Pakistan has second strike capability against India

[The Deterrent]

Baber's weight is 1500kg, it is some 6.25m long and has a 52cm diameter. By comparison, C-802 is 715 kg, 6.39 m with a 39cm diameter. AM39 is 670 kilograms, 4.7 metres and 35 cm diameter. AGHM-84 Harpoon is 691 kg with booster, 3.8 m (surface- and submarine-launched: 4.6 m due to booster) and diameter 34cm.And then, of course, there is the 350km Hatf-VIII (Ra'ad): 1,100 kg, 4.85 m

The JF-17 can be armed with up to 3,629 kg weaponry and other equipment mounted externally on the aircraft's seven hardpoints. One hardpoint is located under the fuselage between the main landing gear, two are underneath each wing, and one is at each wing-tip. All seven hardpoints communicate via a MIL-STD-1760 data-bus architecture with the Stores Management System, which is stated to be capable of integration with weaponry of any origin.
JF-17 Block 1. The first three Chinese weapons to be integrated are the PL-5E AAM, the SD-10 AAM, and the C-802 anti-shipping missile.
JF-17 Block 2. These aircraft have air-to-air refuelling capability, improved avionics, enhanced load carrying capacity, data link, and electronic warfare capabilities

Mirage 3/5 4,000 kg of payload (including AM-39 Exocet) on 5 hardpoints.
F-16C Block 50: up to 7,700 kg of stores on 11 hardpoints

Since Babur is not longer than C802 and about as 'fat' as a fuel tank, centerline carriage is a real option (assuming 1500 kg is too much for the wing stations)

As in the Uks Future Offensive Air System?

I don't mean to disregard the calculations, but Ra'ad actually is the air-arm of Pakistani cruise missiles, so the air-launched Babur has no place in Pakistani SFC. One could argue that Ra'ad's range is too less (350km), but lets just say that it might increase the same way Babur went from ~500km to ~700km.

Regarding the second-strike capability, unless we have an SSBN or at least an SSK with SLBMs, the capability will never be a reliable one. Although PN could really roast the western coast, but thats just it.

 

[Bilal.]

Oh I See, a perfectly normal behaviour in forums...

Maybe. But it becomes a wee bit abnormal when you see comments section of Pakistani newspapers( and international ones), YouTube, the whole freakin' Internet and all you see is indians indulged in their obsession with Pakistan.

 

[Penguin]

Precisely. Many more ALCMs can be carried by these heavies compared to standard fighters.(we are not getting B52 any time soon ). So perhaps PAF can practice airborning them with dummy loads, and with the fighter cover, to simulate air launch from safe standoff ranges. And then give that Flight/Squadron some fancy name e.g. Crazy Rhinos.

Does PAF have any experience using the Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System (LAPES)?
Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Falgrine]

Does PAF have any experience using the Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System (LAPES)?

No idea whether PAF possesses such a system, but it seems something a bit trivial to develop/operationalize. No?
In my opinion mechanism like this (air launched CMs in scores from heavy A/C) could be a quite effective method to bolster the secondary strike capability.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Maybe. But it becomes a wee bit abnormal when you see comments section of Pakistani newspapers( and international ones), YouTube, the whole freakin' Internet and all you see is indians indulged in their obsession with Pakistan.

No, beeing annoying in Forums is still normal.

 

[Penguin]

I don't mean to disregard the calculations, but Ra'ad actually is the air-arm of Pakistani cruise missiles, so the air-launched Babur has no place in Pakistani SFC. One could argue that Ra'ad's range is too less (350km), but lets just say that it might increase the same way Babur went from ~500km to ~700km.

Regarding the second-strike capability, unless we have an SSBN or at least an SSK with SLBMs, the capability will never be a reliable one. Although PN could really roast the western coast, but thats just it.

THere is no reason why there can't be an airlaunched version of Babur, and there is no reason that is couldn't be carried by aircraft currently operated by PAF. I'm sure you could also strap it to P3C Orions or C130s if you put your mind to it.

