Pakistan Rocket Force Command News and Discussions

Something worth studying for Pakistan, Iran's missile bases have proven quite resillient and allow for continuous fire even under constant aerial bombardment

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


To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
A Pakistani analyst/fanboy video is quoting Turkish media that Fatah-4... the cruise missile... is getting Turk made thermobaric warheads.

Eventually other missiles will get them too.

As you know, thermobarics... fuel-air... are the biggest bang you can get without going nuclear.

Practically our one missile will have it's bang increased by 3-5 times.

I am very happy.
 
Friendly Reminder:

This thread focuses primarily on Pakistan's ARFC. This is a tactical-level force, distinct from Pakistan's strategic-level forces.

According to current official reports, the ARFC is designated as a branch-level unit within the Pakistan Army responsible for the control and operation of conventional rockets and missiles—specifically, short-to-medium-range conventional missiles.

Simply put, this unit is primarily tasked with conducting precision strike missions within a range of 1,000 kilometers.

Weapon systems of this caliber rely primarily on tactical camouflage and high mobility to ensure their survivability, rather than on heavily fortified underground bunkers.

Consequently, discussing underground facilities—which fall under the category of strategic-level engineering projects—would constitute a digression from the topic of this thread.
 
Michael said:
Friendly Reminder:

This thread focuses primarily on Pakistan's ARFC. This is a tactical-level force, distinct from Pakistan's strategic-level forces.

According to current official reports, the ARFC is designated as a branch-level unit within the Pakistan Army responsible for the control and operation of conventional rockets and missiles—specifically, short-to-medium-range conventional missiles.

Simply put, this unit is primarily tasked with conducting precision strike missions within a range of 1,000 kilometers.

Weapon systems of this caliber rely primarily on tactical camouflage and high mobility to ensure their survivability, rather than on heavily fortified underground bunkers.

Consequently, discussing underground facilities—which fall under the category of strategic-level engineering projects—would constitute a digression from the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...
This is not entirely true. Iran's missile forces are a conventional weapon used tactically, but are stored underground for the purpose of maximun survivability in the face of constant aerial bombardment.

Underground facilties must not always imply strategic weaponry.
 
the vicious kind said:
Oghab Kuh, Fordow, Natanz, and many of Iran’s underground facilities or so-called underground cities are constructed beneath limestone or granite mountains.

In comparison, Pakistani facilities are located beneath quartzite and similarly hard rock formations, which are regarded as more resistant to penetration than limestones or granite.
Click to expand...
I see, but the internal designs and firing mechanisms are just as important to prevent disabling of entrances and reduncancies. I do encourage you to view the content I sent in the post to get my point. But this is good news.
 
TallGuy said:
Careful, please this is very open forum. i am sure you are only talking about Kirana hills which was destroyed by India :)
Click to expand...
This is mostly opens ource info , locations are listing on the internet but INFOSEC is thing
 
I just looked at the date of this thread and I was surprised to see that it says August 2025.

I would have imagined that a military like the Pakistani one would have established such a separate and dedicated missile force long ago.

I am curious - how close is the Pakistani missile cooperation with China?

For instance the Saudi Arabian domestic ballistic missile program and force is modeled and has been supported (since the 1980's) by the Chinese doctrine. From the missiles themselves to the missile underground bases. Of course with a local twist.

Is Pakistan's model somewhat comparable and if so what prevents (if it does not already exist and occur - based on old photos of KSA officials with small missile miniatures etc. and meetings with Pakistani counterparts - cooperation exists and have existed for a long time) KSA and Pakistan from enhancing this cooperation?

Michael said:
Friendly Reminder:

This thread focuses primarily on Pakistan's ARFC. This is a tactical-level force, distinct from Pakistan's strategic-level forces.

According to current official reports, the ARFC is designated as a branch-level unit within the Pakistan Army responsible for the control and operation of conventional rockets and missiles—specifically, short-to-medium-range conventional missiles.

