# Successful Babur-3 test gives Pakistan ticket to elite nuke triad club



## Windjammer

*Successful Babur-3 test gives Pakistan ticket to elite nuke triad club*
By Ramananda Sengupta | Express News Service | Published: 10th January 2017 03:52 AM |

Last Updated: 10th January 2017 07:49 AM | 







CHENNAI: Pakistan on Monday completed its nuclear triad after successfully test-firing a submarine-launched cruise missile, catapulting it into the small group of nations capable of delivering nuclear strikes from land, air and underwater.

According to the statement released by Inter Services Public Relations, the “Submarine Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM) Babur-3, having a range of 450 kilometers,” was fired from an undisclosed location in the Indian Ocean. “The missile was fired from an underwater, mobile platform and hit its target with precise accuracy.

Babur-3 is a sea-based variant of Ground Launched Cruise Missile Babur-2, which was successfully tested earlier in December, last year. Babur-3 SLCM in land-attack mode, is capable of delivering various types of payloads and will provide Pakistan with a Credible Second Strike Capability, augmenting deterrence," the agency said.

"While the pursuit, and now the successful attainment of a second strike capability, by Pakistan represents a major scientific milestone, it is manifestation of the strategy of measured response to nuclear strategies and postures being adopted in it’s neighborhood,” the report said. While the ISPR release did not disclose the platform used, *reports suggest that Pakistan Navy modified its French Agosta 90B class submarines to launch the missile.*

The Pakistani test comes soon after India tested its Agni IV and V series of missiles earlier this month, sparking a warning from Pakistan’s long-term ally, China. In an acerbic January 4 editorial, the state-owned Global Times warned that ‘India has broken the UN's limits on its development of nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missile,’ adding: ''If the UNSC has no objection over this, let it be. The range of Pakistan's nuclear missiles will also see an increase.''

A Pakistani journalist gloated that the test would bring the two nations “at par” and ensure it could attack India even if its land based missiles were taken out. An Indian official, however, shrugged off the claims, saying India’s tests, unlike Islamabad, were not aimed at any particular nation and were for defence.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/wor...-ticket-to-elite-nuke-triad-club-1557958.html

Reactions: Like Like:
28


----------



## tarrar

I am very happy & congrats to all. 

Meanwhile in India, they cannot stop their crap.

Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## Windjammer

tarrar said:


> I am very happy & congrats to all.
> 
> Meanwhile in India, they cannot stop their crap.


This is the most significant threshold that Pakistan has crossed after the nuclear tests of 1998.
Basically no country can now start a war with Pakistan without getting a bloody nose.

Reactions: Like Like:
16


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Yupe it's gonna be hard for India to accept the reality of Babur 3 

Still we know what we achieved ALHAMDULILLAH and Congrats once more

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## saiyan0321

The thing is this us an amazing feat. An indigenous cruise missile that we can produce to our liking with nuclear capability that can attack our enemy or any other nation. Yes there are defences but we have moved forward in our offence. All we need are more submarines to make sure our sea based deterrence is maximum. As for neighbors. Ignore them. They have been shell shocked at this progress and are in massive denial. When we test MIRV then the real party will start over here.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Cyberian

Eventually all Indians will accept the reality. They can't live in denial forever. 

Not sure why they think they're the only race capable of manufacturing nuclear-related weaponry? Must be due to animal and statue worshipping.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Darth Vader

Windjammer said:


> This is the most significant threshold that Pakistan has crossed after the nuclear tests of 1998.
> Basically no country can now start a war with Pakistan without getting a bloody nose.


Yes it is a mile Stone 
But Baburs Range is Only 450 KM which sort of limits it
Other is number of baburs Khalid Class Can carry, 
how many subs will carry it , and how
many will be on active duty at one time

Because thats the one main reason for going nuclear subs
That you have always have few subs in water all the time so even if enemy takes out every thing in surprise 
That Sub will make sure enemy doesn't survive either

And how strong and reliable will be the Pakistans Response system in case Pakistani sub loses communication with HQ and they think Pakistan has been attacked

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Safriz

India has no nuclear triad. Their air force has no nuclear capability. Their navy has only one submarine the Arihant, which when deployed and fitted with K missiles "Will be" sea based deterrent. 
Pakistan has land based nukes. All mirage fleet of PAF can carry one nuclear Raad, and probably other jets can do so too. 
And now Acosta class submarines have been demonstrated to be able to fire a nuclear capable cruise missile BABUR-3.
Triad completed. India left behind

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Gregor Clegane

It won't be deployable until the Chinese subs arrive which will take another 4 years to come.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SarthakGanguly

SUPARCO said:


> Eventually all Indians will accept the reality. They can't live in denial forever.
> 
> Not sure why they think they're the only race capable of manufacturing nuclear-related weaponry? Must be due to animal and statue worshipping.


Indian and Hindu extermination is now inevitable. Congrats.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Windjammer

Darth Vader said:


> Yes it is a mile Stone
> But Baburs Range is Only 450 KM which sort of limits it
> Other is number of baburs Khalid Class Can carry,
> how many subs will carry it , and how
> many will be on active duty at one time
> 
> Because thats the one main reason for going nuclear subs
> That you have always have few subs in water all the time so even if enemy takes out every thing in surprise
> That Sub will make sure enemy doesn't survive either
> 
> And how strong and reliable will be the Pakistans Response system in case Pakistani sub loses communication with HQ and they think Pakistan has been attacked


The actual range of the weapon seems to be classified as some sources quoting it to be 700 KM. In any case, just the presence of such system is sufficient to thwart aggression.
We also know Pakistan has ordered 8 Chinese Subs, in any case Pakistan doesn't have any global ambitions or quarrels, our threat exists in immediate vicinity and with over 50 years of experience in operating Subs, one can safely say, Pakistan is well aware of all the pros and cons.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Gregor Clegane

Indian Navy confirms launch took place from a platform and not submarine:


> While Pakistan claimed launching the missile from a submarine yesterday, the Navy is convinced the test shown in the video is from a submerged floating launch test platform which measures various parameters of the missile once it's launched underwater. Integration of the missile with Pakistan fleet of Agosta 90B submarine is unlikely to have taken place.


https://www.google.co.in/amp/m.ndtv...mp=1&akamai-rum=off?client=ms-android-samsung


----------



## Windjammer

Gregor Clegane said:


> It won't be deployable until the Chinese subs arrive which will take another 4 years to come.


Take your nonsense elsewhere, the fact is Agosta Subs have been modified to carry and deliver the Babur system.



Gregor Clegane said:


> Indian Navy confirms launch took place from a platform and not submarine:
> 
> https://www.google.co.in/amp/m.ndtv.com/india-news/pakistans-video-of-babur-missile-launch-fake-navy-sources-tell-ndtv-1647215?amp=1&akamai-rum=off?client=ms-android-samsung


Yea, the same Indian Navy which until yesterday was claiming that no test took place on Monday.

Reactions: Like Like:
24


----------



## Mohammad Hamza

O Pakistan : your Neigbour has done Unconfirmed Surgical Strikes ... Failed Missile Testing .. Express Way incomplete 
( Touch n Go Landings ... ) 
They can do any thing in Disney World 
Why you are take them so Seriously lol

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Anish

Gregor Clegane said:


> Indian Navy confirms launch took place from a platform and not submarine:
> 
> https://www.google.co.in/amp/m.ndtv.com/india-news/pakistans-video-of-babur-missile-launch-fake-navy-sources-tell-ndtv-1647215?amp=1&akamai-rum=off?client=ms-android-samsung


Their statement has already said it was a underwater launch platform..
They don't have any capable nuclear submarine in operation till they buy it from China..It's a long long way..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Trango Towers

Gregor Clegane said:


> Indian Jaguars, Mirage-2000 and Su-30 MKI have far better nuke capability than tin can Mirages.
> 
> Babur-3s are useless till 2021-22 when Chinese subs will arrive.



Sorry what Indian channel are you working for as an expert? 
Tin can Mirages....like the mirage 2000 you mean...oohh

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Windjammer

Gregor Clegane said:


> Indian Jaguars, Mirage-2000 and Su-30 MKI have far better nuke capability than tin can Mirages.
> 
> Babur-3s are useless till 2021-22 when Chinese subs will arrive.


You have lost over 50 Jaguars without them ever firing a shot, you don't have the confidence to fly the Mirages on your Republic day parade and think you will use them to deliver your rudimentary nukes....leaves the SU-30, well, first bring them to a reasonable operational requirement and then hope it will do any job with it's massive RCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## Gregor Clegane

Windjammer said:


> Take your nonsense elsewhere, the fact is Agosta Subs have been modified to carry and deliver the Babur system.
> 
> 
> Yea, the same Indian Navy which until yesterday was claiming that no test took place on Monday.


Agosta subs will never be able to carry Babur, period.
French subs cannot fire non NATO weapons.

Also Navy never claimed no test took place, all it said that there were no tests on day before yesterday.
Even @The Deterrent confirmed test took place on end of December.


----------



## Areesh

Gregor Clegane said:


> Agosta subs will never be able to carry Babur, period.



Augustas can fire Babur 3 SLCM. Period.

@TaimiKhan 

Check this troll.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Gregor Clegane

snow lake said:


> Sorry what Indian channel are you working for as an expert?
> Tin can Mirages....like the mirage 2000 you mean...oohh


Mirage-2000 is fourth generation, whereas 40 year old Mirage 3 &5 are obsolete.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Trango Towers

Gregor. Why have you simply taken over Pakistan. After all we took it from India?


----------



## Areesh

Gregor Clegane said:


> Agosta can never fire any non French/NATO origin weapon



Yes they can.


----------



## Salmaan786

congrats to all for this great achievement achieved by Pak Military


----------



## Anish

snow lake said:


> Sorry what Indian channel are you working for as an expert?
> Tin can Mirages....like the mirage 2000 you mean...oohh


Come on man it's a 4th gen 60's jet..Even you are gonna retire this jet within 2025.No expert can change the fact..


----------



## Windjammer

Gregor Clegane said:


> You guys have lost nearly 70 Mirages and 54 F-7s.
> But that is a matter for another thread.


We may have, but unlike your Jags and MiGs we use them to carry out ground strikes and above all they are single engine jets.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Areesh

Gregor Clegane said:


> No they cannot.



Even @The Deterrent ha asked you to STFU. So it is time you show some self respect and STFU.


----------



## Windjammer

Gregor Clegane said:


> Why should I care, kid????


Off course being a shameless creature, why should you. 


> Truth hurts dude.


And Babur-3 is the truth which is causing major butt hurt.


> You carried out ground strikes against ones who have zero air defence.


You are thick , extra sorties means extra flying hours, more stress on the frame and engine..,.,.now run along before humiliating your self further.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## ghazi768

Windjammer said:


> You have lost over 50 Jaguars without them ever firing a shot, you don't have the confidence to fly the Mirages on your Republic day parade and think you will use them to deliver your rudimentary nukes....leaves the SU-30, well, first bring them to a reasonable operational requirement and then hope it will do any job with it's massive RCS.



permit me to add to your reply to that Indian troll..

Presently jaguars, M2K, and Su30s can at best drop iron bombs, whether nuclear or conventional. 50 Su 30s are being upgraded to fire Brahmos, that upgrade is still in the works. Also Until you receive all Rafales you cannot use Scalp-EGs you will get with them and they will not be able to be used with nuclear warheads.