No idea whether PAF possesses such a system, but it seems something a bit trivial to develop/operationalize. No?
In my opinion mechanism like this (air launched CMs in scores from heavy A/C) could be a quite effective method to bolster the secondary strike capability.

LAPES could a basis for a parachute extraction system for cruise missiles from large transports. It is not trivial.

 

[The Deterrent]

THere is no reason why there can't be an airlaunched version of Babur, and there is no reason that is couldn't be carried by aircraft currently operated by PAF. I'm sure you could also strap it to P3C Orions or C130s if you put your mind to it.

Of course it is possible to do all that, what I'm saying is that Ra'ad was developed for the same purpose as that of an air-launched Babur, so there is no need or requirement of such a system by the PAF or PN.

 

[Penguin]

Of course it is possible to do all that, what I'm saying is that Ra'ad was developed for the same purpose as that of an air-launched Babur, so there is no need or requirement of such a system by the PAF or PN.

Well, unless you consider 350km an insufficient stand-off distance for the launching aircraft
However, on the whole, I would agree with your PoV on this, assuming they are comparable in terms of accuracy, payload, guidance etc.

Suffice to say all three jets (Mirage, F-16 and JF-17) can definitely carry Ra'ad on the centreline and likely also on the innermost wingstations.

As for the P3C, it can carry the 562kg AGM-84 Harpoon, the 628 kg AGM-84E SLAM and the 675 kg AGM-84H SLAM-ER on at least 8 of its 10 underwing hardpoints (10 according to Lockheed, 12 according to The Naval Institute Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet, with the 2 extra most likely on the inner wing). At least six of these hardpoints - the inner most - regularly hold 2000 lb (907 kg) mines and are rated for a max. load of 2450 lb (1111kg) - see http://www.p3orion.nl/technical.html and pages 426 on CP-140 Aurora and 428 pn P3C Orion of A Compendium of Armaments and Military Hardware (Routledge Revivals) - Christopher Chant - Google Boeken - . That means Pakistan's P3C Orions are in principle capable of holding from 4 up to 6 of the 1100kg Ra'ad.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/P3SLAM.jpg

 

[Penguin]

A Dutch P-3C Orion over the North Sea in 2003
The Lockheed P-3C Orion was also used by the Royal Dutch Navy (Koninklijke Marine) air wing Marine Luchtvaart Dienst (MLD). They were used for maritime patrol duties replacing Lockheed SP-2H Neptune and ordered in December 1978. 13 P-3C Update II were delivered to The Netherlands between 21 July 1982 and 12 October 1984, Serials 300 to 312. They were used by the 320th and 321st sqadrons and a training unit (2 MOTU). They were modernized to the Update II-CUP standard starting in 2002. All were sold to Germany (8) and Portugal (5) in 2005.

 

[zebra7]

A Dutch P-3C Orion over the North Sea in 2003
The Lockheed P-3C Orion was also used by the Royal Dutch Navy (Koninklijke Marine) air wing Marine Luchtvaart Dienst (MLD). They were used for maritime patrol duties replacing Lockheed SP-2H Neptune and ordered in December 1978. 13 P-3C Update II were delivered to The Netherlands between 21 July 1982 and 12 October 1984, Serials 300 to 312. They were used by the 320th and 321st sqadrons and a training unit (2 MOTU). They were modernized to the Update II-CUP standard starting in 2002. All were sold to Germany (8) and Portugal (5) in 2005.

What actually you want to say. The long range air to ground cruise missile loaded into P-3 orion for attacking land target or say hardened target attacking from safe airspace and not crossing the enemy space. Anyway the cost of such missile should be around 2-3 million dollar a piece and that means it is meant for high value and hardened target which will be guarded well with long range SAM, shorads and might have air cover to deal with the subsonic missiles. The enemy had another option to get air-superiority in our space and to destroy the bases for such weapon delivery platform. For that land to land long range cruise missile with mobile platform will be better, cheaper, safer platform.

