PAF Conducts Successful Test Launch of Taimoor ALCM

[Tariq Habib Afridi]

I will respond to all of the comments/questions in a separate post:



This is very likely meant for high-value targets like a HAS housing an AWACs or a C&C node. Keep in mind this is an expensive system, which will be produced in low numbers, is complicated to launch, and must be prefed target information.







Actually, like I said in an earlier post, something like this needs very little software integration, except transfer alignment. So I believe this will eventually move to the JF-17, source codes for FMS or not. I've given the reasons for why Mirage is used for tests.









I've detailed in the post how this addition of a seeker is non trivial.





I don't think there's any significant ground clearance difference between the blocks of JF-17. We know the JF-17 can at the very least carry the Ra'ad 1. Of course there are many more stages after that, which I've detailed in posts. I've talked about clearance in detail.





Indeed.



Yes.




If I was designing the end-game guidance for this missile, I'd do at least two modes. Top attack and horizontal attack. Obviously, this missile as target recognition. Some targets might require top-down attack, while others like a HAS might require horizontal terminal flight to go through the front door for example. The advantage of a subsonic CM is that you can actually plan things like that - especially since we're talking about stationary targets.





This is meant to hit HVTs that are preprogrammed as images to be recognized. There is no hope of updates at 600 km range, we are not the US.












Anti-ship role might be easy and hard. Targeting is easy because a ship stands out in the ocean. Hard because it is straightforward to shoot down a slow-moving Ra'ad.






Terrain hugging can benefit from terrain maps for any decently low altitude flight because you need to plan ahead - an altimeter only looks down and has no idea if there's K2 in front of you for example. Legacy terrain-following just used a radar but modern terrain-following utilizes maps. Furthermore, like I said in an earlier post, integration of a seeker is a non trivial addition. Furtherfuthermore, this is just for stationary targets IMHO because HVTs don't move that much (don't), the INS/TERCOM/DSMAC gets you to a preprgrammed point and the seeker only kicks in close to the target which better not have move out of your seeker's range, and recognizing and tracking moving targets will be much harder to do autonomously.





There's a third option that USA uses. Superior intelligence is used to plan the path of your missile to avoid AD and EW is used for jamming and spoofing. With the relatively transparent intelligence environment of South Asia, this might be an option for us.




Depends. Flares that release just before the endgame starts are easy because this just needs space and a timing logic. Intelligent countermeasure system where it detects it is being targeted and releases flares to spoof incoming missiles will be hard and require additional sensors like a mini MAWS and complicated logic, in addition to space.



More and more it is becoming obvious that GNSS is more a liability than an asset because it is jammed WAY too easily and more importantly can be spoofed to mess up your navigation system. So if you can help it you avoid using GNSS. And for these cruise missiles, I believe you can help it using INS/TERCOM/DSMAC.

Great response! However, I have one question: You mentioned that Taimoor emphasizes stationary targets, but the DGPR explicitly notes its capability for moving targets (e.g., ships via sea-skimming). From that, my question is—what specific upgrades to the IIR seeker could enable better handling of moving targets like ships in contested maritime environments? On the interception issue at sea, I think you're right that there's nothing for it to hide behind, making this subsonic cruise missile hard to survive (due to its slow speed and vulnerability to ship-based defenses). So, why does the official release mention that it can be used for sea targets? are there any specific sea targets where taimoor can be used and effective? so they mentioned sea as well?

 

[puttputt]

Great response! However, I have one question: You mentioned that Taimoor emphasizes stationary targets, but the DGPR explicitly notes its capability for moving targets (e.g., ships via sea-skimming). From that, my question is—what specific upgrades to the IIR seeker could enable better handling of moving targets like ships in contested maritime environments? On the interception issue at sea, I think you're right that there's nothing for it to hide behind, making this subsonic cruise missile hard to survive (due to its slow speed and vulnerability to ship-based defenses). So, why does the official release mention that it can be used for sea targets? are there any specific sea targets where taimoor can be used and effective? so they mentioned sea as well?

I think ISPR's point is that the Ra'ad-II/Taimur (basically the same missile, different name to demarcate between conventional and nuclear use) is that the IIR seeker in general will allow for engaging moving targets. Past versions of the Ra'ad-II/Taimur did not have IIR; rather, they strictly relied on INS + TERCOM/DSMAC, so they were strictly for engaging fixed targets. The addition of IIR offers another capability (vs. moving targets).

 

[Starlord]

No weapon discussion is complete without arguing over the name of the system...

 

[safriz]

On a side note , did anyone notice that there has been no annual report from MODP after 2022?
We used to put the MODP year books under the microscope and were a great source of authentic information about Pakistani defense related Procurements and projects.
Last 3 years they published nothing. I wonder why?