Our Mirages can fire Raad with ALL warheads. And by the time your will receive Rafales, we'll have 200+ fighter jets capable of firing Raad..

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ghauri05

indians are still in the shock of Nasr n now babur 3...its really difficult for them to digest it

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## bdslph

now all subs navy ships should carry this and also the speed and the distance coverage need to be increased 

but congrats to pakistan to get to this point as it is rare and hard good work 

as for india making fun about the video i dont have any regrets as i love to watch them make the comedy scene 

love from a bangla boy

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Windjammer

Triad complete.

Reactions: Like Like:
16


----------



## 90ArsalanLeo

Indian officials saying this is a fake u can hear all sort of explanations from them (like change of colour, distance travelled if very little time etc) on this matter to calm the nerves of indian people specially if they belong to shiv sena, rss or have affiliations with bjp

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abdul salam farooqi

Burnol shortage in india. India will import burnol from rest of world. Hahahahaha lolzzzz

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kompromat

Reliable sources say that the range of the missile will be "greatly increased". This missile is designed to destroy India's coastal belt cities.

Reactions: Like Like:
18


----------



## Dalit

This has been the main news in India 24/7 non stop. First, it was supposed to be fake. LMAO We saw how skinny Indians were holding YouTube lectures about the supposedly photoshopped launch video. Now, Pakistan has become an elusive member. LMAO These desperate fvckers have been overwhelmed by it. They are confused and lost. Cannot make up their minds. I hope they get consumed by it too.



90ArsalanLeo said:


> Indian officials saying this is a fake u can hear all sort of explanations from them (like change of colour, distance travelled if very little time etc) on this matter to calm the nerves of indian people specially if they belong to shiv sena, rss or have affiliations with bjp



Not a single country has disputed the launch. Only the Indian media is red faced after the launch. So shamelessly preoccupied in trying to save face. They are constantly on the defensive. I like it. It means we have hurt them badly.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 90ArsalanLeo

Dalit said:


> Not a single country has disputed the launch. Only the Indian media is red faced after the launch. So shamelessly preoccupied in trying to save face. I like it. It means we have hurt them badly.



ISPR should release a better video then the present one to shut the mouth of indian media

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dalit

90ArsalanLeo said:


> ISPR should release a better video then the present one to shut the mouth of indian media



No. It shouldn't. Let them keep guessing. Let them shout that it is fake. We are enjoying their paranoia. They are on the defensive. We couldn't care less. We have made our statement. If the enemy downplays or denies our strength it is their loss.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Valar Dohaeris

90ArsalanLeo said:


> ISPR should release a better video then the present one to shut the mouth of indian media


No need, we have better use of our time than solacing ignorant bhakts and one of the worst creatures of earth i.e. H!ndian journalists.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## RealNapster

Anish said:


> They don't have any capable *nuclear submarine*



You don't need a "*Nuclear*" Submarine to fire a "*Nuclear capable*" missile. They can be fired even from a Conventional submarine. which Israel, and Pakistan, both proved.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Bratva

Windjammer said:


> This is the most significant threshold that Pakistan has crossed after the nuclear tests of 1998.
> Basically no country can now start a war with Pakistan without getting a bloody nose.



You forgetting 2005 when Babur was tested out of the blue for the first time. This would be the third important milestone

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Mutakalim

Windjammer said:


> Basically no country can now start a war with Pakistan without getting a bloody nose.


Theoretically, it is possible to launch an attack on every country globally but operationally we have a long way to go. Acquisition of nuclear submarine along with an increase in the range of Babur is necessary to have a credible nuclear triad.


----------



## somebozo

Windjammer said:


> This is the most significant threshold that Pakistan has crossed after the nuclear tests of 1998.
> Basically no country can now start a war with Pakistan without getting a bloody nose.



Provided we have balls to practice this act...so far Pakistan has never launched a missile in real war scenario..



SaG E Jillani88 said:


> Theoretically, it is possible to launch an attack on every country globally but operationally we have a long way to go. Acquisition of nuclear submarine along with an increase in the range of Babur is necessary to have a credible nuclear triad.



I think we have enough covert capabilities for that in form of non-state actors..with sleeper cells which can be activated..i am thinking..Panama...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dalit

RealNapster said:


> You don't need a "*Nuclear*" Submarine to fire a "*Nuclear capable*" missile. They can be fired even from a Conventional submarine. which Israel, and Pakistan, both proved.



These Indian kids have a lot to learn yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Muhammad Omar

RealNapster said:


> You don't need a "*Nuclear*" Submarine to fire a "*Nuclear capable*" missile. They can be fired even from a Conventional submarine. which Israel, and Pakistan, both proved.



LOL Indians Are INDIANS 

they are Numb to see the Babur 3 Missile

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mrc

RealNapster said:


> You don't need a "*Nuclear*" Submarine to fire a "*Nuclear capable*" missile. They can be fired even from a Conventional submarine. which Israel, and Pakistan, both proved.




Newer AIP subs are nearly undetectable.... far quieter then nuclear subs

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Cyberian

SarthakGanguly said:


> Indian and Hindu extermination is now inevitable. Congrats.



Don't wish for it. You've already been reduced to a small corner of the world from once all that way from Indonesia to Egypt.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Salza

Bratva said:


> You forgetting 2005 when Babur was tested out of the blue for the first time. This would be the third important milestone



Exactly!. 
Without Babur 1 success and complete expertise, Babur 3 would had never occurred.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hassan Guy

Mrc said:


> Newer AIP subs are nearly undetectable.... far quieter then nuclear subs


AIP subs are as quite as nuclear.


----------



## Trango Towers

Gregor Clegane said:


> Agosta subs will never be able to carry Babur, period.
> French subs cannot fire non NATO weapons.
> 
> Also Navy never claimed no test took place, all it said that there were no tests on day before yesterday.
> Even @The Deterrent confirmed test took place on end of December.



French sub cannot fire non NATO weapons. R u even real. 
That's like saying an ak47 can only fire russian bullets. Need I say more

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hassan Guy

Lot of bonds on fire with people saying Pakistani subs can't launch the babur-3.


----------



## Trango Towers

Gregor Clegane said:


> Mirage-2000 is fourth generation, whereas 40 year old Mirage 3 &5 are obsolete.



Gregor please do you have a mission to be the dumbest idiot on the net ?



snow lake said:


> Gregor please do you have a mission to be the dumbest idiot on the net ?


Our mirages fly, rose upgrades. They can deliver stand off weapons and a nuke to new Delhi making it the hottest place in town. 
HOW OLD ARE YOU?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hassan Guy

Gregor Clegane said:


> Agosta subs will never be able to carry Babur, period.
> French subs cannot fire non NATO weapons.
> 
> Also Navy never claimed no test took place, all it said that there were no tests on day before yesterday.
> Even @The Deterrent confirmed test took place on end of December.


Firstly you utter retard, that isn't true and if it was it doesn't apply here.

The Agosta 90b submarine project for Pakistan ran from the 1999 to 2006. 

France didn't fully rejoin NATO until 2009.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Death Walking Terror

Hassan Guy said:


> Firstly you utter retard, that isn't true and if it was it doesn't apply here.
> 
> The Agosta 90b submarine project for Pakistan ran from the 1999 to 2006.
> 
> France didn't fully rejoin NATO until 2009.


France doesn't alow Mon western origin weapons on its subs.
Show one French or german submarine with a non western weapon
You won't find any.


----------



## Hassan Guy

Death Walking Terror said:


> France doesn't alow Mon western origin weapons on its subs.
> Show one French or german submarine with a non western weapon
> You won't find any.


No one said we asked for permission.


----------



## Death Walking Terror

Hassan Guy said:


> No one said we asked for permission.


Without their permission it is not even remotely possible.


----------



## RealNapster

Dalit said:


> These Indian kids have a lot to learn yet.





sometimes i wounder how a person can be that dumb. but then, we have Indian's. 



Muhammad Omar said:


> LOL Indians Are INDIANS
> 
> they are Numb to see the Babur 3 Missile



Actually i call them Indiots. 




Mrc said:


> Newer AIP subs are nearly undetectable.... far quieter then nuclear subs



Exactly. 
You only wan't to touch your left ear. so why to bring right hand from the back and touch it when you can simply Use your left hand.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Imran Khan

A simple logic indians did not learnt yet



Agosta having

4 × 533 mm (21 in) bow torpedo tubes

Babur is 
*Diameter* 0.52 m

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Dalit

Imran Khan said:


> A simple logic indians did not learnt yet
> 
> 
> 
> Agosta having
> 
> 4 × 533 mm (21 in) bow torpedo tubes
> 
> Babur is
> *Diameter* 0.52 m



Forget the numbers. These Indians are still in denial the launch took place.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Qutb-ud-din Aybak

Gregor Clegane said:


> It won't be deployable until the Chinese subs arrive which will take another 4 years to come.


agosta are currently on mango export mission. Carrying mangoes in tubes meant for babur.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SarthakGanguly

SUPARCO said:


> Don't wish for it. You've already been reduced to a small corner of the world from once all that way from Indonesia to Egypt.


You are pink. For abusing 'jahalat' and our faiths on 'your' forum. My sympathies.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Death Walking Terror said:


> Without their permission it is not even remotely possible.


But they permitted that how Babur-3 fired from AGOSTA-90B
if you butt hurt use this on your butts




its a pain killer

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Death Walking Terror

pakistanipower said:


> But they permitted that how Babur-3 fired from AGOSTA-90B
> if you butt hurt use this on your butts
> View attachment 367603
> its a pain killer


Nope they did not permit which is why The missile was fired from a test platform.


----------



## Windjammer

@TaimiKhan .

The cockroach is back with a fake ID.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ultima Thule

Death Walking Terror said:


> Nope they did not permit which is why The missile was fired from a test platform.


how do you know are you from french DCN and how do you know its fired from test platform are you in PN you stupid if you know nothing don't bark about the test

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## faithfulguy

Gregor Clegane said:


> Indian Navy confirms launch took place from a platform and not submarine:
> 
> https://www.google.co.in/amp/m.ndtv.com/india-news/pakistans-video-of-babur-missile-launch-fake-navy-sources-tell-ndtv-1647215?amp=1&akamai-rum=off?client=ms-android-samsung



If it took Indian military half a year to distinguish between Venus and a drone, than it should take much longer for India to figure out the facts. The truth is that Indians are pulling things from behind them on their explanations.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Death Walking Terror

faithfulguy said:


> If it took Indian military half a year to distinguish between Venus and a drone, than it should take much longer for India to figure out the facts. The truth is that Indians are pulling things from behind them on their explanations.


It was not military but a few sentries


----------



## YeBeWarned

@Rashid Mahmood @Horus @Khafee brothers, can we say that this Babur 3 with range of 450KM can and will also be used to fire from the newly Designed Azmat Class FAC ? in new Design they show a Round shaped Tubed Launchers 3x2 on back hall of the Ship .. and this Babur Variant is also fired from a Torpedo Tube ( Possibly Round shaped ) so it could happen right ??

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Naara-e-Mastana

Gregor Clegane said:


> It won't be deployable until the Chinese subs arrive which will take another 4 years to come.


Yeah ok . keep living at denial mode  .



Gregor Clegane said:


> Indian Navy confirms launch took place from a platform and not submarine:
> 
> https://www.google.co.in/amp/m.ndtv.com/india-news/pakistans-video-of-babur-missile-launch-fake-navy-sources-tell-ndtv-1647215?amp=1&akamai-rum=off?client=ms-android-samsung


The same navy who dont know the presence of Chinese submarine . until google publish images of docked submarine.


----------



## WaLeEdK2

The reason for such low range is exactly because it is firing from the agosta in truth Pakistan has been working on this for basically a decade maybe more. But at least a decade. It looked like the length of Babur had to be reduced so it could be compatible with agosta. Babur is a missile based off of the tomahawk. Chinese have little to do with it. The fact that Indians are in denial shows how frustrated they are that their Nirbhay can't even be accepted by their military due to its poor performance. This is a reality which they will eventually accept.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Khafee

Starlord said:


> @Rashid Mahmood @Horus @Khafee brothers, can we say that this Babur 3 with range of 450KM can and will also be used to fire from the newly Designed Azmat Class FAC ? in new Design they show a Round shaped Tubed Launchers 3x2 on back hall of the Ship .. and this Babur Variant is also fired from a Torpedo Tube ( Possibly Round shaped ) so it could happen right ??



IMO Azmat FAC will not use Babur, but can be used, no issues.

Let me clear up which version of Babur does what in simple terms:

Babur 1b - Land to Land
Babur 2 - Ship to Shore, and Ship to Ship
Babur 3 - Sub to Shore, and Sub to Ship

Range - Babur 3, was tested with a range of "450kms" but in fact it's range is a lot more - +/-1,000kms.

Regards

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Death Walking Terror

Naara-e-Mastana said:


> The same navy who dont know the presence of Chinese submarine . until google publish images of docked submarine





> between the two countries.
> 
> Now for the first time, details are emerging on how the Indian Navy has been able to track the movement of Chinese submarines, which first started operating in the Indian Ocean in 2013, a clear signal of how Beijing intends to expand its strategic reach to include areas of the Indian Ocean which New Delhi has typically considered its own backyard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The P8-I is a US-made maritime surveillance aircraft
> 
> The Chinese 'Shang' class submarine, which docked in Karachi, entered the Indian Ocean through the Malacca straits off Singapore between April 19 and 20. Picked up almost immediately by the Indian Navy's US-made Boeing P8-I maritime surveillance aircraft, the submarine - accompanied by a large 10,000 ton fleet support and replenishment tanker - was constantly tracked on its way to Karachi.
> 
> The P8-Is dropped sonobuoys across the projected route of the submarine. Sonobuoys - small listening devices that transmit the sound of submarines to reconnaissance aircraft operating overhead - are key to detecting submarines.
> 
> Interspersed with the 'passive' sonobuoys deployed by the P8-Is, were 'active' sonobuoys which ping the ocean with sound waves reflecting off the submarine surface.
> 
> Using a combination of both sensors, the Navy's P8-Is were able to force the Chinese submarine into making evasive maneuvers.
> 
> The exact location of the submarine was also passed on to India's own submarines, which were also monitoring the movement of the 'Shang'.
> 
> The 'Shang' entered the Karachi harbour on May 19, its exact location constantly plotted by the Indian Navy's assets, which have determined that the sound radiated by the Shang class is higher than the considerably quieter new generation American or Russian submarines, which are tougher to detect.



Anyways Babur-3 wont be deployable until S-20Ps arrive.


----------



## Death Walking Terror

Fenrir said:


> Chang Bogo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which are capable of firing the Hae Sung 1 anti-ship missile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Baek Sang Eo Torpedo, which is the heavy weight variant of the Blue Shark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh by the way, the Chang Bogo is a Type 209.
> 
> With regards to modifying the submarine to carry non-Western weapons, I might have an answer for you:
> 
> https://defence.pk/threads/a-not-so-silent-war-babur-3-ssk-interception.471758/page-6#post-9095723


None of them are French.
Also since Taiwan doesn't have nukes it's not a problem.

In fact during the signing of submarine deals both India and Pakistan were told by France not to station nukes on them.


----------



## hussain0216

Death Walking Terror said:


> Anyways Babur-3 wont be deployable until S-20Ps arrive.



Were Pakistan we are very good at slapping india across the face with our surprises and sending you into crazy tailspin of denial

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Death Walking Terror

Fenrir said:


> You wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I showed you a German submarine modified to carry non-Western weapons, the South Korean Chang Bogo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's suspect that the Son Won-il class submarines, Type 214, are also capable of carrying South Korean munitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taiwan? That's a South Korean submarine. I'm pretty sure North Korea is nuclear armed and if the region gets too hot so too can be South Korea, which like Japan is considered a nuclear-latent nation.


South Korea is under US nuclear umbrella so it would never develop nukes.

Anyways Indian Navy itself confirms test was from a submerged platform:


> While Pakistan claimed launching the missile from a submarine yesterday, the Navy is convinced the test shown in the video is from a submerged floating launch test platform which measures various parameters of the missile once it’s launched underwater. Integration of the missile with Pakistan fleet of Agosta 90B submarine is unlikely to have taken place.


----------



## faithfulguy

Death Walking Terror said:


> None of them are French.
> Also since Taiwan doesn't have nukes it's not a problem.
> 
> In fact during the signing of submarine deals both India and Pakistan were told by France not to station nukes on them.



To Indians, all orientals not only look the same. But are the same. Orientals are categorized same as the low caste NE Indian untouchables.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Eagle+Viper




----------



## TMA

Windjammer said:


> This is the most significant threshold that Pakistan has crossed after the nuclear tests of 1998.
> Basically no country can now start a war with Pakistan without getting a bloody nose.


So if Pakistan had this capability when (allegedly) the Bush administration threatened Musharrag after the false flags of 9/11, the US would not have used such tone?


----------



## Imran Khan

TMA said:


> So if Pakistan had this capability when (allegedly) the Bush administration threatened Musharrag after the false flags of 9/11, the US would not have used such tone?


its not military its influence and economy that can final tune sir


----------



## Flash_Ninja

If it wasn't for the earlier work of SUPARCO, something like this would never have been possible.

I hope we see more funding go into aerospace research, and space program in the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gasoline

Unlike what [some] Pakistanis here are barking against us and wish the bad for us, I would never wish ill upon anyone. 

Congrats for brothers/sisters in Pakistan. We're proud of your achievement and all people are happy in the KSA and wish you all the best. 

By 2025 MAX insha'allah you will have the capability to launch an ICBM and get the full nuclear triad capability. US, France, Russia ...etc are not better then you.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

Gasoline said:


> Unlike what [some] Pakistanis here are barking against us and wish the bad for us, I would never wish ill upon anyone.
> 
> Congrats for brothers/sisters in Pakistan. We're proud of your achievement and all people are happy in the KSA and wish you all the best.
> 
> By 2025 MAX insha'allah you will have the capability to launch an ICBM and get the full nuclear triad capability. US, France, Russia ...etc are not better then you.



Pakistanis as a nation never wanted harm for Arabs or KSA...We wish you a stable and secure future

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mrc

Gasoline said:


> Unlike what [some] Pakistanis here are barking against us and wish the bad for us, I would never wish ill upon anyone.
> 
> Congrats for brothers/sisters in Pakistan. We're proud of your achievement and all people are happy in the KSA and wish you all the best.
> 
> By 2025 MAX insha'allah you will have the capability to launch an ICBM and get the full nuclear triad capability. US, France, Russia ...etc are not better then you.




don't take barking seriously.... most wish u well

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Thorough Pro

Can anyone compile a list with details (date, missile, range, etc) /video of all Pakistani missile tests


----------



## Ultima Thule

Gasoline said:


> Unlike what [some] Pakistanis here are barking against us and wish the bad for us, I would never wish ill upon anyone.
> 
> Congrats for brothers/sisters in Pakistan. We're proud of your achievement and all people are happy in the KSA and wish you all the best.
> 
> By 2025 MAX insha'allah you will have the capability to launch an ICBM and get the full nuclear triad capability. US, France, Russia ...etc are not better then you.


No bro we don't need an ICBM we have no global ambitions

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hollow Field

Kash_Ninja said:


> If it wasn't for the earlier work of SUPARCO, something like this would never have been possible.
> 
> I hope we see more funding go into aerospace research, and space program in the future.



SUPARCO funding should be increased. It should also employ the top performing students from Pakistani Universities. No sifarishi appointments.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gasoline

pakistanipower said:


> No bro we don't need an ICBM we have no global ambitions



Come on, I know Pakistanis they like to show off power. ^_^


----------



## Ultima Thule

Gasoline said:


> Come on, I know Pakistanis they like to show off power. ^_^


ICBM for what purpose? our enemy is not 10,000 km from Pakistan


----------



## alwaysfair

Windjammer said:


> We may have, but unlike your Jags and MiGs we use them to carry out ground strikes and above all they are single engine jets.


Surprising that even "elite" members can be so delusional.
Strikes against rifle weilding freedom fighters and against a superior army are totally different .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## EpiiC

pakistanipower said:


> No bro we don't need an ICBM we have no global ambitions


You want Pak to have no global power projection, strategically speaking we do need an SLBM ICBM LONG RANGE Missile that has 10-12 thermonuclear warheads yeild 450KT even if we can only make 5 of such high quality missiles A year I would be happy!!! Just 2 or 3 would be enough to kill and overwhelm Israel ABM shield...



Thorough Pro said:


> Can anyone compile a list with details (date, missile, range, etc) /video of all Pakistani missile tests


This is something I'd like to know as well range of this missile is 700KM? I know Israels Nuclear tipped popeye slcm is 1500Km..


----------



## Ultima Thule

EpiiC said:


> You want Pak to have no global power projection, strategically speaking we do need an SLBM ICBM LONG RANGE Missile that has 10-12 thermonuclear warheads yeild 450KT even if we can only make 5 of such high quality missiles A year I would be happy!!! Just 2 or 3 would be enough to kill and overwhelm Israel ABM shield...


stop it stop it,it is tooooo much, i can't stop laughing at you for your nonsense, it is over capability for pakistan, Israel is already within a range of our Shaheen-3, and no need for SLBM, we have babur-3 for that wait some years then babur-3 will have a range of 1500-2000 Km that enough for Israel, S-3 with a 3-4 warheads, with suitable penetration aids and with MARS warheads can do the job easily


----------



## EpiiC

pakistanipower said:


> stop it stop it,it is tooooo much, i can't stop laughing at you for your nonsense, it is over capability for pakistan, Israel is already within a range of our Shaheen-3, and no need for SLBM, we have babur-3 for that wait some years then babur-3 will have a range of 1500-2000 Km that enough for Israel, S-3 with a 3-4 warheads, with suitable penetration aids and with MARS warheads can do the job easily


You seem to a strong pessimist no? What I described would be perfect for Pak strategically speaking however S3 sea variant would among the worst SLBMs I know off...


