Pakistan successfully test-fires short range Nasr missile

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
Since Pakistani submarine dont have vertical launch tubes and it does't got submarine launch cruise missile it can launch the baba missile by jumping off its Agostas out of water and launch Babar towards India.



BTW that is EMERGENCY SURFACE DRILL by USS COLUMBUS SSN
 

vishwaprasad

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
474
Likes
149
Country flag
Stupid paki is boasting about his under water arm weapon capacity which is not even yet tested and threatening a nuclear power who is already in possession of nuclear submarine Akula, negotiating one more and already testing its homemade nuclear submarine Arihant with Aridaman work in progress.....

this is what happens when you are a friend of China and neighbor of Iran....both are good at projecting themselves as a great powers by showing some toys which they call weapons....
 
Last edited:

kseeker

Retired
New Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
2,515
Likes
2,126
Our Agostas can launch Babur cruise missles.. that is a fact
Alpha1 ↑
Don't BS me. Submarine launched Babur has never been tested. Its funny to see how you guys overstate your capabilities. India is not considered to have underwater deterrent although we have tested Shourya many times. But Pakistan gets underwater deterrent without even testing the missile.
agosta, babur :blah: :blah: :blah: are all forum fanboy projects Alpha1 is working on, they are still under R&D ! those things can attack on forum per se, in reality they are nothing but show pieces :D

You should read such comments as some humorous jokes, that's it.
 

bennedose

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
1,365
Likes
2,169
For just a few thousand soldiers you are willing to loose millions of innocent civilians in India???
Pakistan has Land air and sea based detterent
When NASR is about to be launched our strategic forces will already be ready and incase of a massive retaliation from india which is unlikely in the first place ,,,,,,, Hell will be unleashed upon india too


Where is the emoticon for wanking?
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
Stupid paki is boasting about his under water arm weapon capacity which is not even yet tested and threatening a nuclear power who is already in possession of nuclear submarine Akula, negotiating one more and already testing its homemade nuclear submarine Arihant with Aridaman work in progress.....

this is what happens when you are a friend of China and neighbor of Iran....both are good at projecting themselves as a great powers by showing some toys which they call weapons....
He has no idea about modifiction require for cruise missile to fire from tarpedo tube. It is more difficult then SLBM. First the cruise missike has to eject itself as tarpedo then it has to come in vertical position then get out of water and ignite its secondry booster at this time it has to check its position to start nevagation and then move towards the target. Plus most difficult part is nevigation as earlier they used to have fixed launching sites on land now the sub can be at any place in sea.

At lest 10 or more tests are required to perfect this.
 

DivineHeretic

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
1,153
Likes
1,897
Country flag
Pakistan thinks that they can nuke our forces on their soil and they can get away with it. Pakistani Generals and people are living in fools world, despite the fact that Indian Nuclear doctrine clearly states that any attack on Indian forces any where will result in punitive retaliation with nuclear weapons to inflict damage unacceptable to the aggressor.


unacceptable damage as punitive retaliation is not explain but it more or less mean 80% of enemy's military, 60% of industrial capacity and about 40% of the population.
There is actually even doubts whether a tactical attack on Indian army formations is itself feasible or viable.
 

Defcon 1

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
2,195
Likes
1,841
Country flag
There is actually even doubts whether a tactical attack on Indian army formations is itself feasible or viable.
I would love your comments on why it is not feasible. The way I see it, Pakistan would never have embarked on the project if its use was unconvincing, though I don't know much about tactical nukes.
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
video has been posted

 
Last edited by a moderator:

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
video has been posted

Rawalpindi - November 5, 2013:
Pakistan today conducted a successful test fire of Short Range Surface to Surface Missile Hatf IX (NASR). The test fire was conducted with successive launches of 4 x missiles (Salvo) from a state of the art multi tube launcher. NASR, with a range of 60 Kilometer and in-flight maneuver capability is a quick response system, with shoot and scoot attributes. It contributes to the full spectrum deterrence against threats in view of evolving scenarios.
Looks like what they say and their video dont add up...................

First launch on the left side and second launch on the right side. You can see the frame number on the pic.


missile is fired from same launcher.................... who are they fooling...........:taunt1::taunt1::taunt1:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Blackwater

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
21,157
Likes
12,211
Looks like what they say and their video dont add up...................