 

[safriz]

No weapon discussion is complete without arguing over the name of the system...

Yet nobody ever complained about an entire PAF suqdron , named Black spiders. Kaalay Makray...
But people are angry about using the names of our regional Muslim historical rulers. far more related to our history and culture than ...Kaalay Makray

 

[puttputt]

On a side note , did anyone notice that there has been no annual report from MODP after 2022?
We used to put the MODP year books under the microscope and were a great source of authentic information about Pakistani defense related Procurements and projects.
Last 3 years they published nothing. I wonder why?

Transparency shut down. In fact, the MoDP reports began to tank in detail around 2018, so reports stopping altogether isn't surprising.

IMO, if DGDP doesn't want folks to know what current or near-term procurement plans are in the pipeline, they could at least disclose the details 1, 3, and/or 5 years after the program is concluded (shorter for the less serious ones, 5 for the more serious ones).

 

[safriz]

Transparency shut down. In fact, the MoDP reports began to tank in detail around 2018, so reports stopping altogether isn't surprising.

IMO, if DGDP doesn't want folks to know what current or near-term procurement plans are in the pipeline, they could at least disclose the details 1, 3, and/or 5 years after the program is concluded (shorter for the less serious ones, 5 for the more serious ones).

More to do with corruption than anything else.....

 

[JamD]

Then this shouldn't be a problem for us given we have some beiduo surveillance from China. We can do more damage to enemy in next conflict with swarm of cm-400 and taimur for SEAD/DEAD

Let's not get carried away. HUMINT is the actual strength of our intelligence and theirs. Furthermore, I don't think it is fair to assume we have unfeterred access to Chinese surveillance apparatus - they are not Pakistan's vassal state. Also Beiduo is a GNSS system not a surveillance system? Even CIA relies on a combination of satellite and HUMINT. Next, swarms? Making 100 of these will likely bankrupt Pakistan so let's relax a bit. These are meant for HVT for which the cost-to-target ratio makes sense. This (or CM400AKG) are not swarm weapons for a country like Pakistan. They are the fine, long-reaching, cutting edge.

Swarm CM-400 ?
Pakistan ever bought 50 units. At least two have already been put to good use. We are left with 48 now

That's what I know as well.

View attachment 169774

@JamD target data upload or something else?

Hien?

Battery charge ho rahi hai iss ki

Pretty sure that's power as @safriz said. Targeting data is probably prefed for a first test of a system like this.

Great response! However, I have one question: You mentioned that Taimoor emphasizes stationary targets, but the DGPR explicitly notes its capability for moving targets (e.g., ships via sea-skimming). From that, my question is—what specific upgrades to the IIR seeker could enable better handling of moving targets like ships in contested maritime environments? On the interception issue at sea, I think you're right that there's nothing for it to hide behind, making this subsonic cruise missile hard to survive (due to its slow speed and vulnerability to ship-based defenses). So, why does the official release mention that it can be used for sea targets? are there any specific sea targets where taimoor can be used and effective? so they mentioned sea as well?

I think ISPR's point is that the Ra'ad-II/Taimur (basically the same missile, different name to demarcate between conventional and nuclear use) is that the IIR seeker in general will allow for engaging moving targets. Past versions of the Ra'ad-II/Taimur did not have IIR; rather, they strictly relied on INS + TERCOM/DSMAC, so they were strictly for engaging fixed targets. The addition of IIR offers another capability (vs. moving targets).

What @puttputt said but let me add my 2 cents:
Land:
A system like Taimoor is meant for HVT like a parked AWACS, a C&C Node, an ammo dump. I can't think of a HVT on the Indian front that would be moving. Even if something is moving, with a seeker and terminal guidance, a moving target is basically stationary as far as the guidance law is concerned, given the target is a good fraction slower than your missile - this is a well known fact. So technically Taimoor can hit slowly moving targets but it has no need for the added complication to hit quickly moving targets like a flying aircraft or another missile - but that's obvious. The issue is that on land or air a moving target is usually small so not sure if the complication is worth it to make its CEP small enough. Better to keep things simple, technically say you can hit moving targets, but really be about big stationary targets.

Sea:
I think there's nothing stopping you from launching a Taimoor at INS Vikrant. You would successfully hit it if Vikrant's (and its carrier group's) defenses were down. But PAF is not going to do that because that's not a realistic scenario but sure the capability is there, which what ISPR is saying IMHO.

