Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 02 Oct 2013 11:18

Per Wiki, I don't know how authentic, Pakis have got 50 guns from that deal.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Oct 2013 20:43

US quietly releasing $1.6bn in Pakistan assistance

The State Department told Congress that the US hadn't conducted any significant military financing for Pakistan since the "challenging and rapidly changing period of US-Pakistan relations" in 2011 and 2012. The department stressed the importance now of enhancing Pakistan's anti-terrorism capabilities through better communications, night vision capabilities, maritime security and precision striking with F16 fighter jets.

The department told Congress on July 25 that it would spend $295 million to help Pakistan's military. Twelve days later it announced $386 million more. A pair of notifications arriving on Aug. 13 and worth $705 million centered on helping Pakistani troops and air forces operating in the militant hotbeds of western Pakistan, and other counterinsurgency efforts.

arun · Post by **arun** » 24 Oct 2013 08:10

X Posted from the TSP thread.

Usual duplicity of the Military and other lesser elites of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on display with the Washington Post revealing that even as the Pakistani public was being told that drone strikes were strongly opposed, the Military and other lesser elites of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan were complicit in the attacks:

Secret memos reveal explicit nature of U.S., Pakistan agreement on drones

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 24 Oct 2013 10:12

I have anther question regarding Paki F-16 fleet

Per wiki, I know their is heavy propaganda their on Fizzle ya propaganda but they have

1) 40 Original F-16's , 8 crashed rest upgraded to MLU std

2) 14 free F-16 A upgraded to MLU from USA

3) 14 of 28 presseler amendment F-16 delivered

4) Received 18 F-16 C/D plus 14 on Order.

Does this mean that in a year or so Paki F-16 fleet will be 92, coupled 500 Aim 120C5 or C7 not sure.

If this true it explains that why Paki establishment feels very emboldened. Cause given IAF will have only 170 SU-30's plus a few upgraded Mig-29's which take these on, it will be very difficult for IAF to achieve Kargil type air superiority.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Oct 2013 10:26

more than raw nos, its our lack of proper tools to target and take out their airbases and electronic network that emboldens them about tech parity. my list includes.

(a) the R77 is long in tooth and the replacement is years away - will coincide with pakfa IOC
(b) limited nos of old KH31P in the ARM role
(c) very limited nos of popeye as the standoff air launched weapon
(d) no growlers for escort jamming
(e) no GLCMs to launch day1 attacks on IADS infra
(f) only 3 phalcons , desi aew nowhere close to IOC
(g) no status on IAF fleetwide data link pgm
(h) long in tooth Mig27 and Bisons that will surely suffer failures under heavy usage pattern
(i) no gliding long range munitions like SDB to cheaply shut their bases every few hours
(j) LCA nowhere close to FOC and full production
(k) onlee 6 tankers
(l) ELINT a/c on biz jets is at tender stage only
(m) Akash orders will take years to complete and provide cover for outdated sa3 / sa6 systems to our vital targets
(n) no sign of the LRSAM

without all the above we simply cannot crush them in a 10:1 exchange ratio. they would be happy to fight on a 1:1 or 2:1 ratio because denial of quick victory is also a major victory in their game plan and this prospect keeps india at bay.

due to our lack of SAMs and partial IADS/AEW they are also confident of using the latest F-16 and the 500+ JDAMs being given to land some smashing high profile blows on tier-1 indian targets like oil refiners, power plants , POL farms and railway junctions in the north and west. this again is a deterrent to india.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Oct 2013 10:44

I think its better to phase out the R-77's , R-27 etc and standardise fleet wise on Astra BVR and built it up on Mark model with iterative upgrades , eventually replace all the BVR with single Astra type for all fleet types.

Only selective LRAAM like Meteor or RVV-BD can be imported till such time we have our own and that would likely be next decade.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Oct 2013 11:13

and sadly the astra1 IOC even with imported agat seeker is also nowhere close.
cheen - for better or worse have already field two generations of domestic a2a/a2g missiles and are working on the 3rd.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 24 Oct 2013 13:31

Some of these are not really required for Indo-Pak scenario.

Singha wrote:more than raw nos, its our lack of proper tools to target and take out their airbases and electronic network that emboldens them about tech parity. my list includes.

