Pakistan Missiles - Updates, News & Discussion

[Michael]

Hi, this is a very interesting article. Pakistan needs to also scale up its production and automation capacity.

The north korean military has the whole gdp of the country as its budget...thus large scale production is easy...

The DPRK adopts a "military-first" political model.
This model is unsuitable for Pakistan and has no practical value as a reference.

They can be packed into the Vertical Launch Systems VLS of Chinese destroyers, turning our surface fleet into potent strike platforms.

Put aside the MTCR factor.
Pakistan lacks a naval platform capable of launching the YJ-17.
Pakistan's Type 054A/P frigates use the H/AKJ-16 VLS. These are not compatible with the YJ-17 and cannot be retrofitted or upgraded to do so. The YJ-17 missile requires the H/HT-1 VLS (Type 052D/055 destroyers).
So, if Pakistan wishes to introduce the YJ-17 missile, it must first procure Type 052D-class export-grade destroyers.

Get it with TOT

You need to forget it!

 

[kimjongun]

Was that long range BM an offshoot of Shaheen family?.

panzer bhai is reacting but doesnt wanna tell for obvious reasons...but does that mean indias shaheen claim is correct? Our foreign office rejected indias claim of shaheen launch and indian military took back the claim..this is so confusing tbh...agle saal puchun ga

 

[SABRE]

panzer bhai is reacting but doesnt wanna tell for obvious reasons...but does that mean indias shaheen claim is correct? Our foreign office rejected indias claim of shaheen launch and indian military took back the claim..this is so confusing tbh...agle saal puchun ga

The custodians of all Shaheens or the other "dual-use" surface-to-surface missiles are the Army Strategic Force Command, which requires launch command from National Command Authority (via Strategic Plans Division) to launch these BMs. These missiles were not fired. However, IMO, all the earlier versions of Shaheen-I should be stripped of their nuclear role, renamed, and handed over to the new rocket force.

Was that long range BM an offshoot of Shaheen family?.

The longest range Shaheen variant is Shaheen-III and its longest range offshoot is Ababeel, which actually has lesser range than Shaheen-III.

If they could fire a non nuclear warhead via Brahmos, why shouldn't we have fired a non nuclear long range BM? It was very real, we had their several important and vital economic targets next on our list...

Several reasons:

1. Long-range BMs are in custody of strategic forces, i.e., nuclear, and they were not part of the operation, which was purely conventional.

2. Using strategic systems for conventional strikes would also strain the strategic forces' reserves.

3. Something called escalation control through graduated response. The onus of 'action' was put on India, so it would be the aggressor, and in turn Pakistan would respond with QPQ+ (Quid Pro Quo +), meaning retaliation that ups the ante in a manner that increases the cost of aggression. Going after India's vital economic targets early on would have ceded escalation control to India. Then they would have all the reason to strike major non-military targets - including the only three sea ports we have.

Fundamentally, the problem was not with the strategy and its execution but the following two things:

1. Trying to be Mr Goody Two Shoes and not slipping in few more punches before the ceasefire took place.

• Those facilities from where strikes on Bholari took place should have been decimated.

2. Not having a separate conventional rocket forces equipped with single-use/conventional cruise missiles in the first place. We didn't need a conflict/war to come to realise we needed such a force. This is something that should have been done long time ago. Also, a couple of R&D organisations should have been functioning outside of the strategic grasp, if you know what I mean, and producing conventional systems only. The "strategic hegemony" is unhealthy.

------

Edit: BrahMos is in the foremost a conventional missile, which we in Pakistan believe India has modified to carry nukes. However, looking into India's inventory suggests there are other cruise missiles that have been specifically built for nuclear role. So, it is a safe bet to assume India has BrahMos available in sufficient numbers for conventional strikes only, without deviating/withdrawing any systems from its strategic forces.

 

[Zarvan]

The DPRK adopts a "military-first" political model.
This model is unsuitable for Pakistan and has no practical value as a reference.

