Pakistan Successfully Tested Babur 3 Cruise Missile launch from Submarine : ISPR

[The Deterrent]

Now, if the Babur-3 was indeed launched from a SSK belonging to the PN—and the PN has only three Agosta 90B and two Agosta 70B SSKs all of which are equipped with the THALES-supplied SUBTICS combat management system—then the fire-control system servers required for computing and transmitting the firing solution for/to the encapsulated Babur-3 would have to be integrated with the SUBTICS and the 533mm torpedo launch-tubes. This is an impossible task, given the fact that THALES does not share the operating source-codes of thre SUBTICS’ fire-control algorithms with anyone.

They don't need to be integrated into SUBTICS. Torpedoes do because they remain in constant contact with the submarine's FCS and hardlinked to the submarine via control wires until autonomous tracking takes place within what could be considered terminal distance.

Norway is currently doing last-life upgrades on its Ula class submarines which includes FCS mods to make them able to handle newer generations of torpedoes.

The submarines are also having JSM - called NSM-SL when sub-launched - integrated into them, though the missile while be featured on the Ula replacement, not the Ulas themselves. The Ulas will be used for test-launches.

Because they don't use any systems that would need to be hard-linked with a submarine's FCS, and can be launched using the same protocols that see any foreign object evacuated from the torpedo tubes, such as MJK commandoes, the JSM can be launched regardless of any mods to the submarines systems.

Using strictly passive forms of guidance, they need minimal contact with the submarine itself.

Most SLCMs have their own control systems like Tomahawk's "Tactical Tomahawk Weapons Control System" that can be integrated into a boat's FCS to allow the missile to receive mid-course updates, but that's not strictly necessary.

It's still a good idea to integrate a missile into the greater FCS, which would require a modification of SUBTICS on French-origin submarines.

...

I can tell you from professional experience that when we do integration for AUVs we do need to make mods if we're running a control wire to the submarine mothership. But for disposable, one-shot systems like Mine Sniper, no such thing needs to be done. Just flood the tubes and launch and let the AUV's active guidance do its work.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/a-not-so-silent-war-babur-3-ssk-interception.471758/page-6#ixzz4VRZnXJjT

@Penguin @Oscar What is your opinion on this?
I believe their shouldn't be any problem in integrating Babur-3 with Agosta-90B, just like @Fenrir mentioned above. Furthermore, since the present submersible mobile testing platform can launch it without using a complex mechanism like a firing solution, the same can be applied here. The sub just has to achieve launch depth, level-off and eject the weapon. The missile's INS can then take over the boost phase, and later the A-GNSS + INS can guide it over sea till it reaches land, whereby TERCOM + DSMAC guidance begins.

However, the question of initialization of the INS remains.

 

[Abdul salam farooqi]

Hi friends this is my first post. I am regular reader of this forum since 10 year. I am very happy to read that Pakistan has successfully test babur cruise missile system from sea. Congratulations to all pakistanies all muslim brothers.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

That's something difficult to say.

But one can predict the status of SLBMs , if they are under production.That conveys which system has been integrated and which isn't.

By the way till now , Indian Navy hasn't made any claim with Arihant and 2nd strike capability.

If you look at the actual facts on the ground, as we speak, as of today, Pakistan has demonstrated its second strike capabilities from open sea using a submarine. Even the Pakistani official news release mentioned the "second strike capability".

Nobody is denying that India is in possession of missiles which can be launched with submerged platform, but to have a credible second strike capability, India must demonstrate firing these missiles from its subs. Until that is not done, Pakistan clearly enjoys a decisive edge here. This is astonishing, atleast on paper, when Indian efforts to nuclearise the Indian ocean are going on for sometime, well before of any recorded Pakistani attempt or effort.

 

[Sloth 22]

If you look at the actual facts on the ground, as we speak, as of today, Pakistan has demonstrated its second strike capabilities from open sea using a submarine. Even the Pakistani official news release mentioned the "second strike capability".

Nobody is denying that India is in possession of missiles which can be launched with submerged platform, but to have a credible second strike capability, India must demonstrate firing these missiles from its subs. Until that is not done, Pakistan clearly enjoys a decisive edge here. This is astonishing, atleast on paper, when Indian efforts to nuclearise the Indian ocean are going on for sometime, well before of any recorded Pakistani attempt or effort.

May be.

But I can say about our perspective. The SSBN and Associated programs are highly secretive, and its not considered important to show everything at the moment when we cannot have continuous deployment of SSBN for the whole year.

