# WMD & Missiles Question Thread



## saife

what is the maximum range of our cruise missile.


----------



## ajpirzada

700Km is for babur cruise misslie

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## sergente rehan

Are we capable to build ICBM?


----------



## BaburCM

sergente rehan said:


> Are we capable to build ICBM?



Yes, we most certainly can, but you have to consider the political implications. We can speculate that such a project is taking place in full secrecy due to the sensitive nature. We already have a two-stage Shaheen II IRBM which forms a solid base for an ICBM. More importantly, Pakistan is currently working on achieving MIRV warheads which will be a huge boost.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## sergente rehan

thanks for the usefull informations! another question about MIRV warheads can you give me some informations regarding this topic? i read on the other posts that they can be launched from the subs...


----------



## aboutimeee

does any one know or have an educated guess at the number of Babur cruise missiles we have and there unit cost?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 911Turbo

*Pakistan Army handed over air defense missile carriers *

Chairman of Pakistan's Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Ehsanul Haq has said the government is determined to provide a credible defense with all possible means at its disposal. According to the Pakistani daily Dawn, he was speaking at the handing-over ceremony of indigenously-built air defense missile carriers to regiments of the Pakistan Army at the Heavy Industries Taxila on Friday. He said the government was giving priority to operational preparedness of the armed forces and the Armed Forces Development Plan was a step in that direction. He said rapid mobility and integral air defense elements were the key areas of modernization of the Pakistan Army. "The handing over of air defense missile carriers is another milestone in our indigenous weapons capability," General Haq said. "Self-reliance, especially in the field of defense is a reflection of our national policy and the Heavy Industries Taxila plays an important role in it." He said that with the induction of the first batch of the missile carriers, the country's air defense capability would be further augmented. In his welcome address, Lt. Gen. Israr Ahmad Ghumman, chairman of the Heavy Industries Taxila, said the HIT was meeting the entire demand of tracked vehicles of the Pakistan Army. He said the missile carriers had been designed and built at one of HIT factories. He then invited Gen. Haq to hand over the symbolic scrolls to commanding officers of regiments receiving the first batch of the vehicles.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Aeri-Eye

Can someone please tell us how many Babur Cruise Missile (in quantity) does Pak have?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## viper`in`style

@above

The quantity is un know but what most of reports tells us that it is round about 12,000

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## viper`in`style

BaburCM said:


> Yes, we most certainly can, but you have to consider the political implications. We can speculate that such a project is taking place in full secrecy due to the sensitive nature. We already have a two-stage Shaheen II IRBM which forms a solid base for an ICBM. More importantly, Pakistan is currently working on achieving MIRV warheads which will be a huge boost.



Well about MIRV warheads,actually we achieved it in fact Jang news paper also published news about it.The after myth of having ICBM in the current situation of Pakistan could be deleterious for our National interest its political implications and horrible actually so we can have it but i feel we can handle the pressure of International community by having ICBM.


----------



## Hunter911

Here's a link of PLA misslie CJ-10 .
http://club.mil.news.sina.com.cn/thread-72687-1-6.html


----------



## Xtremeownage

Who manufactures the turbofan/turbojet engine for the Babur Cruise Missile?

Is it entirely indigenous?


----------



## Xtremeownage

viper`in`style said:


> @above
> 
> The quantity is un know but what most of reports tells us that it is round about 12,000



Source???

And how many of them are nuclear equipped?


----------



## Xtremeownage

how strong are pakistani nukes in kilotons/megatons?


----------



## mjnaushad

Xtremeownage said:


> Who manufactures the turbofan/turbojet engine for the Babur Cruise Missile?
> 
> Is it entirely indigenous?


NESCOM

All other agencies work under NESCOM as far i know.

CESAT--Center of Excellence in Science & Applied Technologies


----------



## Doctor09

can a cruise missile converted to surface to air missile??


----------



## TaimiKhan

doctor09 said:


> can a cruise missile converted to surface to air missile??



Nops, nothing is in the cruise missile which can make it into a SAM missile. 

SAM is totally a different game, cruise missile a different thing.


----------



## ameer219

Is Pakistan developing a more advanced version of Babur CM?


----------



## TaimiKhan

ameer219 said:


> Is Pakistan developing a more advanced version of Babur CM?



They have to and they must be doing. There is never stopping at one point, more better results and performance are always needed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Xtremeownage

how strong are pakistani nukes in kilotons/megatons? And how much is the damage radius?


----------



## nightcrawler

Can anybody well define the missile parts that are BOXED; technical aspects will be encouraged!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## fatman17

*01 April 2010 - 'Emerging Nuclear Postures in South Asia' (Audio)*

On Thursday 1 April 2010 Brigadier (retd. ) Feroz Khan, U.S Naval Postgraduate School spoke on &#8220;Emerging Nuclear Postures in South Asia&#8221;.



The Obama Administration has placed renewed emphasis on arms control and nuclear disarmament. However, some experts believe that regional strategic trends are in fact moving in the opposite direction to the emerging global norms. On Thursday 1 April, Brigadier (retired) Feroz Khan will lead a discussion meeting in which he will assess emerging Indian and Pakistani force postures and doctrines, and the significant impact these will have on regional security in the coming decades.



Feroz Hassan Khan is on the faculty of Department of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California. He previously served on numerous assignments in the United States, Europe, and South Asia and experienced combat action and command on active fronts. His last assignment was Director, Arms Control and Disarmament Affairs, within the Strategic Plans Division, Joint Services Headquarters. Khan had been a key contributor in formulating Pakistan&#8217;s security policies on nuclear and conventional arms control and strategic stability in South Asia and represented Pakistan in several multilateral and bilateral arms control negotiations. 



Among his academic degrees, Brigadier Khan holds a M.A. in International Relations from the School of Advanced International Studies, John Hopkins University, Washington DC and has held a series of visiting fellowships at Stanford University; the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars; the Brookings Institution; Centre for Non-Proliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies and at the Cooperative Monitoring Centre, Sandia National Laboratory. 



He has been a member of IISS since 1999 and is a regular participant in security-related international conferences, seminars and media. He has written numerous articles and book chapters in many reputed journals, newspapers and publications. His recently wrote an occasional paper &#8220;Pakistan&#8217;s Perspectives on Global Elimination of Nuclear Weapons&#8221; in Unblocking the Road to Zero, Henry L Stimson Centre series ; co-authored a book chapter &#8220;Pakistan: The Dilemma of Deterrence&#8221; in The Long Shadow: Nuclear weapons and Security in 21st Century Asia and &#8220;Pakistan&#8217;s Motivations and Calculations&#8221; in Asymmetric Warfare in South Asia: The Causes and Consequences of the Kargil Conflict. He is currently working on a book on Pakistan&#8217;s nuclear history titled Eating Grass: Pakistan and the Bomb, expected in 2011.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## MohsinAli

Military agencies normally opt not to expose the exact quantity of weapons it has.


----------



## Jhon Smitch1

They are super for collapsing large bunker and tunnel complexes or a series of buildings, killing damn near everybody inside and leaving no radiative contamination permitting rapid search and exploitation of the site. That should make perfectly good sense to anybody...


----------



## Jazzbot

awesome thread for non-military ppl like me.. 
thanks for sharing it, i am learning a lot.

What is MIRV ?
and what it is for.. plz throw some light..


----------



## Jigs

jazzy_superior said:


> awesome thread for non-military ppl like me..
> thanks for sharing it, i am learning a lot.
> 
> What is MIRV ?
> and what it is for.. plz throw some light..



*Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle* or MIRV

It is pretty much one launch vehicle that has multiple warheads that (each warhead) independently targets different areas to cause massive destruction. 





 Minuteman III has Nuclear MIRV warheads.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Jazzbot

but i am not able to understand how it works..? whether its a some sort of launching thing from which a missile or multiple missiles are launched..?

edit: 

you have already answered lol
thanks..


----------



## Jigs



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## nightcrawler

Prior to ICBM launch what/why is the *ring cloud* emerging????


----------



## khurasaan1

TaimiKhan said:


> They have to and they must be doing. There is never stopping at one point, more better results and performance are always needed.



I hope pak must develop a CM with MIRVs which can burst into multiples when sensing the threat in due coarse. or a smart CM..


----------



## CAPTAIN AMERICA

The main advantage of an anti missle system is its deterrence, its not much use against Russia for example because they have thousands of nuclear weapons, but against N Korea, Iran, or even in the event of war with Pakistan it works quite well because of the unknowen. Under the USA M.A.D (Mutual Assured Detructiion) doctrine even the use of one WMD or attempted calls for the complete destruction of the country or countrys involved. One missile shot at the USA could result in a 1000 being returned.


----------



## Nav

khurasaan1 said:


> I hope pak must develop a CM with MIRVs which can burst into multiples when sensing the threat in due coarse. or a smart CM..



Well , Purpose of Cruise Missile Is accurecy not destruction, if we want to destroy some specific tragets .. Then we will use cruise missile , e.g . AIR field , nuclear power Plants, Military Commad posts Etc


----------



## nightcrawler

Nav said:


> Well , Purpose of Cruise Missile Is accurecy not destruction, if we want to destroy some specific tragets .. Then we will use cruise missile , e.g . AIR field , nuclear power Plants, Military Commad posts Etc




What about Nuclear cruise missile


----------



## Nav

@nightcrawler:
don't you the Result ?


----------



## junaid1

PLz can anyone explain two staged / three staged ballistic messile


----------



## nightcrawler

junaid1 said:


> PLz can anyone explain two staged / three staged ballistic messile



if your are an engineer let me know I will try to open up some technical stuff
In layman terminology a missile can have sequentially arranged 2,3,4 engines(solid/liquid or a combination); lumped together in a single airframe. When one burn-out other starts & the previous is discarded from the airframe & process goes on & on!


----------



## CAPTAIN AMERICA

nightcrawler said:


> if your are an engineer let me know I will try to open up some technical stuff
> In layman terminology a missile can have sequentially arranged 2,3,4 engines(solid/liquid or a combination); lumped together in a single airframe. When one burn-out other starts & the previous is discarded from the airframe & process goes on & on!



I expect missile are mainly terror weapons, if some of you guys are engineer or have some kind of scientific knowledge.

If missiles carry conventional explosives say at most a 2000 lb war head, just how much damage can it do, perhaps 40 by 40 hole in the ground, if so it would take many thousands to take out a sq mile. How about guidance, the only reliable guidance would be a GPS system, I expect the USA has ways to take those out or off line in case of missile attacks. So would pakistan and iran have guidance systems to do more then Saddam Scuds.

I dont know, but I expect missile system are more of psychological war then reality.


----------



## nightcrawler

CAPTAIN AMERICA said:


> I expect missile are mainly terror weapons, if some of you guys are engineer or have some kind of scientific knowledge.
> 
> If missiles carry conventional explosives say at most a 2000 lb war head, just how much damage can it do, perhaps 40 by 40 hole in the ground, if so it would take many thousands to take out a sq mile. How about guidance, the only reliable guidance would be a GPS system, I expect the USA has ways to take those out or off line in case of missile attacks. So would pakistan and iran have guidance systems to do more then Saddam Scuds.
> 
> I dont know, but I expect missile system are more of psychological war then reality.



U are right Pakistan surely dont want any war especially in thses needy hours but we want our enemies to be rather *warned* or more still *threatened*

Same technique during Cold war you being Capt. of America would remember that


----------



## Tajdar adil

What is the advantage of cruise missile.