Put aside the MTCR factor.
Pakistan lacks a naval platform capable of launching the YJ-17.
Pakistan's Type 054A/P frigates use the H/AKJ-16 VLS. These are not compatible with the YJ-17 and cannot be retrofitted or upgraded to do so. The YJ-17 missile requires the H/HT-1 VLS (Type 052D/055 destroyers).
So, if Pakistan wishes to introduce the YJ-17 missile, it must first procure Type 052D-class export-grade destroyers.

You need to forget it!

We would see.

 

[Zarvan]

The DPRK adopts a "military-first" political model.
This model is unsuitable for Pakistan and has no practical value as a reference.

Put aside the MTCR factor.
Pakistan lacks a naval platform capable of launching the YJ-17.
Pakistan's Type 054A/P frigates use the H/AKJ-16 VLS. These are not compatible with the YJ-17 and cannot be retrofitted or upgraded to do so. The YJ-17 missile requires the H/HT-1 VLS (Type 052D/055 destroyers).
So, if Pakistan wishes to introduce the YJ-17 missile, it must first procure Type 052D-class export-grade destroyers.

You need to forget it!

YJ 17 can be launched both from land as well as sea. As for MTCR please go and study where did Saudi Arabia got 2000 to 5000 KM range ballistic missiles from.

 

[iblini]

YJ 17 can be launched both from land as well as sea. As for MTCR please go and study where did Saudi Arabia got 2000 to 5000 KM range ballistic missiles from.

land version is something else, just like air breathing HCM, sub launched version is YJ-19, rocket force version is CJ-1000, it depends on the platform and requirements.

 

[Michael]

As for MTCR please go and study where did Saudi Arabia got 2000 to 5000 KM range ballistic missiles from.

Golden Wheel Project:
In 1986, Saudi Ambassador to the United States Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud made a secret visit to China and requested the purchase of DF-3 ballistic missiles. The Chinese government agreed.
In 1987, Saudi Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz made an official visit to China. China and Saudi Arabia officially signed a contract for the purchase of DF-3 ballistic missiles.
In 1988, the Chinese government publicly stated, "At the request of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, our government has sold a number of non-nuclear conventional surface-to-surface missiles."
The PLA Second Artillery Corps (the predecessor of the PLARF) built two military bases for Saudi Arabia under the name "Golden Wheel Project Company" and deployed troops there for rotational deployment. Therefore, the project is also known as the "Golden Wheel Project."

China and the MTCR:
In 1994, the Chinese government publicly expressed its willingness to adhere to the MTCR.
In 2000, China and the United States reached a new agreement on missile nonproliferation. The Chinese government pledged to further strengthen export controls on missiles and related technologies.
In 2004, the Chinese government reiterated its willingness to join the MTCR. China has held multiple rounds of dialogue with MTCR member states, but due to US opposition, China has not yet joined the MTCR.

In 2002, China promulgated the "Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Export Control of Missiles and Related Items and Technologies." This law references the technical parameters and control methods of the MTCR, with some provisions being even stricter than the MTCR. This law currently serves as the core regulation for China's export of related weapons.
In 2023, China further tightened export controls on UAVs and related items and technologies.

@Zarvan You need to pay attention to the timing of these events!

 

[RajaBaja]

BMs side seems okay,
Shaheen 1&2 should be pumped out in numbers for ARFC.
R&D for HGV should be done.
SCMs are are worthless, no point in Acquiring Supersonic tech when the world has already moved on to Hypersonic cruise missiles.
Shaheen 1&2 should be localized and built in thousands for the ARF they are good enough to the job done, the industry that would be built for the mass production of Shaheen 1&2 conventional versions, wil lay the basis for our hypersonics.
HCMs are exotic technologies not for an economy like pak. Gliders are well within our reach.
SCMs can be intercepted there is no cost benefit in them. BMs like S1&2 and HGVs will be more cost effective technologies for an economy like pak.

What we need is to identify our strengths, weaknesses and gaps first.