Simply put, this unit is primarily tasked with conducting precision strike missions within a range of 1,000 kilometers.

Weapon systems of this caliber rely primarily on tactical camouflage and high mobility to ensure their survivability, rather than on heavily fortified underground bunkers.

Consequently, discussing underground facilities—which fall under the category of strategic-level engineering projects—would constitute a digression from the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your post. That partially answers my questions.

the vicious kind said:
Oghab Kuh, Fordow, Natanz, and many of Iran’s underground facilities or so-called underground cities are constructed beneath limestone or granite mountains.

In comparison, Pakistani facilities are located beneath quartzite and similarly hard rock formations, which are regarded as more resistant to penetration than limestones or granite.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Do we know whether Pakistan has such underground facilities in places like Kashmir or the North? That would be logical given that quartzite is likely most prevalent there given the mountains. Or are they also constructed alongside the Indian border - I guess with different material than quartzite given that most of the Pakistani-Indian border is not overly mountainous.

I am curious do we know who pioneered this whole idea of construction missile bases beneath mountains? Google claims that the US began such projects in the 1950's and 1960's. Somehow this must have spread to China and others later.

A very interesting but notoriously secretive topic.

For the sake of Pakistani military enthusiasts, I hope (I already know the answer) that the Pakistani missile force is far less secretive than the Saudi Arabian one which is notoriously useless when it comes to giving out information in the public. Very frustrating.
 
Last edited:
Based on last conflict there were some severe shortcomings both in terms of fluid decision making and availability of weapons

Several points (which some members have listed)

1. ALCMs - Pakistan has Taimur. Subsonic and range of upto 500km. Suffice to say the range needs to increase for PAF package to launch from deep within Pakistan.

2. Work on supersonic / hypersonic platforms - in the interim procure from China in good numbers.

3. More PAF bases in Western Pakistan and airstrips away from Eastern borders

4. Drones - A lesson from Iran on employing drones at mass scale to overwhelm adversaries AD.

5. SHORADs - Seemed Pakistan lacked a good number of mobile Short range AD in the last conflict. Not sure the current inventory of tanks can be converted to this role.

6. Underground missile / drone factories silos deep within the mountainous region of Balochistan and KP. A lesson from Iran conflict.

7. Decision paralysis - Last conflict Pakistan wasted a good 2-3 days to allow adversaries to shift to launching ALCMs at stand off ranges. The reply was MRLS Fatah 1/2 with limited range. Establishment of a rocket command with Fatah series under the command, hopefully should help and decision making should be allowed to be decentralized.
 
_Arabia_ said:
Interesting. Do we know whether Pakistan has such underground facilities in places like Kashmir or the North? That would be logical given that quartzite is likely most prevalent there given the mountains. Or are they also constructed alongside the Indian border
Click to expand...
Depends , balochistan , upper punjab , sindh etc not in kahmir tho
 
Hopefully Pessimistic said:
This is not entirely true. Iran's missile forces are a conventional weapon used tactically, but are stored underground for the purpose of maximun survivability in the face of constant aerial bombardment.

Underground facilties must not always imply strategic weaponry.
Click to expand...
You must first clarify the distinction between strategic-level and tactical-level forces. Iran's missile forces are a quintessential example of a strategic-level force, whereas the ARFC represents a quintessential tactical-level force. There is a fundamental difference between the two.

If we use the PLA as an analogy to compare against the ARFC:

In terms of operational function, the ARFC is analogous to the artillery brigades currently subordinate to the PLA Ground Forces' Group Armies. This force is primarily responsible for conducting fire strikes within a range of 1,000 kilometers. In addition to being equipped with 155mm artillery pieces and long-range multiple rocket launchers, they also possess a small number of short-range ballistic missiles. (Note: This force is *not* equipped with specialized warheads—such as heavy bunker-busters or anti-runway cluster munitions. The responsibility for striking such specific targets lies with the PLARF and the PLAAF.)

