Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions
- Thread starter Persian Gulf
- Start date
Negative DF 21D has thruster MARV. Chinese overcame these challenges, in the early 2000s. I have seen similar arrangement on a another missile too the Shaheen 2. Thrusters would only perform lateral maneuvers and not pop up/gliding maneuvers, Those liquid fuelled miniature thruster would allow for a quick small scale lateral bursts of thrust to allow lateral maneuvers at high speed maneuvers to defeat any BMD.
Plasma is not necessary at speeds below MACH 15. I will explain these in a later post.
Immortals
Elite Member
DF-21D has FINS. Fins + thrusters is much easier (and traditional approach) than thrusters only with no control surfaces (which you claim in your original point).
Again you have not demonstrated a missile with thruster only (no control surface) based warhead
Shaheen-2 never tested in combat and has estimated CEP of 200-350 meters not <25 meters like Iranian warheads with control surfaces. Again proving my point.
In case of Shaheen-2 tactical precision is not needed since it’s intended to carry a nuclear warhead rather than a conventional one.
You are all over the place sir. Now you are talking about thrusters for anti BMD maneuvers and not thrusters for course correction due to atmospheric errors.
Two completely different topics at hand. And your knowledge in both area seems based on erroneous assumptions.
A warhead re entering earths atmosphere has tremendous gravity and atmospheric pressures acting all around the warhead, so to get a shift left or right (example) requires quite high thrust to weight vectoring to off set these forces and exceed them. If you have control surfaces then the thrusters do not need to be nearly as powerful.
But you are claiming a thruster only approach can deliver precision strike capability. I call bullocks.
It depends on quite a number of factors including re entry angle, ballistic coefficient, the heat shield, etc.
You can achieve partial ionization rather than full plasma as well, don’t forget that. Partial ionization of molecules in the atmosphere creates a shroud that has been well documented on Iranian warheads with a terminal velocity exceeding Mach 5.
We have already seen Emad in a plasma shroud
Either way, my point stands. A thruster only approach with no control surfaces to achieve <25m CEP is an engineering nightmare both cost wise and feasibility.
You have yet to provide a missile that does this that currently exists.
The consensus in OSINT community is K-4 has a dummy RV and does all MaRV outside the atmosphere.
Here:
And a rough idea what the RV could look like in a tri-warhead configuration
Stop reading specs of wikipedia.
I've my self seen the Shaheen 2's RV striking within 10 metres of its Target. That guy quoted got its ass handed over by neutrino on His plasma bs.
Your r free to believe what you want
ToddE
Trusted Member
K-4 has a PBV Bus for exoatmospheric corrections. Its circular RCS can deploy adjustments in roll/pitch/yaw for PBV corrections. Remember K-4 is destined to launch sub-munitions or hypothetical MIRVs so it needs to have PBV for post-boost corrections otherwise the BUS will not be at the right X,Y,Z for dispensing its contents.
Immortals
Elite Member
If by Wikipedia you mean all publicly available sources of information, then what would you like me to use? Classified Pakistani military documents? Please provide those if you have them.
So your evidence of the tactical accuracy of such weapon system…is yourself?
My point stands Shaheen-2 has never been combat tested. And if video footage of test strikes were released (haven’t looked) then any accuracy measures are in a controlled test environment with limited information on the missile, its guidance system, how many attempts were made, etc. I can also show you videos of Iranian missiles known to have wider CEPs hitting with extreme accuracy in controlled tests. It doesn’t mean a whole lot.
Achieving CEP <25 using 4 small motors at distances of 1500KM+ relies heavily on technology that Pakistan has yet not demonstrated capability, specifically in the field of INS and gyroscopes.
To date the most declassified advanced INS system ever built was the Peacekeeper ICBM AIRS system which had an INS system made up of 16,000 parts that cost $300,000 in 1980 (1.2 million dollars today) and 6 months to put together. That system was revolutionary for its time and goes toe to toe with the most capable system today due to its suspended design.
It was able to achieve <40 CEP at distances of 10,000+ KM, which is quite remarkable without any GPS course correction. Drift rate error of .000015 degree/hr
So having motors in a warhead is only one set of the the problem as your accuracy is tied to how accurate your INS is during its flight in absence of GPS/GLNSS.
INS/Gyroscope technology is currently in SLRG, RLG, FOG, DFOG, mechanical, electrostatic.
Iran started with mechanical in the 90’s and has made it to Ring laser gyroscope in its most advanced model missiles and fiber optics in its more cheaper missiles in the last decade. Pakistan has shown off mechanical gyroscopes production, although it’s possible they import military grade FOG/DFOG from China, you might have evidence of that, I’m just too lazy to look.
Nonetheless to achieve <10m CEP reliably, you would need RLG based gyroscope and likely silicon based solid state. All of which unlikely exist in Shaheen-2.
