Will some one told me,
what we are doing against Under Water Missile Test of India ?
have some one news about it ?
pls share.
with regards
waiting.

You mean the K-15 SLBM test from a pontoon or something else?

Yup Penny, that is exactly what the gentlemen hear is referring to!




Although I do not know much about this subject, I can speculate that PN is going through a massive upgrade and something on the lines of 'Traid Nukes' (Air, Ground and Sea, launch ballistic nuclear missiles). So far we have achieved, by the blessings of Allah Subhanaho Wata'aalah, the capability to launch nukes from the air and ground. Next step, submarine launch capability, Insha-Allah.

many thanks for replies,
more news will be appreciated.
Now Iranian test underwater missile and then indian , some one knows how many country have this missile,
and is this missile is deadly then any tarpido or not ? (Tarpido which we have ? I know this is new type of topic , as much u can share )



always regards
waiting.

we also have sea launch ability through babur naval version which ws tested few months ago....but sub launched...we need bigger tubes for it...may be modification of agosta or customisation of U214/marlin???????? but if this is a tit for tat activity expect nothing less then sea launched IRBM....lol

americans are already affraid of SLV project which will be our ICBM.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!but we will probably test it like isrealis....just test the SLV and prove we are capable...without putting too much pressure on the west...

If I were PN, no resources would go into SLBMs whatsoever. But that's just me.

Aoa



What would you suggestions be to PN, I mean in relation to this news. Do you think that the ability to launch babur etc is sufficient - I think that - at least for the time being.

w/salaam

considering that K-15 is just an experimental platform for what they eventually hope will be a deterrent against PLAN, I would say that don't waste the resource on it. Just improve your ASW capability.

If I remember correctly, this SLBM has a range of 700km. Thats the same range as Babur so i'm not too worried about the development. While I understand that this is a start for their SLBM program, it is NOT worth Pakistan's time or money to respond with a SLBM. Remember, PNs job is to safegaurd Pakistan's coastline and shipping lanes. It has very little offensive usages currently. PN has neither the money nor manpower to become a full fleged offensive force, BUT w/ babur it does have some very sharp teeth that can be brought to bare. Work on Anti-sub, Anti-Air, and Anti-Ship capabilities and really the only Anti-land capabilities can be handled by Babur.

If you want to give the PN offensive capabilities extend Baburs range to over 1000km and get the PN 1-2sqn of JF-17 (w/ Raad, H2, H4, JDAM, JSOW) you have all the offensive power PN needs to deal w/ regional conflicts...and w/ a 1000km Babur, PN can even extend its reach to Middle East, East Asia, and Africa if necessary.

I think Pakistani focus will be on an SLCM, but as it is the most difficult task, it may be a while before we hear of a test. Nonetheless if a success, then it would form the final part of our Indo-centric strategic capability.

I personally would. I'll tell you why.

It's not only the second strike capability you suddenly get, it's the fact that you can then get your nuclear weapons to wherever your submarine can go.

As a European I don't know if you get creeped out when Pakistani's, myself in partcular talk of having the ability to strike nuclear weapons anywhere in the world. Here is how my logic goes, it's not that I wish to impose out strength upon anyone, it's just that I want to make sure if we go down, we can take others with us.

I consider the USA as a genuine security threat to Pakistan. There are far too many people interested in killing us in that country. I don't think we'll have nuclear submarines capable of hiding in atlantic or pacific waters all the time playing cat and mouse with the USA, but it is entirely possible to make a one time dart towards the USA and get within range to nuke them.

I would rather see Pakistan destroyed than see Pakistan occupied, so if someone is going to destroy us, the least we should do is ensure they remember it. Mainland USA has never been attacked since pearl harbour until 911, hence the USA are elcome war mongers as they never feel the effects at home nor do they tolerate them. If they knew they would have to as a price to pay to destroy us, then they would not engage us over a trivial manner, which means that we shouldn't/wouldn't become enemies, hence ensuring mutual survival through will and capability to mutually annhiliate (or at least partially).