 

[safriz]

Let's not get carried away. HUMINT is the actual strength of our intelligence and theirs. Furthermore, I don't think it is fair to assume we have unfeterred access to Chinese surveillance apparatus - they are not Pakistan's vassal state. Also Beiduo is a GNSS system not a surveillance system? Even CIA relies on a combination of satellite and HUMINT. Next, swarms? Making 100 of these will likely bankrupt Pakistan so let's relax a bit. These are meant for HVT for which the cost-to-target ratio makes sense. This (or CM400AKG) are not swarm weapons for a country like Pakistan. They are the fine, long-reaching, cutting edge.


That's what I know as well.




Pretty sure that's power as @safriz said. Targeting data is probably prefed for a first test of a system like this.



What @puttputt said but let me add my 2 cents:
Land:
A system like Taimoor is meant for HVT like a parked AWACS, a C&C Node, an ammo dump. I can't think of a HVT on the Indian front that would be moving. Even if something is moving, with a seeker and terminal guidance, a moving target is basically stationary as far as the guidance law is concerned, given the target is a good fraction slower than your missile - this is a well known fact. So technically Taimoor can hit slowly moving targets but it has no need for the added complication to hit quickly moving targets like a flying aircraft or another missile - but that's obvious. The issue is that on land or air a moving target is usually small so not sure if the complication is worth it to make its CEP small enough. Better to keep things simple, technically say you can hit moving targets, but really be about big stationary targets.

Sea:
I think there's nothing stopping you from launching a Taimoor at INS Vikrant. You would successfully hit it if Vikrant's (and its carrier group's) defenses were down. But PAF is not going to do that because that's not a realistic scenario but sure the capability is there, which what ISPR is saying IMHO.

Btw, have you looked into the Arihant class subs?
I am researching for a video i am making, and normally i dont praise Indian weaponry, but this time Indians doing pretty good , and Pakistan should not ignore.

Poor Vikrant is a shallow water ship. Does not venture too far from Vishakapatnam. As ISPr said in their press conference " Yeh jahaz apna difaa nahii ker sakta, Pakistan per kiyaa hamla karay gaa" .

But Arihant class is a genuine threat and i dont know hats being done about that.

 

[Michael]

Aren’t there military grade MEMS IMU out there. I believe China makes them too.

Additional information:

High-precision laser gyroscopes are among the products subject to strict control under China's "Export Control List of Dual-Use Items." ------ For specific technical parameters and control ranges, please visit the Chinese government website for details.

Products on this list require a very strict approval process if they are to be exported to other countries. Furthermore, the trading partner must provide very detailed instructions for use and a commitment regarding their intended purpose. In short, the procedures are very complicated.

However, laser gyroscopes that fall outside the specified accuracy range do not require approval and can be freely exported without restrictions.

The complete list is as follows: (Chinese content. Navigation products are on pages 94-97.)

https://www.mofcom.gov.cn/cms_files/filemanager/600926013/attach/202411/b380caacca9b4f67b38fcc98713079d7.pdf

===========================================

During missile testing, Pakistan can initially use products from other countries or civilian-grade gyroscopes. After successful testing, Pakistan can then apply to China for a special license to purchase high-precision military-grade laser gyroscopes.

 

[JamD]

Btw, have you looked into the Arihant class subs?
I am researching for a video i am making, and normally i dont praise Indian weaponry, but this time Indians doing pretty good , and Pakistan should not ignore.

Poor Vikrant is a shallow water ship. Does not venture too far from Vishakapatnam. As ISPr said in their press conference " Yeh jahaz apna difaa nahii ker sakta, Pakistan per kiyaa hamla karay gaa" .

But Arihant class is a genuine threat and i dont know hats being done about that.

I haven't. But I'm the kind of person that would rather overestimate the enemy rather than ourselves. My limited knowledge on this is that PN has set up a SOSUS-type net. @Oscar

 

[safriz]

It's an upgraded version of raad. Problem is speed. India has far more advanced missiles than Pakistan. This missile can't penetrate 100 km inside India. We aren't learning lessons. We should invest our energy and time on hypersonic technology rather than outdated concepts.

So, the supersonic Missile you are talking about, Brahmos, weighs 3 tons. Because to achieve and sustain supersonic flight, the missile needs significantly more structural integrity, heat management and fuel, than a subsonic missile of same range.

As a result IAF had to specially modify 60 or so , of their SU-30 MKI fleet to be able to carry just a single Brahmos underbelly .
the modified SU-30 MKI went through permanent changes, in the form of additional stiffening of airframe, and made the aircrafts permanently heavy , reducing the aircraft range.

Again due to weight , no other aircrafts in the entire IAF fleet can carry the Brahmos, other than the specially modified MKI.

