Cruise Missile Test in Pakistan: News and Discussions

Sam CS · Post by **Sam CS** » 17 Aug 2005 01:26

TSJones wrote:Who else has deployed submarine cruise missiles other than the US, Britain and Russia? I'm not sure China has done so yet. If they have, then they have shown their hand. It was extremely unwise for China to give Pakistan air and submarine launchable cruise missiles. It takes an extremely technical setup to launch from underwater. It took the US many years to develop it.

(1) It's not like everything else they have given Pakistan constitutes a wise decision.

(2) You could be right about the Chinese not having SLCM capability yet. There is no reason to believe Barber is one now. We can bet our bottom dollar and rupee that TSP will have it when the Chinese have it.

Sam CS · Post by **Sam CS** » 17 Aug 2005 01:28

The whole Syed Yusuf narrative looks like a CNN Presents edition on "MAD".

Are the TSP Generals that rational?

Syed Yusuf · Post by **Syed Yusuf** » 17 Aug 2005 01:38

[quote="Sam CS"]The whole Syed Yusuf narrative looks like a CNN Presents edition on "MAD".

Are the TSP Generals that rational? :eek:[/quote]

i am not sure what TSP means. if you are asking me than please eplain properly and i will answer you what i know. Thanks.

Syed Yusuf · Post by **Syed Yusuf** » 17 Aug 2005 01:41

[quote="Sam CS"]
(2) You could be right about the Chinese not having SLCM capability yet. There is no reason to believe Barber is one [b]now[/b]. We can bet our bottom dollar and rupee that TSP will have it when the Chinese have it.[/quote]

and i believe ther is some reality in it too. since we all know that industrial base of pakistan is not as good to develop such a high quality weapon. i believe there is always ( open or covered ) chinese or western connection. beside it saves time and money to buy the technology and in adopt it to their benifit.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 17 Aug 2005 01:47

TSJ,

You guys better pack up and leave the table. The stakes have got very high. 75 F-16s, other assorted goodies and the MUNNA club membership was clearly not enough at this table.

A few posts ago I said the Chinese will supply nuclear submarines which will be equipped with the Barbers. Well I was wrong, they are making do with French submarines and the Barbers.

Syed Yusuf · Post by **Syed Yusuf** » 17 Aug 2005 01:51

guys and girls,

if you do not have any furthur question then i will leave in 5 minutes. will come back later to check if there is any more questions. and please no trash talk and flame war's thanks.

Syed Yusuf · Post by **Syed Yusuf** » 17 Aug 2005 01:54

[quote="ldev"]TSJ,

A few posts ago I said the Chinese will supply nuclear submarines which will be equipped with the Barbers. Well I was wrong, they are making do with French submarines and the Barbers.[/quote]

I think it iwll be a suiside for chinese to supply a nuke sub to pakistan. world pressure will kill them. beside pakistan cannot afford a nuclear submarine as of now. haveing a supplier is one story and affroding oen is another an din this case both of the options are not there. that is why i said that augusta's will be used for babar. and i am not just saying from my own side. i have a specific knowledge.

P Babu · Post by **P Babu** » 17 Aug 2005 01:54

Syed Yusuf wrote:i am not sure what TSP means.

Cousin of TSJ [Just kidding..]. Some of them call it non-nato Ally of Uncle..

Syed Yusuf · Post by **Syed Yusuf** » 17 Aug 2005 01:56

[quote="P Babu"][quote="Syed Yusuf"]i am not sure what TSP means. [/quote]
Cousin of TSJ [Just kidding..]. Some of them call it non-nato Ally of Uncle..[/quote]

so TSP means Pakistan. can you kindly spell pout the abbreviation. thanks.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » 17 Aug 2005 01:57

[double post]

Harry · Post by **Harry** » 17 Aug 2005 01:57

Syed Yusuf wrote:
TSJones wrote:
Who else has deployed submarine cruise missiles other than the US, Britain and Russia? I'm not sure China has done so yet. If they have, then they have shown their hand. It was extremely unwise for China to give Pakistan air and submarine launchable cruise missiles. It takes an extremely technical setup to launch from underwater. It took the US many years to develop it.

i am not sure where but i can tell that much that this is the direction they are working on. you have definately missed isreal from the above list. like i said i will tell what i know.