And release of SLBM test launches from SSBN is also a matter of concern. Even PLAAN doesn't show up anything.It doesn't undermine their 2nd strike capability.

 

[90ArsalanLeo]

Congratz to PN and team of scientists . I think France is taken into confidence about launch of Babur from Agosta 90 .Now , we have sea based Nuclear deterrence . Nuclear Triad is completed .

Why we need to take france in confidence its our subs we paid for it we dont owe any explanation to them

 

[Bratva]

Why we need to take france in confidence its our subs we paid for it we dont owe any explanation to them

They will suspend the maintenance contract and stop providing the spare parts . When a buyer sale their things, they put such clauses in the agreement so their hardware cant be reverse engineered by seller. Just as Apple or Samsung Voids the guarantee of any mobile if it has been Jailbroken.

I would provide you with the exact time frame, however the project is lagging behind, a lot. Delays keep popping out, but lets hope this time Pakistan goes through with it in one go (unlike Shaheen-III's multiple launch delays). This is understandable, given the complexity of the system and Pakistan's relative inexperience in this domain.

That zardari era dried up the funding. Money hai to honey hai. As the example of India, they have the money hence they procure technical expertise from anywhere. Hence the advance version of Agni 6 happened. The composite rocket, 4th Gen Guidance system has not only made the size of missile smaller but will help India to upgrade all of its missile inventory.

Meanwhile Pakistan is still in the business of lengthening their missiles


P.S What cause Shaheen III Launch delays ? Similar delayes Shaheen I faced in 1997 ? As per the AQ Khan revelations, Shaheen I exploded on the launch pad. for the first time when it was about to be tested.

 

[The Deterrent]

That zardari era dried up the funding. Money hai to honey hai. As the example of India, they have the money hence they procure technical expertise from anywhere. Hence the advance version of Agni 6 happened. The composite rocket, 4th Gen Guidance system has not only made the size of missile smaller but will help India to upgrade all of its missile inventory.

Meanwhile Pakistan is still in the business of lengthening their missiles

Well its not exactly like that. India has established a diverse and concrete base for ballistic missile development in form of the Agni series. True that they probably never faced serious funding issues, but its also the technological advancement rooted in the past decade that gives them the edge.

Pakistan is working with what we have at the moment, and what we know we can do with it.

P.S What cause Shaheen III Launch delays ? Similar delayes Shaheen I faced in 1997 ? As per the AQ Khan revelations, Shaheen I exploded on the launch pad. for the first time when it was about to be tested.

Minor glitches. If a system exhibits any sort of anomaly in the critical components during pre-flight tests, the whole thing has to be called off until it is clear to go. Flight data retrieval via telemetry is absolutely essential for test flights. A systems as big and complex as that requires flawless pre-flight clearance.
I don't know about any such event regarding Shaheen-I. The first flight was conducted in 1999.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

May be.

But I can say about our perspective. The SSBN and Associated programs are highly secretive, and its not considered important to show everything at the moment when we cannot have continuous deployment of SSBN for the whole year.

And release of SLBM test launches from SSBN is also a matter of concern. Even PLAAN doesn't show up anything.It doesn't undermine their 2nd strike capability.

I understand your perspective when it comes to secrecy. However looking from outside, its rather strange phenomena going about where India is very open about testing its BMs from submerged static pantoons, yet not revealing or openly conducting the same tests from submarines. Mind you, the tests of BMs cannot be hidden from the rest of the world unlike the cruise missiles.

Its more of the case where Missile and platform (submarines) are not matted yet.

 

[graphican]

Jane has suggested that Babur-III's range could be 700KM.
https://defence.pk/threads/ihs-jane-360-babur-3-cruise-missile-has-a-range-of-700-km.471921/

Taking 700KM range (which is a possibility), Pakistan would cover this much Indian territory.

 

[艹艹艹]

Congratulations to Pakistan

 

[Penguin]

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/a-not-so-silent-war-babur-3-ssk-interception.471758/page-6#ixzz4VRZnXJjT

@Penguin @Oscar What is your opinion on this?
I believe their shouldn't be any problem in integrating Babur-3 with Agosta-90B, just like @Fenrir mentioned above. Furthermore, since the present submersible mobile testing platform can launch it without using a complex mechanism like a firing solution, the same can be applied here. The sub just has to achieve launch depth, level-off and eject the weapon. The missile's INS can then take over the boost phase, and later the A-GNSS + INS can guide it over sea till it reaches land, whereby TERCOM + DSMAC guidance begins.