When our people use terms like "R&D on scram jets" or "R&D on stealth jets" etc, we need to understand the true meaning of it. Can we really do R&D on these futuristic weapon systems? Even today, India can't build anything while they've poured in billions of dollars annually to "make technology" but still, they are building TOT based weapons and those also using Russian systems.

China, USA are the largest countries with the largest R&D budget. They have to spend billions every year on new tech for their own defense. What we should do is, use China's massive R&D industry by partnering with them on a specific project like MRV or Ramjet or Stealth UCAV's, and invest into it. Get our people involved and trained and then bring them to Pakistan and manufacture it. The beauty of this setup is, when there is a need like some conflict, we can use Chinese industry to pump out items in more numbers. While we can be up to date in terms of where the latest technology is. When you have the largest R&D setup available to you, attempting to create the wheel internally doesn't make sense or show cases good spend of our smaller budget.

 

[Zarvan]

Golden Wheel Project:
In 1986, Saudi Ambassador to the United States Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud made a secret visit to China and requested the purchase of DF-3 ballistic missiles. The Chinese government agreed.
In 1987, Saudi Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz made an official visit to China. China and Saudi Arabia officially signed a contract for the purchase of DF-3 ballistic missiles.
In 1988, the Chinese government publicly stated, "At the request of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, our government has sold a number of non-nuclear conventional surface-to-surface missiles."
The PLA Second Artillery Corps (the predecessor of the PLARF) built two military bases for Saudi Arabia under the name "Golden Wheel Project Company" and deployed troops there for rotational deployment. Therefore, the project is also known as the "Golden Wheel Project."

China and the MTCR:
In 1994, the Chinese government publicly expressed its willingness to adhere to the MTCR.
In 2000, China and the United States reached a new agreement on missile nonproliferation. The Chinese government pledged to further strengthen export controls on missiles and related technologies.
In 2004, the Chinese government reiterated its willingness to join the MTCR. China has held multiple rounds of dialogue with MTCR member states, but due to US opposition, China has not yet joined the MTCR.

In 2002, China promulgated the "Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Export Control of Missiles and Related Items and Technologies." This law references the technical parameters and control methods of the MTCR, with some provisions being even stricter than the MTCR. This law currently serves as the core regulation for China's export of related weapons.
In 2023, China further tightened export controls on UAVs and related items and technologies.

@Zarvan You need to pay attention to the timing of these events!

I have paid attention to these. And not just in 80s. Even as recently as in 2000s China has gotten ballistic missiles from China. Including your famous DF-21 one which is The Anti Ship and no MTCR doesn't cover long range ballisitic missiles. So please when it is needed no big power cares about MTCR or any other international role. It's all about power and interest. Stop taking international rules so seriously.

 

[Michael]

I have paid attention to these. And not just in 80s. Even as recently as in 2000s China has gotten ballistic missiles from China. Including your famous DF-21 one which is The Anti Ship and no MTCR doesn't cover long range ballisitic missiles. So please when it is needed no big power cares about MTCR or any other international role. It's all about power and interest. Stop taking international rules so seriously.

Saudi Arabia's DF-21 program is an upgrade under the "Golden Wheel Project." It improves the accuracy of Saudi strategic missiles but reduces their range. This program is an update of an older project, not a new one.

I agree. In international relations, the core factor is one's own strength. So-called international rules are merely a cover-up.

But, Chinese culture places great emphasis on keeping one's word. Once we make a promise, we must keep it. Even if the ultimate reality forces us to abandon our commitment, we must make it seem reasonable.

 

[RajaBaja]

The custodians of all Shaheens or the other "dual-use" surface-to-surface missiles are the Army Strategic Force Command, which requires launch command from National Command Authority (via Strategic Plans Division) to launch these BMs. These missiles were not fired. However, IMO, all the earlier versions of Shaheen-I should be stripped of their nuclear role, renamed, and handed over to the new rocket force.

The longest range Shaheen variant is Shaheen-III and its longest range offshoot is Ababeel, which actually has lesser range than Shaheen-III.

Several reasons:

1. Long-range BMs are in custody of strategic forces, i.e., nuclear, and they were not part of the operation, which was purely conventional.