(a) the R77 is long in tooth and the replacement is years away - will coincide with pakfa IOC
(b) limited nos of old KH31P in the ARM role Still enough to take out their handful nos of ZDK tankers and Erieyes.
(c) very limited nos of popeye as the standoff air launched weapon
(d) no growlers for escort jamming Growler is a one of a kind platform, in service with US only and not on offer to India.
(e) no GLCMs to launch day1 attacks on IADS infra
(f) only 3 phalcons , desi aew nowhere close to IOC Phalcons are still enough to vector in our aircraft wrt Pak. Each bird can look 400 km wide.
(g) no status on IAF fleetwide data link pgm
(h) long in tooth Mig27 and Bisons that will surely suffer failures under heavy usage pattern
(i) no gliding long range munitions like SDB to cheaply shut their bases every few hours Delivering by cruise and ballistic missiles is going to be cheaper and less risky. Short-range missiles will come into play in the next all out Indo-Pak war.
(j) LCA nowhere close to FOC and full production Sukhois, Mig-29, 27, 21bis, Jags and then some Mirages and Mig 29K's - more than enough. The only 3+ gen aircraft PAF can throw at us are their Falcons and Bandaars.
(k) onlee 6 tankers Same as Phalcons. 6 is a good number vs PAF.
(l) ELINT a/c on biz jets is at tender stage only
(m) Akash orders will take years to complete and provide cover for outdated sa3 / sa6 systems to our vital targets
(n) no sign of the LRSAM

<snip>

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Oct 2013 13:38

cheen - for better or worse have already field two generations of domestic a2a/a2g missiles and are working on the 3rd.

Cheen have always been like that make best of what they have and dont wait for whats best out there ,they might not have best of breed stuff but they have a good attitude on how to go about things within their technology and industrial limitations ....a lot of it is also perhaps because they were under sanctions for decades and infact still are. Reminds me of a proverb when it comes to cheen "Attitude is Everything"

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Oct 2013 13:40

Growler - there is already a huge centerline pod + 2 huge wingtip pods for the role on MKI/Su35 I had posted the details on LCA thread. electronic attack is essential to reduce casualties...far better to confuse and hoodwink enemy units and render them ineffective than let them take you head on at equal terms and accept the risks of combat.

and IAF will have to leave some units to guard atleast the northern front vs the cheen. cheen is sure to make some threatening moves to help the PAF like providing AWACS coverage over kashmir from safety of tibetan airspace.

its only due to comprehensive coverage and superiority of EW/AEW that very basic "block 30 type" F-solahs in nato service are able to fly around happily and inflict some damage. 1-vs-1 they wouldnt stand a great chance against well flown Mig29s for instance. our fleet of Mig27/Jag/Bisons need escort jammers to make their life easier..none are as capable of self-protection and EW as the rafale.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Oct 2013 17:22

Singha wrote:and sadly the astra1 IOC even with imported agat seeker is also nowhere close.
cheen - for better or worse have already field two generations of domestic a2a/a2g missiles and are working on the 3rd.

The plan is for Astra to be ready by 2015, after user trials in 2014.. the program is over its challenges per Chander.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Oct 2013 17:25

Singha wrote:its only due to comprehensive coverage and superiority of EW/AEW that very basic "block 30 type" F-solahs in nato service are able to fly around happily and inflict some damage. 1-vs-1 they wouldnt stand a great chance against well flown Mig29s for instance. our fleet of Mig27/Jag/Bisons need escort jammers to make their life easier..none are as capable of self-protection and EW as the rafale.

Well almost all of our fighters have been seen with SPJs - except older MiG-21s and non Upg MiG-27s. The MiG-27 Upg, MiG-29 Upg, Mirage 2000 Upg all have internal SPJs as well, reportedly so will DARIN-3 Jags (~60-100 of them). The Super 30 MKIs likewise with wingtip jammers (but till then podded jammers). Coming to escort jammers, IAF was on the market to purchase them for Jags a couple of years back, no news thereafter. Likely we already have that capability amongst fighters.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Oct 2013 17:32

Aditya_V wrote:I have anther question regarding Paki F-16 fleet

Per wiki, I know their is heavy propaganda their on Fizzle ya propaganda but they have

1) 40 Original F-16's , 8 crashed rest upgraded to MLU std

2) 14 free F-16 A upgraded to MLU from USA

3) 14 of 28 presseler amendment F-16 delivered

4) Received 18 F-16 C/D plus 14 on Order.

Does this mean that in a year or so Paki F-16 fleet will be 92, coupled 500 Aim 120C5 or C7 not sure.

If this true it explains that why Paki establishment feels very emboldened. Cause given IAF will have only 170 SU-30's plus a few upgraded Mig-29's which take these on, it will be very difficult for IAF to achieve Kargil type air superiority.

