Pakistan successfully test-fires indigenously manufactured air to air BVR missile
- Thread starter anwarma
- Start date
Actually, as far as my knowledge is , the H-2 and H-4 are based off the South African Raptor Air-to-Surface Glide Bomb series. The H-2 is based off the Raptor-I (60km range) while the H-4 is based off the Raptor-II (120km range), and supposedly has some rocket extension or something (what I think). NESCOM came out with 3 Missiles. 2 Air-to-Ground BVR Missiles & One BVRAAM.BVRAAM is the T-Darter (60km range), which is basically an improved South African S-Darter.
Plz correct me if i am wrong....
Elite-Pilot
Banned Member
I have yet to see the indigenous Hafr-2 and Hafr-4 missiles. The PAF is way to over-protective with its information, which for us is bad news but for the country its good news. Pakistan and its missile programs also remain behind secret doors. I believe the creation of the bomb started a couple of months before Pakistan was negotiating to fully make its Mirage 3/5 BVR capable. Also i would like to request for someone to private message me some pictures of the H-4 or H-2.
2. Nope, not that i know of.
1. Many people assume that it is based on the South African T-darter, and i also believe that because of the specifications people have provided. Another reason for my assumption is because I believe that South Africa provided a missile for evaluations to the PAF.
2. Nope, not that i know of.
hovercraft
New Member
any link or photo?
Elite-Pilot
Banned Member
Recently while talking to Pakistani journalists General Pervez Musharraf unwittingly revealed a delusion that Pakistani leadership seems to harbor - Nuclear wars can be fought and won!
While discussing India's possible acquisition of PAC-3 missiles from the US, General Pervez Musharraf told Pakistani journalists at a press conference in Lahore Monday that it would be "quite difficult for India to install such an expensive system for defending multiple targets. For defending say 20 targets, it would have to deploy 1,000-2,000 Patriot missiles. Even if that defense mechanism stopped five incoming missiles, another five would penetrate. "
What General Musharraf stated were facts. I had said pretty much the same thing in my recent article PAC-3 Investment in missile defense could be a blunder. However, there is a difference between a blogger like me expressing his worst fears on a sparingly read forum and the head of state of a nuclear armed nation confirming them to the world at large! One would expect the head of state to express a more balanced view. But then that would be possible only if the concerned head of state had a more balanced view!
PAC-3 A New Equation
India has no reasons to be uneasy about anything that Pakistan can field against it militarily. Not their weapons and certainly not their soldiers. The only thing India needs to be uneasy about is the untamed aggression that the Pakistani army continues to nurture against India. An aggression that emanates from a delusion that Pakistan can best its more powerful neighbor. General Musharraf's statements, quoted above, are a disturbing manifestation of the delusional mindset.
In order to elaborate let me go back to what General Musharraf reportedly said - that even if the United States sold its Patriot PAC-3 interceptor missile batteries to India, Pakistan's nuclear missile arsenal was numerous and powerful enough to overwhelm it! As I have already admitted General Musharraf was stating facts. However, he was not stating all the facts and therein lies the delusion.
If Pakistan were to launch a first strike, indeed it would easily overwhelm any PAC-3 systems that India may deploy. However, what if India were to launch the first strike? A precision counter force strike with its more accurate missiles and backed by good field and satellite intelligence? Such a first strike could conceivably take out a major part of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Any retaliatory Pakistani counter value strike on Indian cities would be weak because of a depleted arsenal. This is where the PAC-3 could play their role, by making the weak response even weaker.
Should the above scenario not worry General Musharraf? Actually, it should not and I will give you my reasons why later. First, however, let us try and fathom General Musharraf's reasons for not being worried, going purely by his tone. They are
India's more accurate missiles are not accurate enough for a surgical first strike.
India lacks the intelligence apparatus that such a first strike must necessarily be backed with.
The idea of an Indian first strike probably sounds as ridiculous to General Musharraf as it does to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. General Musharraf knows for a fact that any nuclear conflict in the sub continent will be initiated by Pakistan, not India.