The missile does not fit the 533 mm tubes of the Agosta.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 17 Aug 2005 02:00

Syed,

I'm not sure if the diameter or length of Babar as of now fit into Agosta. Is Pakistan planning to acquire bigger conventional SSNs from China?

That said, what you say regarding the primary role of Babar being nuke delivery platform makes sense.

Kedar · Post by **Kedar** » 17 Aug 2005 02:07

Syed Yusuf wrote: so TSP means Pakistan. can you kindly spell pout the abbreviation. thanks.

Terrorist State of Pakistan

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 17 Aug 2005 02:09

Sayed:

TSP = Terrorist State of Pakistan

I'm not saying it is impossible for Pakistan to launch from subs, I'm just saying that it takes a lot of practice and development. Pakistan may be losing any cruise missile capable subs in the near future. Strategic weapons for Pakistan is not a good idea. It makes us nervous. Meaning, the US.

Syed Yusuf · Post by **Syed Yusuf** » 17 Aug 2005 02:11

[quote="Harry"]

The missile does not fit the 533 mm tubes of the Agosta.[/quote]

Harry,

the diameter of babar is as such that it can be launched from augusta tubes. One more thing you guys might not know about is that this missile that was tested with 500 km range is not its actual range. its actual range is 1000km. pretty soon you will hear that pakistan test fires a new cruse missile ( mat be babar 2 or some thing) with the range of 1000km. that will only be a PR statement. Accordign to my information it will be this version that will be deployed in augusta's. The incorporation will take approximately 3 to 4 years. that include production of enough missiles.

Syed Yusuf · Post by **Syed Yusuf** » 17 Aug 2005 02:12

[quote="TSJones"]Sayed:

TSP = Terrorist State of Pakistan

I'm not saying it is impossible for Pakistan to launch from subs, I'm just saying that it takes a lot of practice and development. Pakistan may be losing any cruise missile capable subs in the near future. Strategic weapons for Pakistan is not a good idea. It makes us nervous. Meaning, the US.[/quote]

Strategic weapons for any country has death written on it specially 3rd world countries. i cannot agree with you more on this.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 17 Aug 2005 02:18

Syed Yusuf wrote: cruise missile can be detected but the detection/ reaction time is too small. it is our irony to live in a neighbour hood where three counries posses nuclear weapon and share borders. all of these countries have the will to use them. now that is more dangerious than any thing else.

Syed, can you name a nuke capable country that does not have the will to use their nukes? The only danger Pakistan poses is to itself.

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 17 Aug 2005 02:23

Syed
Any idea where did the engine come from for Babur?
Thx

Syed Yusuf · Post by **Syed Yusuf** » 17 Aug 2005 02:24

[quote="eklavya"][quote="Syed Yusuf"]
cruise missile can be detected but the detection/ reaction time is too small. it is our irony to live in a neighbour hood where three counries posses nuclear weapon and share borders. all of these countries have the will to use them. now that is more dangerious than any thing else.[/quote]

Syed, can you name a nuke capable country that does not have the will to use their nukes? The only danger Pakistan poses is to itself.[/quote]

i do agree with you that among all the nuke capable countries pakistan is the most unstable country. but believe it is more stable now than it was in 1998. pakistan will have a long way to go before it could be called fairly stable.

i can't agree with you more.

Syed Yusuf · Post by **Syed Yusuf** » 17 Aug 2005 02:26

[quote="A Sharma"]Syed
Any idea where did the engine come from for Babur?
Thx[/quote]

A Sharma,

sorry i do not know the specific about it. as soon as i have the reliable information i will inform you. i do not want to specaulate.

Syed Yusuf · Post by **Syed Yusuf** » 17 Aug 2005 02:32

alright,

i hope i have help shed some of the smoke and dust and brought out the reality.

i will be back in 4 hours to check back any questions if you have any that i can answer.

nice talking to you all.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 17 Aug 2005 02:33

Syed Yusuf wrote:
eklavya wrote: Syed, can you name a nuke capable country that does not have the will to use their nukes? The only danger Pakistan poses is to itself.
i do agree with you that among all the nuke capable countries pakistan is the most unstable country. but believe it is more stable now than it was in 1998. pakistan will have a long way to go before it could be called fairly stable.

i can't agree with you more.

