sayareakd
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2009
- Messages
- 17,734
- Likes
- 18,952
and how do you launch this cruise missile, which is a fact ?Our Agostas can launch Babur cruise missles.. that is a fact
Under water or over water ?
and how do you launch this cruise missile, which is a fact ?Our Agostas can launch Babur cruise missles.. that is a fact
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 piecesDon'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.Our Agostas can launch Babur cruise missles.. that is a fact
Alpha1 ↑
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
Here it isWhere is the emoticon for wanking?
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.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....
There is actually even doubts whether a tactical attack on Indian army formations is itself feasible or viable.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.
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.There is actually even doubts whether a tactical attack on Indian army formations is itself feasible or viable.
video has been posted
Looks like what they say and their video dont add up...................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:
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.their jahil, gawar janta aur kon
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.Pakistan would never have embarked on the project if its use was unconvincing, though I don't know much about tactical nukes.
W79 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaMinimum 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.
After doing a lot of reading, this was the conclusion I had reached (in 2011):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.
they are Pakistanis, they dont need to test anything, remember man and not the machine matters.......................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 "
I think I have said this before a few years back: Indian Army's official and unofficial view is bring it on.@bennedose I've always said Pakis bluff about their nukes or threat to use them
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
Pakistan successfully test-fires ground-to-sea missile | Pakistan | 41 | ||
Pakistan successfully Tests ALCM Cruise Missile ‘Ra’ad’ | Pakistan | 51 | ||
Pakistan successfully test fires Shaheen 1A ballistic missile | Pakistan | 9 | ||
Pakistan successfully test fires Shaheen-III missile | Pakistan | 138 |