Now let me give you the real reason why General Musharraf should not be worried on account of any PAC-3 deployment by India. The truth is, following an Indian first strike, even a very weak counter value nuclear strike by Pakistan could get through the PAC-3 cover. That possibility would be devastating enough to make it unacceptable to the Indian democratic leadership. Just one nuclear weapon landing on an Indian metropolis is an unacceptable cost. To understand why it is unacceptable all you need is a little bit of imagination. Quiet simply, General Musharraf, sanity and nuclear warfare do not go together.
Conclusion
Pakistan's aggressions in the past - 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1998 have largely been fuelled by a delusion harbored by their military that they can best India and wrest Kashmir from it. The current Pakistani military leadership doesn't appear to have shed that delusion.
Unfortunately a lot of Pakistan's aggression is fueled by India's defensive mindset and posture. India needs to match Pakistan's offensive mindset with a combination of an equally offensive mindset and greater financial muscle. Pakistan needs a visible and persistent reality check because now the stakes are much higher. Our adversary is armed with nuclear weapons and does not apparently understand that nuclear wars cannot be fought and won. Not by India, and certainly not by Pakistan.
India can provide the needed reality check more effectively by developing more accurate missiles and satellite based surveillance, not by deploying PAC-3s.
<http://kuku.sawf.org/Articles/1946.aspx>
------------------
Wow, Indian Propaganda's ruin our mind and President General Pervez M. revives us by stating this type of information
While discussing India's possible acquisition of PAC-3 missiles from the US, General Pervez Musharraf told Pakistani journalists at a press conference in Lahore Monday that it would be "quite difficult for India to install such an expensive system for defending multiple targets. For defending say 20 targets, it would have to deploy 1,000-2,000 Patriot missiles. Even if that defense mechanism stopped five incoming missiles, another five would penetrate. "
What General Musharraf stated were facts. I had said pretty much the same thing in my recent article PAC-3 Investment in missile defense could be a blunder. However, there is a difference between a blogger like me expressing his worst fears on a sparingly read forum and the head of state of a nuclear armed nation confirming them to the world at large! One would expect the head of state to express a more balanced view. But then that would be possible only if the concerned head of state had a more balanced view!
PAC-3 A New Equation
India has no reasons to be uneasy about anything that Pakistan can field against it militarily. Not their weapons and certainly not their soldiers. The only thing India needs to be uneasy about is the untamed aggression that the Pakistani army continues to nurture against India. An aggression that emanates from a delusion that Pakistan can best its more powerful neighbor. General Musharraf's statements, quoted above, are a disturbing manifestation of the delusional mindset.
In order to elaborate let me go back to what General Musharraf reportedly said - that even if the United States sold its Patriot PAC-3 interceptor missile batteries to India, Pakistan's nuclear missile arsenal was numerous and powerful enough to overwhelm it! As I have already admitted General Musharraf was stating facts. However, he was not stating all the facts and therein lies the delusion.
If Pakistan were to launch a first strike, indeed it would easily overwhelm any PAC-3 systems that India may deploy. However, what if India were to launch the first strike? A precision counter force strike with its more accurate missiles and backed by good field and satellite intelligence? Such a first strike could conceivably take out a major part of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Any retaliatory Pakistani counter value strike on Indian cities would be weak because of a depleted arsenal. This is where the PAC-3 could play their role, by making the weak response even weaker.
Should the above scenario not worry General Musharraf? Actually, it should not and I will give you my reasons why later. First, however, let us try and fathom General Musharraf's reasons for not being worried, going purely by his tone. They are
India's more accurate missiles are not accurate enough for a surgical first strike.
India lacks the intelligence apparatus that such a first strike must necessarily be backed with.
The idea of an Indian first strike probably sounds as ridiculous to General Musharraf as it does to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. General Musharraf knows for a fact that any nuclear conflict in the sub continent will be initiated by Pakistan, not India.
Now let me give you the real reason why General Musharraf should not be worried on account of any PAC-3 deployment by India. The truth is, following an Indian first strike, even a very weak counter value nuclear strike by Pakistan could get through the PAC-3 cover. That possibility would be devastating enough to make it unacceptable to the Indian democratic leadership. Just one nuclear weapon landing on an Indian metropolis is an unacceptable cost. To understand why it is unacceptable all you need is a little bit of imagination. Quiet simply, General Musharraf, sanity and nuclear warfare do not go together.
