Pakistan Missiles - Updates, News & Discussion

[farooqbhai]

Why doesn't Pakistan have indigenous hypersonic?

Their R&D needs to get better.

Good hogaya aapko krl mey lagatey hain

 

[Watandar]

Uhm no. The entire Iranian High command was wiped within 3 days, there entire C2 was compromised they shifted the 100 missile barrages (of which they were only able to do 2) on day 1 and 2 to at max 30 missiles by what day 3-4 and by the end of week they were firing anywhere from 1-10 BMs per day. On top of they did not even manage hit a single airbase let alone any military infrastructure.

Compared to that at least we successfully struck S400 at Adampur and at least hit several buildings at Udhampur airbase and Beas IA Base.

Please do show me said "Iranian response" against IDF military infrastructure which they did after taking a heavy blow on Day 1

Iran was able to respond to Israeli strikes on the first day, unlike Pakistan which did nothing for four days.

Despite heavy censorship in Israel, here is some documentation of Iranian missiles striking Israeli military and economic targets :

Israel cyberware communications base : https://electronicintifada.net/blog...edia-censors-iranian-strike-cyberwarfare-base

airbases : https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-e...-israeli-public-doesnt-have-the-full-picture/

haifa refinery : https://www.timesofisrael.com/missi...rings-renewed-urgency-to-plants-closure-plan/

naval base in Haifa : https://www.twz.com/news-features/i...trategic-points-in-israeli-port-city-of-haifa

chemical plant :

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

I didn't include the tons of social media videos of strikes on Israel that imposed a major cost on the country. On the other hand, we don't have anything to backup the claims of hitting S4 battery or buildings in Adampur airbase. No pictures, satellites, social media. This is despite the Indian AD being inferior to Israel.

 

[JamD]

Did Iran even manage to hit even a single "military target" with its BMs? I dont think so. Then what is all the hype with Iran. The Israelis literally hammered Iran and dropped JDAMs over Iranian sites using there air power ... And that is what's needed for us not large long range BM inventories

+1

Regarding the discussion here:
I fear BMs are a great propaganda tool - propaganda for which a lot of our twitterati fell for. Remember the surreal videos of the Nevatim air base strike. But the strike achieve nothing of military value. That's the deal with conventional BMs - look great, do little. Maybe they can be used as a terror weapon if used in large numbers. But keep in mind a BM is an EXPENSIVE thing - it needs to launch from the ground, go to space, come back. Iran basically spent a large portion of their funds on their BM program - greatly sacrificing their air force. Yes you can make BMs accurate, but then you're making them even more expensive. BMs are a weapon of desperation for Iran because they couldn't build an air force I guess.

What was Iran's plan after the BMs ran out? It could do absolutely nothing. On the other hand, the Israeli jets could still generate sorties, bomb Iran at will, and basically created a no-fly zone over Iran.

So no. Pakistan should NOT replicate the Iranian doctrine. Please no. If there's anything this war has taught us, it is that air power is supreme. And thankfully, our planners realize that fully.

 

[Watandar]

+1

Regarding the discussion here:
I fear BMs are a great propaganda tool - propaganda for which a lot of our twitterati fell for. Remember the surreal videos of the Nevatim air base strike. But the strike achieve nothing of military value. That's the deal with conventional BMs - look great, do little. Maybe they can be used as a terror weapon if used in large numbers. But keep in mind a BM is an EXPENSIVE thing - it needs to launch from the ground, go to space, come back. Iran basically spent a large portion of their funds on their BM program - greatly sacrificing their air force. Yes you can make BMs accurate, but then you're making them even more expensive. BMs are a weapon of desperation for Iran because they couldn't build an air force I guess.

What was Iran's plan after the BMs ran out? It could do absolutely nothing. On the other hand, the Israeli jets could still generate sorties, bomb Iran at will, and basically created a no-fly zone over Iran.

So no. Pakistan should NOT replicate the Iranian doctrine. Please no. If there's anything this war has taught us, it is that air power is supreme. And thankfully, our planners realize that fully.