They will have around 60 F-16s ...not 90+ and around 100 JF-17s (rest all Mirage 3/5s and point defence F7s).. against which IAF will be fielding some 270 Flankers, 100+ upgraded Jags, 60+ upg MiG-29s, 50 Upg Mirage 2000s even keeping Mig-21 Bisons, LCAs, upg MiG-27s and Rafales out of the picture..

Its not good for them.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 24 Oct 2013 18:38

Two front war scenario has to be considered too.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Oct 2013 21:10

I think Kerry has arranged to change some policies like DFRM in jammers which original pkg approved by Bush had denied. he is even more TSP-pasand than hillary it seems.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Oct 2013 21:17

Kerry is very, very TSP inclined. The very best that could have happened to a near dead TSP.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 26 Oct 2013 00:20

This would be consistent with Pakistan's long-standing goal of acquiring a sea-based nuclear deterrent to pursue an ambitious maritime strategy. According to Khan, since 2001 the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) has been working on KPC-3, a project "to design and manufacture a miniaturized nuclear power plant for a submarine." In the long term, that may help Pakistan do less with more. PAEC and the National Engineering and Scientific Commission (NESCOM) have been working on a miniaturized plutonium warhead, a naval version of the Babur land attack cruise missile, which will further enhance Pakistan's deterrent capability

http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog ... ambitions/

The above snippet allowed into western press might be the precursor for surreptitious transfer of nuclear submarine tech(probably of a rudimentary level) by the usual suspects which will be later as usual tried to be passed off as an pindigenous effort.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 26 Oct 2013 01:21

Pakis don't have the capability. IN would do well to equip Vietnam and Philipines with enough missiles to cause real pain elsewhere.

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 28 Oct 2013 18:57

Cobra gunship crashes
Two pilots injured as Army copter crashes near Gujranwala

member_26255 · Post by **member_26255** » 28 Oct 2013 19:24

JF-17 Export Bubble Burst

ISLAMABAD - Pakistan’s strained economic condition puts to question the country’s capability to spend billions of rupees on the defence sector on the pretext of enhancing the defence exports and kicking off related strategic ventures.
While the country grapples with worst kind of economic crises owing to crippled industry due to ever-rising inflation, increasing cost of industrial expenditures following massive hike in power tariff as well as security situation, billions of rupees are reportedly being pumped in the strategic projects without any accurate anticipation whether such kind of large-scale investment at the cost of public money would bear any fruit.
Some reports suggest that Pakistan intends to export sophisticated JF-17 Thunder fighter jets to certain countries by next year and $ 100 million (over 10 billion rupees) have been released in this regard. Interestingly, this reported amount is more than four times the size of funds allocated to Pakistan’s defence production sector (2.3 billion rupees) in this year’s fiscal budget. In the defence budget for the ongoing year, there is no mention of any prioritised project in the Defence Production Division suggesting the exports of JF-17 Thunder and the allocation of over Rs 10 billion for related expenses.
The budgetary allocations for defence and defence production sectors for the fiscal year 2013-14 suggest, of the Rs 627 billion defence budget, the Defence Division has received Rs 4.2 billion and the Defence Production Division, Rs 2.300 billion. Separately, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and Ministry of Defence Production (MoDP) have respectively got Rs 1.3 billion and Rs 5.8 billion. Pakistan Army has got Rs 310 billion in this year’s fiscal budget, which is almost 50 percent of the total defence budget for 2013-14. The PAF got Rs 131 billion that makes 21 percent of the Rs 627 billion defence budget while Pakistan Navy got Rs 63 billion, around 10 percent of the defence funds. Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) got Rs 6.2 billion.
As many as 20 projects have been prioritised for which Rs 3.5 billion have been allocated while only two projects in the Defence Production Division have been prioritised with the allocation of Rs 2.3 billion.
Adding to the mystery shrouding reported plans for exporting JF-17 Thunder, the top government functionaries concerned have kept conspicuous mum over the issue. This correspondent called Rana Tanvir Hussain, Federal Minister for Defence Production thrice at his personal cell number on Friday to get his viewpoint on the issue but he did not speak. His personal assistant Muhammad Bilal said the minister was in a meeting with Governor Punjab Chaudhry Muhammad Sarwar and was not available for comments.
Information Minister Pervaiz Rashid, on contact, expressed inability to comment on the issue saying the matter was not known to him. “Frankly speaking, I haven’t heard of any such development. How can I say anything without having proper knowledge?”
The Secretary Defence Production Lieutenant General (r) Tanvir Tahir was called at his official landline number 051-9270930 but he, according to his staff, was not in the office.
Jointly manufactured by Aviation Industry Corp of China and the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC), JF-17 Thunder is originally a Chinese product, with the related technology shifted to Pakistan in the recent years. Regarded as a third-generation multipurpose combat jet, the JF-17 Thunder, in technical terms, is known as FC-1 Fierce Dragon.
In an interview with a Chinese news agency in May this year, Chairman PAC Air Marshal Sohail Gul Khan had claimed that several countries were interested in buying JF-17 Thunder from Pakistan. The PAC manufactured more than 40 JF-17 Thunder aircraft, he had said
The recent media reports claim Pakistan is to export five to seven JF-17 Thunder jets to the countries like Sri Lanka, Kuwait and Qatar and related deliberations are under way.
Requesting anonymity, a retired air marshal said, the manufacturing cost incurred on JF-17 Thunder is 1.5 billion to two billion rupees, roughly. “It needs to be determined whether there is a significant room for exporting this aircraft and earning profit after incurring such huge amount of money,” he said. Pakistan’s current defence budget of Rs 627 billion has seen 15 percent surge compared to the last year’s defence budget of Rs 545 billion that was revised at Rs 570 billion.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Nov 2013 22:17

