News Pakistan Has Just Tested the Ultimate Nuclear Missile

We've seen similar denial and later on acceptance of Pakistani advancements every single time. Whether it was the nuclear tests (much more evolved and compact versions of the baseline CHIC-4), ballistic missiles (except Ghauri/Nodong, Ghaznavi/DF-11, Shaheen-I/DF-11A), cruise missiles (Tomahawk-based Babur-I/II & Babur-III SLCM, Babur-I-derived Ra'ad ALCM), tactical missiles (compact device design for Nasr) and now Shaheen-III and Ababeel.

China didn't proliferate anything except DF-11/DF-11A (the M-18 theory for Shaheen-II is void because the characteristics don't match, however Pakistan might have borrowed a stage design). If China was really proliferating MTCR-restricted technology to Pakistan, we would have absolutely seen DF-16 & DF-21 or at least the M-20 under Pakistani names by now. China was forced to close its doors on Pakistan after the AQ Khan fiasco. Why else would Pakistan be still making-do with and slightly improving the small 1.4m diameter stage design for Shaheen-II?
 
Why are you dragging China factor in between ? I have not mentioned China in a single post as a source of your country's MIRV warhead. Regarding sarcasm or replies, just relax! what has happened has happened.
 
EVERY nation absolutely HAS to do this. I see two problems: lack of comprehension of technical knowledge, and frequent visits of PK Sengupta's blog (the source of MRIS nonsense for Indians, according to whom Pakistan will be "denuclearized" this year). If my sarcasm, after detailed explanations, bothers you...be my guest. You can reciprocate in any way you like to, however I'd advise to read more on the subject instead.

Absoutely wrong, I simply don't come to conclusion on reading one's blog, if I refer Trishul, that's for source of data, not back up of my argument.
 
Why are you dragging China factor in between ? I have not mentioned China in a single post as a source of your country's MIRV warhead.
Knock knock:
That means testing of PRC supplied MIRVs for PRC supplied MRBM.

Regarding sarcasm or replies, just relax! what has happened has happened. My point of argument is and was MRIS , not any country specific, nor even India.
Ooh, my bad for trying to explain the basics and the actual need for an MRIS to you all over again. Guess I should stick to sarcasm :|
 
Knock knock:



Ooh, my bad for trying to explain the basics and the actual need for an MRIS to you all over again. Guess I should stick to sarcasm :|

Stick to what ever you can . But I have no interest in non proliferation.

Have I simply drag China in each post ? or have I refer to the missiles you have mentioned , and refer to them as 'Green Painted Red' Missile, PRC is a generalisation not specific allegation. You can put name of Afghanistan or even India in that place I don't bother.
 
Stick to what ever you can . But I have no interest in non proliferation.

Have I simply drag China in each post ? or have I refer to the missiles you have mentioned , and refer to them as 'Green Painted Red' Missile, PRC is a generalisation not specific allegation. You can put name of Afghanistan or even India in that place I don't bother.
My bad, your Highness. I beg your pardon, absolutely didn't mean to upset with with totally unrelated details. :rolleyes:

So Ababeel is not Chinese and Pakistan still doesn't have a dedicated MRIS, and according to you an MIRV test simply can't be conducted without an MRIS. So what exactly is Pakistan doing with Ababeel? Using invisible Chinese MRIS? Pouring money down the drain? Bluffing? (the Pentagon certainly disagrees) Sending up buckets of holy water to irrigate Baluchistan? or maybe something even more sinister?
 
You are most welcome to bury your head in the sand of premise of testing Ababeels' MIRV being an indegenious one of your country by your country, without having an effective MRIS, and be happy with that. (y)

It doesn't matter if they developed on their own or bought ..
Capability exist for them now..
Let's agree upto this and move on.
 
My bad, your Highness.

I beg your pardon, absolutely didn't mean to upset with with totally unrelated details. :rolleyes:

Take it easy.

So Ababeel is not Chinese

Don't bother, if their origin is Scandinavian or Indian either.

Pakistan still doesn't have a dedicated MRIS

Thanks for being categorical.

and according to you an MIRV test simply can't be conducted without an MRIS.

Yes, and it seems you stick to your theory after post about MOTR.

So what exactly is Pakistan doing with Ababeel?

(the Pentagon certainly disagrees)

Its your Generals know better, seek an appointment.

Using invisible Chinese MRIS? Pouring money down the drain? Bluffing?