----------



## Rashid Mahmood

Starlord said:


> @Rashid Mahmood @Horus @Khafee brothers, can we say that this Babur 3 with range of 450KM can and will also be used to fire from the newly Designed Azmat Class FAC ? in new Design they show a Round shaped Tubed Launchers 3x2 on back hall of the Ship .. and this Babur Variant is also fired from a Torpedo Tube ( Possibly Round shaped ) so it could happen right ??



Babur III with a nuclear warhead are strategic in nature and have a specific role to play, hence they will only be used from Subs.

Also such an expensive Cruise missile will not be installed on an FAC.

If PN goes for a DDG with area air defence capability, then maybe they can install the Babur III with conventional warhead only.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Ultima Thule

EpiiC said:


> You seem to a strong pessimist no?* What I described would be perfect for Pak* strategically speaking however S3 sea variant would among the worst SLBMs I know off...


No i am not, i lives in realty, you lives in your wet dreams, fantasy world and fairy tales, go suggest your crap to PAKISTAN MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT and they will kick out on your butts, and where are the sea variants of S-3 kid, kid this place is not for yours go play your toys


----------



## EpiiC

pakistanipower said:


> No i am not, i lives in realty, you lives in your wet dreams, fantasy world and fairy tales, go suggest your crap to PAKISTAN MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT and they will kick out on your butts, and where are the sea variants of S-3 kid, kid this place is not for yours go play your toys


For a 39 year old female you do seem to have an obessession with wet dreams and fantasies.... we currently don't have slbm and I say we shouldn't have the worse slbm when we do have one... Currently our missiles have the lowest range out of 9 Nuclear weapons state.


----------



## TMA

pakistanipower said:


> No bro we don't need an ICBM we have no global ambitions


Why not? If Pakistan had ICBM then could the US (allegedly) have threatened Pakistan after 9/11?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gasoline

pakistanipower said:


> ICBM for what purpose? our enemy is not 10,000 km from Pakistan



Nobody thinks like that. Although these weapons aren't going to used but only for deterrence. As a nuclear state you have to get all the means you can to deliver your Nukes. Even your neighbors have this capabilities, so why not ?


----------



## Rain

Gregor Clegane said:


> Indian Navy confirms launch took place from a platform and not submarine:
> 
> https://www.google.co.in/amp/m.ndtv.com/india-news/pakistans-video-of-babur-missile-launch-fake-navy-sources-tell-ndtv-1647215?amp=1&akamai-rum=off?client=ms-android-samsung


Slowly and surely the hangover the clouded indian media is now ending, The started the to see the reality! 
PS: indian Friends get ready Indian median will tell you all the truth in a slowly administered manners.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

EpiiC said:


> we currently don't have slbm


WE don't need an ICBM or SLBM, ICBM and SLBM has big RADAR and IR RCS can easily be intercepted in mid flight or mid course before bus spereted MIRV warheads, whereas CM is more stealthy with low IR and RADAR RCS and its mask with terrain has additional advantages, and it is difficult to intercept as compare to BM, i am reporting you for you baseless rants with no prove but this is just your wish full thinking


----------



## Rain

Anish said:


> Their statement has already said it was a underwater launch platform..
> *They don't have any capable nuclear submarine* in operation till they buy it from China..It's a long long way..


Pakistan never claimed to have one.


----------



## Rain

SarthakGanguly said:


> Indian and Hindu extermination is now inevitable. Congrats.


No we do not think about Hindu and Indian extermination, we just want them(Indians) to stay away from Pakistan+Kashmir. They can enjoy their lives, their culture, their *religion. *we are not willing to sent anyone from India to Hell or Heaven unless forced upon.


----------



## EpiiC

Awan68 said:


> So ur here too laughing at people, this asshole is an indian troll pretending to be a pakistani..


Mate I agree this one really seems to be trolling us all check her stats out 39 years old female, lol....


----------



## Fafnir

Death Walking Terror said:


> None of them are French.
> Also since Taiwan doesn't have nukes it's not a problem.
> 
> In fact during the signing of submarine deals both India and Pakistan were told by France not to station nukes on them.


Right...,so I presume that the french are now going to start inspecting pakistani and indian subs to make sure they`re not in violation of this request?.Conditions like this arent worth the paper they`re printed on,plus I would think that like most of the worlds nuclear navies the pakistanies would probably have a dont ask,dont tell policy of nuclear ambiguity when it came to the status of any possible nuclear weapons on their vessels.


----------



## Awan68

EpiiC said:


> Mate I agree this one really seems to be trolling us all check her stats out 39 years old female, lol....


Yep was nagging me on another thread about how we will never be able to develop a blue water navy in 20 yrs or that such a notion is a joke now here i find him putting down notions of icbms etc, definately a wet indian troll.


----------



## EpiiC

Awan68 said:


> Yep was nagging me on another thread about how we will never be able to develop a blue water navy in 20 yrs or that such a notion is a joke now here i find him putting down notions of icbms etc, definately a wet indian troll.


Yes all I was saying is that a real nuclear detterent is an SSBN/SLBM/ICBM even if your land based nukes are destroyed your sea submarine will give you 2nd second strike nuclear retaliation ability.... ICBMs are also faster at mach 22+ plus with slbm icbm we can be near GCC OR near china or near occeina and lauch nukes without getting detected close by!! It gives us strategic detternce and global firepower!!


----------



## Awan68

EpiiC said:


> Yes all I was saying is that a real nuclear detterent is an SSBN/SLBM/ICBM even if your land based nukes are destroyed your sea submarine will give you 2nd second strike nuclear retaliation ability.... ICBMs are also faster at mach 22+ plus with slbm icbm we can be near GCC OR near china or near occeina and lauch nukes without getting detected close by!! It gives us strategic detternce and global firepower!!


Yep i agree and so do pakistani defence circles, contrary to what some say we have global designs and when powerful enough we will project global power as we are an ideological state..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Windjammer

TMA said:


> So if Pakistan had this capability when (allegedly) the Bush administration threatened Musharrag after the false flags of 9/11, the US would not have used such tone?


Actions speak louder than words, even North Korea threatens US every other day, however Pak/US relations may swing side to side but never to the extent of going to a war.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

Gasoline said:


> Even your neighbors have this capabilities, so why not ?



No it not for Pakistan its China specific


----------



## Windjammer

somebozo said:


> Provided we have balls to practice this act...so far Pakistan has never launched a missile in real war scenario..



I believe during our wars, we never had the capability.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Manidabest

Congratz to my Pakistani brothers

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TMA

Windjammer said:


> Actions speak louder than words, even North Korea threatens US every other day, however Pak/US relations may swing side to side but never to the extent of going to a war.


They are already at war covertly. 
I still think it is better to have all the defence possible at one's disposal as one never knows. Zionist NATO does not consider Pakistan a friend irrespective of major non NATO ally.


----------



## Ultima Thule

EpiiC said:


> Yes all I was saying is that a real nuclear detterent is an SSBN/SLBM/ICBM even if your land based nukes are destroyed your sea submarine will give you 2nd second strike nuclear retaliation ability.... ICBMs are also faster at mach 22+ plus with slbm icbm we can be near GCC OR near china or near occeina and lauch nukes without getting detected close by!! It gives us strategic detternce and global firepower!!


And US DEFENSE FORCES can't detect and track you and no way China can allow you to start nuclear war with India using its water, you mentally retard person if you wont believe me ask some expert on PDF like @Bilal Khan 777, @Bilal Khan (Quwa), @Oscar, @war&peace, @Tipu7 and others that they are all saying Pakistan don't need an ICBM/SLBM



Awan68 said:


> So ur here too laughing at people, this asshole is an indian troll pretending to be a pakistani..


No i am from Karachi, however if you wont believe me just ask the expert on PDF like @Bilal Khan (Quwa), @Bilal Khan 777, @Oscar, @waz, @Zaki, @war&peace, @Tipu7 and other they all saying that we don't need ICBM/SLBM.


----------



## R Wing

Next time the Afghan govt criticizes us for their own security failures, we should fire one of these (dummy warhead) over their Presidential Palace... just a friendly show of force to start off the week. 

Pakistan's "restraint" has started resembling "weakness" so here's to hoping we are able to be a bit more aggressive and assertive. 

As Gen Patton said, the three rules of war are: Audacity... audacity... audacity!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Malik Usman

Darth Vader said:


> Yes it is a mile Stone
> But Baburs Range is Only 450 KM which sort of limits it
> Other is number of baburs Khalid Class Can carry,
> how many subs will carry it , and how
> many will be on active duty at one time
> 
> Because thats the one main reason for going nuclear subs
> That you have always have few subs in water all the time so even if enemy takes out every thing in surprise
> That Sub will make sure enemy doesn't survive either
> 
> And how strong and reliable will be the Pakistans Response system in case Pakistani sub loses communication with HQ and they think Pakistan has been attacked



AS by your logic............There is saying...........Something is always Better than nothing...........


----------



## hussain0216

Gasoline said:


> Unlike what [some] Pakistanis here are barking against us and wish the bad for us, I would never wish ill upon anyone.
> 
> Congrats for brothers/sisters in Pakistan. We're proud of your achievement and all people are happy in the KSA and wish you all the best.
> 
> By 2025 MAX insha'allah you will have the capability to launch an ICBM and get the full nuclear triad capability. US, France, Russia ...etc are not better then you.



Always remember why those "some" are doing it

Most sane Pakistanis have a deep understanding that our relationship with SA and GCC is vital for both our security in the future 

We will defend SA and the holy cities vine what may BUT we also ask more regarding our own geo strategic interests

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Darth Vader

Malik Usman said:


> AS by your logic............There is saying...........Something is always Better than nothing...........





Windjammer said:


> The actual range of the weapon seems to be classified as some sources quoting it to be 700 KM. In any case, just the presence of such system is sufficient to thwart aggression.
> We also know Pakistan has ordered 8 Chinese Subs, in any case Pakistan doesn't have any global ambitions or quarrels, our threat exists in immediate vicinity and with over 50 years of experience in operating Subs, one can safely say, Pakistan is well aware of all the pros and cons.


Even is 700 not Enough
India has lot of land mass
I don't Know much about these subs so i wont say what are there capabilities and how many birds they will be able to carry
Pakistan needs a dedicated platform because pakistan is not just facing a simple enemy , there enemey has superior platforms with numbers advantage so they capabilities even if they are less in number but they must be able to tottaly decimate the enemy


AND 3 IS BETTER THAN 1
Why build 1 when triple the price you get 3


----------



## ahsanhaider




----------



## Bilal Khan 777

In Time, Pakistan will also have SLBM capability. The nuclear triad doesn't limit us to SLCM only, which has now been publicly acknowledged.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## abdulbarijan

Bilal Khan 777 said:


> In Time, Pakistan will also have SLBM capability. The nuclear triad doesn't limit us to SLCM only, which has now been publicly acknowledged.



Bilal bhai, can you give any insight in to if Pakistan has any programs for an air launched version of Babur (not talking about RAAD here) .. but an air launched cruise missile with a 500-700 Km range on it?

Anyways, congrats to the fellow countrymen on this test. As @Windjammer said, it may very well be one of the biggest feats we have achieved after the 1998 test. In my opinion, this presents a whole new list of variables to be dealt with (from the Indian pov). While air defense systems of India in the subcontinent theater, may very well be concentrated near the Indo-Pak border and near key installations, however we now have more than 4500 miles (7500 Km's) of coast line to work with. Something that @MastanKhan bhai usually alludes to when making his case for a heavier platform which has a good range+ big payload capability.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Bilal Khan 777 said:


> In Time, Pakistan will also have SLBM capability. The nuclear triad doesn't limit us to SLCM only, which has now been publicly acknowledged.