Iranian doctrine is a response to heavy sanctions and inability to buy aircraft and air defense from abroad. So they focused on missiles and drones instead. Iran BM's were in competition with Israeli interceptors and thats why they were built in a huge numbers, to ensure the interceptors were the ones to run out first. We saw the flaws in that doctrine, like dependency on launchers.

Pakistan's situation is different, we can buy stuff from China and few other places, but have limited amount of money. We still need to be able to hit targets deep inside India, to mitigate India's strategic depth. PAF cannot be expected to repeatedly fly deep into India, but you can do it with missiles. PAF planes can be shot down. You also need credible delivery systems for your nukes.

You can at least learn from Iran how their missiles managed to pierce Israeli/NATO/Arab air defense and still make impact in Israel.

 

[safriz]

If ABM systems can intercept 70% of incoming missiles, the mutually assured destruction in a nuclear conflict is doomed.
This is very important observation for a country like Pakistan who don't have ABM , while adversary has.
70% figure is from Israel Iran conflict.

 

[JamD]

Iranian doctrine is a response to heavy sanctions and inability to buy aircraft and air defense from abroad. So they focused on missiles and drones instead. Iran BM's were in competition with Israeli interceptors and thats why they were built in a huge numbers, to ensure the interceptors were the ones to run out first. We saw the flaws in that doctrine, like dependency on launchers.

Pakistan's situation is different, we can buy stuff from China and few other places, but have limited amount of money. We still need to be able to hit targets deep inside India, to mitigate India's strategic depth. PAF cannot be expected to repeatedly fly deep into India, but you can do it with missiles. PAF planes can be shot down. You also need credible delivery systems for your nukes.

You can at least learn from Iran how their missiles managed to pierce Israeli/NATO/Arab air defense and still make impact in Israel.

As you said, Pakistan's situation is very different. We have a very competent airforce. PAF has always wanted to fly into India to conduct strike missions - recall Pathankot strike in 65. I believe this is the reason for PAF's interest in J35 and Kaan as well. Also S400 strike in the current conflict is an indication.

Delivery systems for nukes are already there and being improved. That is an entirely different discussion compare to conventionally equipped BMs. We have between 150 and 200 nukes to be distributed amongst a variety of systems - not just BMs. And we have highly capable BMs that we have demonstrated to have very high accuracy. Furthermore, I have no reason to doubt that they have features to try to evade ABMs, which is an especially difficult task for India, given our proximity to them.

One thing that we can learn is to add a small rocket motor to the warhead section for additional terminal speed - I have not seen this feature obviously present on our BMs. Of course the benefit needs to be weighed against the cost.

 

[JamD]

If ABM systems can intercept 70% of incoming missiles, the mutually assured destruction in a nuclear conflict is doomed.
This is very important observation for a country like Pakistan who don't have ABM , while adversary has.
70% figure is from Israel Iran conflict.

Israel is quite far away from Iran, has the entire western world providing it sensor data, and is tiny.

India is right next door, does not have the benefit of the sensors of the entire western world, and is large.

I am reasonably sure more than 30% BMs would get through in an Indo-Pak scenario. More like 90%.

 

[farooqbhai]

Iran was able to respond to Israeli strikes on the first day, unlike Pakistan which did nothing for four days.

Despite heavy censorship in Israel, here is some documentation of Iranian missiles striking Israeli military and economic targets :

Israel cyberware communications base : https://electronicintifada.net/blog...edia-censors-iranian-strike-cyberwarfare-base

airbases : https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-e...-israeli-public-doesnt-have-the-full-picture/

haifa refinery : https://www.timesofisrael.com/missi...rings-renewed-urgency-to-plants-closure-plan/

naval base in Haifa : https://www.twz.com/news-features/i...trategic-points-in-israeli-port-city-of-haifa

chemical plant :

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

I didn't include the tons of social media videos of strikes on Israel that imposed a major cost on the country. On the other hand, we don't have anything to backup the claims of hitting S4 battery or buildings in Adampur airbase. No pictures, satellites, social media. This is despite the Indian AD being inferior to Israel.

