What's new

Debunking India's Military supremacy claims

Indian Army has far better night fighting capabilities than Pakistan can ever dream.

kiddo, in last 10-12 years 6400 Pakistani forces killed whereas only 3200 Indian forces killed.

9450 is totally fake, Commander Sauna Mehsus revealed in an interview last week only 700-800 TTP soldiers died.

Pakistani missile failures are far more than Indian Even The Detterent admitted it.

Pakistan has only 156 4th gen jets where Ad we have 385 such.

Pashtun and Balochis are deserting Pakistan army in record numbers

All lies. Prove all the above statements bachay. Don't you know that in 2002 Pakistan-india standoff India had 789–1,874 non-combat deaths without having a war with Pakistan and we didn't lost a single soldier and this proves that Indian army has no night vision capabilities. You can browse it here:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001–02_India–Pakistan_standoff

If you have sources to prove your statements than talk otherwise leave it.

http://thediplomat.com/2016/12/bad-...-sub-nirbhay-cruise-missile-fails-test-again/
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/drdo...se-missile-nirbhay-fails-another-test-1640500
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-for-the-fourth-time/articleshow/56105444.cms
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Nirbhay-missile-test-“an-utter-failure”/article16915750.ece
https://sputniknews.com/military/201612211048845161-india-missile-test/
https://sputniknews.com/asia/201612081048326315-bvraam-test-failure/
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-indian-missiles-fail-during-tests

Give me a source saying Pakistan nuclear missiles test ever failed. No country in the entire world ever stated that any of Pakistani missile failed. Pakistan has the most complex and one of the most powerful & successful doctrine in the world in such a low budget and this is the reason due to which we maintain balance of power and stability in South Asia. We will destroy that idiotic "Akhand Bharat" ideology.
 
.
@BetterPakistan
Thousands of Pakistani soldiers died in parakram but as Pakistan was in a military dictatorship no figures were revealed.

Pakistani missile program was such a failure that a Shaheen misdile exploded in launch pad killing many.
see page 82 in Babur cruise missile thread.
 
.
@BetterPakistan
Thousands of Pakistani soldiers died in parakram but as Pakistan was in a military dictatorship no figures were revealed.

Pakistani missile program was such a failure that a Shaheen misdile exploded in launch pad killing many.
see page 82 in Babur cruise missile thread.

Lie. Lie. Lie

Nobody will trust it, if you got a credible source than talk to me.

No Pakistani missile ever failed and no Pakistani soldier died in parakaram. Your claims are as bad as your sir g kal strikes :D :D :D
 
.
In India, MAN Trucks India Pvt. Ltd., a 100% subsidiary of MAN Truck & Bus AG, Germany, manufactures heavy trucks and buses, both for the Indian market as well as for export to Asian, the Middle East and African countries.
http://www.mantrucksindia.com/company/mti-at-glance/

Man AG may be a German company, but MAN Trucks India is a manufacturer in India. So, the logo MAN on a truck does not automatically mean an import.
Pakistan too has Gandhara Nissan, Hinopak. They assemble Trucks for local and export market. That doesn't make Hino or Nissan Pakistani brands.
 
.
Lie. Lie. Lie

Nobody will trust it, if you got a credible source than talk to me.

No Pakistani missile ever failed and no Pakistani soldier died in parakaram. Your claims are as bad as your sir g kal strikes :D :D :D
Your own think tank The Deterrent would disagree.
 
. .
This thread will consist of the infographics i have been posting in different corners of the Internet .
Readers are free to support with further proof or deny with logical comments.
On my part i have done enough research to create these infographics and i am pretty sure what i am saying.
It may be worth mentioning that none of us are Missile or Nuclear scientists or DRDO / NESCOM insiders. That type of Qualifications are not required to comment on a public INTERNET forum and all are welcome to discuss.
As the thread title shows,it's about debunking India's highly exaggerated claims of Military supremacy.
I totally agree, we are totally weak on defense. There is no real supremacy we have, that is why we are spending money to modernise our armed forces. The goal is to get there. Now that we agree, can you guys please stop complaining about our defense spending. You all know we are in bad shape right. Surgical strike did not happen we just cooked it up. Cant we have some harmless fun?
 
.
India's K-15 SLBM is the only one in the world with fins.
View attachment 374766
K-15 has tail-fins for maneuvering inside the atmosphere, it is a submarine launched quasi ballistic missile. This has nothing to do with it being a SLBM.
Claims of Indian Agni-V range being 8000 km are based on a single comment made by a Chinese professor to western news media in 2012, just after first ever test of Agni-5.
The professor is a known military analyst from PLA, bur also known for making factually wrong assumptions and predictions based on that.
His commentary about Agni-5 range should be taken with a pinch of salt, not as fact.View attachment 374791
That actually might be true. I have trajectory data on test flights of Agni-4 and Agni-5, which hints that Agni-5 (and similarly Agni-3) flies on a much much depressed trajectory (600km apogee) to hit a target 5000km away. However Agni-4 on the other hand has a lofted trajectory (800km apogee) to hit targets 4000km away i.e. closer to its maximum possible theoretical range.
That said, unless Agni-5 is flight-tested at that range (8000km), the end-user will always have lesser confidence in the system being fired that far.
India's Agni-5 uses exactly the same first stage and probably the same second stage as Agni-3.
In fact Agni-5 is a botched up Agni-3 in which and extra stage has been crammed in the top triangular warhead area.
It should have been called Agni-3A not Agni-5.
View attachment 374945
Both 2nd and 3rd stage in Agni-5 are made of composites. By that logic, Shaheen-3 should also be called Shaheen-2A, a "souped up" Shaheen-2. The name of a system does not effects its performance.
That is not a very informed argument. Shaheen-2's maximum range is 1500km, not 2500km. And Agni-5's maximum theoretical range could be around 8000km (not sure, but its definitely much more than 5000km).
You have to accept that India (DRDO) is way way ahead in missile technology than Pakistan. The technologies Pakistan has only implemented now in Shaheen-3, were already implemented by India in Agni-II back in the early 2000s.
Missile deployment and robustness of the Command & Control structure, however, is a different story.
Pakistan air force has demonstrated Nuclear capability. Indian air force has never shown any nuclear capability despite claims of completing "Nuclear Triad".
Question is how exactly Indian Air force fits into the nuclear triad?
View attachment 375028
"Nuclear capability" isn't limited to cruise missiles only for the air-arm. Both India and Pakistan deployed their first nuclear weapons in the form of gravity bombs in the late 90s. However if you mean stand-off nuclear capability, then you are correct.
India's Agni-5 using booster.
The only solid fueled long range missile to do so. Reason may be lack of massive thrust.
Again, that is not a "booster"! Its the ejector motor, which fires up to generate rapidly expanding hot gases inside the canister. This is how a cold-launch/cold-ejection works. Take a look at this SS-18 launch, and observe that the ejector motor fires to side in a similar way.
 
.
K-15 has tail-fins for maneuvering inside the atmosphere, it is a submarine launched quasi ballistic missile. This has nothing to do with it being a SLBM.

That actually might be true. I have trajectory data on test flights of Agni-4 and Agni-5, which hints that Agni-5 (and similarly Agni-3) flies on a much much depressed trajectory (600km apogee) to hit a target 5000km away. However Agni-4 on the other hand has a lofted trajectory (800km apogee) to hit targets 4000km away i.e. closer to its maximum possible theoretical range.
That said, unless Agni-5 is flight-tested at that range (8000km), the end-user will always have lesser confidence in the system being fired that far.

Both 2nd and 3rd stage in Agni-5 are made of composites. By that logic, Shaheen-3 should also be called Shaheen-2A, a "souped up" Shaheen-2. The name of a system does not effects its performance.

That is not a very informed argument. Shaheen-2's maximum range is 1500km, not 2500km. And Agni-5's maximum theoretical range could be around 8000km (not sure, but its definitely much more than 5000km).
You have to accept that India (DRDO) is way way ahead in missile technology than Pakistan. The technologies Pakistan has only implemented now in Shaheen-3, were already implemented by India in Agni-II back in the early 2000s.
Missile deployment and robustness of the Command & Control structure, however, is a different story.

"Nuclear capability" isn't limited to cruise missiles only for the air-arm. Both India and Pakistan deployed their first nuclear weapons in the form of gravity bombs in the late 90s. However if you mean stand-off nuclear capability, then you are correct.

Again, that is not a "booster"! Its the ejector motor, which fires up to generate rapidly expanding hot gases inside the canister. This is how a cold-launch/cold-ejection works. Take a look at this SS-18 launch, and observe that the ejector motor fires to side in a similar way.
About K-15, being Quasi Ballistic or being able to fly a depressed trajectory is not Unique to India or K-15. Pretty much all SLBM or many ICBM can do that without the need of any fins.
There is data available for Trident being able to fly DT-60 or depressed trajectory at only 60 Km altitude at the expense of reduced range of 1700-2000 Km.
Having wings is not a must. In fact wings increase drag.
There must be good reason why nobody else uses wings on their SLBM?

About Agni-5 Range you are writing self contradictory comment. Read your own comment again. No it is not 8000 Km. It is what it is 5500Km.

About Shaheen 3 being named Shaheen 2A, its not us having relentless problems with names of Indian missiles. Its them who have problems with pretty much every of our missiles names since the start.

About Booster on ICBM.
You are giving example of SS-18? A 110+ ton liquid fuel missile. Liquid fuel engine do not give abrupt massive thrust and need solid motor booster to get the vehicle going.
Not the same case with a solid fuel missile or launch vehicle.
Agni-5 is solid fueled not liquid?
 
.

13495117_918870654891786_8552184645076143057_n[1].jpg
 
. .
Pakistan too has Gandhara Nissan, Hinopak. They assemble Trucks for local and export market. That doesn't make Hino or Nissan Pakistani brands.
No, it doesn't but a truck manufactured domestically is different from a truck imported, even if the domestically manufactured truck is manufactered under a foreign brand. In naval terms, compare F22P (at least one domestically built) and Pr. 11356 (pure import) frigates. A TEL domestically built on an imported chassis isn't the same as a fully domestically built TEL (even if that TEL is marketed under a non-domestic brand).

TATA 12x12 (India, licensee)
tata_lpta_5252.jpg


Tatra 12x12 (Czech, licensor)
32ab3264e64253d703c90ef565778a4d.jpg


129231.jpg

Whether this 12x12 chassis is used for a TEL, depends on the lenght of the payload, notg whether it can be produced.

Tatra 16x16 (Czech)
tatra_special_05_t815-7_16x8_chassis_streicher_03.jpg


India:
Beriev A-50EI: 3 + 2 on order
Embraer ERJ-145 AEWCS: 2 currently undergoing testing by DRDO and IAF. 1 more to be delivered
> 5+3 = 8

Pakistan:
Saab 2000 Erieye 4
Shaanxi ZDK-03 4
> 4+4=8
 
. . .
Epic Fail.
@Penguin PAF has 3 Erieye as one was destroyed by TTP soldiers in Kamra.
That is correct. It may or may not be replaced.

Apparently:
"In August 2012, nine assailants belonging to the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) had infiltrated and attacked PAF Minhas, the air base which was housing the PAF’s newly acquired Erieye AEW&C fleet at the time. Of the three units stationed on that day, two were damaged and one had been written-off (i.e. destroyed). In effect, the PAF had one active Erieye AEW&C.

In September 2015, Pakistan announced – and flew – a repaired Erieye unit, and the Senate Defence Committee Chairman’s recent statements fully indicate that the PAF now has three active Erieye units. The PAF has yet to officially confirm if it is in the process of replacing the written-off unit."
http://quwa.org/2016/10/04/pakistan-aeronautical-complex-key-repairing-saab-erieye-aewcs/
 
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom