Pakistan Missiles - Updates, News & Discussion

[Toxic]

Iran invested in quantity of missiles, and not much quality.
Most of their initial waves on Israel were intercepted. Only now they are scoring consistently as Israeli Interceptor are depleted .

However Iranian missiles do nowhere near tge same amount of damage as American airforce does. Because fighter jets can carry a lot more explosives than a missile.

So Pakistani decision to invest in Air force instead of spending all the money on missiles was correct.

If iran had an advanced air force, this conflict they are in, may not have been started. They could have intercepted the initial attack and saved their Ayatola, which they couldn't.

Its not about the explosives but accuracy.

 

[safriz]

Its not about the explosives but accuracy.

Shaheen 3 has an officially stated Re entry speed of Mach 18.
It was mentioned by an official if the strategic command authority, during one of those IDEAS exhibitions.

Although thats not the impact speed , as the warhead suffers significant deceleration due to Atmospheric drag.

Due to solely nuclear nature of warheads carried by Pakistani Shaheen series and Ababeel, priority was given to survivability over pin point accuracy, and that makes sense , as mentioned below.

No officially available numbers available for impact velocity, but i am assuming it would be at least mach 5+ .

Nuclear warheads are high density heavy and small objects , built for minimising deceleration.

But likewise a 100 meter error is nothing for a Nuclear strike , specially for strategic levels of weapon yield. Which is around 200 kiloton.

Plus these are atmospheric blasts , as pressure wave has to cause the most of the damage. The weapon explodes a kilometer above the target.

In all the above scenarios 100 meters here and there matters not.

Iranian missiles carry a few hundred kilos of explosives. They need accuracy of a few tens of meters to have any effect.

 

[hasssanali8998]

Which is around 200 kiloton.

what do you think our max tnt is
1998 tests were like 50 kts

Iranian missiles carry a few hundred kilos of explosives. They need accuracy of a few tens of meters to have any effect.

exaclty we are comparing apples to oranges

 

[gamaji]

They've got oil, they've got a bigger budget and their entire focus is on missiles. Pakistan not so much. How do you understand this?

If it's true then there must be visible huge missile production facilities, launch sites and tunnels for missile storage sites in Pakistan like Iran. Is there any info of facilities being built to store missiles. Is there any such information available??

What you guys are saying is all based on speculation and it doesn't automatically imply Iran having more missiles than what Pakistan has.

On the other hand, a clear evidence exists in the form of Iran's missile performance in this war. Tens of thousands of missiles are no where to be seen or felt so far. Choongey mein sey 350 missile maarey hein Iran ney. And then look at what these missiles have achieved so far.

Do you really think that destroying a few buildings and cars here and there in Israel and wounding a few ordinary citizens there can win you a war? Compare all this with what Pakistan did just in a few hours on 10 May 2025 with India. Our cheap rockets wiped out their strategic military installations along the border to bring Modi to his knees. How you can bring the Zionist war criminal Netanyahu to his knees with these symbolic hits?

 

[Cipher212]

What you guys are saying is all based on speculation and it doesn't automatically imply Iran having more missiles than what Pakistan has.

On the other hand, a clear evidence exists in the form of Iran's missile performance in this war. Tens of thousands of missiles are no where to be seen or felt so far. Choongey mein sey 350 missile maarey hein Iran ney. And then look at what these missiles have achieved so far.

Do you really think that destroying a few buildings and cars here and there in Israel and wounding a few ordinary citizens there can win you a war? Compare all this with what Pakistan did just in a few hours on 10 May 2025 with India. Our cheap rockets wiped out their strategic military installations along the border to bring Modi to his knees. How you can bring the Zionist war criminal Netanyahu to his knees with these symbolic hits?

You are actually certifiably undeniably retarded. Your IQ cannot be more than 2. There is no hope for you in this world.

 

[gamaji]

You are actually certifiably undeniably retarded. Your IQ cannot be more than 2. There is no hope for you in this world.

When you have no logical answer then you resort to mud slinging. That tells it all. I never meant disturbing you in your delusional slumber. Living in delusions doesn't cost anything to anyone else. I was just wondering if these wild claims had any link with reality behind them. I am sure no such thing exists.

 

[gamaji]

what do you think our max tnt is
1998 tests were like 50 kts

exaclty we are comparing apples to oranges

A better analogy might be comparing grapes to watermelon.

 

[RAMPAGE]

Is it all your speculation or you have a solid info in support of your claims? How can you claim that Iran has/had more missiles than Pakistan's without knowing how many Pakistan has?
People have been claiming that Iran has ten thousand or more missiles. So far they have fired only a few hundreds. Also, how many military targets they have destroyed in Israel? Apparently they mostly caused some minor damages to houses/building wounding some people here and there. No strategic achievement so far.

