Missiles Question Thread

[killerx]

liquid fuel missiles have speed and accuracy issues.

yes they do but there thrust can be controlled by the guiding system on board as for solid fuel once fired cant be stopped only to self-destruct if some thing goes wrong

 

[A.Rafay]

what why is ghori 3 cancelled man

The Ghauri-III was an intermediate-range ballistic missile which was cancelled during its development stage. The Ghauri-III reportedly started development around 1999 with a planned range of over 3,000 km. In May 2004 it was rumoured that the missile would be tested in June of that year. No test occurred in that year. Similarly in 2009 it was again reported that missile would be tested in August of that year but again no test took place.
It was reported on 28 May 2011 that, according to the memoirs of Abdul Qadeer Khan published that day, the funding for the development of the Ghauri III missile system was stopped in May 2000 by then President Pervez Musharraf. Around 50% of the missile's development project was completed by that time.

When Musharraf Stopped funding Ghauri 3 and decided to go on with Shaheen 3 Around 50% of the missile's development project was completed by that time, i think by now they should have completed Shaheen 3 and Ghauri 3 Also but are not testing it.

 

[Arsalan]

yes they do but there thrust can be controlled by the guiding system on board as for solid fuel once fired cant be stopped only to self-destruct if some thing goes wrong

both liquid and solid fuel rockets/missiles have there own advantages and disadvantages.

Solid-fuel Rockets advantages
Very stable, durable
More thrust for a similar size rocket

Solid-fuel missiles disadvantages
Can't be turned off- once the burn starts, it goes until fuel is used up
Fuel decomposes, must be replaced.

Liquid-fuel missile advantages
Variable thrust- the amount of fuel and rate of burn can be changed in flight
Liquid-fuel boosters are more easily re-usable

Liquid-fuel missile disadvantages
Fragile, many complex parts
Oxidiser (liquid oxygen) must be kept extremely cold.

Solid propellant rockets are much easier to store and handle than liquid propellant rockets. High propellant density makes for compact size as well. These features plus simplicity and low cost make solid propellant rockets ideal for military applications.
Their simplicity also makes solid rockets a good choice whenever large amounts of thrust are needed and cost is an issue.
The Space Shuttle and many other orbital launch vehicles use solid-fueled rockets in their boost stages (solid rocket boosters) for this reason.

A drawback to solid rockets is that they cannot be throttled in real time, although a programmed thrust schedule can be created by adjusting the interior propellant geometry. Solid rockets can be vented to extinguish combustion or reverse thrust as a means of controlling range or accommodating warhead separation.
Relative to liquid fuel rockets, solid fuel rockets have lower specific impulse.

Liquid fueled rockets have higher specific impulse than solid rockets and are capable of being throttled, shut down, and restarted. Only the combustion chamber of a liquid fueled rocket needs to withstand high combustion pressures and temperatures and they can be regeneratively cooled by the liquid propellant. On vehicles employing turbopumps, the propellant tanks are at very much less pressure than the combustion chamber. For these reasons, most orbital launch vehicles use liquid propellants.
The main difficulties with liquid propellants are also with the oxidizers. These are generally at least moderately difficult to store and handle due to their high reactivity with common materials, may have extreme toxicity.
Liquid fueled rockets also require potentially troublesome valves and seals and thermally stressed combustion chambers, which increase the cost of the rocket thus not good for military use!

 

[krash]

Whats the story behind this??

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Whats the story behind this??

From Pakistan With Love......and a middle finger ...................

 

[A.Rafay]

Does pakistan Have any Anti Missile defence systems??

 

[Hyperion]

Does pakistan Have any Anti Missile defence systems??

You get to build an effective ABM system once your missile program is mature enough, we are getting there as we started pretty late.

And no, buying it won't help, that is if we can spare the cash for it. If we can get some help on crucial technologies like India got (such as Green Pine) etc etc, that would be helpful, however, the integration and kill vehicle needs to be ours.

 

[Armstrong]

You get to build an effective ABM system once your missile program is mature enough, we are getting there as we started pretty late.

And no, buying it won't help, that is if we can spare the cash for it. If we can get some help on crucial technologies like India got (such as Green Pine) etc etc, that would be helpful, however, the integration and kill vehicle needs to be ours.

Our program is already 2 decades old...how much more maturity are we looking into ?

We have no long range SAMs to speak off...none !

SPADA 2000 (Medium Ranged), the HQs (Short Ranged) & then we've got the Orleikons & the MANPADs - We're foOked !