If there is a really invisible One Chinese develops, then congrats from my part, rest of all your country's policy makers bother.

(the Pentagon certainly disagrees)

Its up to director of DIA.

Sending up buckets of holy water to irrigate Baluchistan? or maybe something even more sinister?

That's up to you for believe. I have no comments on that.

Conclusion : Since both of us sticking to their theories, points, this argument will go no where. Better to move on. It ends here I think.
 
Yes, and it seems you stick to your theory after post about MOTR.
Ooh I almost forgot to dumb down this magical tech to the basics for you. Let's have a looksie:
What MOTR does? Detect and track multiple (but not enough for military purposes) small objects over (thousands)x(hundreds)x1000 km3 of space.
What Pakistan requires? Ability to track 3 RVs over an estimated ~2200x500x500 km3 space.
What Pakistan already has? Ability to track 1 RV (of same dimensions) over an estimated ~3000x200x700 km3 space.

In view of the above, should Pakistan build/buy an MRIS with compulsory MOTR? Absolutely, @Sumanta from StrategicFront.org says so. :rolleyes:


Take it easy.

Don't bother, if their origin is Scandinavian or Indian either.

Its your Generals know better, seek an appointment.

If there is a really invisible One Chinese develops, then congrats from my part, rest of all your country's policy makers bother.

Its up to director of DIA.

That's up to you for believe. I have no comments on that.

Conclusion : Since both of us sticking to their theories, points, this argument will go no where. Better to move on. It ends here I think.

Getting salty now, are we? Refer to the latter part of post#29, I had summed my response there pretty well.
 
Ooh I almost forgot to dumb down this magical tech to the basics for you. Let's have a looksie:
What MOTR does? Detect and track multiple (but not enough for military purposes) small objects over (thousands)x(hundreds)x1000 km3 of space.
What Pakistan requires? Ability to track 3 RVs over an estimated ~2200x500x500 km3 space.
What Pakistan already has? Ability to track 1 RV (of same dimensions) over an estimated ~3000x200x700 km3 space.

In view of the above, should Pakistan build/buy an MRIS with compulsory MOTR? Absolutely, @Sumanta from StrategicFront.org says so. :rolleyes:




Getting salty now, are we? Refer to the latter part of post#29, I had summed my response there pretty well.

Dude , if you want that salty thing , in parting reply, in return, refer to post #33, my response have been summed up there for your knowledge.

Anyways have nice forumming. Bye for now.
 
Hi, good to see you here as well.

Of course Pakistan has tested Unitary Re-entry Vehicles, since the late 90s, starting with Shaheen-I. If you mean Multiple RVs, of course Pakistan did because otherwise we are really good at fooling the Americans.

Thrust cartridges? Do you mean the spin thrusters aboard an RV or the larger thrusters for Post-boost Vehicle maneuvering?
I should mention beforehand that I won't be able to answer this question in detail. (otherwise I wouldn't be here, duh)
Thrust cartridges for maneuvering the RV, I was just wondering of the challenges of delivering multiple payloads aboard a single RV, and the course stabilization changes that would be needed to once the payload progressively reduces. It would be a fun project to work on.

Other than that, hows life. Are you still super up to date on all launches and other developments or have you been an occasional browser?
 
Dude , if you want that salty thing , in parting reply, in return, refer to post #33, my response have been summed up there for your knowledge.

Anyways have nice forumming. Bye for now.
At least make up your own replies.
B-bye!

Thrust cartridges for maneuvering the RV, I was just wondering of the challenges of delivering multiple payloads aboard a single RV, and the course stabilization changes that would be needed to once the payload progressively reduces. It would be a fun project to work on.
So you're referring to the Post-boost Vehicle maneuvering, which delivers multiple RVs. Let me first clarify a couple terms and concepts, which will be helpful for others as well.

1. Almost every modern ballistic missile (except SRBMs) today has a Post-boost Vehicle (PBV), regardless of being MIRVed. This small (axially liquid-propelled for MIRVed missiles) stage also carries the missile's guidance system. It performs the function of correcting the errors made during boost-phase, by using a liquid fuel thrusting mechanism on board. It also performs the function of changing trajectories for MIRV-injection.

2. The MIRV-bus is a sort of payload adapter, mounted on top of the PBV. The bus dispenses the MIRVs at precise points in space, as directed by the mission computer.