But first we will built decent SSGN with VLS to matures technology for SSBN, please give one answer future SLBM for Pakistan will be a versions of S-3 or totally new clean sheet 8000-9000 KM design, thank you sir and SSGN will not come after 2025-2030 from my estimation


----------



## Eagle+Viper




----------



## YeBeWarned

Rashid Mahmood said:


> Babur III with a nuclear warhead are strategic in nature and have a specific role to play, hence they will only be used from Subs.
> 
> Also such an expensive Cruise missile will not be installed on an FAC.
> 
> If PN goes for a DDG with area air defence capability, then maybe they can install the Babur III with conventional warhead only.



Thanks , have two more questions i have ..
1- Is PN considering any Destroyers for Future ?
2- What could be the possible reason for Changing of Square shape Launchers to Round shape Launcher ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Rain said:


> No we do not think about Hindu and Indian extermination, we just want them(Indians) to stay away from Pakistan+Kashmir. They can enjoy their lives, their culture, their *religion. *we are not willing to sent anyone from India to Hell or Heaven unless forced upon.


The majority of Pakistanis do not share this opinion. Both on this forum and the few I have met in Canada and US. Of course, after a few pegs were downed.


----------



## ghazi768

abdulbarijan said:


> Bilal bhai, can you give any insight in to if Pakistan has any programs for an air launched version of Babur (not talking about RAAD here) .. but an air launched cruise missile with a 500-700 Km range on it?
> 
> Anyways, congrats to the fellow countrymen on this test. As @Windjammer said, it may very well be one of the biggest feats we have achieved after the 1998 test. In my opinion, this presents a whole new list of variables to be dealt with (from the Indian pov). While air defense systems of India in the subcontinent theater, may very well be concentrated near the Indo-Pak border and near key installations, however we now have more than 4500 miles (7500 Km's) of coast line to work with. Something that @MastanKhan bhai usually alludes to when making his case for a heavier platform which has a good range+ big payload capability.



I do not think that there is any air-launched Babur project, first it will require more air-frame modifications to strengthen it and will also be a regression, Raad is more stealthier design because geared to be used in a certain conventional operational role as well.

When it comes to ranges, our announcements are more of 'declarations' of a minimum range with the aim to provide enough of calculations to opposite side for deterrence purpose. In past few years these 'declarations' are also done with an eye over the shoulder to a far bigger danger.

But lets say we were HONEST and gave an exact range. do you think it is a hi-hi? or probably a low-low profile. With cruise missiles basically being pilot less jets, wouldn't a hi-lo will result in about 40% increase in that stated range?

I think we should stop our curiosity about actual ranges this is for the planners to worry about, what is important is having a 'capability'.

Yes, I agree with you that India has more to contend with. For example, an SLCM capability is certainly not exactly equivalent to SLBM capability when it comes to second strike capability. But operationally, which is more offensive? if I am not wrong SLCM capability, whether nuclear or conventional, is considered more offensive because of its ability to surprise. It has elements of second strike but for an enemy presents a larger dilemma as a first strike capability.

Also Indian Navy is still long way off from having a four ship, all time available second strike capability, it will at best attain it by 2025 or later. By 2022-24, we'll have 7-9 submarines with at-least SLCM capability, I think that will provide a sizeable offensive force to contend with.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## The Deterrent

abdulbarijan said:


> Bilal bhai, can you give any insight in to if Pakistan has any programs for an air launched version of Babur (not talking about RAAD here) .. but an air launched cruise missile with a 500-700 Km range on it?


Negative, there won't be any air-launched Babur. Ra'ad serves precisely the same purpose, and has the same internal components. However an extended-range variant of Ra'ad is in the works, on the lines of Babur-2.



ghazi768 said:


> When it comes to ranges, our announcements are more of 'declarations' of a minimum range with the aim to provide enough of calculations to opposite side for deterrence purpose. In past few years these 'declarations' are also done with an eye over the shoulder to a far bigger danger.


I'm afraid that is not true. The ranges of the weapon systems described in official press releases are the exact figure these days (with the exception of one, but it's difference is minute). In fact they used to be exaggerated in the past, for example Shaheen-II's 2000km (actual 1500km).

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Blue Marlin

The Deterrent said:


> Negative, there won't be any air-launched Babur. Ra'ad serves precisely the same purpose, and has the same internal components. However an extended-range variant of Ra'ad is in the works, on the lines of Babur-2.
> 
> 
> I'm afraid that is not true. The ranges of the weapon systems described in official press releases are the exact figure these days (with the exception of one, but it's difference is minute). In fact they used to be exaggerated in the past, for example Shaheen-II's 2000km (actual 1500km).





ghazi768 said:


> I do not think that there is any air-launched Babur project, first it will require more air-frame modifications to strengthen it and will also be a regression, Raad is more stealthier design because geared to be used in a certain conventional operational role as well.
> 
> When it comes to ranges, our announcements are more of 'declarations' of a minimum range with the aim to provide enough of calculations to opposite side for deterrence purpose. In past few years these 'declarations' are also done with an eye over the shoulder to a far bigger danger.
> 
> But lets say we were HONEST and gave an exact range. do you think it is a hi-hi? or probably a low-low profile. With cruise missiles basically being pilot less jets, wouldn't a hi-lo will result in about 40% increase in that stated range?
> 
> I think we should stop our curiosity about actual ranges this is for the planners to worry about, what is important is having a 'capability'.
> 
> Yes, I agree with you that India has more to contend with. For example, an SLCM capability is certainly not exactly equivalent to SLBM capability when it comes to second strike capability. But operationally, which is more offensive? if I am not wrong SLCM capability, whether nuclear or conventional, is considered more offensive because of its ability to surprise. It has elements of second strike but for an enemy presents a larger dilemma as a first strike capability.
> 
> Also Indian Navy is still long way off from having a four ship, all time available second strike capability, it will at best attain it by 2025 or later. By 2022-24, we'll have 7-9 submarines with at-least SLCM capability, I think that will provide a sizeable offensive force to contend with.


hi can any of you guys give me the notam warning issued for the launch, as i understand the launch took place late last year but i cant find the post.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Deterrent

Blue Marlin said:


> hi can any of you guys give me the notam warning issued for the launch, as i understand the launch took place late last year but i cant find the post.


https://www.paknavy.gov.pk/securite/20161226SEC 437.txt

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Blue Marlin

The Deterrent said:


> https://www.paknavy.gov.pk/securite/20161226SEC 437.txt


cheers pal!
appreciated


----------



## JamD

The Deterrent said:


> https://www.paknavy.gov.pk/securite/20161226SEC 437.txt


Are we really sure the test we saw was conducted under THIS NOTAM? I ask because the area specified by this NOTAM only has this tiny piece of land in it:






If we assume 
1- That this was the NOTAM for the Babur 3 test we saw
2- The footage we saw was from one single test
3- Babur 3 was tested at its maximum range

then we can say that is the piece of land it hit and it flew a loop around in the area to fly its maximum range. But of course, this is a lot of assumptions.


----------



## The Deterrent

JamD said:


> Are we really sure the test we saw was conducted under THIS NOTAM? I ask because the area specified by this NOTAM only has this tiny piece of land in it:
> View attachment 367892


Yeah, 100% sure. Do keep in mind that this is a Naval Navigational Warning, and not a NOTAM (per se), which means this specific restriction applies to the naval traffic only. A NOTAM must also have been issued, but the CAA website is so difficult to explore, I dropped the idea.
Now, the weapon crossed over the coast approx 40km east of Ormara according to the video, an area not included in the warning. However, Ormara houses a PN base and given the magnitude of the whole thing, it must have been cordoned off manually by PN boats. Besides, that region gets blocked any way for naval traffic because of the land protrusion at Ormara.

See approx locations as shown by the video:
1. Where it crosses over land.
2. Second scene over land.
3. Most probable target region, as this area has the hills as shown in video.




(credit for geo-locating 1 & 2 goes to twitter user raj47, gotta give it where its due)


> If we assume
> 1- That this was the NOTAM for the Babur 3 test we saw
> 2- The footage we saw was from one single test
> 3- Babur 3 was tested at its maximum range
> 
> then we can say that is the piece of land it hit and it flew a loop around in the area to fly its maximum range. But of course, this is a lot of assumptions.


Both 1 & 2 are true. However, testing at max range isn't necessary for CMs, since after the system starts the navigation over land, everything except payload is usually verified and there is no absolute necessity for it to go too deep in-land.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## JamD

The Deterrent said:


> Yeah, 100% sure. Do keep in mind that this is a Naval Navigational Warning, and not a NOTAM (per se), which means this specific restriction applies to the naval traffic only. A NOTAM must also have been issued, but the CAA website is so difficult to explore, I dropped the idea.
> Now, the weapon crossed over the coast approx 40km east of Ormara according to the video, an area not included in the warning. However, Ormara houses a PN base and given the magnitude of the whole thing, it must have been cordoned off manually by PN boats. Besides, that region gets blocked any way for naval traffic because of the land protrusion at Ormara.
> 
> See approx locations as shown by the video:
> 1. Where it crosses over land.
> 2. Second scene over land.
> 3. Most probable target region, as this area has the hills as shown in video.
> View attachment 367894
> 
> (credit for geo-locating 1 & 2 goes to raj47, gotta give it where its due)
> 
> Both 1 & 2 are absolutely true, if there was any question about it, you'd hear it first from me. However, testing at max range isn't necessary for CMs, since after the system starts the navigation over land, everything except payload is usually verified and there is no absolute necessity for it to go too deep in-land. But of course it will be tested to its limits in the future.


I was trying to find those points 1,2,3 (on your map) too but it seems it has already been done! Thanks! 



The Deterrent said:


> Yeah, 100% sure. Do keep in mind that this is a Naval Navigational Warning, and not a NOTAM (per se), which means this specific restriction applies to the naval traffic only. A NOTAM must also have been issued, but the CAA website is so difficult to explore, I dropped the idea.
> Now, the weapon crossed over the coast approx 40km east of Ormara according to the video, an area not included in the warning. However, Ormara houses a PN base and given the magnitude of the whole thing, it must have been cordoned off manually by PN boats. Besides, that region gets blocked any way for naval traffic because of the land protrusion at Ormara.
> 
> See approx locations as shown by the video:
> 1. Where it crosses over land.
> 2. Second scene over land.
> 3. Most probable target region, as this area has the hills as shown in video.
> View attachment 367894
> 
> (credit for geo-locating 1 & 2 goes to twitter user raj47, gotta give it where its due)
> 
> Both 1 & 2 are true. However, testing at max range isn't necessary for CMs, since after the system starts the navigation over land, everything except payload is usually verified and there is no absolute necessity for it to go too deep in-land.







Doesn't this portion of video suggest the missile is flying westwards? I say this because notice the direction of the features on the ground and the faint coastline in the back. It doesn't seem it flew straight to the target wherever it was.