1. "Cyber comms base" is actually a Microsoft facility.
2. Satellite imagery is live now, some accounts have done an analysis on Negev on Ramon and there's 0 impacts on the airbase itself.
3. Refinery was hit sure, a big easy target where accuracy didnt matter, but again the Iranians intended to hit something else here and there accuracy was just.
4. No naval base in Haifa was hit, accuracy was way off here too and a random high rise building outside the naval base was hit here.

 

[Watandar]

1. "Cyber comms base" is actually a Microsoft facility.
2. Satellite imagery is live now, some accounts have done an analysis on Negev on Ramon and there's 0 impacts on the airbase itself.
3. Refinery was hit sure, a big easy target where accuracy didnt matter, but again the Iranians intended to hit something else here and there accuracy was just.
4. No naval base in Haifa was hit, accuracy was way off here too and a random high rise building outside the naval base was hit here.

I will have to find further documentation then, since you dispute this. But the point is that reports/footage exists of Iranian strikes on Israel, whereas Pakistani strikes on India and claims about S4 battery being hit etc are completely lacking in news reports, satellite images and social media footage. In this day and age, with everyone carrying a smartphone and satellites and recon drones in the sky and weapon systems sending back data, the absence of any documentation means Pakistani offensive with aircraft and missiles on May 11th was a flop. The discussion should shift to why Pakistan fared well defensively but not offensively.

 

[Rational Philosopher]

Here what I have observed so far. Hitting anything with 'precision' requires 'terminal guidance'. On the other hand 'near-precision' (order of 10ish meters CEP = O(10m) CEP) can be achieved via 'INS/GPS Guidance'. Precision = O(1m) CEP.

Precision --> Terminal Guidance --> Seeker head on missile (any type, passive, actie, semi-active, radar, imaging, IR etc)

The challenge remains for seekers to work with atmospheric re-entry, due to heating up of missile at high speed. That is why all 'mature' technologies to hit with precision are delivered at sub-sonic speed and usually with aircraft.

So you are conflating two things in your post, we must recognise the difference between tactical strikes (Iran) vs strategic strikes (nuclear deterent). Iran chose the wrong medium to deliver conventional deterence, it does not mean "Missile strategy at long range will fail".

Even Russian Oreshnik was not precise, instead they used it to demonstrate penetrative capability meant to bolster their nuclear deterent.

You literally summarised my entire point and said I'm wrong?

Iran's strategy to use missile strikes as their core weapon for a conventional war failed.

Because for a successful conventional strike you need three things (like you said):

Precision targeting: CEP under 5m or at least 10 - 20m

High-speed re-entry vehicle: The faster, the better — to defeat interceptors

Maneuverability: To evade defence interceptors

All of these things combined is very difficult to do, the heat of a re-entry vehicle accumulated at high mach speeds (plasma sheath) renders most advanced seekers inoperable. And having to dodge advanced interceptors while also precise targeting complicates it more.

So yes, for tactical conventional options, using long-range mass missile strategy seems to have failed due to limited critical damage where it matters. I was specifically talking about a conventional war scenario, not strategic strikes where precision doesn't matter, just speed and penetration.

 

[safriz]

The most lethal, cost effective and accurate weapon during recent conflicts were drones.
May be that's the way forward?

 

[Haider082025]

If ABM systems can intercept 70% of incoming missiles, the mutually assured destruction in a nuclear conflict is doomed.
This is very important observation for a country like Pakistan who don't have ABM , while adversary has.
70% figure is from Israel Iran conflict.