3. Usually, after the individual RVs are dispensed (either unitary ones directly from the PBV, or MIRVs from the MIRV-bus), they are spun-up for re-entry and remain on their trajectories throughout the rest of the (~80% of the total) flight. MIRVs of Minuteman-III, Trident-II etc are like that, once they are released on the correct trajectories, they remain on their path as they have no internal propulsion or guidance for making maneuvers. Lately, Russia has been making progress to maneuver individual RVs as well.

A really helpful video in this regard (watch from 3:30 onward):

The following image is of LGM-118 Peacekeeper's Post-Boost Vehicles. It was a 70-80s era MIRVed ICBM.
lgm118_7.jpg

Notice those big spheres? They are metallic fuel/oxidizer tanks. The fuel is storable hypergolic hydrazine, and oxidizer is nitrogen tetraoxide. Both liquids are combustible using catalysts, without any need for ignition. This fuel/oxidizer combo is widely used by almost all missile powers.
Small thrusters mounted around the PBV use the mentioned fuel to maneuver the PBV in space. A larger axial engine (restartable for MIRVs) also uses the same fuel.

Now coming to how Pakistan does it, I cannot give you any links or credible online information about that. I can only assume that Pakistan does it the same way, since its the easiest. There's one difference though, the PBV is termed as Post-Separation Attitude Correction system (PSAC) by Pakistan for early BMs like Shaheen-I, Shaheen-II, Ghauri, since it doesn't have an axial engine (except for Shaheen-IA, III, Ababeel...they may have axial engines).
However, some evidence did come up a few years ago. Remember the 2012 Ghauri crash fiasco? It wasn't a crash, but thats a separate discussion. We know that the PBV or PSAC is supposed to jettison the RV(s) and re-enter (burn and crash). Some Indian forumer dissected the 'crash' images of what actually was the PSAC, and thought the missile had exploded or something. See the following images:

ghauri-failed-crash.jpg


Notice anything similar to the Peacekeeper's PBV? There's your answer for the earlier question.

As far as the challenge of dispensing MIRVs is concerned, what's required is a thrusting system and closed-loop guidance of the PBV. I hope the Minuteman-III video explained the general idea quite well. A closed-loop system in space can handle the variation of payload (as MIRVs jettison one-by-one) relatively easily.

Other than that, hows life. Are you still super up to date on all launches and other developments or have you been an occasional browser?
Life's good. Yeah, more or less, you know me...can't resist this stuff. Which reminds me, people on your side have been super-active for the past couple of years. At this rate of making fire-crackers, the region will needs its own START-like Arms Reduction treaties, in a decade or two.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Sathya and Milspec
At least make up your own replies.
Life's good. Yeah, more or less, you know me...can't resist this stuff. Which reminds me, people on your side have been super-active for the past couple of years. At this rate of making fire-crackers, the region will needs its own START-like Arms Reduction treaties, in a decade or two.

Look who found his way here. Welcome.
 
Has Pakistan tested any RV's , what type of thrust cartridges?
Continuing the previous post, lets take a look at a high resolution image of the Shaheen-II. The labeling is based on the usual standards present on other modern ballistic missiles. Some other Indian folks also have the notion that Pakistan is not capable of developing RVs (large unitary or small multiple), whereas in reality most exisiting Pakistani ballistic missiles (Shaheen-I, Shaheen-IA, Shaheen-II, Shaheen-III, Ghauri i.e. except SRBMs) have their own unitary RVs.

IMG_0591.png
Shaheen-II MRBM

The purpose of maneuvering thrusters (aboard Shaheen-II [pictured above], Shaheen-I & Ghauri) is for course corrections only, which enable the RV to strike the target with a CEP of estimated ~200-300m. However the new generation of Shaheen series ( Shaheen-IA and Shaheen-III) seems to have miniaturized unitary RVs (multiples of which are estimated to be used on Ababeel) and quite large PBVs, which most probably house another propulsion stage. If that stage is liquid-fueled, this would give the RV the ability to perform mid-course maneuvers, making matters extremely difficult for a mid-course (exo-atmospheric) ABM.

26pakistan-image-superJumbo - Copy.jpg
Shaheen-IA SRBM
 
Usually the last stage is just powered to put the warhead(s) on the right course. This new fangle for MaRVs stands to start a new arms race and when it does, people will realise the US was where they are now 30 years ago. This was published in 1991.

MaRVs (Mk4 Evader and Mk500 AMaRV) were tested in the 1980s.
V2KC8yX.jpg


Interesting accuracy figure.

xm1PqmR.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sumanta