First launch on the left side and second launch on the right side. You can see the frame number on the pic.


missile is fired from same launcher.................... who are they fooling...........:taunt1::taunt1::taunt1:


their jahil, gawar janta aur kon
 

Decklander

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
2,654
Likes
4,111
their jahil, gawar janta aur kon
Bhai Blackwater, Ghori, Ghaznavi, Babur cud work in an undivided India. Now we are a single nation. So what ever Pak is creating is for self destruction only. I do know far more than what Pak claims and I am not allowed to post that here. But the truth is that Pak does not have even one nuke which has more than 50% chance of exploding and they do not have any missile which can deliver any of their nukes anywhere on earth other than Pakistan itself.
This is known to whole of Indian Armed forces and I wud like you to pls remember the words of our present NSA Shiv Shankaer Menon that after 1998 explosions no one has threatened us including Pakistan. Why did Pak keep quite in 1999 and also after 2001 and after 26/11 while they were very quick to issue threat of nuke war to India and get US involved?
In 1998, Pak realised that all they have is dud tech and their bombs do not explode. But Indian nukes exploded and our missile tech is our own and well known to the world. So pak stopped issueing threats and started a new game of MAD. But they did an even smart thing, They managed to sell these duds to Madarsa educated Saudi royal family and stupid Iranians for free oil & gas. Not only that, they even asked them to buy chinese missiles to deliver them. Why chinese missiles????
Bcoz, Pak has no missile fit enough to deliver any nuke otherwise does it not make sense that Pak wud have supplied these missiles to Saudis & Iranians?
 

bennedose

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
1,365
Likes
2,169
Pakistan would never have embarked on the project if its use was unconvincing, though I don't know much about tactical nukes.
Pakistanis always do things that they are convinced about. That is why they started the 1965 war thinking India will get beaten. They tried to suppress rebellion in Bangladesh in 1971 thinking that war in the west would scare India. And in 1999 a Paki general wrote that the Indian army's morale was so low that they would run. This was shortly before the Kargil war. The article by the general is still online if anyone wants to see it.

The problem with tactical nukes is twofold
1. miniaturization of the warhead is not easy
2. They will have the shit nuked out of them even if the use a tactical warhead on Indian troops
 

bennedose

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
1,365
Likes
2,169
It was in WW2 that words like "tactical" and "strategic" started being used. In the context of nuclear weapons. "tactical weapons", it was thought (by the US and USSR) would be used on the battlefield - for example to stop a massed tank attack."Strategic" weapons on the other hand would be used separately to destroy "strategic targets" like cities.

Pakistan's calculus in claiming to have tactical nukes is as folows.

They are saying "If India attacks Pakistan, we will nuke the attacking formation and stop the attack". What Pakistan is not saying is that they are not going to respond to an Indian attack by simply nuking Delhi and other cities - which is one way of responding. Why do Pakis want to take a "lesser action" when they can go for the "greater" one? Pakistan's calculation is that if they simply nuke and Indian army formation, India's politicians will not have the guts to nuke Pakistan back.

However, Indian's nuclear doctrine is very clear on this. There is no difference between hitting an Indian army formation with nukes and attacking Delhi with a nuke. Both will invite massive retaliation.

If you think about it, using a tactical nuke and hoping the other guy won't hit back is silly. If Pakistan uses a small tactical nuke (assuming they have one - and that is a separate question that I will address in some other post) they will be waiting for a response. When the response comes it will be devastating for Pakistan and they would have had the fart knocked out of them after inflicting a very small cost on India. It is better to use up all nukes and finish the guy off at the first sign of nuclear war rather than playing a game where you fondle and kiss first wondering if the other person will go all the way.
 

bennedose

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
1,365
Likes
2,169
In a previous life I had done a lot or reading and research into hat a lay person can find out about nuclear warheads and that included reading about miniaturized nuclear warheads that are less than the 30 cm diameter of the Nasr missile

Here are some excerpts of what I had dug up:
4.2 Fission Weapon Designs
Minimum Size

A low yield minimum mass or volume weapon would use an efficient fissile material (plutonium or U-233), a low mass implosion system (i.e. a relatively weak one), and a thin beryllium reflector (thickness no more than the core radius). Since volume increases with the cube of the radius, a thick layer of anything (explosive or reflector) surrounding the fissile core will add much more mass than that of the core itself.

Referring to the Reflector Savings Table 4.1.7.3.2.2-3 we can see that for beryllium thicknesses of a few centimeters, the radius of a plutonium core is reduced by 40-60% of the reflector thickness. Since the density difference between these materials is on the order of 10:1, substantial mass savings can be achieved. At some point though increasing the thickness of the reflector begins to add more mass than it saves, this marks the point of minimum total mass for the reflector/core system.

In general, minimum mass and minimum volume designs closely resemble each other. The use of a hollow core adds negligibly to the overall volume.

At the low end of this yield range (tens of tons) simply inducing the delta -> alpha phase transition in a metastable plutonium alloy may provide sufficient reactivity insertion. In this case a classical implosion system is not even necessary, a variety of mechanisms could be used to produce the weak 10-20 kilobar shock required to collapse the crystal structure.

Since the fissile core would be lightly reflected, and weakly compressed, a relatively large amount of fissile material is required: perhaps 10 kg for even a very low yield bomb. The efficiency is of course extremely poor, and the cost relatively high.

The absolute minimum possible mass for a bomb is determined by the smallest critical mass that will produce a significant yield. Since the critical mass for alpha-phase plutonium is 10.5 kg, and an additional 20-25% of mass is needed to make a significant explosion, this implies 13 kg or so. A thin beryllium reflector will reduce this, but the necessary high explosive and packaging will add mass, so the true absolute minimum probably lies in the range of 10-15 kg.

