Thursday, December 11, 2008

Pakistan’s Ballistic Missile Arsenal Detailed




Contrary to widespread popular belief, the bulk of Pakistan’s arsenals of ballistic and cruise missiles of Chinese and North Korean origin that have been acquired from the late 1980s till to date are armed with conventional high explosive (HE) or fuel air explosive- (FAE) based warheads. Such weapons, to be employed in wartime for striking hostile static/land-mobile military and strategic economic infrastructure targets, are currently being re-equipped with hybrid inertial navigation systems and terminal homing sensors that will significantly reduce the weapons’ circular error probable (CEP). In parallel, efforts are being made to overcome the critical shortcomings in the area of strategic target acquisition-cum-designation through the induction of force multipliers such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and a constellation of overhead reconnaissance satellites, with Iran, Turkey and Ukraine being the major technology-cum-financial partners of Pakistan in these fields.

Pakistan’s nuclear weaponisation programme, which is estimated to have cost US$10 billion thus far, has, since the early 1980s, been planned and sustained by the Directorate General of Combat Development (DG-CD), Special Works Organisation (SWO) and the Missile Technology Board (MTB), all of which were created by the Pakistan Army’s Rawalpindi-based General HQ. The principal nuclear warhead-carrying ballistic missiles are an estimated six solid-fuelled two-stage Hatf-6/Shaheen-2/M-18/DF-25 intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBM) of Chinese origin, an equal number of liquid-fuelled single-stage Hatf-5/Ghauri-1/Nodong-1 IRBMs of North Korean origin, and about eight solid-fuelled single-stage Hatf-4/Shaheen-1/CSS-6/M-9/DF-15 TBMs that were inducted into service on March 8, 2003. The Ghauri-1 was inducted into service on January 8, 2003 under the 47th Missile Group of the Pakistan Army’s Strategic Forces Command (SFC). The Ghauri-1’s pre-surveyed launch pads and related underground command-and-control bunkers are located at Sargodha on the Kirana Hills in Punjab province, and at Ras Koh mountain range in Chagai in Baluchistan province. The nuclear-tipped Shaheen-1’s and Shaheen-2’s launch pads are located in the lower Hunza Valley and Deosai Plains. To manage its nuclear forces, Pakistan on February 3, 2000 created a National Command Authority (NCA), whose nuclear-hardened command-and-control bunkers are located in tunnels dug deep inside the mountains of the Karakoram Range in Gilgit, Chitral, Skardu and Doran, all located in the Northern Areas (NA). The NCA is responsible for policy formulation and will exercise employment and development control over all strategic forces and strategic organisations. The NCA comprises an Employment Control Committee (ECC), a Development Control Committee (DCC), and a Strategic Plans Division (SPD). The President/Chief of the Army Staff heads the NCA, while the Prime Minister (PM) chairs the ECC. Other members include the ministers of foreign affairs, defence, interior; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee; the Chiefs of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) and Pakistan Navy; Director-General of the SPD; and technical advisers as required. The DCC controls the development of strategic assets. The PM also chairs the DCC. Other members include the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee; the three armed service chiefs; Director-General of the SPD; and representatives of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), Kahuta Research Laboratories (KRL) and the National Development Complex (NDC). The SPD acts as Secretariat for the NCA and is responsible for establishing a reliable command, control, communications, computer, and intelligence network. The SPD is co-located with the Joint Services HQ in Rawalpindi.

Ballistic Missile Forces
Pakistan’s quest for acquiring conventional warhead-carrying ballistic missiles began in September 1988, when Islamabad inked a contract with Beijing for ‘wet-leasing’ for a 10-year period some 80 solid-fuelled single-stage M-11 (Hatf-3/Ghaznavi/CSS-7 Mod 1/DF-11) 280km-range TBMs carried and launched from MAZ-543 8 x 8 vehicles, and thirty-four 600km-range M-9 (Hatf-4/Shaheen-1/CSS-6/DF-15) TBMs. China then insisted that these missiles, powered by solid-fuel rockets, carry only conventional HE/FAE warheads and remain deployed only in locations at Sargodha and within the lower Hunza Valley. China also refused to re-life the missiles beyond 1999. These missiles were developed by the state-owned China National Precision Import-Export Corp (CPMIEC) and China Metallurgical Equipment Corp (MECC), assembled by the Sanjiang Aerospace Group in Yuanan, 210km west of Beijing in Hubei province, and the entire contract was serviced by the state-owned China Great Wall Industry Corp (CGWIC) under the supervision of China’s state-owned Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defence (COSTIND). By December 1988, China commenced deliveries of M-9 and M-11 TBMs, with all remaining deliveries being concluded by mid-1992. Between January and March 1989, the then Pakistani PM Miss Benazir Bhutto decreed that an IRBM to be developed by KRL (now known as the Institute of Industrial Control Systems) with North Korean assistance be called Al Zulfikar. By early 1990, Pakistan had inked a $516 million turn-key deal with CGWIC and CPMIEC to establish localised industrial facilities for licence-building a total of 64 solid-fuelled missiles such as: the Hatf-3/Ghaznavi/M-11/CSS-7 Mod 1/DF-11 (with a CEP of 250 metres and carrying a 500kg conventional warhead), Hatf-4/Shaheen-1/M-9/CSS-6/DF-15 (with a CEP of 50 metres when carrying a 1-tonne conventional warhead), Hatf-6/Shaheen-2/M-18/DF-25 IRBM (with a CEP of 300 metres and carrying a 1-tonne nuclear warhead), and another 64 Hatf-2/Abdali/P-12 precision-guided tactical missiles each with a 180km-range, CEP of 15 metres and carrying a 500kg conventional warhead. While China agreed to supply the jigs, lathes and moulding/machining/milling tooling required for fabricating the missile sub-assemblies, it insisted that Pakistan independently source raw materials like Grade 18Ni (250) maraging steel, nono steel, powder materials for flame- and plasma-sprayed coatings, corrosion-resistant neodymium iron boron magnets, ablative liners, beryllium-aluminum alloys that can be cast into complex shapes that need little or no machining; plus propellant-related materials like aluminum oxide powder, acrylic acid, ammonium perchlorate, polybutadiene, monomethyl hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide. Beijing also refused to supply nuclear warheads for any of these missiles, but agreed to keep its options open for the M-18 and M-9 in case India became a declared nuclear weapons state in future.

By late 1990, Pakistan had created the state-owned NDC for establishing a chain of industrial facilities at Fatehjung in the Tarwanah suburb of Rawalpindi (final assembly plant), plus at Lahore, Karachi and Gujranwala. These facilities included a solid-propellant and chemicals plant to produce aluminum powder fuel, ammonium perchlorate oxidizer, hydroxyl-terminated poly-butadiene binder, curing agents and other ablative materials; a guidance and control centre for fabricating inertial navigation and flight control systems (actuators, radar altimeters, warhead control suite, safety and arming systems, and fuzes), and conducting trajectory analysis and software development; automatic missile testing and launch control systems for carrying out pre-launch testing procedures like for automatic gyro-aiming and fabricating all-terrain, all-weather, mobile missile launchers; a facility for building telemetry systems used to transmit data in S bandwidth for in-flight tests of guided-missiles; a facility to build power batteries; an aerodynamics-cum-structural analysis centre providing engineering solutions for aerodynamics, hydrodynamics, gas dynamics, weapon designs, structural analysis, computer software development, and networking supported by experimental model analysis and wind tunnel facilities; and a production facility with computer- and numerically-controlled lathes and milling machines, die-casting machines, heavy-metal working facility, dynamic balancing machines, coordinate measurement machines, and a heat-treatment facility to temper high-strength metal alloys. Overall, the NDC’s facilities were an exact replica of the Sanjiang Aerospace Group of China’s facilities in Hubei.

In June 1992, KRL and DG-CD officials visited North Korea’s Sanum-dong guided-missile development centre to examine the Nodong-1 IRBM. Between August 4 and 7 the same year, North Korea’s then Deputy Premier-Foreign Minister Kim Yong-nam travelled to Pakistan to discuss the licenced-assembly of Nodong-1s. On May 29 and 30, 1993 Pakistani and Iranian officials were present for Pyongyang’s test-firing of one Nodong-1. On December 30 the same year, PM Bhutto travelled to Pyongyang and struck a deal to purchase technical design data of the Nodong-1 and use it to indigenously develop the Al Zulfikar. On August 22, 1994 Pakistan paid CPMIEC $15 million for a contract under which the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) 2nd Artillery Corps was to train Pakistan Army personnel to deploy and launch the Shaheen-1 and Ghaznavi TBMs. A month later, a PLA team of instructors arrived at Sargodha. Concurrently, NDC began work on building the instrumented 200-hectare Flight Test Range at Sonmiani, 75km north of Karachi, Sandhak, 50km east of the Iranian border in Baluchistan province, and at the Ratla Range off the Siwalik Hills west of Dera Ghazi Khan. In September the same year, a delegation led by Choe Hui-chong, the then Chairman of North Korea’s State Commission of Science & Technology travelled to Pakistan and visited KRL. During this visit, Choe inked a $220 million deal to provide Pakistan with fuel tanks and liquid-fuelled rocket engines for the Al Zulfikar IRBM, which by then had been renamed as the Hatf-5/Ghauri-1, along with 12 fully-assembled Nodong-1s and related launch-control systems valued at $60 million, plus their fixed-base launch facilities in the Kirana Hills off the Pakistan Air Force’s (PAF) sprawling air base at Sargodha. These items were produced by Pyongyang’s 4th Machine Industry Bureau of the 2nd Economic Committee. By April 1996, Changgwang Sinyong Corporation (aka North Korea Mining Development Trading Corp) began delivering 12 Ghauri-1s in fully knocked-down condition, plus equipment for assembling them at a new customised facility built by KRL at Kahuta. The Ghauri-1’s land-mobile MAZ-543TLM wheeled transporter-erector-launchers were supplied off-the-shelf by the Sungni General Automotive Factory of the 2nd Machine Industry Bureau. At the same time, work began on the construction of related missile test-firing infrastructure near Nowshera in the North West Frontier Province, at Dera Ghazi Khan (in the Dallana tribal area near the Suleiman Range), and the Mashhood Test Firing Range at Tilla Jogian in Punjab’s Jhelum district, with a monitoring station located at Basti Jarh, some 6km from Dera Ghazi Khan along the Dera-Quetta road. In December 1997, Pakistan’s then Army Chief Gen Jehangir Karamat, accompanied by the then Director of KRL Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, visited North Korea’s 125 Factory where the Ghauri-1/Nodong-1s were being built. Following this, North Korean IL-76MD transports began making about three flights a month until January 1998, when the number of flights increased three-fold. These flights ferried in technical experts and telemetry crews to KRL between February and March 1998.

