Pakistan Missiles - Updates, News & Discussion

[mythbuster]

I hope your post is more than a booster for a layman like me

 

[krash]

Difficult to believe.
Usually first flight test of a missile system is not done from a warship.

The human mind has unbelievable coping mechanisms, especially in our part of the world.

 

[JamD]

There @JamD goes again, trying to make sense.

Would it be technically possible to have a programmable flight path, sacrificing range and impact speed for stealth and vice versa. That would permit a tailoring of a flight profile to a target. A multi-layered defense would see a very depressed trajectory while more point defenses or sea based would have a higher trajectory with associated faster terminal speeds and range?
Would this be technically feasible? Deployable? Or would you have to have variants hardwired for each like a SMASH-L for well protected land targets, SMASH-S for ships and SMASH-G for land, general but not particularly sophisticated ones.

Yes, maneuvering can be done. However, one must decide how exactly to maneuver. This is often done with some kind of optimization and is not trivial but I am working on it. This is not my day job so I have to take time from my day to do this lol.

Appreciate your efforts but it's Quite technical, Can you please translate outcome of your analysis to something which non-technical like us can understand?

I am thinking about doing a dedicated thread for this where I go into more detail since this is the Pakistan Missiles thread.


Speaking of which, no news on a possible test associated with the second NOTAM?

 

[Goku-Kun]

Here's something fun. The point is to give some ballpark numbers for discussions on this forum to avoid hawai batain that often go on and NOT to be some kind of definitive statement of facts or ANYTHING LIKE THAT. JUST FUN OK?

I have some code that simulates a BM flight. It includes atmospheric effects. I can add maneuvers. It models variable mass through a simplified rocket model based on exhaust velocity. Take this with a huge huge grain of salt. I assumed a bunch of numbers that I thought would be close to Fatah-II or SMASH size missile like ballistic coefficients, exhaust velocities, fuel fraction, mass, burn time etc. I assumed purely ballistic flight - no maneuvers. I varied the launch angle to see the trend in range, impact speed/Mach, and apogee:
View attachment 77066

At a range of 349 km I got impact Mach 1.27 and apogee of 37.8 km. This is that run:
View attachment 77067
The trajectory is very depressed - only reaching an apogee of 37.8 km as I already said.


I don't know how accurate my simulation is considering that that max Mach is 12.2 @ 20.2 km altitude. This seems quite high to me. But it might be close to accurate and I just don't know how these trajectories are. The thing to note is that even with a max speed of 12.2 Mach, the impact speed is only 1.3.
View attachment 77069
time is almost 3 and a half minutes.


EDIT: ASSUMING MY NUMBERS ARE IN THE BALLPARK, the thing that I find interesting is the depressed trajectory that is sacrificing range and impact speed. I would conjecture this is done to avoid detection even though kinetically the missile is capable of more. That is my hypothetical missile JamD-2-SMASH, to achieve a range of 450 km it would have to go to an apogee of 112 km. This is what that trajectory looks like:View attachment 77073View attachment 77074

I bet they will offer it for export in upcoming IDEAS2024 exhibition. So let's just wait for more details to come out there.

 

[Goku-Kun]

Yes, maneuvering can be done. However, one must decide how exactly to maneuver. This is often done with some kind of optimization and is not trivial but I am working on it. This is not my day job so I have to take time from my day to do this lol.


I am thinking about doing a dedicated thread for this where I go into more detail since this is the Pakistan Missiles thread.


Speaking of which, no news on a possible test associated with the second NOTAM?

Chinese claim mach 6 for cm401 and the variant they offer for export has a range of 290km so if cm401 can achieve mach 6 at 290km why can't SMASH?

 

[falcon34]

Yes, maneuvering can be done. However, one must decide how exactly to maneuver. This is often done with some kind of optimization and is not trivial but I am working on it. This is not my day job so I have to take time from my day to do this lol.

Skip glide maneuvers fit the bill quite well for smash.
Kindly Run Simulations on Shaheen series too.

Speaking of which, no news on a possible test associated with the second NOTAM?

NOTAM starts Tomorrow its from 6th to 7th. Apparently its something Ship launched too, it clearly says Naval ships will be conducting Live fire practice, Either its harbah or P282.

 

[SiliconBit (silicon0000)]

Yes, maneuvering can be done. However, one must decide how exactly to maneuver. This is often done with some kind of optimization and is not trivial but I am working on it. This is not my day job so I have to take time from my day to do this lol.