 

[Safriz]

Don't think any of Pakistan's missiles have cryogenic propellants as they are expensive to keep in storage..
Pakistan's liquid propelled missiles must have any of the following fuels...

T-Stoff (80% hydrogen peroxide, H2O2 as the oxidizer) and C-Stoff (methanol, CH3OH, and hydrazine hydrate, N2H4•n(H2O as the fuel) – Walter Werke HWK 109-509 engine used on Messerschmitt Me 163B Komet a rocket fighterplane of (World War II)
nitric acid (HNO3) and kerosene – Soviet Scud-A, aka SS-1
inhibited red fuming nitric acid (IRFNA, HNO3 + N2O4) and unsymmetric dimethyl hydrazine (UDMH, (CH3)2N2H2) – Soviet Scud-C, aka SS-1-c,-d,-e
nitric acid 73% with dinitrogen tetroxide 27% (=AK27) and kerosene/gasoline mixture (=TM-185) – various Russian (USSR) cold-war ballistic missiles (R-12, Scud-B,-D), Iran: Shahab-5, North Korea: Taepodong-2
hydrogen peroxide and kerosene – UK (1970s) Black Arrow, USA Development (or study): BA-3200
hydrazine (N2H4) and red fuming nitric acid – Nike Ajax Antiaircraft Rocket
Aerozine 50 and dinitrogen tetroxide – Titans 2–4, Apollo lunar module, Apollo service module, interplanatary probes (Such as Voyager 1 and Voyager 2)
unsymmetric dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) and dinitrogen tetroxide – Proton rocket and various Soviet rockets
monomethylhydrazine (MMH, (CH3)HN2H2) and dinitrogen tetroxide – Space Shuttle orbiter's Orbital maneuvering system (OMS) engines and Reaction control system (RCS) thrusters.

 

[Hyperion]

Yes. We are. If you were looking for truth, then you got it.

Our program is already 2 decades old...how much more maturity are we looking into ?

We have no long range SAMs to speak off...none !

SPADA 2000 (Medium Ranged), the HQs (Short Ranged) & then we've got the Orleikons & the MANPADs - We're foOked !

 

[A.Rafay]

Our program is already 2 decades old...how much more maturity are we looking into ?

We have no long range SAMs to speak off...none !

SPADA 2000 (Medium Ranged), the HQs (Short Ranged) & then we've got the Orleikons & the MANPADs - We're foOked !

Are these things effective in countering indias ballistic missiles and other missiles??

 

[Hyperion]

No dude, not by a long shot! The only thing that keeps India away is our proximity to them.

Are these things effective in countering indias ballistic missiles and other missiles??

Cryogenic fueled engines is something that will take Pakistan multiple decades to understand, unless we get some help as India did. That is if we start looking for it right now!

Don't think any of Pakistan's missiles have cryogenic propellants as they are expensive to keep in storage..
Pakistan's liquid propelled missiles must have any of the following fuels...

 

[Armstrong]

Are these things effective in countering indias ballistic missiles and other missiles??

Yes ! But if its a nuclear missile or a thermobaric one it won't matter if it explodes right next to you or about 10 kms up top because you're still foOked as they have a fairly...fairly large area of effect & the way they work makes that irrelevant.

But its going to be crucial in case of other missiles & the air-craft ! Remember the Egyptians had the upper-hand in the '73 War as long as they remained under cover of their SAMs; the moment they moved further ahead...the IAF ripped them to shreds !

 

[Armstrong]

Yes. We are. If you were looking for truth, then you got it.

But why haven't we developed anything of the sort ? I thought a good Air-Defense system was a poor man's answer to an effective air-force ? Thats the way the Jordanians went & so did the Syrians & thats the prime reason why there isn't an aerial blockade over Syria like the one imposed over Libya so...so many months ago !

Surely we can't be that broke that we can't buy them off the shelf & surely we can't be that inept that we couldn't pull off an Al-Khalid or a JF-17 like JV with the Chinese ! What gives...why didn't we consider them ? Off the top of my head I could only think of a lack of importance attached to such systems by the PAF & the PA !

 

[A.Rafay]

No dude, not by a long shot! The only thing that keeps India away is our proximity to them.



Cryogenic fueled engines is something that will take Pakistan multiple decades to understand, unless we get some help as India did. That is if we start looking for it right now!

that is one thing but in case of war or india fires its missile onto our land then we should be having appropriate mechanism to shoot their missile down before it reaches in any of our cities or villages?? like israels iron dome system protected most israeli areas from Hamas rockets. Turkey and kuwait are acquiring Patriotic missiles and india is also building ABM systems.