In July 1998, the Pakistan Army conducted its first launch drills involving a Missile Group of Ghaznavi TBMs at the Deosai Plains in Pakistan-administered ‘Azad’ Kashmir. In August the same year, Beijing had agreed to keep at least six M-18s armed with tactical nuclear warheads on permanent standby at Chengdu in Sichuan province and pledged that in the event of Pakistan facing dismemberment during future military hostilities with India, these M-18s would be deployed to pre-surveyed launch pads in the lower Hunza Valley and Deosai Plains by a Mechanised Brigade of the PLA’s 2nd Artillery Corps, thereby constituting Pakistan’s minimum credible nuclear deterrent. The missile launch codes, however, were secured by the PLA, and were not shared with Pakistan, meaning China would not endorse Pakistan’s nuclear first strike doctrine. In September, unable to obtain complete operational sovereignty over its China-origin nuclear warheads and M-18s from Beijing, the DG-CD, through the MTB, authorised KRL to develop three variants of the Hatf-5/Ghauri IRBM, all of which were to be nuclear-tipped, carrying warheads co-developed by the PAEC and North Korea. The 1,300km-range Ghauri-1 was to carry a 700kg warhead, while the Ghauri-2 was to have a 2,300km-range and 700kg warhead, and Ghauri-3 a range of 3,000km. The same month, construction began with North Korea’s civil engineering assistance at Sargodha air base of six above-ground fixed-base Ghauri storage/assembly/launch sites, along with related hardened underground command-and-control centres in the Kirana Hills. In early 2001, the National Engineering & Scientific Commission (NESCOM) was formed through the merger of MTB, Project Management Organisation or PMO, the Air Weapons Complex or AWC, Pakistan Maritime Technologies Complex or MTC, and the NDC. NESCOM was charged with fast-tracking the licenced-production of missiles of Chinese origin like the Hatf-4/Shaheen-1/CSS-6/DF-15/M-9, Hatf-6/Shaheen-2/M-18/DF-25, Hatf-2/Abdali//P-12 and Hatf-3/Ghaznavi/M-11/CSS-7 Mod 1/DF-11A.

By May 2002, operational Abdali precision strike missiles (with a CEP of 30 metres) with conventional warheads and GPS-based navigation systems were deployed along the Deosai Plains, Gujranwala and Mangla, while the Shaheen-1s were deployed to pre-surveyed launch pads in the lower Hunza Valley. The Ghaznavi TBMs were inducted into service on February 22, 2004. Present plans call for the Pakistan Army to deploy two three Missile Groups each of the Abdali and Ghaznavi (grouped under two separate Artillery Brigades (these being the Hyderabad-based Missile Brigade South comprising Missile Groups 25, 35 and 40 and the Sargodha-based Missile Brigade North comprising the 14, 28 and 47 Missile Groups) during hostilities, with all missiles being armed with conventional HE or FAE-based warheads. Each such Group comprises 18 Ghaznavi TELs each with one ready-to-fire missile and two missile reloads, and 18 Abdali TELs each with two ready-to-fire missiles and two reloads. A Group can also be divided into three Batteries (with six Ghaznavi TELs and six missiles plus two reloads and six Abdali TELs with 12 missiles and 24 reloads). Presently, Batteries of the Abdali and Ghaznavi are deployed at Gujranwala, Okara, Mangla Multan, Jhang, Sonmiani, Quetta and Dera Nawab Shah. Joining them in 2009 will be the Babur land attack cruise missile (LACM).--Prasun K. Sengupta

61 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good post. Are you sure Abdali TEL is with two ready to fire missiles and not just one? All the pictures show the Abdali TEL with only one missile.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The TEL with one Abdali was for test-firing purposes only, and not for operational deployment. Just the like the single-rail launcher of the Babur that was displayed at IDEAS 2006. The Babur's operational launcher shown this time during IDEAS 2008 can accommodate six missile launch cannisters and is identical to the launcher of the CPMIEC-built WS-2 MBRL.

Anonymous said...