Falcon's Hearth: Pakistan Air Force Academy

Part 1 ---> http://youtu.be/ffSOXJ1qP2A
Part 2 ---> http://youtu.be/Vvu212armNA
Part 3 ---> http://youtu.be/QzbKPjAI-YY
Part 4 ---> http://youtu.be/EmPQm1lgLuA

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 13 Nov 2013 16:27

Requesting anonymity, a retired air marshal said, the manufacturing cost incurred on JF-17 Thunder is 1.5 billion to two billion rupees, roughly. “It needs to be determined whether there is a significant room for exporting this aircraft and earning profit after incurring such huge amount of money,” he said.

This is 14-18.5 Mn USD per plane. Quite cheap and should not be a problem for exporting it provided the capability is as advertised.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 13 Nov 2013 16:52

PAF would need Klimov RD-93 for that from russia which is tough for them.

also the current engines that they have would be needed for there own usage

So................... just wait for ws13 paf

kit · Post by **kit** » 13 Nov 2013 17:08

India would do well if it considers a stance in which Pakistan also acquires a boomer probably a mini type within a decade .. but it can be prevented in quite a few ways , and not directly as well. , but needs a proactive Indian administration.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 20 Nov 2013 09:24

China advertises the capabilities of the CM-400AKG anti-ship cruise missile which it advertises as a "carrier killer"..the IN will have to deal with this threat from JF-17s of the PAF..

Dubai air show article

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 20 Nov 2013 14:39

its a big bird, which paf/pn assets can carry it?
then there is systems integration with non chinese radars, etc

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 20 Nov 2013 18:08

910 KG , JF 17 center line can carry it. Question are

1)is how will it target a carrier, know its position before firing from 160KM away?
2) A solid fuel missile with no power in terminal phase, evade/ avoid the ships defence?
3) how big a warhead can a 910KG missile carry, perhaps 90kg- enough to sink/ disable a carrier
4) Given the limitation of range radio links, an aircrraft will need to be within 40-50km of target for a pilot to give GBU-15 type TV updates, well within the CBG defenses.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Nov 2013 18:41

First of all the Thunder, with this missile, has to take off? Then fly undetected? Then detect a ship? Then launch the missile while also trying to evade targeting?

Go back to sleep. Just a bad dream - or a mirage from Dubai.

MN Kumar · Post by **MN Kumar** » 20 Nov 2013 18:50

A list of system features appears to confirm an unusual characteristic associated with the CM-400. Unlike most high-speed cruise missiles, which fly at low altitude to avoid detection, the CM-400 uses “high [altitude] launching” to achieve “higher aircraft survivability”, according to the video.

A fighter such as the Chengdu/Pakistan Aeronautical Complex JF-17 would launch the missile at speeds between Mach 0.7 and M0.9 at an elevation between 26,200ft and 39,400ft, according to the AVIC specifications.

That range seems for a high altitude launch. The aircraft will be detected long before entering the launch zone.

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 20 Nov 2013 23:34

That range seems for a high altitude launch. The aircraft will be detected long before entering the launch zone.