This would of course suggest some sort of terminal maneuvering.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The Deterrent

JamD said:


> View attachment 367895
> 
> Doesn't this portion of video suggest the missile is flying westwards? I say this because notice the direction of the features on the ground and the faint coastline in the back. It doesn't seem it flew straight to the target wherever it was.


Yeah you're right, I overlooked this. Kudos!
Anyways it was just an approximate guess. Its evident that the region north-east of Ormara is where it flew over land.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Thorough Pro

Sir, let me dare rephrase your sentence,

"In time Pakistan will declare SLBM capability also, our nuclear ambitions were/are not limited to only a few delivery options". We believe in peace and progress and no war, but if war is imposed upon us then we believe in total destruction.




Bilal Khan 777 said:


> In Time, Pakistan will also have SLBM capability. The nuclear triad doesn't limit us to SLCM only, which has now been publicly acknowledged.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## shhh

pakistanipower said:


> No bro we don't need an ICBM we have no global ambitions



We should have an ICBM.

We need it to keep USA from threatening us again.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Shaheer ul haq said:


> We should have an ICBM.
> 
> We need it to keep USA from threatening us again.


the simple answer is big* "NO"*


----------



## The SC

TMA said:


> They are already at war covertly.
> I still think it is better to have all the defence possible at one's disposal as one never knows. Zionist NATO does not consider Pakistan a friend irrespective of major non NATO ally.


Usrael has a 10 000 km range ICBM, While all the Arabs are at max 1000 km range and Iran is at around 2000 km!?


----------



## war&peace

tarrar said:


> I am very happy & congrats to all.
> 
> Meanwhile in India, they cannot stop their crap.


Our happiness is a grief for them, our gains are a loss for them whether is CPEC or Kashmir..and still they talk about peace and friendship...shameless hypocrites. We can never be friends and we should scratch this thought of friendship off our minds.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## war&peace

pakistanipower said:


> the simple answer is big* "NO"*


I used to be against the acquisition of an ICBM but the recent events have changed my mind. Pakistan needs an ICBM and soon they will realise it but the best thing is that Pakistan has the capability and there was already an ICBM program which was capped or slow down and it most probably it was not flight tested except in the lab and simulations.


----------



## Rashid Mahmood

Starlord said:


> Thanks , have two more questions i have ..
> 1- Is PN considering any Destroyers for Future ?
> 2- What could be the possible reason for Changing of Square shape Launchers to Round shape Launcher ?



1. Yes they are.
2. Probably reduce the cross section of the missile launcher.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Chanakyaa

war&peace said:


> I used to be against the acquisition of an ICBM but the recent events have changed my mind. Pakistan needs an ICBM and* soon they will realise it but the best thing is that Pakistan has the capability* and there was already an ICBM program which was capped or slow down and it most probably it was not flight tested except in the lab and simulations.



Negative.

Hint : SUPARCO ( SLV Program )

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Windjammer

Just spoken to someone with some authority on the subject.
*She* confirms that it was definitely launched from a Submarine. !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Waqas Bin Adam

It was a bit over but not too much.


----------



## Safriz

Windjammer said:


> Just spoken to someone with some authority on the subject.
> *She* confirms that it was definitely launched from a Submarine. !!!


Yaar it clearly said in ISPR handout 
*"Launched from a submarine MOBILE platform"*
Pontoon isnt mobile its static.


----------



## Panther 57

Windjammer said:


> Just spoken to someone with some authority on the subject.
> *She* confirms that it was definitely launched from a Submarine. !!!


Interesting part is that most of the assets we have are mobile. Good for us and itchy for others.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Windjammer

Panther 57 said:


> Interesting part is that most of the assets we have are mobile. Good for us and itchy for others.


Yup, shoot ' n scoot.
Another interesting point made was that although it was fired from a Sub but overall the authority was another establishment.
@Bratva , you mentioned the authority elsewhere. DSA or something.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Safriz

Windjammer said:


> Yup, shoot ' n scoot.
> Another interesting point made was that although it was fired from a Sub but overall the authority was another establishment.


So that means the subs are integrated with strategic command?
Thats too many things happening in just one tests.
Surely they werent doing it for the first time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Windjammer

شاھین میزایل said:


> So that means the subs are integrated with strategic command?
> Thats too many things happening in just one tests.
> *Surely they werent doing it for the first time.*


Well, all i can say is that it certainly sounded as an ongoing thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## The Deterrent

Windjammer said:


> Just spoken to someone with some authority on the subject.
> *She* confirms that it was definitely launched from a Submarine. !!!


Windy, I can't ask you to trust me or anything, but the day Pakistan does launch Babur from a submarine (Agostas), it will be clearly stated and shown. Lets just say that the 'professionals' here seem to think otherwise because it is a little bit over their pay-grade and conversations over lunches don't really tell the whole picture.

Have a nice day.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Safriz

The Deterrent said:


> Windy, I can't ask you to trust me or anything, but the day Pakistan does launch Babur from a submarine (Agostas), it will be clearly stated and shown. Lets just say that the 'professionals' seem to think otherwise because it is a little bit over their pay-grade and mess conversations don't really tell the whole picture.
> 
> Have a nice day.


Yaar.. Mobile submarine platform as stated in ISPR news release couldn't have been a pontoon.
Pontoons are static.


----------



## The Deterrent

شاھین میزایل said:


> Yaar.. Mobile submarine platform as stated in ISPR news release couldn't have been a pontoon.
> Pontoons are static.


"Mobile underwater platform", it was stated. 
Indeed, pontoons are static. Unless you build one that can dive/submerge/move i.e. simulate everything a sub can do as far as SLCM firing is concerned.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Safriz

The Deterrent said:


> "Mobile underwater platform", it was stated.
> Indeed, pontoons are static. Unless you build one that can dive/submerge/move i.e. simulate everything a sub can do as far as SLCM firing is concerned.


That's not how it's done anywhere in the world.
Either it's pontoon which is static or it's the sub. But i see what u r doing here


----------



## Khanate

war&peace said:


> I used to be against the acquisition of an ICBM but the recent events have changed my mind. Pakistan needs an ICBM and soon they will realise it but the best thing is that Pakistan has the capability and there was already an ICBM program which was capped or slow down and it most probably it was not flight tested except in the lab and simulations.




What events would those be?


----------



## Windjammer

The Deterrent said:


> Windy, I can't ask you to trust me or anything, but the day Pakistan does launch Babur from a submarine (Agostas), it will be clearly stated and shown. Lets just say that the 'professionals' seem to think otherwise because it is a little bit over their pay-grade and conversations over lunches don't really tell the whole picture.
> 
> Have a nice day.


Dear, all i can say is that i stressed on two points, I.E NOTAMS and the launch source.
I was clearly told that it was a Submarine but what kind can not be disclosed... supposedly we should hear more details in coming days.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## AUz

XiNiX said:


> *Negative.*
> 
> Hint : SUPARCO ( SLV Program )



Double Negative.

Pakistan does have the capability to launch a 5000km missile (although the complete deterrent would take years to establish).

It's not integrated, one piece ready to fire. But upon orders under pressing needs, conducting a test at such range wouldn't be much of an issue for our relevant institutions.

This information is credible.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Deterrent

شاھین میزایل said:


> That's not how it's done anywhere in the world.
> Either it's pontoon which is static or it's the sub. But i see what u r doing here


Oh we do a quite a bit of stuff thats not done anywhere else, we did so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
No, it isn't that black and white. I'm not doing anything.



Windjammer said:


> Dear, all i can say is that i stressed on two points, I.E NOTAMS and the launch source.
> I was clearly told that it was a Submarine but what kind can not be disclosed... supposedly we should hear more details in coming days.


Well if you wanna call a submersible, which can travel a few kilometers and fire a single object once only, a submarine...then by all means, why not.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bratva

The Deterrent said:


> Oh we do a quite a bit of stuff thats not done anywhere else, we did so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
> No, it isn't that black and white. I'm not doing anything.
> 
> 
> Well if you wanna call a submersible, which can travel a few kilometers and fire a single object once only, a submarine...then by all means, why not.



Most probable firing mechanism of SLCM.


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

passingthrough said:


> With this test i rate Pakistan only next to usa and china in technology in the world. Kudos to all Pakistanis.



I know. Liked you sarcasm so up voted it.


----------



## The Deterrent

Bratva said:


> Most probable firing mechanism of SLCM.


That was the prototype canister used to develop the multi-tube launch system for Babur-1 GLCM. It has nothing to do with the SLCM.The SLCM was designed to be launched via 533mm torpedo tubes, in an encapsulated configuration.
The platform in question here has a horizontal torpedo tube, while being able to move underwater.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Chanakyaa

AUz said:


> Double Negative.
> 
> Pakistan does have the capability to launch a 5000km missile (although the complete deterrent would take years to establish).
> 
> It's not integrated, one piece ready to fire. But upon orders under pressing needs, conducting a test at such range wouldn't be much of an issue for our relevant institutions.
> 
> This information is credible.



Capability wise, N. Korea , IRAN , South Africa , Japan and almost every nation which can launch a V2 like Rocket has the basic foundations to reach the Moon and Build an ICBM.

Even India Reached Mars. But NOT an ICBM with 12K Range.

Plz do note This is an Era where Fighter "Numbers" dont matter , "Servicilbility" does.
Thaths the "naked" Reality and it Really matters especially when it comes to War.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## war&peace

Khanate said:


> What events would those be?



India's test of an ICBM
No condemnation or sanctions by the international community especially USA
Inclusion of India in MTCR
Granting priority status to India by USA
India's test of SLBM
To augment Pakistan's 2nd strike capability
Geopolitical advantage

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## raazh

The Deterrent said:


> Well if you wanna call a submersible, which can travel a few kilometers and fire a single object once only, a submarine...then by all means, why not.



Is that a manned submersible object or unmanned? or is it like a rudimentary midget sub? Will it be possible to develop the concept further and can have multiple fully functional midget subs able to fire SLCM ?


----------



## The Deterrent

raazh said:


> Is that a manned submersible object or unmanned? or is it like a rudimentary midget sub? Will it be possible to develop the concept further and can have multiple fully functional midget subs able to fire SLCM ?


Unfortunately I won't be able to elaborate further. However no, it isn't anything like a midget sub. It is strictly a test platform.
Once the SLCM matures, Agostas will be able to launch them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bratva

Windjammer said:


> Yup, shoot ' n scoot.
> Another interesting point made was that although it was fired from a Sub but overall the authority was another establishment.
> @Bratva , you mentioned the authority elsewhere. DSA or something.



NSFC FT. SPD & NESCOM


----------



## raazh

The Deterrent said:


> Unfortunately I won't be able to elaborate further. However no, it isn't anything like a midget sub. It is strictly a test platform.
> Once the SLCM matures, Agostas will be able to launch them.


Fair enough. I take ur word for it. However looking back at the recent (5-6years) disclosures on this subject and the way that missile hit the flag .. IMO the system does seem to be pretty mature and fully deployed. But thats just my opinion


----------



## The Deterrent

raazh said:


> Fair enough. I take ur word for it. However looking back at the recent (5-6years) disclosures on this subject and the way that missile hit the flag .. IMO the system does seem to be pretty mature and fully deployed. But thats just my opinion


Let's just say that those disclosures were not entirely accurate. Anyways, the system is that mature (post-boost phase) because it is essentially deploying the same technologies as land based Babur. Only the underwater launch, water clearance, booster ignition and capsule ejection are the new parameters needing verification.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Windjammer

Bratva said:


> NSFC FT. SPD & NESCOM



Yup, the person mentioned SPD.....which was the authority for the recent test.
What establishment does SPD represents.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bratva

The Deterrent said:


> Let's just say that those disclosures were not entirely accurate. Anyways, the system is that mature (post-boost phase) because it is essentially deploying the same technologies as land based Babur. Only the underwater launch, water clearance, booster ignition and capsule ejection are the new parameters needing verification.



On an entirely unrelated matter. Navy got to keep eye on Extremist elements. We don't want submarine with nuke babur in it in a hostile takeover situation like that of Frigate take over 2 years ago. Navy is the weakest link in containing the extremist elements.



raazh said:


> Fair enough. I take ur word for it. However looking back at the recent (5-6years) disclosures on this subject and the way that missile hit the flag .. IMO the system does seem to be pretty mature and fully deployed. But thats just my opinion



As per one video clip of Dr.Samar Mubarikmand and news reports that appeared in media in 2012 . Babur-1 fully matured and went into mass production in 2012. 7 years after its first test and limited production. Babur II and III tested in 2016. Give it 2-3 years to fully mature and going into mass production until all the kinks are removed and system become matured to be deployed with 100 % effectiveness.

By Kinks I mean, The new updates avionics will need to be validated again and again just like How android rolls Beta versions of OS and then the Stable version after wards.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The Deterrent

Bratva said:


> On an entirely unrelated matter. Navy got to keep eye on Extremist elements. We don't want submarine with nuke babur in it hostile takeover like that of Frigate take over 2 years ago. Navy is the weakest link in containing the extremist elements.


True. In that regard, the crew of those subs must be filtered through the reliability program SPD has for these purposes. Furthermore, since there wouldn't be any physical integration possible on the sub, I believe the codes would either come from the VLF facility or stored on-board and used by authorized personnel only (as done by USN till late 90s). Absolutely nothing can be done unless the weapon is armed using the correct procedure and codes.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Bratva

Windjammer said:


> Yup, the person mentioned SPD.....which was the authority for the recent test.
> What establishment does SPD represents.



Since NSFC comes under SPD and SPD comes under technically Joint chiefs of Staff. So Army has partial stake in it as of running Naval Strategic command

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Deterrent

Bratva said:


> Since NSFC comes under SPD and SPD comes under technically Joint chiefs of Staff. So Army has partial stake in it as of running Naval Strategic command


NCA is the highest authority in this matter and sits on top of the hierarchy, Joint Chief is a part of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Bratva

The Deterrent said:


> True. In that regard, the crew of those subs must be filtered through the reliability program SPD has for these purposes. Furthermore, since there wouldn't be any physical integration possible on the sub, I believe the codes would either come from the VLF facility or stored on-board and used by authorized personnel only (as done by USN till late 90s). Absolutely nothing can be done unless the weapon is armed using the correct procedure and codes.



I know it sound bitchy, but since we are discussing theoretical scenarios. Only one VLF facility that too at karachi is like inviting a burglar to house to rob you off easily. If another base in not constructed in Balochistan in 5 year time frame and india attacks, one of their first task would be to destroy the only VLF base of Pakistan. Whats the use of single VLF if it is going to get destroyed in first 24-48 hours and those theoretical nuke subs would be running headless making the crew more dangerous and fidgety. and could possibly launch nuke attack if they think they are not being able to communicate with high command because Pakistan has been nuked.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The Deterrent

Bratva said:


> I know it sound bitchy, but since we are discussing theoretical scenarios. Only one VLF facility that too at karachi is like inviting a burglar to house to rob you off easily. If another base in not constructed in Balochistan in 5 year time frame and india attacks, one of their first task would be to destroy the only VLF base of Pakistan. Whats the use of single VLF if it is going to get destroyed in first 24-48 hours and those theoretical nuke subs would be running headless making the crew more dangerous and fidgety. and could possibly launch nuke attack if they think they are not being able to communicate with high command because Pakistan has been nuked.


Haha of course.
Well you're absolutely right, the chain of command should be strong and reliable. I believe a second facility can be established in Balochistan, somewhere near Turbat or Ormara. HF/VHF/UHF communication is there for backup anyways, though the sub needs to surface or deploy a comms buoy, which might give away its location.
The second-strike capability is an ongoing thing at the moment. With the establishment of NSFC, VLF facility, S-26/S-30 contracts and SLCM tests, Pakistan is building it up at a good pace. An operationally credible capability could be attained around 2020-2022.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Safriz

Bratva said:


> Most probable firing mechanism of SLCM.


That tube is being used in the ground based launcher. It wasnt meant for sea



The Deterrent said:


> Oh we do a quite a bit of stuff thats not done anywhere else, we did so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
> No, it isn't that black and white. I'm not doing anything.
> 
> 
> Well if you wanna call a submersible, which can travel a few kilometers and fire a single object once only, a submarine...then by all means, why not.


I have to disagree as such a submersible platform is too expensive to build and even then it needs a control boat on surface sending signals vis a cable.
The ISPR video release shows the launch from quite a distance and we see no boats on surface.



Bratva said:


> I know it sound bitchy, but since we are discussing theoretical scenarios. Only one VLF facility that too at karachi is like inviting a burglar to house to rob you off easily. If another base in not constructed in Balochistan in 5 year time frame and india attacks, one of their first task would be to destroy the only VLF base of Pakistan. Whats the use of single VLF if it is going to get destroyed in first 24-48 hours and those theoretical nuke subs would be running headless making the crew more dangerous and fidgety. and could possibly launch nuke attack if they think they are not being able to communicate with high command because Pakistan has been nuked.


You do realize that attack on nuclear facilities itself is an initiative for launching nuclear war?


----------



## Thorough Pro

Naval Strategic Command was setup a few years ago with some very specific objectives in mind, with a critical "Things to do" list, and required funding. There are a number of things that need to be done to establish a credible 2nd strike capability, and things are progressing quietly on many fronts. Some developments are critical ground work that is not disclosed in the public and some is openly advertised, like the recent launch.

Remember, Pakistan never puts all its eggs in one basket, recent launch was a major milestone achievement disclosed to public, but it is not the only achievement, some are kept under wraps. A lot of sons and daughters are sweating day and night on challenging projects, some are already very successful, others are pretty close. All things will eventually be disclosed but only when the time is right.

I mentioned in an earlier post, there are some great projects underway with very good results, those who know, will never speak, because they love their country, they are calm and confident and quietly smile at enemy's delusions.

Just be positive, pay your taxes and choose your leaders sensibly. The only thing that will have a negative impact on the great work being done by our talented scientists and engineers, is political un-stability and its negative impact on our stabilising economy. Ensure these two things keep running smoothly and there will be many great news in near future.

May ALLAH protect and guide us.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## The Deterrent

شاھین میزایل said:


> I have to disagree as such a submersible platform is too expensive to build and even then it needs a control boat on surface sending signals vis a cable.
> The ISPR video release shows the launch from quite a distance and we see no boats on surface.


You are free to disagree with anything.


----------



## The Deterrent

crane berry said:


> As per press release they mentioned mobile platform and we are quite sure that they are more credible than you (A person sitting behind an ID who knows a 15 year keyboard analyst talking about missiles).


Yeah, I never said that the platform was not mobile. Thank you for your credibility concerns, I was very moved by them.


----------



## The Deterrent

crane berry said:


> Good for you and update your knowledge that submerged patoons are not mobile.


Great, let me check the rulebook which says that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiger Awan

Windjammer said:


> Yup, the person mentioned SPD.....which was the authority for the recent test.
> What establishment does SPD represents.



SPD handles all the strategic organisations of Pakistan. Previously they were all part of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission and PAEC reported directly to PM (under no ministry). But after nuke test they changed it. National Command Authority (NCA) was established and SPD was made its secretariat. DG SPD is a Lt Gen and all strategic organisations of Pakistan (PAEC, NESCOM, KRL, SUPARCO, PNRA etc) report to SPD

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bratva

شاھین میزایل said:


> That tube is being used in the ground based launcher. It wasnt meant for sea
> 
> 
> I have to disagree as such a submersible platform is too expensive to build and even then it needs a control boat on surface sending signals vis a cable.
> The ISPR video release shows the launch from quite a distance and we see no boats on surface.
> 
> 
> You do realize that attack on nuclear facilities itself is an initiative for launching nuclear war?



How come PNS hameed (VLF base) is a nuclear base ?


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

The Deterrent said:


> Let's just say that those disclosures were not entirely accurate. Anyways, the system is that mature (post-boost phase) because it is essentially deploying the same technologies as land based Babur. Only the underwater launch, water clearance, booster ignition and capsule ejection are the new parameters needing verification.


@The Deterrent I believe it was you led us to this earlier, but it appears that the Babur-3 SLCM test was done much in the same pattern as the MBDA SCALP Naval (for submarines):

"During September 2010, a high depth ignition test of SCALP Naval’s booster was organised by MBDA. The underwater test, which set the booster in operation for several seconds, was carried out at a significant depth in a Norwegian fjord using an instrumented model of a SCALP Naval rear section *secured in a submerged structure*."

http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-r...f-scalp-naval-in-its-submarine-configuration/

"Using an *underwater platform simulating the launch conditions* prevailing on the future Barracuda nuclear-powered attack submarine, this firing permitted all the intended test objectives to be demonstrated: the validation of the launch phase with the subsequent change of environment from water to air as well as the missile’s flight."

http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-r...of-scalp-naval-frances-future-cruise-missile/​
I think it's very telling that the ISPR release did not specify that a submarine - much less Agosta 90B - was used to test-fire the Babur-3. I think the ambiguity had more to do with poor communications skills in our PR ranks than any desire to just confuse people, but the term "underwater mobile platform" was specifically referring to a bespoke test system.

I am just curious about why the range was capped to 450 km. Is it because the Babur-3 was designed for a standard length torpedo tube (in the Agosta 90B)? In that case, there's limited room for the capsule, booster, and missile. If coupled with weight considerations (so as to maintain submarine speed), then a smaller and/or lighter - but shorter-range - turbofan makes sense. But surely, these restrictions wouldn't be in place with the next-gen SSPs, which could benefit from longer torpedo tubes? Or could these new SSPs use VLS that necessitate a (apparently) smaller Babur-3?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HRK

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> "Using an *underwater platform simulating the launch conditions* prevailing on the future Barracuda nuclear-powered attack submarine, this firing permitted all the intended test objectives to be demonstrated: the validation of the launch phase with the subsequent change of environment from water to air as well as the missile’s flight."
> 
> http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-r...of-scalp-naval-frances-future-cruise-missile/
> I think it's very telling that the ISPR release did not specify that a submarine








@ 0:13 but I find it difficult some thing similar for babar-3 .....





reason pushing tug was missing in our case ... so until unless the firing system/ mechanism was autonomous & submersible it is difficult to believe it was not a submarine for babar-3 test

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Safriz

HRK said:


> @ 0:13 but I find it difficult some thing similar for babar-3 .....
> View attachment 368530
> 
> 
> reason pushing tug was missing in our case ... so until unless the firing system/ mechanism was autonomous & submersible it is difficult to believe it was not a submarine for babar-3 test
> View attachment 368529


Yes but in using a pontoons underwater,there are always surface vehicles visible nearby as pontoon needs to be controlled from surface.
There are no surface crafts / boats/Tug boats visible in Babur test.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Maybe the footage was taken from the tug (with a very long chain)?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Basel

Bratva said:


> I know it sound bitchy, but since we are discussing theoretical scenarios. Only one VLF facility that too at karachi is like



Turbat is also VLF station now if I m not wrong.




"Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> @The Deterrent I believe it was you led us to this earlier, but it appears that the Babur-3 SLCM test was done much in the same pattern as the MBDA SCALP Naval (for submarines):
> 
> "During September 2010, a high depth ignition test of SCALP Naval’s booster was organised by MBDA. The underwater test, which set the booster in operation for several seconds, was carried out at a significant depth in a Norwegian fjord using an instrumented model of a SCALP Naval rear section *secured in a submerged structure*."
> 
> http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-r...f-scalp-naval-in-its-submarine-configuration/
> 
> "Using an *underwater platform simulating the launch conditions* prevailing on the future Barracuda nuclear-powered attack submarine, this firing permitted all the intended test objectives to be demonstrated: the validation of the launch phase with the subsequent change of environment from water to air as well as the missile’s flight."
> 
> http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-r...of-scalp-naval-frances-future-cruise-missile/​
> I think it's very telling that the ISPR release did not specify that a submarine - much less Agosta 90B - was used to test-fire the Babur-3. I think the ambiguity had more to do with poor communications skills in our PR ranks than any desire to just confuse people, but the term "underwater mobile platform" was specifically referring to a bespoke test system.
> 
> I am just curious about why the range was capped to 450 km. Is it because the Babur-3 was designed for a standard length torpedo tube (in the Agosta 90B)? In that case, there's limited room for the capsule, booster, and missile. If coupled with weight considerations (so as to maintain submarine speed), then a smaller and/or lighter - but shorter-range - turbofan makes sense. But surely, these restrictions wouldn't be in place with the next-gen SSPs, which could benefit from longer torpedo tubes? Or could these new SSPs use VLS that necessitate a (apparently) smaller Babur-3?



There was a video posted at PDF which shows how Tomahawk SLCM is launched and it's different procedure then AShM like SM-39, Harpoon, YJ-82 etc.

Range could be low due to various factors, or just full range not announced.


----------



## Safriz

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> @The Deterrent I believe it was you led us to this earlier, but it appears that the Babur-3 SLCM test was done much in the same pattern as the MBDA SCALP Naval (for submarines):
> 
> "During September 2010, a high depth ignition test of SCALP Naval’s booster was organised by MBDA. The underwater test, which set the booster in operation for several seconds, was carried out at a significant depth in a Norwegian fjord using an instrumented model of a SCALP Naval rear section *secured in a submerged structure*."
> 
> http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-r...f-scalp-naval-in-its-submarine-configuration/
> 
> "Using an *underwater platform simulating the launch conditions* prevailing on the future Barracuda nuclear-powered attack submarine, this firing permitted all the intended test objectives to be demonstrated: the validation of the launch phase with the subsequent change of environment from water to air as well as the missile’s flight."
> 
> http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-r...of-scalp-naval-frances-future-cruise-missile/​
> I think it's very telling that the ISPR release did not specify that a submarine - much less Agosta 90B - was used to test-fire the Babur-3. I think the ambiguity had more to do with poor communications skills in our PR ranks than any desire to just confuse people, but the term "underwater mobile platform" was specifically referring to a bespoke test system.
> 
> I am just curious about why the range was capped to 450 km. Is it because the Babur-3 was designed for a standard length torpedo tube (in the Agosta 90B)? In that case, there's limited room for the capsule, booster, and missile. If coupled with weight considerations (so as to maintain submarine speed), then a smaller and/or lighter - but shorter-range - turbofan makes sense. But surely, these restrictions wouldn't be in place with the next-gen SSPs, which could benefit from longer torpedo tubes? Or could these new SSPs use VLS that necessitate a (apparently) smaller Babur-3?


MBDA makes those missiles for international market to be deployed on various types of submarines not one.
So it is feasible for them to invest in such specialist underwater vehicle to mimic submarine launch instead of using an actual submarine in which case they will have to use many types.
Is that the same case with Pakistan?


----------



## HRK

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Maybe the footage was taken from the tug (with a very long chain)?



or may be Augosta-70 class submarine was used ..... just a wild wild guess.... as they also have 21 inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes ..... ???

http://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/hashmat_agosta_70.pdf?_=1341879210
according to this 21.7 in (550 mm) torpedo tubes ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Deterrent

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> @The Deterrent I believe it was you led us to this earlier, but it appears that the Babur-3 SLCM test was done much in the same pattern as the MBDA SCALP Naval (for submarines):
> 
> "During September 2010, a high depth ignition test of SCALP Naval’s booster was organised by MBDA. The underwater test, which set the booster in operation for several seconds, was carried out at a significant depth in a Norwegian fjord using an instrumented model of a SCALP Naval rear section *secured in a submerged structure*."
> 
> http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-r...f-scalp-naval-in-its-submarine-configuration/
> 
> "Using an *underwater platform simulating the launch conditions* prevailing on the future Barracuda nuclear-powered attack submarine, this firing permitted all the intended test objectives to be demonstrated: the validation of the launch phase with the subsequent change of environment from water to air as well as the missile’s flight."
> 
> http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-r...of-scalp-naval-frances-future-cruise-missile/​
> I think it's very telling that the ISPR release did not specify that a submarine - much less Agosta 90B - was used to test-fire the Babur-3. I think the ambiguity had more to do with poor communications skills in our PR ranks than any desire to just confuse people, but the term "underwater mobile platform" was specifically referring to a bespoke test system.
> 
> I am just curious about why the range was capped to 450 km. Is it because the Babur-3 was designed for a standard length torpedo tube (in the Agosta 90B)? In that case, there's limited room for the capsule, booster, and missile. If coupled with weight considerations (so as to maintain submarine speed), then a smaller and/or lighter - but shorter-range - turbofan makes sense. But surely, these restrictions wouldn't be in place with the next-gen SSPs, which could benefit from longer torpedo tubes? Or could these new SSPs use VLS that necessitate a (apparently) smaller Babur-3?



The Naval SCALP test you are referring to was about booster ignition at high depths. No missile was involved in this case, in plain words, they secured the booster to a mechanism and submerged to the desired depth and ignited it. Now questions arise because normally the booster only fires after the missile emerges from water. However, there is another way of firing an SLCM, and that is by designing a booster that can ignite underwater and push the capsule out. Afterwards, the capsule just slides off (as shown in the SCALP photo).

The term 'underwater mobile platform' is the most accurate way to describe it. Don't know what to say more than that.

Given ISPR's current track record of specifying exact ranges, I believe it actually is 450km only. It might have to do with the shortening of length of the system (as diameter-wise it was good to go from day one). Yeah but S-26/30 won't have VLS.



HRK said:


> @ 0:13 but I find it difficult some thing similar for babar-3 .....
> View attachment 368530
> 
> 
> reason pushing tug was missing in our case ... so until unless the firing system/ mechanism was autonomous & submersible it is difficult to believe it was not a submarine for babar-3 test
> View attachment 368529


Now THAT, is a pontoon. However not a 'underwater mobile platform'.
BTW great find

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Safriz

The Deterrent said:


> The Naval SCALP test you are referring to was about booster ignition at high depths. No missile was involved in this case, in plain words, they secured the booster to a mechanism and submerged to the desired depth and ignited it. Now questions arise because normally the booster only fires after the missile emerges from water. However, there is another way of firing an SLCM, and that is by designing a booster that can ignite underwater and push the capsule out. Afterwards, the capsule just slides off (as shown in the SCALP photo).
> 
> *The term 'underwater mobile platform' is the most accurate way to describe it. Don't know what to say more than that.*
> 
> Given ISPR's current track record of specifying exact ranges, I believe it actually is 450km only. It might have to do with the shortening of length of the system (as diameter-wise it was good to go from day one). Yeah but S-26/30 won't have VLS.
> 
> 
> Now THAT, is a pontoon. However not a 'underwater mobile platform'.
> BTW great find



I am not trying to prove anything here. But ISPR used a different term for that.
They called the system you are describing "underwater controlled propulsion" in press release.
The term "underwater, mobile platform" was separately used.


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

شاھین میزایل said:


> I am not trying to prove anything here. But ISPR used a different term for that
> They called the system you are describing "underwater controlled propulsion" in press release.
> The term "underwater, mobile platform" was separately used.


"Underwater controlled propulsion" could mean anything from just using hydrodynamics to push the encapsulated missile from the tube into the water and its floatability to surface... to an underwater rocket booster.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Deterrent

شاھین میزایل said:


> I am not trying to prove anything here. But ISPR used a different term for that.
> They called the system you are describing "underwater controlled propulsion" in press release.
> The term "underwater, mobile platform" was separately used.


Yeah, the propulsion part was meant to be a booster. I was referring to the launching mechanism. Anyways, I believe it is time to put a lid on this topic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Safriz

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> "Underwater controlled propulsion" could mean anything from just using hydrodynamics to push the encapsulated missile from the tube into the water and its floatability to surface... to an underwater rocket booster.


In any case if Pakistan has developed an autonomous underwater test platform which can propel itself and fire missiles,that's a great achievement as such a platform can be used for extensive testing of weapons before integration into upcoming Chinese subs.


----------



## [--Leo--]

To be honest i would say only reason they have reduced the range because of torpedo tube 
torpedo length is (5.8m)
babur orignal length with booster (6.25m) 

if they had some other lunching platform then why would they reduce the range this makes all clear 
those who have doubt or confustion don't worry we will see more test of these one test doesn't cover all
and alot of question will asked from scientist so wait for it 


thanks


----------



## Safriz

[--Leo--] said:


> To be honest i would say only reason they have reduced the range because of torpedo tube
> torpedo length is (5.8m)
> babur orignal length with booster (6.25m)
> 
> if they had some other lunching platform then why would they reduce the range this makes all clear
> those who have doubt or confustion don't worry we will see more test of these one test doesn't cover all
> and alot of question will asked from scientist so wait for it
> 
> 
> thanks


Babur's exact length was never officially mentioned i guess??

In one of the IDEAS exhibition it was also said tohave "retargetting capability"


----------



## HRK

[--Leo--] said:


> torpedo length is (5.8m)



dear can you provide the source I tried to find the length of Torpedo tubes of both Agosta-70 & 90 sub but find no reliable source .... BTW read somewhere NATO standard for torpedo tube length is 6.6 meter ....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Must be fired from our new Nuclear Submarine


----------



## khansaheeb

SarthakGanguly said:


> Indian and Hindu extermination is now inevitable. Congrats.



Nah , if we wanted to that we would have done it centuries ago.


----------



## Shahid Khan khan

Welldone Pakistan.


----------



## Cyberian

SarthakGanguly said:


> You are pink. For abusing 'jahalat' and our faiths on 'your' forum. My sympathies.



What were you saying pinky?


----------