1. Missile launch codes - what do they mean?

2. Ghauri / NoDong aren't IRBMs. IRBMs have a range of >3,500 km.

3. Would you put your money on Indian missiles (agni series) or pakistani ones (ghauri/shaheen)

4. You said that "during IDEAS 2008 there was no attempt whatsoever to mask the OEM's indents, logos and model nos that were clearly visible on the TELs". do you have any photos? it would be good for our paki friends to see. you should produce proof to substantiate ur claim.

5. right now does it mean there are no operational nuke missiles with pak army?

6. last of all, was agni 100% indegenous?


i know there are many questions but i am banging on ur patience to answer them. i know its difficult to type so just short answers / sms language will do..

Prasun K Sengupta said...

You can find all the answers you seek if you have the time to take the trouble to do your own on-line search. Regarding the identical TELs of the WS-2 MBRL and Babur LACM, I've already posted the TEL's photo. All you have to do is search for photos of the Babur's TEL as shown during IDEAS 2008 and you will then be able to do your own visual confirmation. It is available on-line.

Anonymous said...

i tried looking regarding laynch codes but cannot find source with explanation!! .. can u pls gimme the links i will read myself.

everywhere says IRMBs range is between 2500-550 km. NoDong is less than 200km and same goes for Ghauri!

About Agni / Ghauri, i only asked ur opinion! can i find that anywhere else but here?

about agni being 100% indegenous, everywhere says that, but you may know something different, just like how (atleast I) never imagined that ukraine, south africa and iran were in such an arrangement. on wiki it says babur and ghauri are 'indegenous'

yes you showed pictures of the TEL but they dont indicate that it is from north korea / china. i was just asking if you have any clear pics. the one you showed only has a model no T5450. i tried google but cannot find anything related.

remember, online includes here. if i know i wont be asking you.

what happened to u?

Anonymous said...

read 2nd para as

everywhere says IRBMs range is between 2500-5500 km. NoDong is less than 2000km and same goes for Ghauri!

Anonymous said...

sorry for bothering you.. if you dont want to offer any answers / share your opinions i will leave.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Relax mate. Will shortly upload the brochure of the Chinese WS-2500 TEL of the Babur. Tnhe you can go to this weblink to see what was shown at IDEAS 2008: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=146942&page=2

Anonymous said...

what about the Agni and range of IRBM? even in ur article the stand shows Shaheen as 2000 km - only MRBM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRBM )

Prasun K Sengupta said...

There's no fixed and binding definition as such about what constitutes an IRBM or MRBM. It is very much up to the missile's end-user to derive one's own definition based on operational usage and the variety of ballistic missiles one has at one's own disposal. Thus, the 2,000km-range Agni-2 is IRBM for India while the Ghauri/Shaheen-2 are IRBMs as per Pakistan's definition. It is like some referring to the Hawk Mk132 aircraft as an advanced jet trainer while others refer to it as a lead-in fighter trainer.

Anonymous said...

i cannot see any oem logos on the Babur TEL from pictures in the link above

Anonymous said...

No, IRBM / MRBM / ICBM standards are based on the range definition used within the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. When you use these terms, it has to be in accordance with the commonly understood definition. For example can you say a Suzuki Alto is EURO4 compliant in India although it isn't? no. for that they have to create a different designation. similarly we commonly use the term SSBN or SSGN or SSK which were deviced by the US for hull categorisation. Similarly when you use the term IRBM, it has to be in accordance with the preset USMDA standards.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@11.52AM: The WS-2500 TEL is made by this company: http://www.wsiec.net.cn/

Anonymous said...

How come these Pakis get everythin from cruise missiles to ballistic ones & the entire non-proliferation lobby doesn't utter even a single word???Can't we do the same???Plz Prasun sir answer this question of mine.

Anonymous said...

above, do ur own research... prasun is a new guy now

but i agree with you... why cant we too try to source technical know how for planes, engines from former ussr states like illyushin from uzbekistan... and engines from ukraine too. why do we have to respect npt (although we arent signatories) and other treaty that limit missile range to 300km? we should just go ahead and start rev eng the brahmos engine to produce a longer range variant. doing fresh rnd like how drdo has been doing is really silly.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Well, the non-proliferation lobby did highlight all these developments throughout the 1990s and a lot more information flowed out when the Libyans disclosed the existence of a covert n-weapons R & D programme three years ago, and this also revealed details of Iran's own n-weapons R & D programmes. But you must also note that China only became a signatory to the NPT in 1998 and by then it was too late for anyone to stop the China-Iran-Pakistan-Ukraine axis from formalising their collaborative efforts aimed at developing n-weapon delivery systems. As regards India acquiring missiles with ranges greater than the BrahMos, that is already underway, with the ADM being the first such project between India and Israel.

Anonymous said...

Contrary to widespread popular belief...

what is the "widespread belief" sir?

Regarding ADM / BharMos longer range, note that the ADM will not be supersonic. We need something of long range, and supersonic (or hypersonic) speeds. I personally feel India should pursue SCRAMjet technology on its own.

Anonymous said...