Conclusion
Pakistan's aggressions in the past - 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1998 have largely been fuelled by a delusion harbored by their military that they can best India and wrest Kashmir from it. The current Pakistani military leadership doesn't appear to have shed that delusion.
Unfortunately a lot of Pakistan's aggression is fueled by India's defensive mindset and posture. India needs to match Pakistan's offensive mindset with a combination of an equally offensive mindset and greater financial muscle. Pakistan needs a visible and persistent reality check because now the stakes are much higher. Our adversary is armed with nuclear weapons and does not apparently understand that nuclear wars cannot be fought and won. Not by India, and certainly not by Pakistan.
India can provide the needed reality check more effectively by developing more accurate missiles and satellite based surveillance, not by deploying PAC-3s.
<http://kuku.sawf.org/Articles/1946.aspx>
------------------
Wow, Indian Propaganda's ruin our mind and President General Pervez M. revives us by stating this type of information
Elite-Pilot
Banned Member
There is no doubt that Anti-Ballistic-Missiles are very Fragile, in technology and in use. Many countries keep this information to themselves and are not willing to provide this information to others. In the future India-Pakistan war, many people know that both countries will be attacking each others Nuclear facilities. So why can Pakistan not create its very own Anti-Ballistic-Missile?. Sure it would be a challenge but isnt that what we are up for. Pakistan's Nuclear Facilities are sensitive and so it would be the best of the best idea to place these Anti-Ballistic-Missiles a few kilo-meters away from the Nuclear facilities. This would ensure safety and protect us from any Indian ballistic missiles.
I believe China assisted us to make these Nuclear Facilities ( or will ) so if they are destroyed they might also get involved. Does China have ITS OWN Anit-Ballistic-Missile? If not then we should collaborate with them to either help us on the project or it could be a country which fully contributed similar to the Super-7 project. If they use Russian technology in this sector, then it would be possible for us to make something that relates to it, but with NO Russian license.:gun
I believe China assisted us to make these Nuclear Facilities ( or will ) so if they are destroyed they might also get involved. Does China have ITS OWN Anit-Ballistic-Missile? If not then we should collaborate with them to either help us on the project or it could be a country which fully contributed similar to the Super-7 project. If they use Russian technology in this sector, then it would be possible for us to make something that relates to it, but with NO Russian license.:gun
Pilot i dont think creating something like PAC-3 for security of our nuclear facilities will work. There are many strategies that can be used for instance if i remember correctly i had read an article which clearly stated that one can fire dumbo missiles similar to scud missiles to those targets, and when they fire it. The expensive weapons like PAC-3 will destroy them, but what happens after all the PAC-3 missiles are finished after firing dumbo cheap ass missiles? Strategic isn't?Elite-Pilot said:
actually the biggest problem for both india and pakistan is that none of the modern anti tactical ballistic missiles are suitable for them or meet their requirements,there are several reasons for this:Elite-Pilot said:
1)both these countries are very close and share a common border,therefore any surface to surface ballistic missile requires very less time to travel from one point to one point,hence the reaction time for the atbm missile has to be very less (from detection to interception),this requirement is currently not met by any atbm system(the arrow comes close ).
2)the entire system has to be fully automatic and connected to a comprehensive c3i network,including space sensors while india has these sensors pakistan does not have them,this gives pakistan the disadvantage that they cannot maintain a 24 hour surveillance on their neighbours activity.such a space based system would provide a big advantage for pakistan to detect the preparations for missile launch as it will give them more time to formulate their response.
3)considering the loss that the countries are likely to suffer,the anti tactical ballistical missile has to have a 100% reliabilty.
4)the atbm must be immune to false alarms.
5)the missile must be cheap and uncomplicated so that it can be mass produced ,rapidly and widely deployable,integrated with the air defence network and easy to use.
none of the current atbm system(with the exception of arrow) meet all these parameters.
even the chinese are developing their atbm ssytem to counter indian and american nuclear missiles(they will have advantage of greater time for response),hence will not be suitable in the pakistan-india context.
the only solution is to develop a completely different missile system configured to pakistan's needs,but that will be very expensive plus they will also need to develop a comprehensive surveillance system(preferably space based surveillance system),so pakistan must be willing to spend several billions of dollars.