Great post. What direction do you think our future ballistic missiles should take to ensure survivability against a potentially improved anti-ballistic missile shield? Considering boot-phase vulnerability at short ranges, should there be greater reliance on air-launched, nuclear-capable standoff munitions, particularly once we acquire J-35s?
I think what we are doing in terms of Fatah 1 and 2 is good. We need to scale up the numbers and have the launchers be dispersed and survivable. There is no risk of accidental nuking with these so they can be dispersed in relatively readier state. Near vertical attack with speeds upto Mach 4 will make interception super challenging, especially if the ABM have to defend things other than themselves. This is what Fatah 2/SMASH have.
What about the survivability of future long-range BMs?
Do you think Pakistan can/already have under ground networks to transfer TEL's & missiles from one firing position to another to avoid getting hit? is it possible to have them launch from under ground where it will be hard to detect from enemy radars to find its firing position?>
Better Fuel. The Solid fuel being used , still burns slow and throws out chunks. A better , Faster and more efficient burning fuel, will cause higher acceleration, reducing boost phase and reducing chances of Interception during boost phase. May also reduce the amount of fuel needed to be carried, leaving space for cramming in some more evasive tech in the RV .
Our Propellent chemsitry is probably the same level as india had with its non canistarized missiles like Agni 3/2 , we need a switch from HTPB based AP motors to RDX or other HMX propellent mixtures , these have way more thrust , quicker ignition time and provide better isp. China can help us in this regard , cuz idk if any local talent would want to dump his years into this lowpaying industry here.
Heavier payloads to make room for deception ideas like decoys, MARVs, and terminal rocket motors.
This is a stupidly expensive endeavor. Some of Pakistan's production is certainly underground but we dont have underground complexes like Iran (to the best of my knowledge). I think the focus is on dispersion and mobility.
The Iranian Fatah is a great example of using terminal rocket motor (base bleed configuration) to massively boost the terminal speed of the warhead.
On top of propellant chemistry we need to seriously think about the weight of our rocket casings. I'm not a composites engineer but that seems to be the general direction and it requires some engineering inputs like large enough autoclaves and clean rooms, fiber laying machines, super careful mould design for uniform cooling in an autoclave. These are just some things off the top of my head.
Some thoughts on why it doesn't make sense for us to go down that road.
Our main missiles like even the s3 are a lil behind in tech as compared to the likes of DPRK , Our missiles still rely on Large metal based structures and lack of composites in missile body , the use of Large base fins (inherintly not wrong but added weight causes poor effiencicy) etc etc .
Do HGVs make sense in our case at intermediate ranges? Do we have the know how, especially material engineering know-how, to produce them?
Base bleed does not provide much thrust but helps reduce drag by filling the low pressure cavity behind the projectile. That may or may not provide variable speed. But continuous gas generation most likely will help with sustaining high terminal velocity.
Yes it's possible