In 1998 Pakistan had an elected government - it was unstable because the army was out of government. Pakistan is now a military dictatorship - so it is stable as the army is the government. All of this is a matter for the Pakistani public, not for its neighbours. What would be fairly stable in the context of Pakistan - the generals handing over to the mullahs?

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 17 Aug 2005 02:34

Can we please stick to cruise missiles?

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 17 Aug 2005 02:37

Sharma,

China probably has a surplus of TJ engines from its older Hong Niao series that are being replaced now.

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 17 Aug 2005 02:43

More power to syeds

The more PRC gives out this kinda stuff, and Madrasaas going full steam the better.

As ramana had said in 1998 TSP is now Unkils problem, we just happen to be neighbors.

More power to Mushy and Mushlets

**
Added later
Suddenly Jones of the world are all perkedup to hear Syeds

rajivg · Post by **rajivg** » 17 Aug 2005 02:47

Syed,

You are implying that Babar is primarily a strategic weapon. It will then raise the threshold of nuclear war (or blackmail of nuclear war) and thus ensure Pakistan's security from a conventionally superior India. It also means that Pakistan will have to either rely more on cruise missiles as its nuclear deterrent or ramp up production on Pu-239 so that it can be supplied in sufficient quantity for both ballistic and cruise missiles.

Sam CS · Post by **Sam CS** » 17 Aug 2005 02:49

Folks,

The "Are the TSP Generals that rational?" question was meant to the Gurus here.

Is it even possible that the whole paint job song-and-dance of all these years is defensive posturing with the assumption that the Yindoos' first strike (Conventional or nukular) would be aimed at destroying TSP? If TSP isn't the one making this assumption, at least the Red and Blue Unkils both could be.

We've all said it here before - in the absence of a powerful deterrent, the next war would spearhead thru TSP to balkanize them. That is an outcome no Uncle or Auntie wants.

So, it could be a Second and second-only strike strategy to hit India if a semi- or successful strike is made to dismantle TSP as we know it. Under the guise of "Me too", what is happening is a calibrated arming of TSP for that second strike?

Of course, the only factor that will trigger the next war is TSP's thousand cuts is conveniently forgotten. Cuts are OK but a war isn't.

D_Prem · Post by **D_Prem** » 17 Aug 2005 02:50

We're screwed if Pakis go on to installing their new Cruise missiles onto the Agostas.......unleashing a whole new dimension to our age old rivalry.

.......I guess jammers and ABMs will be of little use then.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 17 Aug 2005 02:51

Glad to see the serious discussion. As a sidenote, I would abstain from using the BR specific acronyms for this context.

Assuming Syed Yusuf is right, it makes a little more sense. An SLCM is technically easier to create. That is, assuming it fitting the Agosta tube and having the small warheads. The time period of 3-4 years also looks reasonable.

Now, the issue now is that of command and control. How effective that can be? How to prevent accidental launches and rogue launches? I know about Pakistans claim of a solid C&C, but I would imagine all bets to be off once it leaves the shore.

On the bottom line, it doesn't make much difference. Pakistan already have the other missiles that can carry the nukes. The only difference this is going to make is that it would be very difficult to neutralize.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 17 Aug 2005 02:54

India has NFU policy. So, India won't retaliate till a nuke lands on Indian soil. But after that, TSP's total annihilation is definitely assured. So, are they going to use the SLCM for a 2nd strike on India?

Given TSP's industrial strengths, I am doubtful whether they can even master the SLCM technology. Is there some way that they can do a simple modification, so that the missile is not launched from under water, but the submarine just surfaces and fires off the missile? That might be sufficient for them too. It achieves their purpose.

Yusuf mentions that they cannot afford large number of CMs to support conventional land strike. Does it mean they are paying hard cash to Chinese for the missiles? I highly doubt that it even has 10% indigenous content. And there is no way they can figure out guidance and tracking systems by themselves. So, how much is TSP paying the chinese?