The W54 warhead used in the Davy Crockett had a minimum mass of about 23 kg, and had yields ranging from 10 tons up to 1 kt in various mods (probably achieved by varying the fissile content). The warhead was basically egg-shaped with the minor axis of 27.3 cm and a major axis of 40 cm. The W-54 probably represents a near minimum diameter for a spherical implosion device (the U.S. has conducted tests of a 25.4 cm implosion system however).

The test devices for this design fired in Hardtack Phase II (shots Hamilton and Humboldt on 15 October and 29 October 1958) weighed only 16 kg, impressively close to the minimum mass estimated above. These devices were 28 cm by 30 cm, Humboldt used PBX-9404 as the explosive.
W79 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linear-implosion uses a mass of nuclear material which is more than one critical mass at normal pressure and in a spherical configuration. The mass, known as pit, is configured in a lower density non-spherical configuration prior to firing the weapon and then, small to moderate amounts of explosive collapse and slightly reshape the nuclear-material into a supercritical-mass which then undergoes chain-reaction and explodes. Three methods are known to compress and reshape the nuclear-material; collapsing hollow spaces inside the nuclear material, using plutonium-gallium alloy, which is stabilized in the low-density delta-phase at a density of 16.4 (and which collapses to denser alpha-phase under moderate explosive-compression), and shaping an explosive and nuclear material so that the explosive pressure changes a stretched-out, elliptical or football shape to collapse towards a spherical or more spherical end-shape.

A bare critical mass of plutonium at normal density and without additional neutron reflector material is roughly 10 kilograms. To achieve a large explosive-yield, a linear-implosion weapon needs somewhat more material, on the order of 13 kilograms. 13 kilograms of alpha-phase (highest density) plutonium at a density of 19.8 g/cm^3 is 657 cubic centimeters, a sphere of radius 5.4 cm (diameter 10.8 cm / 4.25 inches).

Linear-implosion weapons could use tampers or reflectors, but the overall diameter of the fissile-material plus tamper/reflector increases compared to the volume required for an untamped, unreflected pit. To fit weapons into small artillery-shells (155 mm and 152 mm are known; 105 mm has been alleged to be possible by nuclear-weapon designer Ted Taylor), bare pits may be required.

Linear-implosion weapons have much lower efficiency due to low pressure, and require two to three times more nuclear-material than conventional implosion weapons. They are also considerably heavier, and much smaller than conventional implosion weapons. The W54 nuclear warhead used for special purposes and the Davy Crockett nuclear-artillery unit was about 11 inches diameter and weighs 51 pounds. The 155 mm W48 is 6 inches in diameter and weighs over twice as much, and probably requires twice as much plutonium. Independent researchers have determined that one model of US Army conventional implosion fission-weapon cost $1.25 million per-unit produced, of which $0.25 million was the total cost for all non-nuclear components and $1 million the cost of the plutonium. Linear-implosion weapons, requiring two to three times more plutonium, are considerably more expensive.
After doing a lot of reading, this was the conclusion I had reached (in 2011):

"None of this means that Pakistan does not have a less than 12 inch diameter tactical warhead. But it is highly unlikely - given that the US found it difficult to get very small warheads and need a lot of testing. It is also likely that these "small warheads" are heavy on usage of Pu and Pakistan's entire collection 450 kg Pu (by the year 2020) would last for only 40 or so low yield tactical warheads. I would be very wary of Pakistan's claims. It is possible that such claims are being made to try and stop a conventional attack by India using "Cold Start" but it may be a bluff. In any case the retaliation would be destruction of Pakistan "
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
@bennedose I've always said Pakis bluff about their nukes or threat to use them
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
In a previous life I had done a lot or reading and research into hat a lay person can find out about nuclear warheads and that included reading about miniaturized nuclear warheads that are less than the 30 cm diameter of the Nasr missile

Here are some excerpts of what I had dug up:
4.2 Fission Weapon Designs


W79 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


After doing a lot of reading, this was the conclusion I had reached (in 2011):

"None of this means that Pakistan does not have a less than 12 inch diameter tactical warhead. But it is highly unlikely - given that the US found it difficult to get very small warheads and need a lot of testing. It is also likely that these "small warheads" are heavy on usage of Pu and Pakistan's entire collection 450 kg Pu (by the year 2020) would last for only 40 or so low yield tactical warheads. I would be very wary of Pakistan's claims. It is possible that such claims are being made to try and stop a conventional attack by India using "Cold Start" but it may be a bluff. In any case the retaliation would be destruction of Pakistan "
they are Pakistanis, they dont need to test anything, remember man and not the machine matters.......................:rofl:
 

Abhijeet Dey

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
1,711
Likes
2,401
Country flag
If Pakistan's nuclear weapons are a joke then India should capture lost territories from Pakistan by force i.e. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK).
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top