However, the question of initialization of the INS remains.

I'm inclined to agree with the post by Fenrir. Even on land, you need very little to target and use a NSM. But you do need to instruct the missile prior to launch e.g. on the target general whereabouts and flight profile to use. Only with fixed landbased target would there not be such a need. Possibly, one could launch and then instruct via datalink. Anyway, worst case, with the subs here, you would have to trick Subtics into thinking it is communicating with Exocet or Harpoon, both of which in use with PN subs using Subtics (A70 > Harpoon, A90B > Exocet): "Hi, I'm your UGM-84/SM-39, please provide the folliwing necessary info: ... ".

 

[gambit]

Among the most important things people must understand about the cruise missile is that just like any aircraft, the thing requires maintenance. But the big difference is that unlike a manned aircraft, once a cruise missile is in flight, there is no going back.

A manned aircraft is designed and literally overbuilt in order to be reusable. This aircraft must be overbuilt to withstand multiple contacts with the ground, aka 'landing'. Its wings must be overbuilt to sometimes support only the aircraft and sometimes to support the aircraft plus underwing stores. Its airframe must be overbuilt to withstand stress from unexpected altitude and speed changes. Its engine(s) must be overbuilt to withstand multiple starts and diverse performance settings.

Not so with the cruise missile. The few examples in the above paragraph that is a manned aircraft, it is the opposite for the cruise missile.

In aviation, civilian and military, there is something call a 'functional check flight' (FCF)...

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Functional_Check_Flights

FCF exists only if the aircraft is a reusable one. The aircraft flies, it developed a problem, maintenance repaired said problem, a pilot performs an FCF and recertified the aircraft.

This is not possible with a cruise missile since it is designed to be a one-way weapon with that mission on its first engine start. This make maintenance on the cruise missile only the periodic type, whereas on a manned aircraft, maintenance can and often is unplanned.

So what this means for cruise missile periodic maintenance is that the cruise missile is removed from operational status, disassembled, and each component is tested for functionality.

For example, the flight control system (FLCS) is tested as complete system to see if it responds to different simulated atmospheric inputs. The flight control actuators are tested discretely, meaning separated from the aircraft, to see if it responds to inputs. The warhead arming mechanisms are tested to see if it arms the warhead at the appropriate time.

http://www.tinker.af.mil/News/Artic...87023/tinker-shop-powers-cruise-missiles.aspx

"They're basically a throw-away engine," says Mike Harris, jet engine mechanic. "They're good for one go around."

With only one shot, everyone is meticulous. The seven-person crew are the only ones in the world who overhaul and maintain the miniature jet engine.

That means if a cruise missile engine failed at launch, the mission to attack the enemy just got degraded to some degrees.

In summary, it is one thing to successfully design and test a cruise missile, it is quite another to field a fleet and its supporting structure. Keep in mind that if the generals are convinced that the cruise missile fleet is functional and readied for war, they will incorporate this weapon into their war doctrines. If the cruise missile fleet fails to meet standards, the prosecution of the war will be much more difficult.

 

[ShoutB]

Jane has suggested that Babur-III's range could be 700KM.
https://defence.pk/threads/ihs-jane-360-babur-3-cruise-missile-has-a-range-of-700-km.471921/

Taking 700KM range (which is a possibility), Pakistan would cover this much Indian territory.
View attachment 367600

Only if you come so close to the coast.

 

[Chanakyaa]

Hi friends this is my first post. I am regular reader of this forum since 10 year. I am very happy to read that Pakistan has successfully test babur cruise missile system from sea. Congratulations to all pakistanies all muslim brothers.

10 Years !
Your Patience...is Outstanding !

Jane has suggested that Babur-III's range could be 700KM.
https://defence.pk/threads/ihs-jane-360-babur-3-cruise-missile-has-a-range-of-700-km.471921/

Taking 700KM range (which is a possibility), Pakistan would cover this much Indian territory.
View attachment 367600

Provided the Launch Platform was Docked at the Coast !
Quite contradictory is the fact that Nuclear Subs ( in Nuclear Role) tend to stay as far as possible !

 

[The Deterrent]

They cant even lie properly. Because for that they should know the basic of missile development.

Bunch of losers fantacising about fake launches. No Indian radar tracked it, no NOTAM, nothing. Just fooling their people.

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

Now take your tushy back to the cooling pump of the "Indian" radar that was supposed to track it (which you're late for by two weeks anyway).