Given the US SD silence, it does reinforce N^3's nuke nood theory. Wonder whether they are still willing to barter the missiles for whatever else they want with N Korea/Syria/Iran etc. Now, that would be an interesting scenario.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 17 Aug 2005 02:54

Brahmos Versus Barber

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/aug-2005/17/columns4.php

Indian official mandarins may be silent for the time being but the various Indian chat sites are buzzing with anxiety and indignation. An extract from Bharatrakhshak.com is presented here: "This missile is a very very serious threat in itself, because all of a sudden it gives the Pakis some pretty impressive non-nuclear teeth. With these babies they can create a lot of nuisance and chaos by attacking cities like Delhi or areas of vital importance like the Jamnagar complex. And now they can do it with a high probability of success and with little or no risk to the launch platform."
A gist of the probable defensive preemptive measures being proposed by Indian brains on the above quoted site is as follows:
¤ Have a quick-reaction point defense missile such as the R-77 or MICA with an active seeker.
¤ Launch airborne

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 17 Aug 2005 02:55

You are implying that Babar is primarily a strategic weapon. It will then raise the threshold of nuclear war (or blackmail of nuclear war) and thus ensure Pakistan's security from a conventionally superior India. It also means that Pakistan will have to either rely more on cruise missiles as its nuclear deterrent or ramp up production on Pu-239 so that it can be supplied in sufficient quantity for both ballistic and cruise missiles.

While we in the US feel Pakistan is entitled to defend itself, we do not think strategic weapons are necessary for their defense. Especially when we in the US are so deeply concerned about Pakistan. Strategic weapons could harm Pakistan's economic development and other things. Strategic weapons for Pakistan would make us in the US very sad indeed.

Sam CS · Post by **Sam CS** » 17 Aug 2005 02:56

D_Prem wrote:We're screwed if Pakis go on to installing their new Cruise missiles onto the Agostas:

Why? This merely forces India to fight only for limited objectives. Worst case loss for TSP is a couple of batallions of Flight Infantry followed by press conference with Unkil.

Worst case limited objective: the Kargil lines.
Best case limited objective: the real International Border.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Aug 2005 02:59

There were no visible PN(nava)l or PAF offcials at the test site.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Aug 2005 03:00

Prem wrote: An extract from Bharatrakhshak.com is presented here:

LOL!

Sam CS · Post by **Sam CS** » 17 Aug 2005 03:02

Acharya wrote:
Prem wrote: An extract from Bharatrakhshak.com is presented here:
LOL!

Was this quote actually written by someone on this thread?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 17 Aug 2005 03:03

Was it yusuf's compilation?

D_Prem · Post by **D_Prem** » 17 Aug 2005 03:03

Why? This merely forces India to fight only for limited objectives. Worst case loss for TSP is a couple of batallions of Flight Infantry followed by press conference with Unkil.

What makes you think that we will only fight for limited objectives?........MORE importantly what makes think that Pakistan will only fight a limited war?

Any attack this time will only unleash a spiralling chain of events wherein the nuclear trigger will be pressed - at least from the Paki side.

A couple of Infantry batallions will definetly go.....and so will the lives of another hundreds of million people....Unkil will probably come in after all is over.....to airlift food and medicine like they did in Berlin.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Aug 2005 03:06

RaviBg wrote:India has NFU policy. So, India won't retaliate till a nuke lands on Indian soil. But after that, TSP's total annihilation is definitely assured. So, are they going to use the SLCM for a 2nd strike on India?
.

They hope to negotiate themselves out of total annihilation using this weapon system. Fundamentally it is more of a survival weapon but it is also a first strike weapon for an unstable country.

D_Prem · Post by **D_Prem** » 17 Aug 2005 03:06

.......seriously what losers........they consider BR to be a independent think tank whose analysis and statements are at par to those of Govt of India....and it can be used freely in the media

Pakis never fail to surprise.

Bharat Rakshak

Cruise Missile Test in Pakistan: News and Discussions

on lighter note

Re: on lighter note

Re: on lighter note