----------



## Arsalan

Tajdar adil said:


> What is the advantage of cruise missile.



accuracy!!

precesion!!

it would be better if you can search Cruise Misile on google and you will know all you want,,

regards!


----------



## Patriot

CAPTAIN AMERICA said:


> I expect missile are mainly terror weapons, if some of you guys are engineer or have some kind of scientific knowledge.
> 
> If missiles carry conventional explosives say at most a 2000 lb war head, just how much damage can it do, perhaps 40 by 40 hole in the ground, if so it would take many thousands to take out a sq mile. How about guidance, the only reliable guidance would be a GPS system, I expect the USA has ways to take those out or off line in case of missile attacks. So would pakistan and iran have guidance systems to do more then Saddam Scuds.
> 
> I dont know, but I expect missile system are more of psychological war then reality.


Dude what the hell are you smoking.These missiles are built for satisfying Indian p---y not USA.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Arsalan

Patriot said:


> Dude what the hell are you smoking.These missiles are built for satisfying Indian p---y not USA.



never the less, they are more or less a " Look we got em" slogan and might never see action if God Forbad war ever broke out.
this is the same case as with the Atomic bomb.

using an atomic bomb means that you are admitting the fact that you yourself are ready to be nuked and then you go ahead to nuke your enemy.

same goes with Ballistic missiles. with danger of loss of civilian lives, they might never see action.
the comming time is of Drones, laser guided mombs and cruise missiles!!!

regards!


----------



## nightcrawler

I have a question here

*What is the difference[if any] b/w IR sensor & Thermal Sight?? Also which is better in adverse weather conditions [~cloudy]*


----------



## thefailedgolddigger

Congress has long been concerned about whether U.S. policy advances the national interest in reducing the role of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and missiles that could deliver them. Recipients of Chinas technology reportedly include Pakistan and countries said by the State Department to have supported terrorism, such as Iran.

This CRS Report, updated as warranted, discusses the security problem of Chinas role in weapons proliferation and issues related to the U.S. policy response since the mid-1990s.

China has taken some steps to mollify U.S. and other foreign concerns about its role in weapons proliferation. Nonetheless, supplies from China have aggravated trends that result in ambiguous technical aid, more indigenous capabilities, longer-range missiles, and secondary (retransferred) proliferation.

According to unclassified intelligence reports submitted as required to Congress, China has been a key supplier of technology, particularly PRC entities providing nuclear and missile-related technology to Pakistan and missile-related technology to Iran.

Policy approaches in seeking PRC cooperation have concerned summits, sanctions, and satellite exports. On November 21, 2000, the Clinton Administration agreed to waive missile proliferation sanctions, resume processing licenses to export satellites to China, and discuss an extension of the bilateral space launch agreement, in return for another PRC promise on missile nonproliferation.

However, PRC proliferation activities have continued to raise questions about Chinas commitment to nonproliferation and the need for U.S. sanctions. The Bush Administration imposed sanctions on 20 occasions on various PRC entities (including state-owned entities) for troublesome transfers related to missiles and chemical weapons to Pakistan, Iran, or perhaps another country, including repeated sanctions on some serial proliferators.

Among those sanctions, in September 2001, the Administration imposed missile proliferation sanctions that effectively denied satellite exports, after a PRC company transferred technology to Pakistan, despite the promise of 2000. In September 2003, the State Department imposed additional sanctions on NORINCO, a defense industrial entity, effectively denying satellite exports to China.

However, for six times, the State Department waived this sanction for the ban on imports of other PRC government products related to missiles, space systems, electronics, and military aircraft, and issued a permanent waiver in 2007. Since 2009, the Obama Administration has imposed sanctions on four occasions on PRC entities for missile or other weapon proliferation.

Skeptics question whether Chinas cooperation in weapons nonproliferation warrants the U.S. pursuit of closer ties, even as sanctions were required against PRC technology transfers. Some criticize the imposition of U.S. sanctions targeting PRC entities but not the government. Others doubt the effectiveness of any stress on sanctions over diplomacy. Meanwhile, in 2002-2008, the U.S. approach relied on Chinas influence on North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons.

Beijing hosted the Six-Party Talks (last held in December 2008) with limited results. Chinas approach evolved to vote for some U.N. Security Council (UNSC) sanctions against nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran. Some still called for engaging more with Beijing to use its leverage against Pyongyang and Tehran. However, North Koreas second nuclear test in 2009 and military attacks against South Korea in 2010 prompted greater debate about the value of Chinas roles. After much diplomacy, the PRC voted in June 2009 for UNSC Resolution 1874 to expand sanctions previously imposed under Resolution 1718 in 2006 against North Korea and voted in June 2010 for UNSC Resolution 1929 for the fourth set of sanctions against Iran.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## thefailedgolddigger

Congress has long been concerned about whether U.S. policy advances the national interest in reducing the role of the People&#8217;s Republic of China (PRC) in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and missiles that could deliver them. Recipients of China&#8217;s technology reportedly include Pakistan and countries said by the State Department to have supported terrorism, such as Iran.

This CRS Report, updated as warranted, discusses the security problem of China&#8217;s role in weapons proliferation and issues related to the U.S. policy response since the mid-1990s.

China has taken some steps to mollify U.S. and other foreign concerns about its role in weapons proliferation. Nonetheless, supplies from China have aggravated trends that result in ambiguous technical aid, more indigenous capabilities, longer-range missiles, and secondary (retransferred) proliferation.

According to unclassified intelligence reports submitted as required to Congress, China has been a &#8220;key supplier&#8221; of technology, particularly PRC entities providing nuclear and missile-related technology to Pakistan and missile-related technology to Iran.

Policy approaches in seeking PRC cooperation have concerned summits, sanctions, and satellite exports. On November 21, 2000, the Clinton Administration agreed to waive missile proliferation sanctions, resume processing licenses to export satellites to China, and discuss an extension of the bilateral space launch agreement, in return for another PRC promise on missile nonproliferation.

However, PRC proliferation activities have continued to raise questions about China&#8217;s commitment to nonproliferation and the need for U.S. sanctions. The Bush Administration imposed sanctions on 20 occasions on various PRC &#8220;entities&#8221; (including state-owned entities) for troublesome transfers related to missiles and chemical weapons to Pakistan, Iran, or perhaps another country, including repeated sanctions on some &#8220;serial proliferators.&#8221;

Among those sanctions, in September 2001, the Administration imposed missile proliferation sanctions that effectively denied satellite exports, after a PRC company transferred technology to Pakistan, despite the promise of 2000. In September 2003, the State Department imposed additional sanctions on NORINCO, a defense industrial entity, effectively denying satellite exports to China.

However, for six times, the State Department waived this sanction for the ban on imports of other PRC government products related to missiles, space systems, electronics, and military aircraft, and issued a permanent waiver in 2007. Since 2009, the Obama Administration has imposed sanctions on four occasions on PRC entities for missile or other weapon proliferation.

Skeptics question whether China&#8217;s cooperation in weapons nonproliferation warrants the U.S. pursuit of closer ties, even as sanctions were required against PRC technology transfers. Some criticize the imposition of U.S. sanctions targeting PRC &#8220;entities&#8221; but not the government. Others doubt the effectiveness of any stress on sanctions over diplomacy. Meanwhile, in 2002-2008, the U.S. approach relied on China&#8217;s influence on North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons.

Beijing hosted the &#8220;Six-Party Talks&#8221; (last held in December 2008) with limited results. China&#8217;s approach evolved to vote for some U.N. Security Council (UNSC) sanctions against nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran. Some still called for engaging more with Beijing to use its leverage against Pyongyang and Tehran. However, North Korea&#8217;s second nuclear test in 2009 and military attacks against South Korea in 2010 prompted greater debate about the value of China&#8217;s roles. After much diplomacy, the PRC voted in June 2009 for UNSC Resolution 1874 to expand sanctions previously imposed under Resolution 1718 in 2006 against North Korea and voted in June 2010 for UNSC Resolution 1929 for the fourth set of sanctions against Iran.


----------



## nightcrawler

So I would like to have a question to be answered.
As proclaimed by the video the radar homing missiles upon the naval ships can be easily misguided using the said soft-kill system. *But what if the missile is active in nature like Kh-31AM/Kh-31PM. Can still this soft-kill system will work??*


----------



## musuoka

Will promote the focus on low prices and cost savings. 
"Consumers are more and more thoughtful than ever the price, especially in the daily procurement." When someone searches for a product, you know they are interested; report their use of publicity, you have the highest quality and most reasonable price, you more likely to win their clicks. "


----------



## gambit

nightcrawler said:


> So I would like to have a question to be answered.
> As proclaimed by the video the radar homing missiles upon the naval ships can be easily misguided using the said soft-kill system. *But what if the missile is active in nature like Kh-31AM/Kh-31PM. Can still this soft-kill system will work??*


Conditionally: Yes...And here is why...

There are two ways a target can be an 'emitter', meaning there are EM radiation coming off its body and intense enough to be detected:

1- The target itself is producing and transmitting EM radiation in some ways.
2- The target is reflecting EM radiation in some ways.

In the first case, there could be a communication radio antenna, or a rotating radar antenna, or even a simple beacon for safety purposes. In the second case, there is an external EM source that is impinging upon the target and the target is doing what is expecting of any body that is in the propagation path of an EM wave travel: reflect some of that EM wave.

A missile can exploit either behaviors to find this target.

In the first case, if the missile does not have its own radar transmitter, then the the missile is classified as a 'beamrider' type, meaning the missile contains only 1/2 of a radar processing system: the receiver portion, and that the missile must be launched in the general direction where the parent suspect that there might be an EM radiating source. The missile then home in on that source. The weakness here is that if the target stop transmitting for any reason, then the missile has no further guidance. The missile is generally designed to proceed on a straight course in hope that it will hit something valuable.

In the second case, if the target is not a producer but is reflecting EM radiation, then where is the source for that radiation that is bouncing off the target? The answer is either the missile is carrying its own radar transmitter or that the parent must be illuminating the target so the missile can home in in the reflected radiation, like this...







If the parent stop transmitting, the missile has nothing to work on.

If the missile is an active type, meaning it carries *BOTH* sections of a radar system: Transmitter and Receiver, then the parent can launch and depart. Hopefully then the missile is successful. If the missile is sufficiently sophisticated, then the parent can continue to illuminate the target with a more powerful radar and missile will process *TWO* reflected signals: the reflected signals from the parent radar and the reflected signals from its own radar. This make the entire system much more difficult to counter or deceived.

Now for the 'soft kill' concept...

A 'hard kill' is direct confrontation to physically destroy the attacker.

A 'soft kill' is the attempt to exhaust the attacker: Deception. The deception is accomplished via distraction. But in order for the deception to work, the method of distraction must be sufficiently convincing.

Say we have ship A with an RCS of 100 m2 filled with valuable 'stuff'. The best distraction is to build ship B with the same RCS or larger but filled with nothing. But then the entire scheme would be prohibitively expensive. So we move to electronics to create an EM impression of 100 m2 or larger.

An impression or facsimile or simulation are never as good as the real thing. In radar detection, a 1 meter square plate will reflect enough radiation that befit a 1 meter square plate. A 1/2 meter square plate will not produce the same effect so it must compensate somehow. The moment we use our own EM radiation to generate the equivalent of that other or 'missing' 1/2 meter square area, we increase the risk of having that simulation be rejected by the missile and therefore the distraction method fail.

If the missile is the 'beamrider' type, then the decoy must produce the greater RCS in order to distract the missile.

If the missile is the more sophisticated full active self contained radar guided type, then it becomes more problematic for the defender. He can try to produce a decoy with the greater RCS to distract the missile, but if the missile has the real ship's initial spatial location and is programmed to home in on that initial spatial location, then no distraction will work. The missile will ignore any larger RCS produced by anyone. If the missile is not that sophisticated, then the distraction method will work because usually such missiles are designed to home in on any larger RCS in its view at any time.

The best execution method for any 'soft kill' defense is early warning of incoming radar guided attackers. The defenders will create so much RCS and in so many clusters or even a total EM blanket of the area that any such sophisticated attacker will be sufficiently confused and distracted.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

any data about hatf 10 sam????????????????????????????????


----------



## XTREME

*What are the under development or newly launched nuclear missiles of Pakistan?*


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

XTREME said:


> *What are the under development or newly launched nuclear missiles of Pakistan?*


ghori 3 is cancelled 
while shaheen 3 is under development


----------



## ghazi52

wasm95 said:


> ghori 3 is cancelled
> while shaheen 3 is under development


Is there any reason for switching from liquid base to solid base, 
or we do not have advancement in liquid system.


----------



## XTREME

wasm95 said:


> ghori 3 is cancelled
> while shaheen 3 is under development



Best of luck!


----------



## Dazzler

ghazi52 said:


> Is there any reason for switching from liquid base to solid base,
> or we do not have advancement in liquid system.



solid fuel= more shelf life and quicker reaction time

liquid fuel fuel= less shelf life and higher reaction time


----------



## Skorpion

aboutimeee said:


> does any one know or have an educated guess at the number of Babur cruise missiles we have and there unit cost?


its still in R & D phase and while in that phase.. the unit cost can't be estimated because everytime u test it with some changes, the cost increase!
rough idea is like 200 million pkr

---------- Post added at 08:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 AM ----------




viper`in`style said:


> @above
> 
> The quantity is un know but what most of reports tells us that it is round about 12,000



aww it that's so. india is gonna weep 

---------- Post added at 09:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:59 AM ----------




mjnaushad said:


> NESCOM
> 
> All other agencies work under NESCOM as far i know.
> 
> CESAT--Center of Excellence in Science & Applied Technologies




NESCOM doesn't have the technology to develop turbo fan or turbojet engines for cruise missiles!
i guess they're chinese!


----------



## Skorpion

arsalanaslam123 said:


> accuracy!!
> 
> precesion!!
> 
> !



+ stealth, low profile, fly like an unnamed plane, bla bla bla


----------



## Skorpion

ghazi52 said:


> Is there any reason for switching from liquid base to solid base,
> or we do not have advancement in liquid system.



liquid fuel missiles have speed and accuracy issues.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Skorpion said:


> NESCOM doesn't have the technology to develop turbo fan or turbojet engines for cruise missiles!
> i guess they're chinese!



to bhai jan uney aap bana key detey ho


----------



## Skorpion

wasm95 said:


> to bhai jan uney aap bana key detey ho


 
ni bhai jaan wo import krty hain!!


----------



## killerx

viper`in`style said:


> @above
> 
> The quantity is un know but what most of reports tells us that it is round about 12,000


woooo thas way to much man thora kan karoo 

---------- Post added at 06:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:19 PM ----------




wasm95 said:


> ghori 3 is cancelled
> while shaheen 3 is under development


what why is ghori 3 cancelled man


----------



## killerx

Skorpion said:


> liquid fuel missiles have speed and accuracy issues.


yes they do but there thrust can be controlled by the guiding system on board as for solid fuel once fired cant be stopped only to self-destruct if some thing goes wrong

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## A.Rafay

killerx said:


> what why is ghori 3 cancelled man



The Ghauri-III was an intermediate-range ballistic missile which was cancelled during its development stage. The Ghauri-III reportedly started development around 1999 with a planned range of over 3,000 km. In May 2004 it was rumoured that the missile would be tested in June of that year. No test occurred in that year. Similarly in 2009 it was again reported that missile would be tested in August of that year but again no test took place.
It was reported on 28 May 2011 that, according to the memoirs of Abdul Qadeer Khan published that day, the funding for the development of the Ghauri III missile system was stopped in May 2000 by then President Pervez Musharraf. Around 50% of the missile's development project was completed by that time.

When Musharraf Stopped funding Ghauri 3 and decided to go on with Shaheen 3 Around 50% of the missile's development project was completed by that time, i think by now they should have completed Shaheen 3 and Ghauri 3 Also but are not testing it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Arsalan

killerx said:


> yes they do but there thrust can be controlled by the guiding system on board as for solid fuel once fired cant be stopped only to self-destruct if some thing goes wrong



both liquid and solid fuel* rockets/missiles* have there own advantages and disadvantages.

*Solid-fuel Rockets advantages*
Very stable, durable
More thrust for a similar size rocket

*Solid-fuel missiles disadvantages*
Can't be turned off- once the burn starts, it goes until fuel is used up
Fuel decomposes, must be replaced.

*Liquid-fuel missile advantages*
Variable thrust- the amount of fuel and rate of burn can be changed in flight
Liquid-fuel boosters are more easily re-usable 

*Liquid-fuel missile disadvantages*
Fragile, many complex parts
Oxidiser (liquid oxygen) must be kept extremely cold. 

*Solid propellant rockets* are much easier to store and handle than liquid propellant rockets. High propellant density makes for compact size as well. *These features plus simplicity and low cost make solid propellant rockets ideal for military applications.*
Their simplicity also makes solid rockets a good choice whenever large amounts of thrust are needed and cost is an issue. 
The Space Shuttle and many other orbital launch vehicles use solid-fueled rockets in their boost stages (solid rocket boosters) for this reason.

*A drawback to solid rockets* is that they cannot be throttled in real time, although a programmed thrust schedule can be created by adjusting the interior propellant geometry. Solid rockets can be vented to extinguish combustion or reverse thrust as a means of controlling range or accommodating warhead separation. 
Relative to liquid fuel rockets, solid fuel rockets have lower specific impulse. 

*Liquid fueled rockets *have higher specific impulse than solid rockets and are capable of being throttled, shut down, and restarted. Only the combustion chamber of a liquid fueled rocket needs to withstand high combustion pressures and temperatures and they can be regeneratively cooled by the liquid propellant. On vehicles employing turbopumps, the propellant tanks are at very much less pressure than the combustion chamber. For these reasons, most orbital launch vehicles use liquid propellants.
*The main difficulties with liquid propellants *are also with the oxidizers. These are generally at least moderately difficult to store and handle due to their high reactivity with common materials, may have extreme toxicity.
Liquid fueled rockets also require potentially troublesome valves and seals and thermally stressed combustion chambers, which increase the cost of the rocket thus not good for military use!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## krash

Whats the story behind this??


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

krash said:


> Whats the story behind this??


 From Pakistan With Love......and a middle finger ...................


----------



## A.Rafay

Does pakistan Have any Anti Missile defence systems??


----------



## Hyperion

A.Rafay said:


> Does pakistan Have any Anti Missile defence systems??


You get to build an effective ABM system once your missile program is mature enough, we are getting there as we started pretty late. 

And no, buying it won't help, that is if we can spare the cash for it. If we can get some help on crucial technologies like India got (such as Green Pine) etc etc, that would be helpful, however, the integration and kill vehicle needs to be ours.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armstrong

Hyperion said:


> You get to build an effective ABM system once your missile program is mature enough, we are getting there as we started pretty late.
> 
> And no, buying it won't help, that is if we can spare the cash for it. If we can get some help on crucial technologies like India got (such as Green Pine) etc etc, that would be helpful, however, the integration and kill vehicle needs to be ours.



Our program is already 2 decades old...how much more maturity are we looking into ?  

We have no long range SAMs to speak off...none !  

SPADA 2000 (Medium Ranged), the HQs (Short Ranged) & then we've got the Orleikons & the MANPADs - We're foOked !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Safriz

Don't think any of Pakistan's missiles have cryogenic propellants as they are expensive to keep in storage..
Pakistan's liquid propelled missiles must have any of the following fuels...



> T-Stoff (80% hydrogen peroxide, H2O2 as the oxidizer) and C-Stoff (methanol, CH3OH, and hydrazine hydrate, N2H4&#8226;n(H2O as the fuel) &#8211; Walter Werke HWK 109-509 engine used on Messerschmitt Me 163B Komet a rocket fighterplane of (World War II)
> nitric acid (HNO3) and kerosene &#8211; Soviet Scud-A, aka SS-1
> inhibited red fuming nitric acid (IRFNA, HNO3 + N2O4) and unsymmetric dimethyl hydrazine (UDMH, (CH3)2N2H2) &#8211; Soviet Scud-C, aka SS-1-c,-d,-e
> nitric acid 73% with dinitrogen tetroxide 27% (=AK27) and kerosene/gasoline mixture (=TM-185) &#8211; various Russian (USSR) cold-war ballistic missiles (R-12, Scud-B,-D), Iran: Shahab-5, North Korea: Taepodong-2
> hydrogen peroxide and kerosene &#8211; UK (1970s) Black Arrow, USA Development (or study): BA-3200
> hydrazine (N2H4) and red fuming nitric acid &#8211; Nike Ajax Antiaircraft Rocket
> Aerozine 50 and dinitrogen tetroxide &#8211; Titans 2&#8211;4, Apollo lunar module, Apollo service module, interplanatary probes (Such as Voyager 1 and Voyager 2)
> unsymmetric dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) and dinitrogen tetroxide &#8211; Proton rocket and various Soviet rockets
> monomethylhydrazine (MMH, (CH3)HN2H2) and dinitrogen tetroxide &#8211; Space Shuttle orbiter's Orbital maneuvering system (OMS) engines and Reaction control system (RCS) thrusters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hyperion

Yes. We are. If you were looking for truth, then you got it. 


Armstrong said:


> Our program is already 2 decades old...how much more maturity are we looking into ?
> 
> We have no long range SAMs to speak off...none !
> 
> SPADA 2000 (Medium Ranged), the HQs (Short Ranged) & then we've got the Orleikons & the MANPADs - We're foOked !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.Rafay

Armstrong said:


> Our program is already 2 decades old...how much more maturity are we looking into ?
> 
> We have no long range SAMs to speak off...none !
> 
> *SPADA 2000 (Medium Ranged), the HQs (Short Ranged) & then we've got the Orleikons & the MANPADs *- We're foOked !



Are these things effective in countering indias ballistic missiles and other missiles??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hyperion

No dude, not by a long shot! The only thing that keeps India away is our proximity to them.



A.Rafay said:


> Are these things effective in countering indias ballistic missiles and other missiles??



Cryogenic fueled engines is something that will take Pakistan multiple decades to understand, unless we get some help as India did. That is if we start looking for it right now!




Safriz said:


> Don't think any of Pakistan's missiles have cryogenic propellants as they are expensive to keep in storage..
> Pakistan's liquid propelled missiles must have any of the following fuels...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

A.Rafay said:


> Are these things effective in countering indias ballistic missiles and other missiles??



Yes ! But if its a nuclear missile or a thermobaric one it won't matter if it explodes right next to you or about 10 kms up top because you're still foOked as they have a fairly...fairly large area of effect & the way they work makes that irrelevant. 

But its going to be crucial in case of other missiles & the air-craft ! Remember the Egyptians had the upper-hand in the '73 War as long as they remained under cover of their SAMs; the moment they moved further ahead...the IAF ripped them to shreds !


----------



## Armstrong

Hyperion said:


> Yes. We are. If you were looking for truth, then you got it.



But why haven't we developed anything of the sort ? I thought a good Air-Defense system was a poor man's answer to an effective air-force ? Thats the way the Jordanians went & so did the Syrians & thats the prime reason why there isn't an aerial blockade over Syria like the one imposed over Libya so...so many months ago ! 

Surely we can't be that broke that we can't buy them off the shelf & surely we can't be that inept that we couldn't pull off an Al-Khalid or a JF-17 like JV with the Chinese ! What gives...why didn't we consider them ? Off the top of my head I could only think of a lack of importance attached to such systems by the PAF & the PA !


----------



## A.Rafay

Hyperion said:


> No dude, not by a long shot! The only thing that keeps India away is our proximity to them.
> 
> 
> 
> Cryogenic fueled engines is something that will take Pakistan multiple decades to understand, unless we get some help as India did. That is if we start looking for it right now!



that is one thing but in case of war or india fires its missile onto our land then we should be having appropriate mechanism to shoot their missile down before it reaches in any of our cities or villages?? like israels iron dome system protected most israeli areas from Hamas rockets. Turkey and kuwait are acquiring Patriotic missiles and india is also building ABM systems.


----------



## Hyperion

Who is Syria and what is Jordan? Are you kidding me? IAF will fry their nascent arses in couple of minutes. 

No, we are neither stupid nor penniless. We are unorganized, unwilling to take risks, and have lost confidence in our own abilities. If someone amongst us tries something, we sit back and cheer at his/her failure, never applaud him on his success.

We as a nation need to follow a "can do" mantra, and stop whining about all that is unwell with world and "Islamic Ummah" 




Armstrong said:


> But why haven't we developed anything of the sort ? I thought a good Air-Defense system was a poor man's answer to an effective air-force ? Thats the way the Jordanians went & so did the Syrians & thats the prime reason why there isn't an aerial blockade over Syria like the one imposed over Libya so...so many months ago !
> 
> Surely we can't be that broke that we can't buy them off the shelf & surely we can't be that inept that we couldn't pull off an Al-Khalid or a JF-17 like JV with the Chinese ! What gives...why didn't we consider them ? Off the top of my head I could only think of a lack of importance attached to such systems by the PAF & the PA !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armstrong

Hyperion said:


> Who is Syria and what is Jordan? Are you kidding me? IAF will fry their nascent arses in couple of minutes.
> 
> No, we are neither stupid nor penniless. We are unorganized, unwilling to take risks, and have lost confidence in our own abilities. If someone amongst us tries something, we sit back and cheer at his/her failure, never him on his success.
> 
> We as a nation need to follow a "can do" mantra, and stop whining about all that is unwell with world and "Islamic Ummah"



Nah...I don't buy into that ! We're getting the F-22Ps, the JF-17s, the Al-Khalids, MRBMs, SRBMs, tactical nukes, FACs, their advanced versions & so many other smaller goodies - Its not a lack of ambition that is hindering us ! Its a lack of importance associated with Long Range SAM for I can't recall a single instance in our past 20-30 years when we had them ! I think that as an answer to our threat assessment we're concentrating more on 'detection' hence the AWACs & the beefed up radar network (especially for the navy) & 'interception' in the form of F-16s as the higher-end & the JF-17 as the lower-end of the mix ! 

I think we may not value the Long Range SAM systems too highly enough otherwise we could have gone for what the Chinese have come up with or it could be that we're waiting for the Chinese systems to mature more (we don't have any other options) like we are with the J-10Bs ! 

And whats this got to do with the Muslim Ummah !  

The Syrians have the S-300s & the Jordanians have the Patriot System !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hyperion

We don't have any such system, nor have we started any work on such a thing. Iron Dome is an ADS, highly specialized, consisting of numerous highly specialized parts for tracking, guidance, kill vehicles (various). Israel is lightyears ahead in such things and is selling the same to India.

Patriot system may seem very attractive, however, as it is only a first gen ABM system, it's only effective against legacy missiles. It will be almost useless against most modern Indian missiles. To counter the latest breed of Indian missiles we need something similar to RIM-SM3, which the US will never be selling to us. 

Peace!




A.Rafay said:


> that is one thing but in case of war or india fires its missile onto our land then we should be having appropriate mechanism to shoot their missile down before it reaches in any of our cities or villages?? like israels iron dome system protected most israeli areas from Hamas rockets. Turkey and kuwait are acquiring Patriotic missiles and india is also building ABM systems.



Buddy we can fry them, but so can they. We will fire 100 and hit 50. When they fire 100 all 100 will land pretty accurately.



Armstrong said:


> Nah...I don't buy into that ! We're getting the F-22Ps, the JF-17s, the Al-Khalids, MRBMs, SRBMs, tactical nukes, FACs, their advanced versions & so many other smaller goodies - Its not a lack of ambition that is hindering us ! Its a lack of importance associated with Long Range SAM for I can't recall a single instance in our past 20-30 years when we had them ! I think that as an answer to our threat assessment we're concentrating more on 'detection' hence the AWACs & the beefed up radar network (especially for the navy) & 'interception' in the form of F-16s as the higher-end & the JF-17 as the lower-end of the mix !
> 
> I think we may not value the Long Range SAM systems too highly enough otherwise we could have gone for what the Chinese have come up with or it could be that we're waiting for the Chinese systems to mature more (we don't have any other options) like we are with the J-10Bs !
> 
> And whats this got to do with the Muslim Ummah !
> 
> The Syrians have the S-300s & the Jordanians have the Patriot System !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

Hyperion said:


> *We don't have any such system, nor have we started any work on such a thing*. Iron Dome is an ADS, highly specialized, consisting of numerous highly specialized parts for tracking, guidance, kill vehicles (various). Israel is lightyears ahead in such things and is selling the same to India.
> 
> Patriot system may seem very attractive, however, as it is only a first gen ABM system, it's only effective against legacy missiles. It will be almost useless against most modern Indian missiles. To counter the latest breed of Indian missiles we need something similar to RIM-SM3, which the US will never be selling to us.
> 
> Peace!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buddy we can fry them, but so can they. We will fire 100 and hit 50. When they fire 100 all 100 will land pretty accurately.



Hence my question : Why not ? We clearly value the SPADA 2000 which is fairly good system but it has only 25 kms worth of engagement range (Spada 2000 Air Defence Missile System - Army Technology). Why haven't we gone for a longer-range one ? Surely we could have financed something alongside the Chinese which would provide a SPADA 2000 like performance at a 100-150 km engagement range ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.Rafay

Hyperion said:


> We don't have any such system, nor have we started any work on such a thing. Iron Dome is an ADS, highly specialized, consisting of numerous highly specialized parts for tracking, guidance, kill vehicles (various). Israel is lightyears ahead in such things and is selling the same to India.
> 
> Patriot system may seem very attractive, however, as it is only a first gen ABM system, it's only effective against legacy missiles. It will be almost useless against most modern Indian missiles. To counter the latest breed of Indian missiles we need something similar to RIM-SM3, which the US will never be selling to us.
> 
> Peace!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buddy we can fry them, but so can they. We will fire 100 and hit 50. When they fire 100 all 100 will land pretty accurately.



So, We dont have any of these systems Neither the effective missile intercept Capability Nor the Anti Missile Defence Systems, Only our 50 out of 100 will hit them while we sit and see their all 100 land on our cities???

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hyperion

A.Rafay said:


> So, We dont have any of these systems Neither the effective missile intercept Capability Nor the Anti Missile Defence Systems, Only our 50 out of 100 will hit them while we sit and see their all 100 land on our cities???



Yara the threat of those 50 falling on them will dissuade them from trying anything!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.Rafay

Hyperion said:


> Yara the threat of those 50 falling on them will dissuade them from trying anything!



And what about us When they already had 100 missiles in air waiting to strike us?? We dont have enough capability to shoot even half of them down! We should spend some bucks in this field.

look at this, it makes me angry:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/220662-india-test-fires-ballistic-missile-interceptor.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/222302-enemy-ballistic-missile-downed-space-next-month.html

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hyperion

Yara, on the phone with bhabhi.... If you're fishing for best option available to us.... then I'd say go for the upcoming Chinese clone of the S400.




Armstrong said:


> Hence my question : Why not ? We clearly value the SPADA 2000 which is fairly good system but it has only 25 kms worth of engagement range (Spada 2000 Air Defence Missile System - Army Technology). Why haven't we gone for a longer-range one ? Surely we could have financed something alongside the Chinese which would provide a SPADA 2000 like performance at a 100-150 km engagement range ?


 @Armstrong & @A.Rafay a good primer for both of you. Read the following introductory article on Russian ABM efforts, it's somewhat better than the ones on Wiki!

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-ABM-Systems.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.Rafay

Hyperion said:


> Yara, on the phone with bhabhi.... If you're fishing for best option available to us.... then I'd say go for the upcoming *Chinese clone of the S400.*
> 
> Russian/Soviet Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems




At this page of wiki i found this

High altitude air defence systems
HQ-2B
Tariq HQ-10 named after Tariq ibn-Ziyad. An Umayyad Amazigh general, who swept Hispania with Muslim army.
Difah HQ-16
Tipu S-400 (SA-21) Chinese name HQ-19. Tipu Sultan. (1750&#8211;1799).also known as the Tiger of Mysore.
Muhafiz SA-15 &#8211; 15 in service
MIM-104 Patriot PAC 2

Does pakistan have all above mentioned goodies??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hyperion

LOL --- sabb bakwas... kissi fanboy nay edit kiya hua hai!



A.Rafay said:


> At this page of wiki i found this
> 
> High altitude air defence systems
> HQ-2B
> Tariq HQ-10 named after Tariq ibn-Ziyad. An Umayyad Amazigh general, who swept Hispania with Muslim army.
> Difah HQ-16
> Tipu S-400 (SA-21) Chinese name HQ-19. Tipu Sultan. (1750&#8211;1799).also known as the Tiger of Mysore.
> Muhafiz SA-15 &#8211; 15 in service
> MIM-104 Patriot PAC 2
> 
> Does pakistan have all above mentioned goodies??


----------



## A.Rafay

Hyperion said:


> LOL --- ...sabb bakwas kissi fanboy nay edit kiya hua hai!



it may be true, who knows?? We should have a seperate sticky thread for these.

I think pakistan should make efforts to acquire this tech indigenous or take help china like JV.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## JonAsad

Anti ballistic missile shield is still not mature enough to be combat ready-
Every test Amrika or any one else has done was performed under controlled enviornment-
The simulations may result in adapt success but in war time its a totally different scenario-
Ofcourse salvo of missiles will result in few passing the shield but one will be enough to achieve the intended target-

Our policy seems like to make as many nukes as possible to brute force past ABM shield-
Not all of the india will be covered under the ABMs- most probably it will be made active in important strategic cities and locations-

Our strategy wrt india is pretty simple- They make them we buy them of the shelf- so i am sure if the need arises we will be able to come up with ABMs of our own- Right now R & D on ABMs will be relatively expensive and economically not viable-

We are still achieving the minimum deterrence levels- as soon as the threshold breaks we look to counter it ASAP- like was the case of second strike capabilities i.e nuclear sub-

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## alimobin memon

All the Ballistic missiles are transferring to Scram jet systems in next decade , there is no capable Scram jet Air defense system to Counter the missiles , Furthermore Having a long range sam in Pakistan scenario is not as necessary as u guys think , I know people from PAF who have admitted that we indeed are in lack of Long range SAM but we have AWACS to detect them first and counter them , First of all india is our neighbour for example our fighters with even max 60km like F7pg for 15 m^2 like SU30 can be easily engaged with missiles fired by them, However I am not saying SU30mki is sitting duck but my point is PAF can intercept and reach to the incoming invading fighter like long range sam. We dont just owe AWACS but looking at the new capabilities we have 10 AESA radars with 450km and 110000 ft range of detection to get ready to intercept any jet or missile in the world afterall AESA is the Best of radars. For a war scenario Long range sam sites if detected by enemy are sitting ducks rather than PAF has kept its interest in creating 1000's of MAN PADS yes ! they are better then the Fixed position SAMS because they can be deployed anywhere furthermore saying the infrared system of MANPADS won't work on new jets is wrong the AWACS and Jammers can counter the COUNTER MEASURES (ECCM) to create room for better visuality for the man pads. 
kargil war is example of Excellency of manpads destroying a mach 2 mig 21 aircraft and damaging other.

One more thing Defensive position is always less equipped then offensive so is with pakistan. we may not have quantity but we do have quality. Mirages are the only draw backs but are being replaced. CH3 UCAV was inducted in 2011 so was AESA radar and there are atleast 2 GOOD news's inducted by PAF as Defense system yes I am not saying spada 2000 but something else.

*Defense Forum has somehow given room to the terrorists the information regarding the systems of PAF which can be seen in kamra attack, thats why there are no more news's being shared to people. We have more than 50 jf17 no doubt. Saying that i watched the video the PAF official said this or that is mostly an planned interview that what questions can be asked by the interviewer to the official*

so guys have faith this is not kargil time or sanctions time we have everything we need. And if we had a luck in 80's u might had being having gripens and getting them update to NG versions so this is not like that GOVT or military has no money. the budget maybe 6 bn$ but Our countries military has manufactured its own industries and exports to get additional money. Like we get atleast 900mn $ overall exports this money is divided like for example 300mn for army 300 for navy and for airforce 300 ... This is huge amount for region of asian countries , Furthermore now we have jf17 almost half its parts are made in pakistan which saves the imports from west of parts of jets which cost 40% more than manufactured in pac so there is money. 

Its just that everything cant be shared , First we civilian given access to google earth where even i know where is f16 of paf parked 2 months ago so these kinds of things affect the security. Just have faith i say...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mav3rick

CAPTAIN AMERICA said:


> The main advantage of an anti missle system is its deterrence, its not much use against Russia for example because they have thousands of nuclear weapons, but against N Korea, Iran, or even in the event of war with Pakistan it works quite well because of the unknowen. Under the USA M.A.D (Mutual Assured Detructiion) doctrine even the use of one WMD or attempted calls for the complete destruction of the country or countrys involved. One missile shot at the USA could result in a 1000 being returned.



So in essence, if a country has finally reached the point where it must target the US mainland with Nuclear Weapons, it must aim to annihilate all military targets and other targets of value (with minimum collateral civilian loss) multiple times over.......the first attack or attempt should also be considered the final attempt. In this scenario, if US cities are spared then the US would think many times over in responding especially over civilian targets.


----------



## A1Kaid

Pakistan needs to develop high yield thermonuclear warheads, in the 50-100 megaton range. Enough of the tactical nukes. Pakistan can either get serious about it's long term security or it will face serious trouble in future when dealing with rogue foreign powers.


----------



## farhan_9909

A1Kaid said:


> Pakistan needs to develop high yield thermonuclear warheads, in the 50-100 megaton range. Enough of the tactical nukes. Pakistan can either get serious about it's long term security or it will face serious trouble in future when dealing with rogue foreign powers.



50-100mt is out of reach.

even a 1mt yield warhead can destroy a kpk size province or a UAE size country


----------



## A1Kaid

farhan_9909 said:


> 50-100mt is out of reach.
> 
> *even a 1mt yield warhead can destroy a kpk size province or a UAE size country*




No it cannot, 1 megaton nuclear warhead cannot even destroy a city the size of Dubai let alone a country the size of UAE, You're badly mistaken and don't realize how much of a yield a nuclear warhead can actually damage.

Take a look at this screen shot, below it shows the detonation of 1 MT. It can barely destroy all of Dubai, let alone the entire UAE.







This is what a 50,000 kt = 50 mt detonation would look like. No where does a 50 megaton can destroy a country the size of UAE but it can destroy the entire size of a city the size of Dubai and surrounding areas.






This is why I said the development of a 50-100 megaton thermonuclear warheads is essential for the long term survival so that Pakistan have the capability to destroy entire cities with one delivery of a bomb. Our current nuclear weapon yield is very low and is more suitable for tactical strikes, it would take 10+ of our nukes to just destroy one large enemy city.


----------



## A1Kaid

Another example of a power of a 50 MT detonation.








This is kind of power Pakistan should possess.


This is the kind of power Pakistan currently possesses, a 12kt nuclear warhead max yield 1 detonation. At this rate it would take up to 8 or more nuclear warheads to destroy one large city.


----------



## The Deterrent

A1Kaid said:


> Pakistan needs to develop high yield thermonuclear warheads, in the 50-100 megaton range. Enough of the tactical nukes. Pakistan can either get serious about it's long term security or it will face serious trouble in future when dealing with rogue foreign powers.



No, this is insanity. Pakistan's nuclear weapons development is more focused on taking out counter-force targets than the counter-value ones, possibly in a first strike. 20-30kt warheads provide enough yield for counter-value retaliation, if extremely necessary. The after effects for these nukes are already devastating enough, there is no need of megaton giants.
Besides, since the counter-force targets are already based near considerably dense population, excessive collateral damage would be unavoidable.

P.S. Current economic situation does not allows for development of any adventurous project like that.


----------



## A1Kaid

AhaseebA said:


> No, this is insanity. Pakistan's nuclear weapons development is more focused on taking out counter-force targets than the counter-value ones, possibly in a first strike. 20-30kt warheads provide enough yield for counter-value retaliation, if extremely necessary. The after effects for these nukes are already devastating enough, there is no need of megaton giants.
> Besides, since the counter-force targets are already based near considerably dense population, excessive collateral damage would be unavoidable.
> 
> P.S. Current economic situation does not allows for development of any adventurous project like that.



It's not insanity, if Pakistan is to be in a nuclear engagement then Pakistan should intend to win it. Stop this weakness "counter" this "counter" that, Pakistan needs offensive capability understand? With your ideas we will always be "countering" that is making the second move, not the first and last which is what I argue for. Besides, many of the major nuclear powers have megaton yields, Pakistan lacks this and possess lower yield warheads.



> 20-30kt warheads provide



We don't even have confirmation whether Pakistan possesses even 20-30kt yield, highest Pakistan has tested was apparently 12kt. If you think 20-30kt is enough considering the size of potential targets then you're very badly mistaken.




> P.S. Current economic situation does not allows for development of any adventurous project like that



We will eat grass...


----------



## The Deterrent

A1Kaid said:


> It's not insanity, if Pakistan is to be in a nuclear engagement then Pakistan should intend to win it. Stop this weakness "counter" this "counter" that, Pakistan needs offensive capability understand? With your ideas we will always be "countering" that is making the second move, not the first and last which is what I argue for. Besides, many of the major nuclear powers have megaton yields, Pakistan lacks this and possess lower yield warheads.



To win a nuclear engagement (which is close to impossible because of the assured retaliation), annihilation of population centers is not required. And by _"counter"_, I did not mean making secondary moves or weakness.

The counter-force strikes can very well be first strikes, aimed at decapitation of the enemy of its nuclear and conventional might. Targets could be air bases, missile bases, naval bases, hardened storage facilities and any other installations, which form an integral part of the enemy's nuclear strike/retaliation capability and conventional superiority.

The five major nuclear powers have had the luxury of excessive defence expenditure, and since one side had developed the megaton-range nuclear weapons, all the other parties focused on the same. As a result, annihilating the opponent's population became a major component of strategic deterrence (although the first strikes are still aimed at taking out the adversary's nuclear weapons and command and control centers).

Speaking in terms of nuclear weapons, Pakistan and India are still evolving. Just like both countries do not maintain any nuclear weapons on a ready-to-launch status (unlike the 5 major nuclear powers), it would not be advisable for them to develop megaton-range nuclear weapons, given that both countries are relatively small and have very dense population centers. Therefore, even ~50kt nukes would kill very high amount of people. Mere area of destruction is not the only parameter.



> We don't even have confirmation whether Pakistan possesses even 20-30kt yield, highest Pakistan has tested was apparently 12kt. If you think 20-30kt is enough considering the size of potential targets then you're very badly mistaken.



We do have local estimates claiming the highest yield of 1998 explosions to be ~35kt.
As I mentioned, just the area of destruction is not the only parameter which determines the number of people killed. Both Pakistani and Indian urban centers are extremely dense.


> We will eat grass...


By all means.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

A1Kaid said:


> Pakistan needs to develop high yield thermonuclear warheads, in the 50-100 megaton range. Enough of the tactical nukes. Pakistan can either get serious about it's long term security or it will face serious trouble in future when dealing with rogue foreign powers.


dimagh kharab hai kya 3 mt if more than inoff
and how are you gonna deliver a 100mt bomb.............. sir


----------



## IND151

saife said:


> what is the maximum range of our cruise missile.



Range of babur is 700 to 900 KM


----------



## IND151

Hyperion said:


> No dude, not by a long shot! The only thing that keeps India away is our proximity to them.
> 
> 
> 
> *Cryogenic fueled engines is something that will take Pakistan multiple decades to understand, unless we get some help as India did. *That is if we start looking for it right now!



with due respect friend, your post suggests you don't know the Glavkosmos saga.


----------



## A1Kaid

wasm95 said:


> dimagh kharab hai kya 3 mt if more than inoff
> and how are you gonna deliver a 100mt bomb.............. sir




You're afraid, Pakistan needs to have capability to destroy entire cities and surrounding areas with one strike. Three megatons will not fully destroy some large cities, though it may well cause 65% damage or more to a massive city. Pakistan should endeavor to acquire 50 megaton nuclear warheads, this nuclear power is necessary for future wars, kiloton scale is pathetic.



AhaseebA said:


> To win a nuclear engagement (which is close to impossible because of the assured retaliation), annihilation of population centers is not required. And by _"counter"_, I did not mean making secondary moves or weakness.
> 
> The counter-force strikes can very well be first strikes, aimed at decapitation of the enemy of its nuclear and conventional might. Targets could be air bases, missile bases, naval bases, hardened storage facilities and any other installations, which form an integral part of the enemy's nuclear strike/retaliation capability and conventional superiority.
> 
> The five major nuclear powers have had the luxury of excessive defence expenditure, and since one side had developed the megaton-range nuclear weapons, all the other parties focused on the same. As a result, annihilating the opponent's population became a major component of strategic deterrence (although the first strikes are still aimed at taking out the adversary's nuclear weapons and command and control centers).
> 
> Speaking in terms of nuclear weapons, Pakistan and India are still evolving. Just like both countries do not maintain any nuclear weapons on a ready-to-launch status (unlike the 5 major nuclear powers), it would not be advisable for them to develop megaton-range nuclear weapons, given that both countries are relatively small and have very dense population centers. Therefore, even ~50kt nukes would kill very high amount of people. Mere area of destruction is not the only parameter.
> 
> 
> 
> We do have local estimates claiming the highest yield of 1998 explosions to be ~35kt.
> As I mentioned, just the area of destruction is not the only parameter which determines the number of people killed. Both Pakistani and Indian urban centers are extremely dense.
> 
> By all means.





> We do have local estimates claiming the highest yield of 1998 explosions to be ~35kt.
> As I mentioned, just the area of destruction is not the only parameter which determines the number of people killed. Both Pakistani and Indian urban centers are extremely dense.



Seismic reports show Pakistan tested a nuclear warheads sub-12kt, locals reports I think may be exaggerated, no way did Pakistan test a ~35kt anywhere or anytime.




> The five major nuclear powers have had the luxury of excessive defence expenditure, and since one side had developed the megaton-range nuclear weapons, all the other parties focused on the same. As a result, annihilating the opponent's population became a major component of strategic deterrence (although the first strikes are still aimed at taking out the adversary's nuclear weapons and command and control centers).



I am convinced for future wars we need nuclear warheads in the tens of megaton scale, 10-25 megaton will be a good start and work our way up to 50 megaton. I want Pakistan to possess this awesome power to be able to destroy entire cities with just a single bomb.


----------



## alexx12lucyy

tell us how many Babur Cruise Missile (in quantity) does Pak have?

hiiiii

tell us how many Babur Cruise Missile (in quantity) does Pak have?


----------



## jupiter2007

According to wikipedia Pakistan has HQ-10 and HQ-19 air defense system. Could someone please confirm it?

Pakistani missile research and development program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> High altitude air defence system:
> 
> HQ-2B
> Tariq HQ-10 named after Tariq ibn-Ziyad. An Umayyad Amazigh general, who swept Hispania with Muslim army.
> Difah HQ-16
> Tipu S-400 (SA-21) Chinese name HQ-19. Tipu Sultan. (17501799).also known as the Tiger of Mysore.
> Muhafiz SA-15  15 in service
> MIM-104 Patriot PAC 2


----------



## Umair Nawaz

IND151 said:


> Range of babur is 700 to 900 KM



it is now upto 1000 atleast.
check the latest test


----------



## IND151

^^ please give official source for claim


----------



## Shadow_Hunter

IND151 said:


> ^^ please give official source for claim



You asked them to do the impossible.


----------



## IND151

jupiter2007 said:


> According to wikipedia Pakistan has HQ-10 and HQ-19 air defense system. Could someone please confirm it?
> 
> Pakistani missile research and development program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 @Safriz, @Oscar is it true?


----------



## Mani2020

jupiter2007 said:


> According to wikipedia Pakistan has HQ-10 and HQ-19 air defense system. Could someone please confirm it?
> 
> Pakistani missile research and development program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I dont think so its accurate ...the page also mentions MIM-104 Patriot PAC 2 which i highly doubt and has the least probability that Pak would have bought ....i know they were offered once to Pak by US but dont think we bought them ..... apart from SA-17 and HQ-2B all other seems not to be the reality


----------



## SQ8

IND151 said:


> @Safriz, @Oscar is it true?



No, at this point the PAF is yet to be satisfied with the Chinese HQ-10 and more importantly with the performance specifications it requires from the system. Currently Pakistan is looking for an ABM and while the HQ-19 is there the Russians wont allow a licence to China to sell the system as it is so it may end up coming up with a local Missile guided by a Chinese Radar.
The HQ-9 was a more realistic contender for a buy since it now as the attractive option of being further developed and improved via the T-LORAMIDS competition. To have a system co-developed by the best friends and allies you have and incorporatig the best of the east and west is nothing short of wonderful.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Donatello

Oscar said:


> No, at this point the PAF is yet to be satisfied with the Chinese HQ-10 and more importantly with the performance specifications it requires from the system. Currently Pakistan is looking for an ABM and while the HQ-19 is there the Russians wont allow a licence to China to sell the system as it is so it may end up coming up with a local Missile guided by a Chinese Radar.
> The HQ-9 was a more realistic contender for a buy since it now as the attractive option of being further developed and improved via the T-LORAMIDS competition. To have a system co-developed by the best friends and allies you have and incorporatig the best of the east and west is nothing short of wonderful.



Okay, but are we getting any medium to long range SAM? I think it's about time.


----------



## IND151

Oscar said:


> No, at this point the PAF is yet to be satisfied with the Chinese HQ-10 and more importantly with the performance specifications it requires from the system. Currently Pakistan is looking for an ABM and while the HQ-19 is there the Russians wont allow a licence to China to sell the system as it is so it may end up coming up with a local Missile guided by a Chinese Radar.
> The HQ-9 was a more realistic contender for a buy since it now as the attractive option of being further developed and improved via the T-LORAMIDS competition. To have a system co-developed by the best friends and allies you have and incorporatig the best of the east and west is nothing short of wonderful.



thanks for info


----------



## SQ8

Donatello said:


> Okay, but are we getting any medium to long range SAM? I think it's about time.



Currently the funds have been eaten up by SAAB, JF-17 and other systems.


----------



## TheFlyingPretzel

How many SAABS have we lost to the terrorists?


----------



## bilawalkhan

farhan_9909 said:


> 50-100mt is out of reach.
> 
> even a 1mt yield warhead can destroy a kpk size province or a UAE size country


How many Mt warhead would be enough for whole of India


----------



## farhan_9909

bilawalkhan said:


> How many Mt warhead would be enough for whole of India



Our strategy is smaller warheads(25-40kt) but in quantity..a warhead of such size can destroy a city twice the size of hiroshima

our strategy should be building atleast 250 such size warheads than we can opt for some megatons later on as well(onwards 2020)

If we count
India has odd 200 cities(source wiki) and Pakistan 66.

Now Pakistan top 60 cities has a population of 42millions

while indian only top 10 cities population is 60+millions

so the maximum damage considering population circa will be always on there side..atleast 3 times that of pakistan death toll

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## bilawalkhan

farhan_9909 said:


> Our strategy is smaller warheads(25-40kt) but in quantity..a warhead of such size can destroy a city twice the size of hiroshima
> 
> our strategy should be building atleast 250 such size warheads than we can opt for some megatons later on as well(onwards 2020)
> 
> If we count
> India has odd 200 cities(source wiki) and Pakistan 66.
> 
> Now Pakistan top 60 cities has a population of 42millions
> 
> while indian only top 10 cities population is 60+millions
> 
> so the maximum damage considering population circa will be always on there side..atleast 3 times that of pakistan death toll



Can we have the capability to produce that type of giants, not today but in the near future


----------



## farhan_9909

bilawalkhan said:


> Can we have the capability to produce that type of giants, not today but in the near future



in future sure.now our max capacity could be around 100-150mt.


----------



## bilawalkhan

farhan_9909 said:


> in future sure.now our max capacity could be around 100-150mt.


i somewhere read that smaller warheads are harder to produce, if this the case then the bigger ones wont be a problem for us


----------



## farhan_9909

bilawalkhan said:


> i somewhere read that smaller warheads are harder to produce, if this the case then the bigger ones wont be a problem for us



i might be wrong but smaller one by size are difficult to produce not by yield

miniaturization of a warhead yet powerful is something hard and need to have plutonium based

Pakistan currently has 4 active Plutonium producing reactors..The initial one commissioned in 1997 had a capacity of upto 14kg per year

the 4th and the latest one is/was suppose to be build because of pakistan future interest in thermonuclear weapons(based on a western source)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bilawalkhan

farhan_9909 said:


> i might be wrong but smaller one by size are difficult to produce not by yield
> 
> miniaturization of a warhead yet powerful is something hard and need to have plutonium based
> 
> Pakistan currently has 4 active Plutonium producing reactors..The initial one commissioned in 1997 had a capacity of upto 14kg per year
> 
> the 4th and the latest one is/was suppose to be build because of pakistan future interest in thermonuclear weapons(based on a western source)



this mean uranium is a inferior fuel for nukes ?


----------



## farhan_9909

bilawalkhan said:


> this mean uranium is a inferior fuel for nukes ?



Indeed.and plutonium warheads are lighter as well

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Falcon29

I have a question and I apologize if this had been asked before me. But, what is the range of Pakistan's WMD capability and do they purposefully keep it at the range? Can they increase it?


----------



## The Deterrent

Hazzy997 said:


> I have a question and I apologize if this had been asked before me. But, what is the range of Pakistan's WMD capability and do they purposefully keep it at the range? Can they increase it?



The longest range nuclear ballistic missile currently operation with the Pakistan's Strategic Forces Command (Army) is the Shaheen-2, capable of hitting targets up to 2000 km away with a payload capacity of ~1000 kg.
Yes, we can.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bratva

In Ballistic missiles, Only target coordinates are fed and on the bases of target co-ordinates Ballistic missile made decision on it's own to follow trajectory of x degree and release payload at x height or it is also fed in it to follow the trajectory of x degree and would release it's first stage at such height second stage at that height and warhead at that height?


----------



## HRK

@AhaseebA

Nuclear Scientist Dr Samar Mubarik Discusses Pakistan's Defence Potential Part3 - YouTube

ProxFree - Error!

Request you to kindly listen the attached video interview (an old video of late 2008 i think) of Samar Mubark in which @ 2:00 during elaboration of cruise missile of Pkaistan he said "We have missile of 700 KM range that could be fired from sea"

As far as I know Babar is a land base missile and *"we have no modified sea based assets available"* to use Babaer as Sea Launch missile so ........... this thing is confusing me, would appreciate if you could help .....

Regards,


----------



## The Deterrent

HRK said:


> @AhaseebA
> 
> Nuclear Scientist Dr Samar Mubarik Discusses Pakistan's Defence Potential Part3 - YouTube
> 
> ProxFree - Error!
> 
> Request you to kindly listen the attached video interview (an old video of late 2008 i think) of Samar Mubark in which @ 2:00 during elaboration of cruise missile of Pkaistan he said "We have missile of 700 KM range that could be fired from sea"
> 
> As far as I know Babar is a land base missile and *"we have no modified sea based assets available"* to use Babaer as Sea Launch missile so ........... this thing is confusing me, would appreciate if you could help .....
> 
> Regards,



Yes, Babur "can" be launched from a submarine, but not just yet. Efforts are ongoing in this regard.
No major modification of submarines is required for launching Babur SLCM, as its diameter allows it to be launched through the 533mm standard torpedo tubes.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## neolithic

*Ballistic Missile Structure Simulator*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## fatman17

*
6.*
World nuclear forces
*
Overview*_
At the start of 2013 eight states possessed approximately 4400 operational
nuclear weapons. Nearly 2000 of these are kept in a state of high operational
alert. If all nuclear warheads are counted—operational warheads, spares,
those in both active and inactive storage, and intact warheads scheduled for
dismantlement—the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France,
China, India, Pakistan and Israel together possess a total of approximately
17 270 nuclear weapons (see table 6.1).

All five legally recognized nuclear weapon states, as defined by the 1968
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Non-Proliferation
Treaty, NPT)—China, France, Russia, the UK and the USA—appear determined
to remain nuclear powers for the indefinite future. Russia and the USA
have major modernization programmes under way for nuclear delivery
systems, warheads and production facilities (see sections I and II in this chapter).
At the same time, they continue to reduce their nuclear forces through
the implementation of the bilateral 2010 Treaty on Measures for the Further
Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START) and
through unilateral force reductions. Since the nuclear weapon arsenals of
Russia and the USA are by far the largest, one result has been that the total
number of nuclear weapons in the world has been declining. The nuclear
arsenals of the other three legally recognized nuclear weapon states are considerably
smaller, but all three states are either deploying new weapon
systems or have announced their intention to do so (see sections III–IV). Of
the five legally recognized nuclear weapon states, China is the only one that
appears to be expanding the size of its nuclear arsenal.

The availability of reliable information about the nuclear weapon states’
arsenals varies considerably. France, the UK and the USA have recently disclosed
important information about their nuclear capabilities. In contrast,
transparency in Russia has decreased as a result of its decision not to publicly
release detailed data about its strategic nuclear forces under New START,
even though it shares the information with the USA. China remains highly
non-transparent as part of its long-standing deterrence strategy, and little
information is publicly available about its nuclear forces and weapon production
complex.

Reliable information on the operational status of the nuclear arsenals and
capabilities of the three states that have never been party to the NPT—India,
Israel and Pakistan—is especially difficult to find. In the absence of official_
284

MILITARY SPENDING AND ARMAMENTS, 2012
_
declarations, the available information is often contradictory, incorrect or
exaggerated. India and Pakistan are both expanding their nuclear weapon
stockpiles as well as their missile delivery capabilities, while Israel appears to
be waiting to see how the situation in Iran develops (see sections VI–VIII). A
ninth state—the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, North
Korea)—has demonstrated a military nuclear capability. However, there is no
public information to verify that it possesses operational nuclear weapons
(see section IX).

The raw material for nuclear weapons is fissile material, either highly
enriched uranium (HEU) or separated plutonium. The five nuclear weapon
states have produced both HEU and plutonium. India, Israel and North Korea
have produced mainly plutonium, and Pakistan mainly HEU for weapons. All
states with a civilian nuclear industry are capable of producing fissile materials
(see section X)._

SHANNON N
. KILE AND HANS M. KRISTENSEN

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## fatman17

*nuclear competition between the two countries.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## fatman17



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Malghani




----------



## V. Makarov

viper`in`style said:


> @above
> 
> The quantity is un know but what most of reports tells us that it is round about 12,000


You mad brother?!  America has only about 3ooo cruise missiles..howcome Pakistan has the biggest no. Of cruise missiles in the world?


----------



## V. Makarov

HRK said:


> @AhaseebA
> 
> Nuclear Scientist Dr Samar Mubarik Discusses Pakistan's Defence Potential Part3 - YouTube
> 
> ProxFree - Error!
> 
> Request you to kindly listen the attached video interview (an old video of late 2008 i think) of Samar Mubark in which @ 2:00 during elaboration of cruise missile of Pkaistan he said "We have missile of 700 KM range that could be fired from sea"
> 
> As far as I know Babar is a land base missile and *"we have no modified sea based assets available"* to use Babaer as Sea Launch missile so ........... this thing is confusing me, would appreciate if you could help .....
> 
> Regards,


Pakistan's problem is that we have submarine launched nuclear cruise missiles... but we don't have a missile launching submarine :p


----------



## The Deterrent

amirs444 said:


> Pakistan's problem is that we have submarine launched nuclear cruise missiles... but *we don't have a missile launching submarine* :p


Yes Pakistan does. Pakistan Navy's Diesel-Electric Submarines (Agosta 70s and 90Bs) have 533mm torpedo tubes, which can launch Babur SLCM (520mm).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armstrong

The Deterrent said:


> Yes Pakistan does. Pakistan Navy's Diesel-Electric Submarines (Agosta 70s and 90Bs) have 533mm torpedo tubes, which can launch Babur SLCM (520mm).



Waisee yaraaa have we come up with some indigenous torpedoes or whatever arsenal our subs use is sourced from abroad ?


----------



## The Deterrent

Armstrong said:


> Waisee yaraaa have we come up with some indigenous torpedoes or whatever arsenal our subs use is sourced from abroad ?


No, not that I know of.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HRK

The Deterrent said:


> Yes Pakistan does. Pakistan Navy's Diesel-Electric Submarines (Agosta 70s and 90Bs) have 533mm torpedo tubes, which can launch Babur SLCM (520mm).



Sir jee than what is the issue as we have 'platform' available which can be used to launch the 'assets' ...... and that asset is 'allegedly capable to be fired from that sea based platform' (as per Dr. Samar Mubark Interview)...... 
*but that asset is still under development. 
*
Or we are interpreting the situation wrongly , like that asset can be used from surface fleet but not from the subsurface fleet as of now ........


----------



## The Deterrent

HRK said:


> Sir jee than what is the issue as we have 'platform' available which can be used to launch the 'assets' ...... and that asset is 'allegedly capable to be fired from that sea based platform' (as per Dr. Samar Mubark Interview)......
> *but that asset is still under development. *


Yes, thats the _current_ status.
But if you take a look from the 'secrecy' angle, we might not get to hear about it for a long time. Reason being, Pakistan is not bound to notify anyone of its cruise missile tests. Besides the test range can be kept low on-purpose to validate the flight parameters (although full-range tests might be still necessary), so it can be kept undercover. Case in point:


> At issue is the detection by American intelligence agencies of a suspicious missile test on April 23 — *a test never announced by the Pakistanis* — that appeared to give the country a new offensive weapon.


1,500km Babur II under Development, also SL Babur progress. | Page 10



> Or we are interpreting the situation wrongly , like that asset can be used from surface fleet but not from the subsurface fleet as of now ........


No, the surface fleet is simply too vulnerable to host anything like that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## fatman17

*Azerbaijan buys medium-range missiles*
Mon 11 August 2014 05:46 GMT

The range of fire medium-range missiles is about 3000 km.

Azerbaijan has gained the medium range ballistic missiles EXTRA of Israeli production (130 km) and long-range missiles (2,000 km) made in Pakistan.

Oxu.Az reports citing Haqqin.Az that the information was provided by hurriyet.com.tr.

It has to be noted that in order not to disturb the balance of power, Russia does not sell long-range ballistic missiles to Armenia and Azerbaijan. At the same time, Russia has installed operational-tactical missile complexes "Iskander" with nuclear warheads on a military base in Armenia near the Turkish border.

The ballistic missiles with a range 1000-5500 km can be fitted with a nuclear warhead.

The missiles of Israel Military Industries (IMI) have the caliber of 306 mm, a length of 3.97 m, a launch weight of 450 kg and a 125 kg weight of warhead.

Pakistani missile "Shaheen-1" is capable of hitting targets at a distance of 750 km, "Hatf-4" is an improved version of the "Shaheen-1" missile with a longer range. The exact range of "Shaheen-1A" advanced missile called the "Hatf-4" is not officialy reported, although the range of fire medium-range missiles is about 3000 km.

News.Az


----------



## HRK

fatman17 said:


> *Azerbaijan buys medium-range missiles*
> Mon 11 August 2014 05:46 GMT
> 
> The range of fire medium-range missiles is about 3000 km.
> 
> Azerbaijan has gained the medium range ballistic missiles EXTRA of Israeli production (130 km) and long-range missiles (2,000 km) made in Pakistan.
> 
> Oxu.Az reports citing Haqqin.Az that the information was provided by hurriyet.com.tr.
> 
> It has to be noted that in order not to disturb the balance of power, Russia does not sell long-range ballistic missiles to Armenia and Azerbaijan. At the same time, Russia has installed operational-tactical missile complexes "Iskander" with nuclear warheads on a military base in Armenia near the Turkish border.
> 
> The ballistic missiles with a range 1000-5500 km can be fitted with a nuclear warhead.
> 
> The missiles of Israel Military Industries (IMI) have the caliber of 306 mm, a length of 3.97 m, a launch weight of 450 kg and a 125 kg weight of warhead.
> 
> Pakistani missile "Shaheen-1" is capable of hitting targets at a distance of 750 km, "Hatf-4" is an improved version of the "Shaheen-1" missile with a longer range. The exact range of "Shaheen-1A" advanced missile called the "Hatf-4" is not officialy reported, although the range of fire medium-range missiles is about 3000 km.
> 
> News.Az



link related to this article : News.Az - Azerbaijan buys medium-range missiles

but this article quote: Haqqin.az as source which further quote the article of www. hurriyet. com (Turkish online tabloid )

Therefore, I doubt that Pakistan has given any access / sold technology or complete missile to any nation .....


----------



## Donatello

Ya, i doubt Pakistan would sell a 1000km+ range missile to any country.


----------



## Azeri440

fatman17 said:


> *Azerbaijan buys medium-range missiles*
> Mon 11 August 2014 05:46 GMT
> 
> The range of fire medium-range missiles is about 3000 km.
> 
> Azerbaijan has gained the medium range ballistic missiles EXTRA of Israeli production (130 km) and long-range missiles (2,000 km) made in Pakistan.
> 
> Oxu.Az reports citing Haqqin.Az that the information was provided by hurriyet.com.tr.
> 
> It has to be noted that in order not to disturb the balance of power, Russia does not sell long-range ballistic missiles to Armenia and Azerbaijan. At the same time, Russia has installed operational-tactical missile complexes "Iskander" with nuclear warheads on a military base in Armenia near the Turkish border.
> 
> The ballistic missiles with a range 1000-5500 km can be fitted with a nuclear warhead.
> 
> The missiles of Israel Military Industries (IMI) have the caliber of 306 mm, a length of 3.97 m, a launch weight of 450 kg and a 125 kg weight of warhead.
> 
> Pakistani missile "Shaheen-1" is capable of hitting targets at a distance of 750 km, "Hatf-4" is an improved version of the "Shaheen-1" missile with a longer range. The exact range of "Shaheen-1A" advanced missile called the "Hatf-4" is not officialy reported, although the range of fire medium-range missiles is about 3000 km.
> 
> News.Az




Lol.............

its BS dude


----------



## kurup

The Deterrent said:


> Yes, thats the _current_ status.
> But if you take a look from the 'secrecy' angle, we might not get to hear about it for a long time. Reason being, Pakistan is not bound to notify anyone of its cruise missile tests. .



What about NOTAMs ?? Don't they have to issue one .


----------



## The Deterrent

kurup said:


> What about NOTAMs ?? Don't they have to issue one .


I don't think thats really necessary for testing subsonic cruise missiles. Reason being availability of vast area with lesser air traffic in form of Baluchistan and relatively safe flight (low altitude + escorting jets). It has been done before, surely can be done again.
But of course the foreign intelligence always picks scent of these sort of activities.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## black-hawk_101

Source: DF-5 is going to be decomissioned soon

Can Pakistan acquire it for a small cost and upgrade it with newer Chinese systems?


----------



## Muhammad Jabran

i have no idea


----------



## Mukhtaar ka Waar

yesterday i read some special articles which is mixed but core point of these articles that Pakistan have already two types of ICBM's Timur and Tipu..... now going for enhancement features like range and nuclear capabilities..... we know that no official announcements made by Pakistani gov... but there is some thing going on and so on.... predicted that these missiles will be tested in late 2018....?


----------



## $@rJen

Wrong section

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

@waz @Oscar 
Sir move it to its correct section. Thanks.


----------



## shah1398

Mukhtaar ka Waar said:


> ICBM's Timur and Tipu


Have heard these two names for quite a time but waiting for something from official mouthpiece with regards to these.


----------



## Hassan Guy

Does Pakistan have a similar missile to the Russian Iskander?


----------



## The Deterrent

Hassan Guy said:


> Does Pakistan have a similar missile to the Russian Iskander?


No, Pakistan doesn't.


----------



## Hassan Guy

The Deterrent said:


> No, Pakistan doesn't.


What about submarine launched missile?


----------



## The Deterrent

Hassan Guy said:


> What about submarine launched missile?


Under-development.


----------



## Blue Marlin

The Deterrent said:


> Under-development.


slbm or slcm or both?


----------



## Hassan Guy

And what about ICBM?


----------



## Rocky rock

Blue Marlin said:


> slbm or slcm or both?



There are news about Submarine Launch Version of Babur Cruise Missile, yet we haven't any sub which can be fitted with SLBM/|SLCM but new coming Subs from China would have the Capability to Launch SLCM which isn't also dis-close yet.



Hassan Guy said:


> And what about ICBM?



We Don't need ICBM Pakistan is Having Limited Budget which is use to take out the Crucial need but no to use in useless Projects. But we are having the Capability to build ICBM if there would be need in coming future so we can build it in no time,

Whole India is already in our Missile Range which can be easily cover with Shaheen III. 2750/3k Range.


----------



## Hassan Guy

Rocky rock said:


> There are news about Submarine Launch Version of Babur Cruise Missile, yet we haven't any sub which can be fitted with SLBM/|SLCM but new coming Subs from China would have the Capability to Launch SLCM which isn't also dis-close yet.
> 
> 
> 
> We Don't need ICBM Pakistan is Having Limited Budget which is use to take out the Crucial need but no to use in useless Projects. But we are having the Capability to build ICBM if there would be need in coming future so we can build it in no time,
> 
> Whole India is already in our Missile Range which can be easily cover with Shaheen III. 2750/3k Range.


But ICBM carry multiple warheads


----------



## Rocky rock

Hassan Guy said:


> But ICBM carry multiple warheads



Mansoor Ahmad, a professor of Strategic studies at the Islamabad's Quaid-i-Azam University, stated that: "Pakistan's military, however, is not interested in a "tit-for-tat" arms racewith India." and speculated that developmental work may be under progress to make missile capable of delivering multiple warheads which would make them harder to defend against.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Deterrent

Blue Marlin said:


> slbm or slcm or both?


Only SLCM.


Hassan Guy said:


> And what about ICBM?


No ICBM under development for the foreseeable future.


Hassan Guy said:


> But ICBM carry multiple warheads


That is not a hard and fast rule, Soviet RSD-10 Pioneer delivered 3xMRVs to >2000km.


----------



## Blue Marlin

The Deterrent said:


> Only SLCM.
> 
> No ICBM under development for the foreseeable future.
> 
> That is not a hard and fast rule, Soviet RSD-10 Pioneer delivered 3xMRVs to >2000km.


i thought that was already tested? and besides its only a limited second strike as it has a 1500km range (max) it cant cover all of india


----------



## Hassan Guy

Has Pakistan halted development of Missiles? Haven't seen any news or updates recently.


----------



## ghazi52

May 28, Youm-i-Takbeer, A day of pride for Pakistan 

Two great Pakistani nuclear physicists Dr. Ishfaq and Mr. Munir are credited among the persons who are called as "father of the Pakistan's atomic bomb project. 

L to R: Mr. Munir Ahmad Khan, Chairman PAEC, Mr. Ghulam Ishaq Khan, then Minister for Finance and Coordination, General K.M. Arif, Vice Chief of Army Staff, and Dr. Ishfaq Ahmad, Member (Technical), PAEC. Circa 1983-84. Site: Kirana Hills during the cold tests.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Farhan Malik

We need to launch a nuke unto Israel to put an end to the continuous human rights violation being carried out there by the inhuman jewish pigs

Someone needs to take a stand against the Israeli hegemonic rule over innocent defenceless Palestinians who have nobody to support them


----------



## Ivanov673

This launcher is interested in the MZKT chassis


----------



## HAIDER

Ivanov673 said:


> This launcher is interested in the MZKT chassis


dude its missile , not rocket. Missile has guidance system and rocket is flat shot. Its Shaheen 2. 
The Shaheen-II is a land-based supersonic surface-to-surface medium-range guided ballistic missile. The Shaheen-II is designed and developed by the NESCOM and the National Defence Complex of Pakistan. The Shaheen missile series is named after a falcon that lives in the mountains of Pakistan. 
Operational range: 1,500 - 2,000 km
Weight: 25,000 kg; (Re-entry vehicle 1,050 kg)
Guidance system: Inertial navigation system; GPS satellite guidance
Launch platform: Transporter erector launcher (TEL)
Used by: Strategic Plans Division; (Army SFCOM, Air Force SFCOM)
Flight altitude: 100-300km
Warhead: Conventional high-explosive or Strategic nuclear weapon

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## denel

Farhan Malik said:


> We need to launch a nuke unto Israel to put an end to the continuous human rights violation being carried out there by the inhuman jewish pigs
> 
> Someone needs to take a stand against the Israeli hegemonic rule over innocent defenceless Palestinians who have nobody to support them


Pal. Enough of this nonsense. Why dont you stand up for right of your own citizens first at home or neighbouring countries.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bossman

Xtremeownage said:


> how strong are pakistani nukes in kilotons/megatons?



For this question and similar ones on this thread please call the Public Relations department of Pakistan strategic forces. They usually provide very detailed information. Its even better if you go in person.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Safriz

Bossman said:


> For this question and similar ones on this thread please call the Public Relations department of Pakistan strategic forces. They usually provide very detailed information. Its even better if you go in person.


oh really?
ISPR is a useless entity when it comes to engaging with people. 
Last time i called , i was given a mobile number of some major sahib who never attended the call after 50+ tries.


----------



## SABRE

The original question seems to have been asked back in 2010 but since it has been dug back up in the above two posts let me just add to the general knowledge. First, the ISPR will not disclose the nuclear warhead yield as it is an 'operational' information. If Pakistan armed forces term something as 'operational information' it means no discussion on the subject whatsoever. Secondly, only the top - the utmost top - officials at ISPR 'may' have the information on the subject. So, getting in touch with some random officials is not going to be helpful. In fact, people here dealing with opensource research & analysis on Pakistan's nuclear programme may have more knowledge on the subject than those officers.

The comprehensive information and knowledge on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal are of course with the Strategic Plans Division (SPD), the Secretariat of National Command Authority (NCA) - the formal Command & Control System of Pakistan. Within SPD, however, there seems to be an informal policy of '_one hand should not know what the other hand is doing_.' Meaning, individuals and sub-organizations within SPD attend to tasks and routines assigned to them and they don't ask each other of their tasks, unless necessary. Asking random officials within SPD is also not going to get you information on warhead yields. That information is limited to - utmost top officials - only. I wouldn't be surprised if the DG SPD is the only person possessing the complete picture on the subject. He, of course, would be updating the prime minister and the service chiefs on the subject when required.


----------



## ghazi52

Two great Pakistani nuclear physicists Dr. Ishfaq and Mr. Munir are credited among the persons who are called as "father of the Pakistan's atomic bomb project. 

L to R: Mr. Munir Ahmad Khan, Chairman PAEC, Mr. Ghulam Ishaq Khan, then Minister for Finance and Coordination, General K.M. Arif, Vice Chief of Army Staff, and Dr. Ishfaq Ahmad, Member (Technical), PAEC. Circa 1983-84. Site: Kirana Hills during the cold tests.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Zoe Ali

Pakistan has test fired and successfully tested few variants of Cruise missile. 
India has also recently test fired what they say is indigenous cruise missile called Nirbhay. There is an interesting article on that from an expert. 

https://strafasia.com/finding-nirbhays-utility/


----------



## Haris Ali2140

@Quwa @Signalian 
Is there any chance of PAF getting Rokestan SOM or its equivalent from China???


----------



## FuturePAF

It's 2020. When the next crisis hits and the foreign media wants to ratchet up the fear-mongering they will ask how many Pakistan has; "Is it 200?" they will ask

https://www.dw.com/en/pakistan-could-have-200-nuclear-weapons-by-2020/a-18105706

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sunny4pak

*Pakistan-Ghaznavi Missile Test 23-01-2020




*


----------



## nomi007

Haris Ali2140 said:


> @Quwa @Signalian
> Is there any chance of PAF getting Rokestan SOM or its equivalent from China???


Turkish Som is based on Ra'ad Alcm

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Haris Ali2140

nomi007 said:


> Turkish Som is based on Ra'ad Alcm


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOM_(missile)


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Does Pakistan has any bomb equivalent to India's CBU-105?
@HRK @Dazzler @Rashid Mahmood @PanzerKiel @Zarvan @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @airomerix @Signalian

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Pakistani Fighter said:


> Does Pakistan has any bomb equivalent to India's CBU-105?
> @HRK @Dazzler @Rashid Mahmood @PanzerKiel @Zarvan @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @airomerix @Signalian


Yes we have cluster bombs. And other such bombs

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Accountant

Zarvan said:


> Yes we have cluster bombs. And other such bombs


Cluster bomb is not equivallent of CBU 105. We probably lack in this area


----------



## airomerix

Pakistani Fighter said:


> Does Pakistan has any bomb equivalent to India's CBU-105?
> @HRK @Dazzler @Rashid Mahmood @PanzerKiel @Zarvan @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @airomerix @Signalian



Sensor fuzed weapons are an intelligent form of cluster munitions that feature an infrared sensor, a safe and arming device, a thermal battery, and a copper liner. The infrared sensor detects the target and fuzes the warhead to explosively form the copper liner into a kinetic energy projectile that can defeat both armored and soft vehicle targets.

Pakistan does have 'intelligent' cluster munitions. For starters, we have BL-755's and Rockeye's for F-16s (conventional cluster weapons)

Air weapons complex Wah Cantt produced programmable submunitions dispensers (PSD-1) that dispense 225 anti-armor munitions. Kind of similar to US made Rockeye. Similarly, Pakistan National Development Complex Top Direct Attack Munitions (TSD-1) cluster bombs also known as Hijara.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## air marshal




----------



## PDF

Does Pakistan
imports motors/engines for:

Ballistic Missiles?
Cruise Missiles?

Please do clarify in case of produced internally, are they licence build or completely indeginiously produced?


----------



## Fawadqasim1

PDF said:


> Does Pakistan
> imports motors/engines for:
> 
> Ballistic Missiles?
> Cruise Missiles?
> 
> Please do clarify in case of produced internally, are they licence build or completely indeginiously produced?


For ballistic missiles we make our own solid rocket motors and now most of them are local designs I don't know anything about Cruse missiles.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PDF

Which BMs in Pakistan's inventory are MaRV capable?


----------