As per IAF sources , during Op Sindoor , 19 Brahmos were fired on Pakistan. How many actually hit the target? I guess one hit Shahbaz base? One hit a ground Radar in Sukkhur?
The other 17 went where?
many didnt even make it to Pakistan.
Here is a video of Brahmos debris in Indian territory.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Vkdindian1]

I haven't. But I'm the kind of person that would rather overestimate the enemy rather than ourselves. My limited knowledge on this is that PN has set up a SOSUS-type net. @Oscar

@JamD, few doubts and you seem to be the best person to clarify them.
- Was it the first trial or the validation of the final product ?
- What is the estimated accuracy of this missile and what should it be considering the kind of targets it is meant for? It seems to have fallen outside the circle. From the angle of the video one can’t make out by how much due to parallax. Generally, such trials also have a video from above to show the accuracy of a weapon. Test of SMASH is an example of that.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Many people are likely to get behind me for stating this but it should still be a concern for the planners since it was a launch in ideal conditions in uncontested space.

 

[NGAD IS THE BEST]

Great response! However, I have one question: You mentioned that Taimoor emphasizes stationary targets, but the DGPR explicitly notes its capability for moving targets (e.g., ships via sea-skimming). From that, my question is—what specific upgrades to the IIR seeker could enable better handling of moving targets like ships in contested maritime environments? On the interception issue at sea, I think you're right that there's nothing for it to hide behind, making this subsonic cruise missile hard to survive (due to its slow speed and vulnerability to ship-based defenses). So, why does the official release mention that it can be used for sea targets? are there any specific sea targets where taimoor can be used and effective? so they mentioned sea as well?

No you're wrong brother, subsonic anti-ship cruise missiles are more survivable compare to supersonic anti-ship cruise with low IR and radar signatures (sea skimming mode) whereas ALL supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles have a BIG IR and radar signatures compare to subsonic one and also All supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles are not TRUE cruise missile, can't cruise supersonically at few meters above the waves like subsonic ones because of much much denser atmosphere at sea level, they can only sustain supersonic speed at much much higher altitude (at the minimum few hundreds meters above the sea level) hence can be detected much much earlier than compare to their subsonic cousins and can be intercepted with specialized short range surface to air missiles (specifically designed to intercept supersonic anti- ship missiles) like US ESSM (evolved sea sparrow missile) RIM-116 (rolling airframe missile), Chinese HHQ-10/FN-90/FL-90 and Russian counterparts (did know the names )

The only advantage supersonic anti-ship missiles have over subsonic ones is THE REACTIION TIME IS MUCH MUCH LOWER THAN SUBSONIC ONES (AT TERMINAL STAGE) but you have to consider their high trajectories ( in cruise phase) so they could be detected much much earlier (in cruise phase) compare to their subsonic cousins, So supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles can be intercepted much earlier ( in their early terminal phase) compare to their subsonic cousins

And last USN have most concern about HYBRID anti-ship cruise missiles ( subsonic ((cruise))+ supersonic ((terminal)) ) rather than ALL SUPERSONIC ANTI-SHIP CRUISE MISSILEs like Russian sizzler variants and Chinese YJ-18 series rather than Brahmos/ YJ-12 type ALL supersonic anti-ship missiles

 

[JamD]

@JamD, few doubts and you seem to be the best person to clarify them.
- Was it the first trial or the validation of the final product ?

First trial of Taimoor (like for real first not first publicly revealed successful first trial and sorry I need to pull a trust me bro on that based on people I know). This means this was the first trial of Ra'ad 2 with seeker + terminal guidance. Many tests of Ra'ad before this but first trial of the end game.

- What is the estimated accuracy of this missile and what should it be considering the kind of targets it is meant for? It seems to have fallen outside the circle. From the angle of the video one can’t make out by how much due to parallax. Generally, such trials also have a video from above to show the accuracy of a weapon. Test of SMASH is an example of that.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Many people are likely to get behind me for stating this but it should still be a concern for the planners since it was a launch in ideal conditions in uncontested space.

So the much talked about CEP is actually a statistical measure, which means that you can either do lots of actual tests or lots of simulations. You can guess that people do high fidelity simulations to get a pretty good estimate of the CEP. Unfortunately, this number is going to be super classified. So I can't really answer your question because I don't know.

Regarding it not hitting inside the circle, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Firstly, random effects can and do cause errors, which is why CEP is a statistical measure and not a deterministic measure. Secondly, im sure the data is being poured over to see what the specific reason for the error was. Thirdly, this was just the first test. And finally, it worked as a proof of concept because the seeker + guidance was clearly working - just not working well enough.

This thing carries a 400kg warhead so it doesn't need to be 5m CEP or anything. According to this website a 400kg tnt blast is lethal upto 17m:

Blast Damage Estimation | International Ammunition Technical Guidelines

unsaferguard.org

Just for a ballpark.