Well, they might fly in sea skimming mode till they reach just before within target range, pull up vertically to reach the necessary height (say about 30000 ft) fire the missile and fly back with afterburners. I guess all this could be done within 4-5 minutes. So there might be a chance.

Additionally, infact when pushed against a wall, they might as well have suicide missions with 4-5 JF17 damaging almost the whole of the Carrier Group.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 20 Nov 2013 23:54

Apparently it is a re-configured SAM in surface attack mode. IIRC the standard missile can be used in that manner as well. They must have discarded the booster as part of air launch mode, much like the Brahmos-A.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 21 Nov 2013 09:21

I guess IN will have to prepare for this danger when its surface ships are getting close Karachi and Gwadar. Lets see if the JF-17 bags any orders in Dubai. Does JF-17 have the range to fly Karachi to DUbai or do the PAF IL-78 refuel them along the way?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 21 Nov 2013 12:47

i suppose they will try to use the p3's and eyries to find the cbg and then cue the bandars to the approximate location
zoom up, aquire, fire and scoot
possible

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Nov 2013 12:56

avinandan, it can't be sea skimming, supersonic and have 240 km range. a 910 kg missile with 150-200 kg warhead can't have all three. choose any two. I would wager this has a parabolic trajectory followed by a sea skimming one only in terminal phase.
here's a pic

pics of a JF17 thandaaar crash of fizzle-yeah from 2011, which killed a sqdn leader.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Nov 2013 13:16

a much better pic.

looking at the size and location of those fins, this is not a sea skimming missile, at any phase of its trajectory.
there is no way this thing can cruise in a flat trajectory.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Nov 2013 13:55

These missiles are Top Dive Missile that works in a way shown in the figure , It flies high during cruise phase and simply dives on the target at 90 or 60 degrees ....should be very potent if not for the Carrier then for other capital ships , needs to be countered by Soft Kill and Hard Kill system

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Nov 2013 15:07

yup, it would build up decent speed in its terminal phase.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Nov 2013 15:20

Would a Barak-1/AK-630 combo be able to tackle a threat that is approaching supersonically in a parabolic trajectory, almost akin to a ballistic trajectory?

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 21 Nov 2013 15:28

I wouldn't see it as a big challenge - certainly not something which I will be caught dhoti shivering looking at.

1 - This aint a cruise missile - more a ballistic missile
2 - I dont see moving fins - am I blind? not sure if high speed mid course corrections possible.
3 - Range - 160-250 kms - high but is it high enough? (for targetting carriers).
4 - Aint a sea skimmer or even close to that - Sea skimmers are typically more difficult to avoid.

Also -

This could target other capital ships - destroyers and frigates. I don't see it affecting a carrier because -
1 - The CBG will have at least one aircraft on CAP.
2 - The radar bubble created by the other ships in the CBG will be at least 450 kms around the CBG.
3 - The Aircraft on CAP can be vectored in to the 'risk', meanwhile the other ships (say one destroyer + 2 frigates) launch counter attacks through long range anti aircraft missiles.
4 - Being predictable a ballistic missile makes it easier to defend against compared to a highly manouverable sea skimmer supersonic missile.
5 - Most CIWS can block a ballistic missile if target vectors are available through the radar read.
5 - The Bandaar can carry only one each and is not stealth!

To counter this - News from Defexpo India 14 - India showcases a 4Mach capable ship killer with range of 250 kms and calls it prasea. (A derivate of pragati). This will be carried by the Jaguar IM, LCA, Sukhoi 30 (2 per plane), etc! This in addition to Brahmos block 6 a 290 km supersonic at all range, cruise missile with terminal homing and trajectory change.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Nov 2013 15:43

any gun based CIWS is not a good option to defend against top dive missiles, because even if the missile is destroyed, at that speed much of the debris would fall on the ship and damage relatively delicate items like radars and injure personnel.

barak-1's ability to tackle this would depend on its radar's ability to track a 4 mach missile, if that can be done barak can shoot down a flying bullet without much problem IMHO. but I'm not sure it is designed to and might need mods.
I don't know much about barak's FCR. more knowledgeable folk, please step in.

soft kill measures like jamming its guidance link could be very effective too.

systems like barak-8 and AAD, if navalized should be able to deal with this comfortably. but that's in the future. there's no denying this is definitely a threat in the short term.

of course, the best way to deal with this is to shoot down the delivery vehicles i.e the JF17's before they can acquire the target.