Tying up with Israel is really good as we can develop nuclear missiles as we like since both we and Israel are not NPT signatories.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The term'widespread belief' refers to the assumption that Pakistan's family of ballistic and cruise missiles are qualitatively superior to their Indian counterparts and that they are all nuclear-capable. Regarding the ADM, it will be supersonic cruise missile with a cruise speed of more than Mach 2.

Anonymous said...

Can ADMs be launched from TELs? Isn't the principle the same?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Yes, the ADM can be launched from TELs of the type used for the BrahMos. But for the moment, the ADM is being co-developed in two versions: air-launched and submarine-launched from vertical launch cells.

Anonymous said...

ARE YOU SURE ON THE INFO IN THIS ARTICLE OR HAVE U ASSUMED ALL THIS?? BECAUSE YOU TALK SO DEFINITIVELY LIKE ASS IF YOU WORKED IN PAK'S DEFENCE INDUSTRIES MANY YEARS. WHERE IS THE CITATION FOR YOUR CLAIMS? I HAVE READ ABOUT PAK MISSILES FROM FORUMS, WEBSITES BUT HAVE NEVER HEARD SUCH A ABSURD STORY

Anonymous said...

sorry for the caps. didnt realise caps lock was on

Sid said...

Ever heard of zero-failure-one-test-ready-to-launch Missiles from a country which license produces even its underwear!!!!!!! This single line is the required citation for your weeps.

Your frustration can be understood as everything stated here is exactly opposite to what these brain-washed kids are told from their child-hood.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@11.37AM: You want citations? I'll even give you quotations in signed affidavits if you can convincingly prove that organisations like NDC or NESCOM have indigenous ballistic/cruise missile production capabilities. Just take the touble to reproduce anywhere on-line just one BROCHURE of the NDC which says it has designed and developed ballistic/cruise missiles, and I will gladly oblige you accordingly. Do you have such technical literature that you can share with us all? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Anonymous said...

(I was 11:37:00 AM Anonymous)

Listen up. you were the one who wrote this bizzare article with imaginatory facts so i am asking you for citations to back your claim (as how any formal written material SHOULD and MUST have), and you are asking ME for citation. What a mockery. OK nevermind here you go:

====================================

You said NoDong 1 is same as Hatf-V/Ghauri 1

====================================
".....said a Foreign Office Spokesman.

He said a categorical "No" to a question if this missile in any way related to M-11 Missile and added it was "indigenously developed missile and the entire work has been done by our scientists." China has been accused of providing Pakistan M-11 missile technology which has been categorically refutted."
====================================

(Quoted by Former chief of Army Staff and President Awami Qaydat Party General (Rted) Aslam Beg)

".....He said it is a happy occasion for the nation that Pakistan made long range missile and acquired the capability indigenously."

====================================

(Quoted by Karachi University's Department of International Relations, Prof. Shamim Akhtar)

"..... "So Ghauri is Pakistan's response to the India's missile threat," he added. Prof. Akhtar said that Ghauri is a significant breakthrough in indigenous defence production aimed at self- sufficiency."

====================================

[Source: Federation of American Scientists (FAS), URL: http://www.fas.org/news/pakistan/1998/04/980406-ghauri.htm]

====================================

Here I'm not giving ya brochures. I am giving true quotations by distinguished persons.

So what do you say now Mr. Prasun?

I hope instead of asking me for more and more, you produce your evidence and let the audiences decide for themselves. I have taken first step. Both you wanna shut me up, and I wanna shut you up. So now, have your turn to do just that.

====================================

*other people not involved please mind their own business

Sid said...

lol, quotations by GOP and its generals.

And the brain-washing continues.......

Sid said...

Read this. For the last time stop listening to your generals, they are just puppets of US.

DPRK - Pakistan
Ghauri Missile Cooperation

http://www.fas.org/news/pakistan/1998/05/ghauri2.htm

http://www.fas.org/news/pakistan/1998/05/980512-ghauri.htm

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@5am: Highly surprising that you do not include the 'quotations' of the late Mrs Benazir Bhutto who revealed in her autobiography that the Ghauri was originally known as the Al Zulfiqar and she went on to describe in detail how exactly this missile programme was born after her one and only visit to Pyongyang. You are either being selective with the truth or are totally ignorant about what's going on now at IAEA HQ especially after the Libyans gave total access to their covert n-weapons R & D programme. Also, do proceed to NTI.org to check up the Congressional Research Service documents pertaining to the Clinton Presidency era and you will discover exactly what the Chinese OFFICIALLY admitted to be the truth and why Beijing waited until 1998 to become a signatory to the NPT. Lastly, brochures of NDC/NESCOM are still reqd from you to prove beyond any doubt what exactly are the R & D capabilities of these organisations. Do you have them to prove your point? And as I explained earlier, if NDC/NESCOM have to even import something as basic as the TELs from the Wanshan Special Vehicle Factory, a subsidiary company of China Sanjiang Space Group, how is one to believe that all the Ghauris, Shaheens, Hatfs, Abdalis, Ghaznavis and Ra'ads are homegrown products?

Max said...

The 'quotations' of Benazir Bhutto personally taking sensitive information on uranium enrichment to North Korea in exachange for missile technology were published in the book Goodbye Shahzadi by Shyam Bahtia.

@Anon - 5.00

You should check that book out and also webpages from FAS that has been provided by Sid. Since you also used FAS, it should be reliable :)

@Prasun

Even we still use an imported TEL design (TATRA) and I suspect the bulk of the parts may still come from East Europe. It's not so "basic" afterall.

Considering the fact India makes advanced satellite launch vehicles, we still buy short range missiles from abroad.

So you can't really compare on to another.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Max, I agree with you on the comparisons issue. But the BEML TATRA trucks are locally built from locally-sourced raw materials stage in-country, albeit the design being of foreign origin. By TELs, I mean not just the vehicle (truck), but the rest of the hydraulically-operated vertical launcher, missile cannisters, containerised command post and the comms and land navigation elements.

Anonymous said...

Prasun, any idea why after ages of using TATRA trucks, why dont we have any right hand drive versions?

Anonymous said...

Prasun, r u in touch with Ajai Shukla? What happened to him? He wrote on his blog bfore leaving that he'd update his blog periodically, but nothing is in sight.

Max said...

@Prasun

I'm not sure about the extent of locally sourced materials (although I believe it should be atleast 50%). But I'm pretty sure the engine and entire transmission system comes directly from Tatra either in CBU form or in CKD kits. Actually you can't compare TATRAs to MAZ-543s as they are of different classes. The MAZ is a heavyweight behemoth compared to the Tatra. We still don't assemble / manufacture anything in the MAZ-543 class.

If only they give TATA or AL a chance they'll come out with something far better within a year or two.

What makes me feel rotten is although we indegenously manufacture and export trucks in the same class as TATRA, we are still using trucks of imported designs / parts in our armed forces. Pathetic.

Anonymous said...

anon@1:36:00 AM:

can u beat it. india is rhd
country but we use lhd tatra.

israel is lhd country but they use rhd tatra. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SPYDER.jpg)

whats up with tatra??!!

Anonymous said...

(I was Anon 5.00)

Mr. Prasun K Sengupta, I don't understand your idiocracy. I never rubbished whatever you published. All I am asking you is where you got your information from? Is it wrong for a reader to ask you "how do you know"? And you revert saying "give me facts that prove otherwise".

Just like any book, after reading, the reader is free to draw his own conclusion. For credibility, authors derive their facts from third party material and clearly state it.

And that's why I asked if you worked in Pakistan's defence establishment to come out so surely with these facts without providing citations!

So if you say you yourself derived these facts from your dreams, the I will drop it here, but if you say these are widely recognised, credible facts from credible sources, I request the citation.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Max & Anon@5:03AM: Now that the IAF is on track to receive the Spyder LLQRM, let's hope the contract includes the supply of TATRA vehicles from Israel as well. For that will fulfil my long-cherished dream of seeing RHD TATRAs in India (LOL)!!!

To Anon@1:39AM: Ajay did send me an e-mail from his new location but that was almost two months ago. Haven't heard from him since then.

To Anon@8:40AM: I did give you the weblink above that will enable you to drown yourself in as many citations as you want. Other bloggers too gave you the FAS weblinks. What more do you want? If you expect all of us here to spoonfeed you, then it is you that's engaging in idiocracy. Also, don't forget to buy the autobiographies of both Benazir Bhutto & Pervez Musharraf to obtain corroborations. If you still crave for citations, then you need to spell out the age-group to which you belong, so that we all can come to an enlightened conclusion on whether or not to entertain your future requests for info/citations/corroborations. Any FYI I've never worked FOR any defence establishment, although I may have worked WITH some but that's on a need-to-know basis. And as to whether or not you want to believe what I've written and claimed, it's your choice, as I'm not forcing this down your throat nor are my articles/analyses destined for submission as some kind of doctoral thesis and therefore I'm not desperate at all for obtaining anyone's concurrence or approval.

Max said...

Who knows? Our Babus will say "BEML is currently in the process of developing the necessary technology to build RHD Tatra trucks, so in the mean time, we have to import RHD Tatras from Israel since the LHD ones don't meet staff qualitative requirements" LOL. We should do some barter trade with Israel. BEML manufactured LHD Tatras for Israeli RHD ones. LOL

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Max, have you heard anything about the Pinaka MBRL's 212mm rocket being modified by the DRDO to have an on-board laser beam-riding seeker that enables the rocket to be air-launched from both fixed-wing combat aircraft as well as LCH-type helicopters and which can be used against MBTs and AIFVs as well as low-flying tactical UAVs out to a distance of 45km?

Max said...

@Prasun

No. I've heard of DRDO developing longer range Pinaka rockets and installing guidance systems to increase accuracy, but I've not heard of an air launched version. Is there something of that sort?

Anonymous said...

Babur LACM & Ra’ad ALCM Detailed

Supposed Picture of Babur GLCM @ http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/SUADciiHT0I/AAAAAAAAAiM/RQvZejOtigE/s1600-h/Babur+LACM%27s+TEL.jpg

is not a picture of babur TEL but that is picture of WS-2 multiple launch rocket system during the 2004 Zhuhai Air Show. The weapon is fitted with 6 box-shape launchers and fires 400mm rockets to a maximum range of 200km


you can see this picture @
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/mrl/weishi.asp

Anonymous said...

http://www.armyrecognition.com/?Itemid=109&option=com_ebygallery&limitstart=20&pic=babur_missile_system_ideas_2008_international_defence_exhibition_karachi_pakistan_pakistani_army_001.jpg&path=IDEAS_2008_International_Defence_Exhibition&task=show&sw=undefined

babur tel picture

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Max: Yes, there is. The longer-range Pinaka will have 300mm rockets instead of the existing 214mm (and not 212mm as I mis-typed earlier). Earlier, thought was given to modifying the Astra AAM into an air-to-surface anti-armour missile but better sense prevailed and the Astra is now to be modified as an anti-radiation missile as well, while the Pinaka's 214mm rocket will be modified to incorporate an on-board laser seeker plus four nose-mounted fins to become an anti-armour missile with a range envelope (air-to-surface) of up to 40km when launched from an altitude of 15,000/20,000 feet. Such rockets will be encased within a 4-round launcher pod and this will be adaptable to combat aircraft like the Jaguar IS, Mirage 2000H, MiG-27M as well as Su-30MKI. Israel's IMI and IAI are involved in this project in collaboration with OFB. Mind you, this a IAF-funded project and has nothing to do with the Nag ATGM which is primarily meant for the Army.

Anonymous said...

Prasun K Sengupta said...that co-development of a beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM) under a project codenamed H-2 and Flight tests of the BVRAAM got underway in 2001 and the resultant missile is now the AERO-produced variant of Kentron’s 60km-range R-Darter missile, which in turn is a derivative of the Derby BVRAAM developed by Israel’s RAFAEL Armament Authority.
1) Are they really producing H-2 / R-Dater / Derby BVR-AAM??

2) Which aircrafts are carrying them? 30 odd Mirage-3 with FIAR Grifo-M radar from Italy??can f-7 with FIAR Grifo-7 radar from Italy radar carry these R-dater BVRAAM??can they be integrated with F-16s without US approval???


3) Why Raad’s IIR seeker has a 3-metre circular error probability when Babur’s IIR terminal seeker is offering a CEP of 10 metres??

4) Can Raad ALCM be carried by F-16 without US aproval?


5) Will JF-17 /Mirage-III/V be able to carry two Raad??

6) Did AERO really licensed-produced U-Darter WVR-AAM??

7) Why you believe that Project H-4 was a derivative of the MUPSOW with 120km-range ?? it could also be Rapter-II PGM also??


8) And lastly what is logic behind the purchase of just 120 anti-runway variants of the MUPSOW and 50 anti-radar variants while they are going for up to 500 ‘Raad’ ALCM which would be far more expensive???120 for anti-runway and 50 anti-radar MUPSOW is very low number to be of any effect in war time???

Max said...

Oh, that's really news to me! Thanks for bringing it to light! Do you have any idea when it's expected to be tested? Is it expected to be compatible with the Dhruv / LCH?

I know IMI teamed up with DRDO to improve the Pinaka's CEP. So I'm sure in this project IMI's primary role will be for the guidance system.

Nag itself is for the Army, but isn't Helina (the air to ground version) developed for the air force which has already commited to purchase ~65 LCHs?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@10:34AM:
1)The H-2/R-Dater BVR-AAM is now in series production.
2) Only the upgraded Mirage 3EPs fitted with Galileo Avionics (nor FIAR anymore) Grifo-M radars will have the H-2/R-Dater BVR-AAMs have them as of now. In future, the F-7PGs fitted with Grifo-7 radars will have them as well.
3) Different technological competencies of the two OEMs account for the differing CEPs.
4) The PAF F-16s will not be armed with the Ra'ad ALCM.
5) The JF-17s and Mirage 3s will each be able to carry only one Ra'ad ALCM.
6) No. In reality, AERO only licence-assembled them from kits obtained in knocked-down condition from Denel Aerospace.
7) The linkage between H-4 and MUPSOW projects was revealed during the African Aerospace & Defence expo in 2006 by the South African press.
8) The production figures are for the first batch only. There will be at least two more production batches of the same size.

To Max: The Helina is still a few years away from service induction and its first customer is supposed to be the Army, which wants to arm some of its Dhruv ALHs with it. The IAF has not yet specified the Helina for the LCH as the LCH will be a 'combat' machine and not exactly an anti-armour attack helicopter. Also, the IAF has not yet made any 'firm commitment' for procuring any fixed number of LCHs. By that I mean no down-payment has been made as yet. These commitments are only verbal and don't mean much in terms of reflecting HAL's order-book for the LCH as of now. The firm orders will be placed only after the LCH prototypes receive the certification of airworthiness from CEMILAC.
As for the 214mm laser-guided anti-armour missile it will be carried only by fixed-wing combat aircraft as the carrier pod is too big to be carried by helicopters like the Dhruv or LCH. IAI is associated with the laser seeker's development, while IMI is associated with developing the rocket's solid propellant that will not emit as much smoke as it does in the MBRL version.

Max said...

@Prasun

I see. Thanks again for sharing this with me! Do you know when its expected to be tested?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Firing trials should get underway next year as the project does not call for redesigning the entire system, but rather only modifying the rocket's forward interior section to house the laser seeker, install the actuator mechanisms for the forward fins and slightly relocate the warhead section.

By the way, have you read about the Astra AAM now using the Russian AGAT JSC-built active seeker, instead of the one developed by MBDA for the Mica-EM? You can read it here: http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/14/stories/2008121459861000.htm

Anonymous said...

Anon@10:34AM:
thanks man
so only 30 odd Mirage-3 with Grifo-M radar and(f-7M/P with Grifo-7 will not carry r-dater?) f-7pg with FIAR Grifo-7 radar will have r-dater

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The F-7MG is known as the F-7PG and it will have R-Darter as well. The JF-17 and FC-20 will have PL-12and PL-9C.

Anonymous said...

f-7pg with Grifo-7 radar can carry r-dater then why not f-7M/P with Grifo-7 can carry r-dater?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Do read my last post carefully, then read your last post, and try to spot the difference. That will give you the answer.

Anonymous said...

shouldnot Russian AGAT JSC-built active seeker will be larger size then that of MBDA for the Mica-EM?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Not quite, and the Russian 9B-1348E seeker actually has better performance parameters than that for the Mica-EM. In fact, in one of my previous posts I had uploaded a chart showing the performance parameters of the R-77/RVV-AE and Mica-EM.

Anonymous said...

So at best PAF have 70-80 BVR Fighter Jets right?

Is there any news about the testing of SD-10A with JF-17??

Prasun K Sengupta said...

That's right. Plus, the additional F-16s now being delivered and the ones to be delivered in future. All in all, the PAF will have about 130 combat aircraft capable of BVR air combat engagements by 2010. But the F-16s now being delivered will be able to fire only AIM-7F Sparrows. The 32 that are now undergoing MLU upgrades and the new-build ones will be able to fire the AIM-120C AMRAAM. About 20 F-7Ps will be able to fire the R-Darter while another 60 F-7PGs will be able to do the same as well. The JF-17 is now being qualified with air-to-ground weapons and from 2010 onwards it will be armed with the PL-12 and PL-9C AAMs (not SD-10A).

Anonymous said...

thanks for replying my questions man

Prasun K Sengupta said... But the F-16s now being delivered will be able to fire only AIM-7F Sparrows.

but paf dont have AIM-7F Sparrows right??

Prasun K Sengupta said... The JF-17 is now being qualified with air-to-ground weapons and from 2010 onwards it will be armed with the PL-12 and PL-9C AAMs (not SD-10A).


whats diferance between PL-12 and SD-10A???

i thought that SD-10A is export name of pl-12, am i wrong

will JF-17 be qualified to carry r-dater bvraam???


how this r-dater bvraam compare to mica em bvraam that they are looking from france???


Prasun K Sengupta said... I will do an in-depth report on the Pakistan Army's armoured warfare capabilities after attending the IDEAS 2008 exhibition, which will be held between November 24 and 28 in Karachi, Pakistan.

any time frame in mind for this report???

Max said...

@Prasun

Yes I did come across that report few days ago.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Prasun K Sengupta, i was anon 8:40AM earlier. i really dont see why you are complicating matters here. all i asked was 'what are your citations to those claims'. i don't give a damn about what other bloggers said. i am asking you specifically what are your citations used to come up with this story, to which i seek a specific answer. if you are willing to, please do answer without beating round bushes. thank you.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@10:18AM: The first 40 F-16A/Bs of Block 15 configuration came along with 500 AIM-7F Sparrows and and equal number of AIM-9L Sidewinders. Also included in this package were 20 ALQ-131 jamming pods and an equal no of ATLIS-2 laser designator pods for the Mk82 laser-guided bombs and AS-30L laser-guided air-to-ground PGMs. The SD-10A is semi-active, while the PL-12 has an on-board active radar. The JF-17s will not have R-Darter on board, but will have the PL-12 and PL-9C. The 36 to-be-acquired FC-20s too will have the same air combat missiles. The R-Darter, like the Derby, has a range of no more than 40km and is therefore inferior to the Mica-EM. Am still working on the IDEAS 2008 show report and hope to finish it soon.

To Anon@11:33AM: It is you that's complicating matters by STILL expecting to be spoon-fed. I'm not obligated to do your homework for you. That's my final response. Take it or leave it.

Anonymous said...

trishulgroup.blogspot.com is very informative. The article is very professionally written. I enjoy reading trishulgroup.blogspot.com every day.