I am thinking about doing a dedicated thread for this where I go into more detail since this is the Pakistan Missiles thread.


Speaking of which, no news on a possible test associated with the second NOTAM?

Please Do tag me in that new dedicated thread. Thanks in advance.

It would be better if that new thread is not only for Pakistani missiles but also about regional countries missiles too.

 

[Corax]

The main question for me regarding this is how the PN will deploy SMASH on its current fleet of vessels. Given that the PN doesn't have any vessel larger than frigate size, with at most 2x4 cell launchers for surface attack missiles, and it already has a couple of options for subsonic cruise missiles for surface vessel and land attack, it will be limited in what mix of missiles it can deploy on its vessels. Assuming it goes for an equal mix of SMASH and subsonic cruise missiles, that would mean 4 of each at most. Of course, installing VLS on its vessels could address this, or acquiring larger vessels, but that doesn't seem to be happening. From what we've seen in exchanges between supersonic and subsonic missile attacks vs missile defences in Ukraine and Israel/Iran, saturation attacks are needed to secure any significant probability of success.

 

[Analyst]

This is Khoda Pahar nikla choha situation lol

Why do you believe so?

 

[falcon34]

Still don't get it, why todays NOTAM wasn't used. Anyone got any info on this one.

 

[farooqbhai]

The main question for me regarding this is how the PN will deploy SMASH on its current fleet of vessels. Given that the PN doesn't have any vessel larger than frigate size, with at most 2x4 cell launchers for surface attack missiles, and it already has a couple of options for subsonic cruise missiles for surface vessel and land attack, it will be limited in what mix of missiles it can deploy on its vessels. Assuming it goes for an equal mix of SMASH and subsonic cruise missiles, that would mean 4 of each at most. Of course, installing VLS on its vessels could address this, or acquiring larger vessels, but that doesn't seem to be happening. From what we've seen in exchanges between supersonic and subsonic missile attacks vs missile defences in Ukraine and Israel/Iran, saturation attacks are needed to secure any significant probability of success.

PN has recently done MLU on all of it's F22P and part of that they have been wanting to replace older sub sonic CM Series fitted on F22Ps. Current test was from angled launcher so most likely all F22Ps will have subsonic CMs replaced with Smash in future.

 

[Corax]

PN has recently done MLU on all of it's F22P and part of that they have been wanting to replace older sub sonic CM Series fitted on F22Ps. Current test was from angled launcher so most likely all F22Ps will have subsonic CMs replaced with Smash in future.

Interesting, I guess splitting the CM/SMASH mix by platform is one approach. SMASH for F22Ps and subsonics for the Turkish and Chinese platforms, albeit less flexible than having a mix on individual vessels. I'm guessing VLS wasn't feasible for the missile or the vessels.

 

[farooqbhai]

Interesting, I guess splitting the CM/SMASH mix by platform is one approach. SMASH for F22Ps and subsonics for the Turkish and Chinese platforms, albeit less flexible than having a mix on individual vessels. I'm guessing VLS wasn't feasible for the missile or the vessels.

Babur & Jinnah are due to get P282 (Supersonic Cruise missile or Supersonic Smash), Type 54s already have YJ-12 Supersonic Cruise missiles. Only the Azmat class and OHP would be left with sub sonics.

 

[JamD]

P282
Because we got ghosted on P282 and the second NOTAM, I'm going to speculate on the P282. I believe that the p282 is going to be DF-17 type deal - maybe smaller - mounted on a SMASH. SMASH with HGV warhead. But that's just wild speculation based on feelings.

Yes I've taken inspiration from the Iranian Fatah HGV. I have this conjecture because:
1. There is a lot of confusion between SMASH P282.
2. The Jinnah class is getting P282 so it can't be a bigger thing than the SMASH.
3. The Iranian Fatah HGV that seems to be in technological grasp of Iran so I speculate it should be achievable by Pakistan.

@farooqbhai thoughts?

 

[Quwa]

It's interesting that there's (currently) no known supersonic-cruising ASCM project in the works and, apparently, the PN is moving all-in on ASBMs for supersonic (and possibly hypersonic) applications.

Any idea on why the PN might skip on backing a homegrown BrahMos or CM-302 equivalent? I get the need to add ASBMs into the mix (especially with HGVs one day), but why stop there?

@JamD @farooqbhai @Oscar