In terms of command hierarchy, the ARFC is analogous to the PLA Air Force's Airborne Corps. The PLAAF Airborne Corps is under the direct command of the PLAAF Headquarters. It comprises several brigade-level units permanently stationed across various Theater Commands; however, the relationship between these units and the respective Theater Commands is one of coordination rather than direct subordination.

Underground protective fortifications are extremely expensive to construct. Furthermore, given modern reconnaissance capabilities, these underground structures cannot evade enemy detection (they can only serve to "withstand"—or physically absorb—enemy attacks). For tactical-level forces and weaponry, hiding within underground fortifications is entirely counterproductive. Such forces require the ability to launch flexible strikes at a moment's notice, rather than remaining sequestered underground.

Does a weapon qualify as "strategic" only if it carries a nuclear warhead? This depends on the specific circumstances of each nation. For countries with more limited military capabilities, the criteria for classifying a weapon as "strategic-level" tend to be lower.

A classic example:
Currently, China's only operational bomber is the H-6; consequently, it is designated as a "strategic bomber." However, once China's H-20 stealth bomber officially enters service, the H-6 will be reclassified as a "tactical bomber," while the H-20 will assume the designation of "strategic bomber."
In the early days, China procured SA-2 air defense missiles from the Soviet Union. At the time, the units equipped with this weapon were regarded as strategic-level forces. But now......

By the same logic:
Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons; therefore, those weapons are classified as "strategic-level." However, were Pakistan *not* to possess nuclear weapons, its *Fatah* series missiles would then be classified as "strategic-level" assets.
Because Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, its medium-range missile forces are—by definition—classified as a strategic-level force. Consequently, these units can be stationed within underground protective facilities. However, should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, the situation would change; these costly underground facilities would be prioritized for use by nuclear forces, while conventional missile and drone units would be compelled to vacate them (due to differing priorities).
For certain countries, an air squadron composed of JF-17B3s might even be regarded as a strategic-level force......
 
Last edited:
_Arabia_ said:
I just looked at the date of this thread and I was surprised to see that it says August 2025.

I would have imagined that a military like the Pakistani one would have established such a separate and dedicated missile force long ago.

I am curious - how close is the Pakistani missile cooperation with China?

For instance the Saudi Arabian domestic ballistic missile program and force is modeled and has been supported (since the 1980's) by the Chinese doctrine. From the missiles themselves to the missile underground bases. Of course with a local twist.

Is Pakistan's model somewhat comparable and if so what prevents (if it does not already exist and occur - based on old photos of KSA officials with small missile miniatures etc. and meetings with Pakistani counterparts - cooperation exists and have existed for a long time) KSA and Pakistan from enhancing this cooperation?


Thank you for your post. That partially answers my questions.



Interesting. Do we know whether Pakistan has such underground facilities in places like Kashmir or the North? That would be logical given that quartzite is likely most prevalent there given the mountains. Or are they also constructed alongside the Indian border - I guess with different material than quartzite given that most of the Pakistani-Indian border is not overly mountainous.

I am curious do we know who pioneered this whole idea of construction missile bases beneath mountains? Google claims that the US began such projects in the 1950's and 1960's. Somehow this must have spread to China and others later.

A very interesting but notoriously secretive topic.

For the sake of Pakistani military enthusiasts, I hope (I already know the answer) that the Pakistani missile force is far less secretive than the Saudi Arabian one which is notoriously useless when it comes to giving out information in the public. Very frustrating.
Click to expand...
Well i cant point you directly , think of a facility near an airbase that india "allegedly" tried to hit in last year's conflict. Its funny because they thought that a 250 pound bomb could crumble a moutain made of quartzite or hardened shale rock. Only a direct nuclear blast could have destroyed it. We have been building these facilities since 4 decades now. Publically we know of 3-4 , but there are more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 16 (members: 2, guests: 14)

Pakistan Defence Latest

Country Watch Latest

Latest Posts

Share this page

Back
Top