2. Using strategic systems for conventional strikes would also strain the strategic forces' reserves.

3. Something called escalation control through graduated response. The onus of 'action' was put on India, so it would be the aggressor, and in turn Pakistan would respond with QPQ+ (Quid Pro Quo +), meaning retaliation that ups the ante in a manner that increases the cost of aggression. Going after India's vital economic targets early on would have ceded escalation control to India. Then they would have all the reason to strike major non-military targets - including the only three sea ports we have.

Fundamentally, the problem was not with the strategy and its execution but the following two things:

1. Trying to be Mr Goody Two Shoes and not slipping in few more punches before the ceasefire took place.

• Those facilities from where strikes on Bholari took place should have been decimated.

2. Not having a separate conventional rocket forces equipped with single-use/conventional cruise missiles in the first place. We didn't need a conflict/war to come to realise we needed such a force. This is something that should have been done long time ago. Also, a couple of R&D organisations should have been functioning outside of the strategic grasp, if you know what I mean, and producing conventional systems only. The "strategic hegemony" is unhealthy.

------

Edit: BrahMos is in the foremost a conventional missile, which we in Pakistan believe India has modified to carry nukes. However, looking into India's inventory suggests there are other cruise missiles that have been specifically built for nuclear role. So, it is a safe bet to assume India has BrahMos available in sufficient numbers for conventional strikes only, without deviating/withdrawing any systems from its strategic forces.

Good details but a few minor corrections. Strategic missiles and conventional missiles, both come under the Rocket Force. That's the whole idea to create a centralized organization. SPD oversees the nukes, associated facilities and when NCA gives a command, works with rocket force assets to send a response. Our process works very similar to how the Chinese rocket force works with minor adjustments. In fact this rocket force was created to have a similar structure in Pakistani military like the Chinese so exercises, coordination, collaboration and cooperation can be done seamlessly and directly.


Brahmos is a strategic weapon. Over the course of years, now almost over 20 years, India has amassed thousands of these missiles. So they are used conventionally also. But due to it's high speed and focus on short distances, it's their weapon of choice for conventional and a nuclear attack. Keep in mind, when they fired Brahmos in May, we made a lot of noise that they are using strategic weapons. Nuclear nations in conflict exchange a list of their facilities as well as let each other know about their strategic asset type to avoid confusion if a conflict breaks out.

For example, in US's case, Russia has been told decades ago that "Trident" is their first strike weapon. Similarly, Russians have said this about "Sarmat" and a couple of other missiles.

Lastly, instead of "experimenting", we need to become super practical. Israel does it too despite having a high value weapons industry, for platforms, whether F-16's or F-15's or F-35, they depend on the US. We have world's number 1 R&D nation as our strategic partner. We need our people trained on their engineering processes, find projects we can partner in and build those systems locally while using their massive R&D base to fill in numbers. Because no matter what we do, our manufacturing will be slow, for example, we still can't produce more than 26 JF-17 per year. So when a project is being built in China, a custom variant of that project is created for Pakistan, we can use their industrial capacity to get urgently needed numbers while also build internally per our capacity. This method eliminates trial, tests, errors and takes us into the latest technology as well as practical weapons acquisition in a short amount of time.

 

[Liquidator]

We need a few thousand BMs with decent conventional payload that can travel around 3k kilometers....and the capability to launch 100s a day.

 

[Liquidator]

We need a few thousand BMs with decent conventional payload that can travel around 3k kilometers....and the capability to launch 100s.

Pakistan is the final boss....

 

[SABRE]

Good details but a few minor corrections. Strategic missiles and conventional missiles, both come under the Rocket Force. That's the whole idea to create a centralized organization. SPD oversees the nukes, associated facilities and when NCA gives a command, works with rocket force assets to send a response. Our process works very similar to how the Chinese rocket force works with minor adjustments. In fact this rocket force was created to have a similar structure in Pakistani military like the Chinese so exercises, coordination, collaboration and cooperation can be done seamlessly and directly.


Brahmos is a strategic weapon. Over the course of years, now almost over 20 years, India has amassed thousands of these missiles. So they are used conventionally also. But due to it's high speed and focus on short distances, it's their weapon of choice for conventional and a nuclear attack. Keep in mind, when they fired Brahmos in May, we made a lot of noise that they are using strategic weapons. Nuclear nations in conflict exchange a list of their facilities as well as let each other know about their strategic asset type to avoid confusion if a conflict breaks out.

For example, in US's case, Russia has been told decades ago that "Trident" is their first strike weapon. Similarly, Russians have said this about "Sarmat" and a couple of other missiles.

Lastly, instead of "experimenting", we need to become super practical. Israel does it too despite having a high value weapons industry, for platforms, whether F-16's or F-15's or F-35, they depend on the US. We have world's number 1 R&D nation as our strategic partner. We need our people trained on their engineering processes, find projects we can partner in and build those systems locally while using their massive R&D base to fill in numbers. Because no matter what we do, our manufacturing will be slow, for example, we still can't produce more than 26 JF-17 per year. So when a project is being built in China, a custom variant of that project is created for Pakistan, we can use their industrial capacity to get urgently needed numbers while also build internally per our capacity. This method eliminates trial, tests, errors and take us into the latest technology as well as practical weapons acquisition in a short amount of time.

The rocket force - which is under the supervision of the SPD and receives launch authorization from NCA - is Army Strategic Force Command. The PAF and PN also have their own respective strategic force commands. Their primary and almost exclusive role is nuclear not conventional. They cannot - or would not - carry out conventional strike for many reasons but primarily because such strikes would require a large degree of delegated launch authority whereas NCA is centralized.

When it comes to missiles the term "strategic" denotes "nuclear." BrahMos has never been declared nuclear, regardless of what Wikipedia says. The project was initiated with Russia when India was not a member of MTCR, and hence Russia abode regime's guidelines by ostensibly not assisting with its nuclear aspect and keeping the range below 300km (290km to be precise). It was Pakistani assessment that neither the declared range nor the payload limitation are factual. As far as range is concerned, the increment in it has been made by public as India developed more versions of it.

While we in Pakistan still assume BrahMos to be nuclear capable - which is a safe bet - India has developed systems like Nirbhay, which has longer-range, for strategic purpose.

 

[RajaBaja]

The rocket force - which is under the supervision of the SPD and receives launch authorization from NCA - is Army Strategic Force Command. The PAF and PN also have their own respective strategic force commands. Their primary and almost exclusive role is nuclear not conventional. They cannot - or would not - carry out conventional strike for many reasons but primarily because such strikes would require a large degree of delegated launch authority whereas NCA is centralized.

When it comes to missiles the term "strategic" denotes "nuclear." BrahMos has never been declared nuclear, regardless of what Wikipedia says. The project was initiated with Russia when India was not a member of MTCR, and hence Russia abode regime's guidelines by ostensibly not assisting with its nuclear aspect and keeping the range below 300km (290km to be precise). It was Pakistani assessment that neither the declared range nor the payload limitation are factual. As far as range is concerned, the increment in it has been made by public as India developed more versions of it.

While we in Pakistan still assume BrahMos to be nuclear capable - which is a safe bet - India has developed systems like Nirbhay, which has longer-range, for strategic purpose.

You are repeating what I said with a slight twist!! I don't get into useless arguments. Facts only. The Rocket force INCLUDES what was "Army's strategic force command". SPD still oversee's nuclear assets. But the rocket force as an over arching organization initiates response. The kind of response is ordered, the rocket force will give, whether conventional or nuclear. For nuclear the SPD gets involved and uses the Rocket Force's previously known Army Strategic Command assets.

Like I said, the rocket force is created to mimic the Chinese rocket force for inter operability, cooperation and coordination for future. If you don't understand these details, you should first get those.

No need to further comment on Brahmos. It requires operational insights of the Indian military that's clear from your post you don't have. For your information, we were told in Musharaff's time that Brahmos would be "omni role" meaning covering both, strategic and a conventional weapon.