It seems your remarks are dropping in intellectual quality.
You deny partial and full plasma ionization below Mach 15, when I provided you direct photographic evidence of such events happening with Emad MaRV. Ionization and heating of the air molecules will happen especially on high ballistic co efficient warheads with steep reentry angle. You are arguing against physics at this point.
The neutrino debate was about full Plasma ionization blocking RCS of a K-4 warhead for long enough to prevent the optimal interception altitude of PAC and Davids sling being reached and causing them to fail in interception.
The debate was wether the plasma shroud would be intense enough and long enough to provide meaningful RCS reduction and Neutrino may have provided enough [pubically available] information to cast doubt on the possibility.
Their discussion on plasma shroud (full or partial) had nothing to do with accuracy of a warhead or lack thereof, so I am not sure why you are celebrating it as “plasma bs”. I provide the source to show you that the consensus is RV/Bus of K-4 is an exo MarV.
Again really, I don’t know what you trying to argue at this point. You originally stated that with a thruster only system you can chive tactical precision. You have yet to provide any evidence of known RV that can achieve tactical precision below 25 meters reliably that uses only thruster based tech. And “trust me bro” Shaheen-2 can do sub-10 meters CEP is not believable without citing a valid source.
You said you provide evidence of this technology and you haven’t. So if you don’t have such evidence than there is no point in continuing your discussions and we can disregard your assumptions as merely unproven.
Last edited:
muhammed45
Elite Member
China helps Pakistan's missile program. As a close ally, i am sure that Pakistan is already armed with laser based systems.
So, the debate is not that necessary. China is Pakistan's all weather ally.
So, the debate is not that necessary. China is Pakistan's all weather ally.
Not every test is announced publicly. I've seen several such vids of Shaheen 1 and 2 striking within 10 metres of their targets at their extreme ranges. utilizing A PBV and a thruster MARV to achieve surgical orevision. Wikipedia is one big pool of lies, Analyze stuff urself if you don't have any tech/links background in military domain. The photos you provided prove nothing.
Attitude control system can do all that too. PBV has its navigation system, Chaff, decoys and sideways to perform radical maneuvers. thrust termination and velocity trimming can not be labelled as a PBV. Iranians are not there just yet but they will get there soon enough. Other possibility is that they wanted a cost effective system, so they went for the next best thing, not cause of technological hurdle.K-4 has a PBV Bus for exoatmospheric corrections. Its circular RCS can deploy adjustments in roll/pitch/yaw for PBV corrections. Remember K-4 is destined to launch sub-munitions or hypothetical MIRVs so it needs to have PBV for post-boost corrections otherwise the BUS will not be at the right X,Y,Z for dispensing its contents.
No it isn't!!.
ToddE
Trusted Member
Wrong again. You somehow have mistaken an advanced Radial-RCS system (like in K-4's Bus) for an ACS which is technically wrong or lack of understanding of guided Radial-RCS system against a simple ACS!
K-4's PBV has an onboard independent navigation system, it can perform roll+yaw+pitch+Velocity Kill+XYZ corrections which an ACS does not do. Watch the video again, they showed how the PBV changed its trajectory radically and navigated independently before positioning itself for deploying submunitions or (possibly MIRVs) from designated XYZ. ACS does not do that. ACS stabilizes the bus but K-4's Radial-RCS performs trajectory corrections, maneuvers, and independent navigation.
Forget PBV or any MaRV, Iran regularly uses solid-fueled TVC kick-off stages in its SLVs to execute precise exoatmospheric corrections independently. These capabilities exceed the much simpler requirements for PBVs in ballistic missile systems. Both ISA and IRGCAF have used TVC Kickoff stages for years. Thus adapting a PBV is well within their capability for years.
These are some 10-12 years old systems of Iran.
Please explain to us how an advanced Radial-RCS PBV carrying 80+ clustered submunitions (or possibly MIRVs) with onboard navigation performing roll+pitch+yaw+V kills+altitutde corrections loaded on a hypergolic fueled vehicle for a ~3000 KM strike is "cost-effective"?
ToddE
Trusted Member
This is a dual guidance/evasion system i.e. exoatmospheric ACS + endoatmopheric MaRV system on Ghadr-F MRBM. Totally different from K-4's PBV but highly effective in its own way.
People often focus too much on K-4, Sejjil or Fattah Hypersonic MRBM but Ghadr-F is one monster in itself as well.
For educating us, can you provide evidence partner? Something like a pic or video like below? K-3 (K-4s MaRV version), Sejjil, Fattah hypersonic MARV striking targets.
People often focus too much on K-4, Sejjil or Fattah Hypersonic MRBM but Ghadr-F is one monster in itself as well.
For educating us, can you provide evidence partner? Something like a pic or video like below? K-3 (K-4s MaRV version), Sejjil, Fattah hypersonic MARV striking targets.