That still means (200*0.3=60 warheads) Thats a lot for a MAD

 

[Aziqbal]

Pakistan needs hypersonic missiles with glide vehicles

its now a must

 

[Rational Philosopher]

+1

Regarding the discussion here:
I fear BMs are a great propaganda tool - propaganda for which a lot of our twitterati fell for. Remember the surreal videos of the Nevatim air base strike. But the strike achieve nothing of military value. That's the deal with conventional BMs - look great, do little. Maybe they can be used as a terror weapon if used in large numbers. But keep in mind a BM is an EXPENSIVE thing - it needs to launch from the ground, go to space, come back. Iran basically spent a large portion of their funds on their BM program - greatly sacrificing their air force. Yes you can make BMs accurate, but then you're making them even more expensive. BMs are a weapon of desperation for Iran because they couldn't build an air force I guess.

What was Iran's plan after the BMs ran out? It could do absolutely nothing. On the other hand, the Israeli jets could still generate sorties, bomb Iran at will, and basically created a no-fly zone over Iran.

So no. Pakistan should NOT replicate the Iranian doctrine. Please no. If there's anything this war has taught us, it is that air power is supreme. And thankfully, our planners realize that fully.

I'm in agreement with this, our part of the world (MENA/SA) absolutely love performative flashy optics and are desparate for some wins, but they ignore the actual strategic and practical benefit.

It might look cool and flashy seeing missiles streaking the skies but there was very limited damage to strategic infrastructure that could truly hurt Israel. Mostly random buildings and side roads.

On the other hand Israel dominated Iranian airspace and was using cost-effective munitions (JDAMs) in mass to strike a large number of high-value targets at will. At one point the Iranian foreign minister had to ask for permission from Israel to utilise his own airspace.

From Iran's perspective, I think a logical evolution to seek out is large MIRV missiles. It could work out more economical for them if a single missile can deliver multiple warheads paired with some decoys, as opposed to simply 1 missile, 1 warhead.

Imagine a theoretical single missile deploying 5 warheads and 3 decoys, mass launched. This will allow for better saturation and perhaps the goal should be to shift away from precision strikes (difficult to actually do at that speed-distance) but just mass random strikes.

Launching in small intervals throughout the day to keep the opponent in panic (since it's a small country that uses shelters) would make life unliveable.

For precision strikes, they could try utilising stealth sub-sonic cruise missiles launched from shorter ranges, or even an Iskander-type missile that worked well in Ukraine. Key will be launching closer in range to prevent early detection and mixing it in with BM salvos.

I don't think they'll ever get access to a decent air force. For Pakistan, our Air Force will remain a central strategy, with a wide range of SEAD/DEAD options, cost-effective JDAMs, subsonic stealth cruise missiles, and BM will be complementary in limited numbers, not a primary weapon.

 

[Rational Philosopher]

Iranian doctrine is a response to heavy sanctions and inability to buy aircraft and air defense from abroad. So they focused on missiles and drones instead. Iran BM's were in competition with Israeli interceptors and thats why they were built in a huge numbers, to ensure the interceptors were the ones to run out first. We saw the flaws in that doctrine, like dependency on launchers.

Pakistan's situation is different, we can buy stuff from China and few other places, but have limited amount of money. We still need to be able to hit targets deep inside India, to mitigate India's strategic depth. PAF cannot be expected to repeatedly fly deep into India, but you can do it with missiles. PAF planes can be shot down. You also need credible delivery systems for your nukes.

You can at least learn from Iran how their missiles managed to pierce Israeli/NATO/Arab air defense and still make impact in Israel.

I don't think Pakistan is ignoring ballistic missiles entirely, it just won't be the primary core weapon like in Iran.

For example you can see the Fatah series of tactical missiles from 1 - 4 are planned upto 700KM strike range, so they aren't being ignored entirely and there's a strong reason to believe Pakistan recognises the need for deep strike that is less risky vs using planes.

The tactical missiles will be complementary, and should ideally be analogues similar to the Russian Iskander. And a major focus which many ignore is the ability to perform effective evasive maneuvers to defeat advanced ADS, so the missile actually can hit the target. Even our strategic missiles need to optimise for this for survivability, and one addition could be motors on the warhead itself for speed and thrust vectoring (like Iran's Fattah-1).