Pakistan Missiles - Updates, News & Discussion

[Oscar]

so why is the world, including india still developing new subsonics? Why was the foxbat phased out and a foxbat 2 not developed instead of the su57

Clearly you haven’t heard the tale of the Firefox which was stolen by the CIA.

 

[Oscar]

Cost effectiveness, you can use sub-sonics as bulk of your cruise missile inventory especially for lower priority targets that are less defended and not time sensitive. Supersonics are the tip of the spear, smaller in number.

It's not a replacement

Not exactly - each munition looks for a different mechanism of attack. The US is still focusing on the stealthy LRASM while developing hypersonics.

Hypersonic aircraft require a higher degree of engineering and will be expensive but also be detected much sooner.

So not a tip of the spear so much as spear vs arrow vs slingshot each shot at different angles to overwhelm defenders

 

[Waz]

Well, I don't disagree to everything you wrote. But Ukraine vs Russia there was no comparison with us. As first Russia makes everything in-house and has virtually unlimited supply of oil. It can wage war continuously. Which india/Pak cannot do.

Secondly, Ukraine had no airforce, no nuclear weapons, no tactical nukes (Nasr missiles kinda solutions ), Any successful attempt to invade large part of Pakistan will see use of tactical nukes. Even before that, any invasion is impossible without attaining air superiority. Ukraine really had nothing in the air to bomb invading army. Secondly China factor is there too. We are only discussing a worst case scenario, when everything has failed. If enemy really has invaded a big portion and dug in, then even large numbers at our side won't make any difference as enemy already has established defensive positions. Key is to stop enemy incursion in the first place. Even then I'd say that 450,000 modernized & better trained army can better hold of and withstand and has better chances overall. You get faster deployment, better weapon systems as a trade off. In defensive position you can hold off with much less numbers provided you have air support and other modern stuff.

Modernization is difficult when majority of budget goes to personal costs. Best approach is finding a perfect balance. That adequate numbers where modernization / training efforts are not hampered. It could be the same number which we have right now or could be 500K. Iraq had a one million strong army but it collapsed in days during first gulf war. Because from modernization point of view they were way too behind then US led coalition. I am not comparing our scenario with that one but just making a point that you lose when focus is on numbers and less on technology. In 21st century, Focus must be at technology first and then numbers. AI, drones and stuff will further emphasize on this pattern in days and years to come.

In the end, I'd love to have a balanced sized military in which there's a priority to modernization. If we can do all modernization that is required in modern warfare without cutting numbers then great.

It doesn't matter if you disagree it's a discussion.
Russia was able to sustain war for about 6 months before they started to run out of critical supplies for their weapon systems. Yes, they had oil, but they had to rely extensively on Iran, China and North Korea. There is lots on this. Had they refused, you would see Russia at the table looking for terms fast.

Plenty of defence experts and writers have spoken about the folly of using tactical nukes. Firstly a tactical nuke prepared and used will invite a massive response from India who will attack Pakistan's command and control areas, regions of military presence, it's major cities and economic heartlands e.g. breadbaskets. There is no 'half-way' house with nukes. This will also give them an overwhelming advantage to India, as they've managed to hit and damage Pakistan to such an extent the Pakistan military may not be able to launch a retaliatory strike which can do the same. Why, because resources and crucially time was spent preparing tactical nukes. They now also openly call Pakistan's bluff by raining down missiles.

Ukraine managed to halt and turn back the advancing Russian columns with artillery ,precision missiles strikes and the sheer grit of their men. The tanks were on the outskirts of Kiev. I do take on board your point about the air force being a force multiplier, but do remember the Russians made a heap of technical blunders. The Indians as much as we laugh at them now, do learn fast. The PAF will have it's hands very full dealing with the IAF, and simply can't spend the level of time and resources to help an undermanned army fighting far superior numbers.
Let's leave China aside, as that sidetracks the discussion. Of course they will help but I'm sure they want a powerful Pakistan, not one that calls for iron brother when the going gets tough.

Large numbers do make a difference and that's been seen with the Ukraine theatre, where it's literally a game of poking weaker defences and using overwhelming numbers to take possession of key points. It's not also just about having to retake land, having large numbers allows you to stem or even stop an offensive in its tracks. You don't have to take anything back if the enemy lies in ruins in front of you. The type of modernisation you talk of will only give some advantage. What are we talking about here, more armoured carriers, better equipment for troops, more air transport etc. By virtue of having a smaller landmass to defend, these won't give Pakistan a huge edge. However to lose 200,000 troops will create gaps and pockets where Pakistan's defence lines are weak, which the enemy would be able to get through. Reacting fast is important, but what's the point when you will have to take away resources from other areas to shore up an exposed section?

The Iraq similitude is poor, aside the Republican Guard Iraqi units were poorly trained and even more poorly motivated. The level of military research and acumen was non-existent in their army, and of course they were fighting impossible odds e.g. the largest modern air armada was assembled against them.
I agree modernisation is important but to have that at the expense of ground troops is not only a folly but suicidal in the Pak/Indo theatre.

 

[Bentley777]

Mods or Admins create a PARF section in forum separate from strategic forces one.

 

[Bentley777]

If Indian troops make a concerted push over the IB and LOC, and then dig in with strong air defence, you will not be able to solve that with jets and missiles.
Pakistan now and for as long as Indian remains a threat needs large manpower.
For a nation of 265 million 630,000 troops is not that a big deal. I'd go further and round off at 700,000.

Even a million we are best in Making babies lol

 

[Metal 0-1]

The only one who can actually shed light on this if it's missile or drone is @Panzerkiel.

Indeed a Loyal Wingman drone

 

[Scorpio]

Some new stuff .. any idea what that .... Look some advance generation

 

[Bilal]

Specs for Fatah2 and SMASH. Impact speed of greater than Mach 2.

 

[falcon34]

Somebody better get to exhibition and click some good photos of equipment and specs.
Regards.

 

[Ak01]

Somebody better get to exhibition and click some good photos of equipment and specs.
Regards.

@Quwa will, plus we will drop a podcast ep covering this all asap

 

[RAJPUT]

TBH, I am a bit disappointed by F4 being a reincarnation of Babur missile. it seems it is a paint job on Babur missile.

Babur is a nuclear posturing missile mainly. We cannot fire a Babur without expecting a nuclear exchange. But now when we have a conventional counterpart albeit essentially it is the same missile, we can use it in the battlefield freely.

 

[RAJPUT]

Some new stuff .. any idea what that .... Look some advance generation

View attachment 140785

Looks very much like a loyal wingman drone. @Panzerkiel Sir can shed some light if we’re lucky.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Even a million we are best in Making babies lol

Don't be too sure. Pakistan's current birthrate is 3 which is good and sustainable. However it was 6 some 25 years ago. So it has halfed since 2000. If it halfs again in 25 years time it means that by 2050, Pakistan would have a birthrate of 1.5. A birthrate of 1.5 means your population is in decline and your race may be facing a demographic crisis like the white english are in the UK. Their birthrate is currently 1.4/1.5. Population growth is no longer a problem in Pakistan. In order to sustain your population, you need a birthrate of 2.1.

 

[The SC]

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

 

[falcon34]

Looks very much like a loyal wingman drone. @Panzerkiel Sir can shed some light if we’re lucky.

Looks like a heavy stealth cruise missile