What I mean is that you have to take into account against whom India is posturing with particular systems. Since India has to recon with other nations besides Pakistan (e.g. China), not all of the systems India develops (or buys) are directed or intended for defense against (mainly) Pakistan. Therefore, given limited resources, Pakistan should choose wisely what perceived threat from India it needs to develop a response to. To field a SLBM, one has to not only get the SLBM but also get a boomer (SSBN). It may be much more cost effective for Pakistan to go for SSKs with AIP and SLCM (a route which would give Pakistan a stealthy sea-based n-strike capability much sooner than India can field a SSBN/SLBM combo). That is, if you believe achieving a balance of arms between Pakistan and India is necessary (whether to compete/match is a choice: will Pakistan let its policies be determined by what India - or some other nation - does, or will it objectively and independently determine what defense need it has?) Pakistan - and not just Pakistan - might be better off spending its money not on developing weaponry but on education and high value added civilian services and/or industries.

I think the original thread started was referring not to SLBM but to Shkval-type rocket propelled torpedo that was designed in USSR, led to the demise of Kursk, purchased by Iran and now tested by India.

True.
However, what's going to stop them if they do decide otherwise?

As they say we should not be india centric.There are others who do not have good desires.

If that's the case, just stick with real quiet subs. The range of Skval is about that of a normal torpedo so if you can't be found you can't be hit. Other than that, keep shipborn ASW helicopters and landbased MPAs i.e. do real good ASW. Would be different if it had 40km range or more.


As a comparatively small player, would you like to end up mimicking/matching every system of a larger opponent, when that opponent itself is posturing against an even larger opponent? You would effectively end up developing systems that China should be developing, but without the level of resources available that China has available. So, no don't go develop them yourself. If you must, go buy them from China if and when China develops them.

I think submarines with SLCM capability to launch Ra'ad or Babur will be a good and effective 2nd strike capability to have.
SLBM capability can come in at a later stage.

Will some one have knowledge,
Tarpido is not enough , rather then we, i mean india tested a under missile test ?
what is the missile advantage over Tarpido ?

pls share briefly,
with regards

torpedo is for targets in the water and underwater like other ships n Submarines. Missiles is for Land Targets n sometimes ships(Antiship)

1. RANGE!!!!

A (slow running) 533mm torpedo will typically not reach beyond max 50 or so km. Missiles on the other hand can reach over a hundred to even thousend(s) of miles away. Of course, such long ranges are typically only achieved against stationary land targets. Whether land- or seabased, a moving target poses a much more difficult target. Hence much shorter ranges. Against ships and subs, torpedoes are mostly used to an effective range of 5-15 km. Antiship (cruise) missile by comparison between 50-250km. Land-attack (cruise) missiles usually reach at least 120km but sometimes a ten fold of that. These are all guided, for use against moving (point)targets. Sub-launched ballistic missiles are unguided and for longer ranges typically over 500km against stationary or barely moving (land/area) targets.

2. Payload!
Ballistic missile usually carry a bigger (heavier conventional) or more deadly (nuke) warhead, as compared to guided (cruise) missiles.

Penguin,
thanks, for this detail.
Missile can target moving target correctly, and tarpedo can not ?
am i right.

Moving targets can be engaged by missiles and torpedos that are guided (externally) and/or homing (= self guided)

Was my explanation abt Torpedoes being used purely against water threats wrong by any mean? Just want to know! Do explain if my line of Explanation was correct!

Yep, torpedoes are underwater missiles basically. They can be either unguided or guided by sonar. Their targets are submarines and ships.

- Since its much harder to move in water than in air, torpedoes can't move as fast as missiles.
- As a result they eat more fuel just to go a short range, so they need a big fuel tank.
- Since the damage of explosions inside water is cushioned, they also need a bigger warhead to do damage.
- Because of all this, torpedoes end up being physically bigger than missiles.

Submarine launched missiles on the other hand shoot straight out of the water and then do everything else in the air like a normal missile.

Since torpedoes are propellor driven and do not fly, they are not missiles in the strict sense of the word. Then these are supercavitating 'torpedoes' like the Russian Skval. In effect, the Shkval is an underwater missile. It does not use a propellor but a rocket to move forward underwater. They are capable of speeds in excess of 200 knots (370 km/h). Supercavitation means the missile is flying (underwater) in a gas bubble created by outward deflection of water by its specially shaped nose cone and the expansion of gases from its engine. By keeping water from contacting the surface of the body of the torpedo, this significantly reduces drag and allows extremely high speeds.