I have no proof, obviously, but I have good justification for my claim. Pakistan has 200 or so nuclear warheads. Our deterrence is based on delivering the nuclear warheads we have, and our BMs are designed to do that job. Why would we have nearly as many BMs as Iran? Iran has to rely on conventional warheads for deterrence, and its adversary has a far more developed anti-ballistic missile shield than ours. It needs numbers, and we have seen those numbers in combat.

 

[gamaji]

I have no proof, obviously, but I have good justification for my claim. Pakistan has 200 or so nuclear warheads. Our deterrence is based on delivering the nuclear warheads we have, and our BMs are designed to do that job. Why would we have nearly as many BMs as Iran? Iran has to rely on conventional warheads for deterrence, and its adversary has a far more developed anti-ballistic missile shield than ours. It needs numbers, and we have seen those numbers in combat.

Well said, my friend.

 

[kimjongun]

What you guys are saying is all based on speculation and it doesn't automatically imply Iran having more missiles than what Pakistan has.

On the other hand, a clear evidence exists in the form of Iran's missile performance in this war. Tens of thousands of missiles are no where to be seen or felt so far. Choongey mein sey 350 missile maarey hein Iran ney. And then look at what these missiles have achieved so far.

Do you really think that destroying a few buildings and cars here and there in Israel and wounding a few ordinary citizens there can win you a war? Compare all this with what Pakistan did just in a few hours on 10 May 2025 with India. Our cheap rockets wiped out their strategic military installations along the border to bring Modi to his knees. How you can bring the Zionist war criminal Netanyahu to his knees with these symbolic hits?

Please tell me you are being sarcastic..

 

[Oscar]

I have been wondering whether people define “effectiveness” too narrowly when they compare Iranian-style drone and ballistic attacks with more traditional precision airpower. Cheap drones have clearly reshaped modern warfare because even when they do limited damage individually, they can still force defenders to spend far more on interception and air defense than the attacker spent launching them

Ukraine seems to have reinforced this logic too. Long-range strike drones can be much cheaper than missiles with similar reach, and even systems with low hit rates can still be strategically useful if they exhaust defenses, disrupt daily life, and impose constant costs on the defender. That is what makes me think there is a difference between weapons that are mainly for saturation, fear, and economic pressure, and weapons that are precise enough to actually degrade warfighting capability.

So maybe the better comparison is not just “drones and ballistic missiles vs aircraft,” but three different models:

• Cheap mass drones / less accurate ballistic strikes for terror, harassment, and bad cost exchange.

• More precise ground-launched strike systems, like LORA, Rampage, or some Chinese systems, for hitting airbases, depots, radars, and command nodes.

• Traditional precision airpower for sustained, flexible destruction of high-value targets.

That also made me think of Germany’s V-1 and V-2 in World War II. They caused real fear and real damage, but are still often discussed more as terror and pressure weapons than as truly efficient tools for destroying the enemy’s warfighting system.

Another question is whether India now seems to be moving more deliberately toward this middle model, not just classic airpower and not just cheap saturation, but a heavier emphasis on stand-off precision systems that can degrade warfighting capability without having to fully dominate the air. Cheap drones and mass salvos can impose costs, but more precise strike systems appear better suited for hitting airbases, depots, radars, and command infrastructure in ways that matter operationally rather than just psychologically.

If that is where India is heading, is that the more dangerous problem for Pakistan over the long term, especially since Pakistan has not really shown its full hand through public procurement and likely does not have an economy that can compete across that entire spectrum anyway?

 

[safriz]

what do you think our max tnt is
1998 tests were like 50 kts

exaclty we are comparing apples to oranges

Those were political statement and design tests.
50kt test doesn't mean the warheads developed later are limited to that design or yield .
Simulation and cold tests of individual components are enough to improve on the warhead design.

 

[safriz]

Its not about the explosives but accuracy.

About accuracy.
Ghauri is an old system. Pakistans first medium range nuclear capable ballistic missile.
Watch this video to the end. You can see the warhead impact.
I can't say of it landed within a designated area or out of that. But it wasn't too far off, may be a few hundred meters .

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

Below is a screenshot of the impact .
If we assume that the target was the flat area nearer to the camera. The missile had hit the other side of the hill.
Judging by the size of the trees and comparison, it's within the stated CEP of 200 meters .

 

[hasssanali8998]

But it wasn't too far off, may be a few hundred meters .

fine for nukes but useless for anything else other than causing mass civilian panic .

 

[safriz]

fine for nukes but useless for anything else other than causing mass civilian panic .

Fine for an airfield size target too.