What's new

Pakistan successfully tests Babur 1 A Cruise Missile : DG ISPR

. . . . . . . .
Fatah guided rockets.
Thursday 07-Jan-2021
Fateh-1 was tested, 140 km
Wednesday 20-Jan-2021
Shaheen-3 tested, 2,750 km
Wednesday 03-Feb-2021
Ghaznavi training tested, 290 km
Thursday 11-Feb-2021
Babur-1A training tested, 450 km
Oh so you guys counting that as a missile test. I thought that was classified under MLRS.

Thanks for the clarification though.
 
.
Also we need to increase the range to at least 1600 KM. 450 KM is not enough.
How do you suppose that is possible?
The TLAM does it with a highly efficient version of a williams turbojet and special TH-dimer fuel.
Which gives it a fairly low fuel consumption comparable to a business jet.
The best Pakistan has available to it are inefficient Chinese Turbojets so the best it can do is try to tune that engine or drop payload for fuel.

The Babur-1A may have lower range but it may very well be packing a bigger punch.
 
.
Oh so you guys counting that as a missile test. I thought that was classified under MLRS.

Thanks for the clarification though.
well it's a guided rocket this meets the minimal classification for a missile. frankly, given the insane speed of the Fateh missile & the fact that it is guided, I am convinced that this was Pakistan's hypersonic prototype test...maybe a proof of concept and a warning to the world that Pakistan also possesses hypersonic capabilities.
 
. .
How do you suppose that is possible?
The TLAM does it with a highly efficient version of a williams turbojet and special TH-dimer fuel.
Which gives it a fairly low fuel consumption comparable to a business jet.
The best Pakistan has available to it are inefficient Chinese Turbojets so the best it can do is try to tune that engine or drop payload for fuel.

The Babur-1A may have lower range but it may very well be packing a bigger punch.
Sir I fully understand that, and that is why we have to work on engine technology for these cruise missiles. Because unfortunately, we are not dealing with an enemy whose size is that of Israel. We are dealing with one of the biggest country in the world. Both by population and specially area wise. Therefore we have to make sure not for nuclear strikes even for conventional strikes we have it covered with all kind of missiles.
 
. .
Sir I fully understand that, and that is why we have to work on engine technology for these cruise missiles. Because unfortunately, we are not dealing with an enemy whose size is that of Israel. We are dealing with one of the biggest country in the world. Both by population and specially area wise. Therefore we have to make sure not for nuclear strikes even for conventional strikes we have it covered with all kind of missiles.
I don’t think such extreme measures are needed. if you ever get the time and interest, read about the checkmate plan by Warden - that is always how one should think along the lines.

Although part of it would be the unrealistic goal of increasing the PAF’s size by 30%
 
.
Back
Top Bottom