 

[Penguin]

What actually you want to say. The long range air to ground cruise missile loaded into P-3 orion for attacking land target or say hardened target attacking from safe airspace and not crossing the enemy space. Anyway the cost of such missile should be around 2-3 million dollar a piece and that means it is meant for high value and hardened target which will be guarded well with long range SAM, shorads and might have air cover to deal with the subsonic missiles. The enemy had another option to get air-superiority in our space and to destroy the bases for such weapon delivery platform. For that land to land long range cruise missile with mobile platform will be better, cheaper, safer platform.

All true. Still, having this option creates possibilities and adds complexity for any foe.

Combat radius P-3C: 1,346 nmi (2,490 km) with three hours on-station at 1,500 feet
Combat radius: 730 nmi (1,352 km, 840 mi)
Combat radius Mirage III: 647 nmi (1,200 km, 746 mi)
Combat radius Mirage 5: 675 nmi (1,250 km, 777 mi) hi-lo-hi profile, payload two 400 kg bomb and max external fuel
Combat radius F-16C Block 50: 295 nmi (550 km, 340 mi) on a hi-lo-hi mission with four 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs.

The flight distance from Karachi, Pakistan to Colombo, Sri lanka is: 1310.621nmi (2427.27 km / 1508.23 miles), for example. To Male, Maldives is: 1258.4 nmi (2330.55 km / 1448.14 miles) . From that flight line, most of the west coast of India is in range.

Land based Babur launched from e.g. Shahbandar, Pakistan, wouldn't reach farther than say Jamnagar, India. Fighter jets could threaten missile attacks as far down as to e.g. Mumbai. With cruise missile equipped P-3C, you could reach out and touch as far south as e.g. Kochi. Which has consequences for where India would have to have the above mentioned defences. Particularly if we are talking nuclear tipped missile.

 

[Penguin]

 

[Penguin]

DC-130A VC-3 in flight with BQM-34s 1972. Each weighs close to 700kg

Lockheed AC-130W Stinger II . With 'wet'pylons for fuel tanks and pylons for armament on the wings.

And another with 3 tanks and what appear to be launchers for Hellfire.

EC-130J Commando Solo

'Sea Hercules' (concept) Lockheed Martin's Sea Hercules unveiled | StratPost

The AC-130 Spectre gunship which the Americans are using for special operations in southern Afghanistan was designed for close support of ground forces. It is a development of the C-130 Hercules transport aircraft and as such is slow, flying at less than 300mph, but has a range of at least 1,500 miles without needing to refuel and can loiter over a combat area for some time.

AC-130 Gunship
The 1346 nmi of the P-3C is 1549 mi.

 

[Penguin]

With 4 Sagem AASM Hammer, at 340kg each. So the pylon could take 1320 kg.
Sagem Hammer Could Arm Hercules | Defense News: Aviation International News
See SAGEM site: AASM | Sagem

See also http://www.janes.com/article/50876/sagem-looks-to-arm-french-c-130s-with-aasm

See also http://www.dingsheng.com/portal.php?mod=view&aid=5740

1980s Argentinian field conversion: weapon pylons from a Pucara light attack aircraft, grafted onto the C-130s wing pylons normally reserved for fuel tanks, with free fall bombs on that grafted pylon. Looks like six 250kg bombs i.e. 1500kg. They also pulled a Pucara gun sight and fixed it in the C-130's cockpit.

 

[Penguin]

Here's some more pics of the Argentinian C-130 with bombs.

THe Pucara gunsught in the C-130

C-130H Hercules range: 2,050 nmi (2,360 mi, 3,800 km)
C-130J Hercules range: 2,835 nmi (3,262 mi, 5,250 km)
P-3C Orion range: 2,380 nmi (4,400 km), ferry range is 4,830 nmi (8,944 km)
CP-140A Aurora/Arcturus ferry range: 9,300 km (5,000 nmi, 5,737 mi)

Using the pylons as weapons mount would mean loosing some fuel capacity and range, but a fuel tank in the cargo hold could easily compensate. Such a tank is used e.g. in the KC-130J tanker, which has a specially configured internal fuselage 3,600-gallon aluminum fuel tank.
Lockheed Martin KC-130 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia