Outgoing Pakistan Navy chief details procurement progress

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

you have to diversify your weapons supplier base. I see no harm in sucking up to the Israelis

Even if that wasn't a factor, the Israelis are reliant on U.S aid. If the U.S. doesn't want to see the transfer of something to Pakistan, I imagine the Israelis will comply (at least where it's obvious, such as AAR technology).

 

[wiseone2]

Even if that wasn't a factor, the Israelis are reliant on U.S aid. If the U.S. doesn't want to see the transfer of something to Pakistan, I imagine the Israelis will comply (at least where it's obvious, such as AAR technology).

you never know until you try. I am amazed at what USA allowed India to purchase from Israel. Or what Israelis got Uncle Sam to allow. USA has clamped down on really sensitive stuff like Arrow ABM. Anything in the middle was available for India. I may add at a good price.

 

[The Deterrent]

Now that is the right question to ask. Why won't China sell CJ-10's turbofan? Think on entirely different lines!

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but my point is that the Chinese cooperation has been minimal after the 90s. They do not endorse transfer of technology even for their own completely indigenous systems.

CX-1 is an inferior missile if you were thinking on the lines of Brahmos. M-20 is a no go as it adds nothing to our existing capabilities. Unless you want to have a different truck chasis?

CX-1 may not be as good as BrahMos, but its land-attack version is extremely potent and dare I say, better than what we have for 'the' intended purpose.
M-20 is the Chinese equivalent of the Russian Iskander. Much better at ABM evasion against all existing systems and planned Indian systems. But Pakistan is also not very far behind in this specific tech.

 

[Zarvan]

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but my point is that the Chinese cooperation has been minimal after the 90s. They do not endorse transfer of technology even for their own completely indigenous systems.


CX-1 may not be as good as BrahMos, but its land-attack version is extremely potent and dare I say, better than what we have for 'the' intended purpose.
M-20 is the Chinese equivalent of the Russian Iskander. Much better at ABM evasion against all existing systems and planned Indian systems. But Pakistan is also not very far behind in this specific tech.

Sir are we developing a Missile which can be fired from to Ship to hit deep inside land. I mean ship to land Missile ? Cruise or Ballistic ?

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but my point is that the Chinese cooperation has been minimal after the 90s. They do not endorse transfer of technology even for their own completely indigenous systems.


CX-1 may not be as good as BrahMos, but its land-attack version is extremely potent and dare I say, better than what we have for 'the' intended purpose.
M-20 is the Chinese equivalent of the Russian Iskander. Much better at ABM evasion against all existing systems and planned Indian systems. But Pakistan is also not very far behind in this specific tech.

There are MTCR-compliant versions of the CX-1 and CM-302 available for export. I think having these with the new frigates, submarines and - ideally - fighters would be a boon.

 

[Gryphon]

There are MTCR-compliant versions of the CX-1 and CM-302 available for export. I think having these with the new frigates, submarines and - ideally - fighters would be a boon.

Both these are heavier missiles than C-602. While PN will get supersonic anti-ship capability, I believe the number of missiles on a surface ship could be less (as compared to C-602).

Assuming that PN intends to deploy LACM/AShM on new Chinese frigates, long range missile technology is what it needs to acquire - by hook or by crook.

And, JF-17 is already using CM-400AKG, a supersonic anti-ship missile.

 

[The Deterrent]

Sir are we developing a Missile which can be fired from to Ship to hit deep inside land. I mean ship to land Missile ? Cruise or Ballistic ?

I believe you have read the MoD document which mentioned development of an AShM & a LACM.

There are MTCR-compliant versions of the CX-1 and CM-302 available for export. I think having these with the new frigates, submarines and - ideally - fighters would be a boon.

For CX-1:

 

[Advocate Pakistan]

I believe you have read the MoD document which mentioned development of an AShM & a LACM.

I believe it was about launcher with one LACM and one AShM and not about the missiles themselves.

 

[Basel]

There are MTCR-compliant versions of the CX-1 and CM-302 available for export. I think having these with the new frigates, submarines and - ideally - fighters would be a boon.

You are forgetting YJ-18 which even US think is a potent weapon.

 

[Hassan Guy]

I predicted Pakistan's next-gen frigate program around this time last year.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/top-10-future-weapons-of-pakistan-updated.459276/

 

[Advocate Pakistan]

I predicted Pakistan's next-gen frigate program around this time last year.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/top-10-future-weapons-of-pakistan-updated.459276/

Predict a military satellite now.

 

[Penguin]

Installing a VLS on F-22P requires significant changes to the basic ship structure which will be very costly.

Depends of which VLS, esp., how deep ontp the ship's hull it would go, and if it would involve a hull-plug. Modifying an existing ship versus a new built also makes a difference.

 

[Gryphon]

Depends of which VLS, esp., how deep ontp the ship's hull it would go, and if it would involve a hull-plug. Modifying an existing ship versus a new built also makes a difference.

Universal VLS on already built F-22P. Thats what I assumed while writing the comment.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Predict a military satellite now.

It's a little trippy seeing that he also predicted the MIRV and 5th-gen fighter. He also asked for a HALE UAV, but we got the Project Azm MALE UAV instead. Maybe he should link to a PAF article on Quwa and predict a Su-35 purchase.

 

[khanasifm]

https://defensemediareview.wordpress.com/2015/02/15/pakistan-navy-response-to-questions/