What's new

A JF-17 equipped with Aselpod & SOM cruise missiles ?

On a doctrinal level, airforce is inherently an offensive arm and its main job is to win the air battle first and also to fight out with Army an Air Land Battle, ideally at the same time but must later on. That is where SOWs and ALCMs get involved and will never be talked about much. Being smaller it also needs all its air assets to be able to fight an air superiority battle and than be in position to quickly change mode to Air Land Battle with Army. Our fleet-wise we are not there yet but are getting there faster. Munition-wise what I think is important is to first have either kits to convert most of dumb munitions into smarter ones which than can be easily used for CAS operations as well. For SOWs, first the offensive target set needs to be catered, that is strategically far more important. Once you have air-superioty it does not matter whether you are using a maverick above 10,000 feet or a dumb bomb laced with a laser kit with an infantry soldier pointing a laser at something or using a pod doing it yourself.

The issue with today I believe lies less in the equipment and more towards creating a better synergy with the army to make them understand the limitations of the airforce. I had a massive laugh at a colonel of a mechanised regiment who claimed that our F-16s would take care of any problems the IAF put up. He was oblivious to the ability of the IAF to deploy CBU-105s and decimate an entire column using just 4 aircraft and his understanding of even the basics of air warfare were delusional at best; hopefully he did not get promoted.

This is why our SOMs also need to incorporate smart weapons. The Pakistani military needs to look beyond just tac nukes as the failsafe and look for more proactive strategies such as this.
http://warontherocks.com/2014/11/th...ker-and-the-beginning-of-the-rsta-revolution/
Replace the following with India:
Soviet forces had integrated large numbers of anti-tank systems into its armored forces. Where increased effectiveness of Soviet ground forces suggested that a surprise attack might cripple NATO’s ability to use ground-launched tactical nuclear weapons, Soviet advances in air defenses suggested that NATO’s air-delivered tactical nuclear weapons might not be effective either.
and see how many of the following points reflect on Pakistan?
Among the gaps addressed in FOFA programs were:

  • Lack of suitable ground-launched missiles
  • Inability to operate aircraft at night and in bad weather
  • Inability to acquire and target moving vehicles at night and through clouds
  • Inability to dynamically identify and target armored vehicles moving in and out of urban or other areas (reacquiring lost target tracks)
  • Lack of effective integration of corps, division, and battalion capabilities to support maneuver forces across division control lines
  • Defeating enemy air defenses, including shoulder-fired missiles
  • Ever-increasing demands to increase the depth of sensors, targeting, and deep strike systems
  • Requirements for unmanned aerial vehicles
 
Last edited:
Well. The airborne stand-off range nuclear deterrent has to live on beyond the Mirage. Worst case scenario, we at least know the idea to develop a lighter and smaller ALCM exists, it is just a matter of time if and when it materializes. Best case scenario, we'd get the new ALCM as well as a new platform.

Hi,

But I cannot comprehend the the low profile of the JF 17---would the taller struts would need more space---maybe compromising a hard point or something like that.

Now as for the ALCM---the first priority was long distance---that could carry a nuc warhead---once that has been achieved---shorter distance is not a problem at all---so as far as the Hatf 8 goes---it was a priority.

The next one needs to be the ALCM Babur---it frees up our arms----for short ranges---we can procure from others--if need be.
 
Hi,

But I cannot comprehend the the low profile of the JF 17---would the taller struts would need more space---maybe compromising a hard point or something like that.

Now as for the ALCM---the first priority was long distance---that could carry a nuc warhead---once that has been achieved---shorter distance is not a problem at all---so as far as the Hatf 8 goes---it was a priority.

The next one needs to be the ALCM Babur---it frees up our arms----for short ranges---we can procure from others--if need be.
The development challenge will be a smaller and lighter ALCM that retains the range and room for a nuclear warhead.

I agree with a subtle point made by @Oscar and @Bilal Khan 777 - there's no point in SOM. No matter what, we have to look at the SOM from the perspective of Turkey's defence needs, and those needs do not include nuclear strike as a vital component. Minus the prospect of Turkey violating its agreements on curbing nuclear proliferation and abiding by the MTCR. At best, we'd get a conventional stand-off range weapon, and we have plenty of conventional SOW options (e.g. glide bombs, re-purposed AShM, etc.

But at the same time, I wasn't alluding to buying the SOM. Rather, I wanted us to incorporate (if any) design aspects that we haven't mastered in Pakistan. What this is ... I don't know, but for argument's sake, if it is in the area of making an even lighter - very composite heavy - airframe, then we need that. If it is swapping out the electronics for even lighter counter parts, so be it. If it involves a lighter and more efficient micro-turbojet, then let's get that too.

The best approach is R&D collaboration, we want these precious capacities to grow in-house (if they aren't already). Since there is no rush in getting rid of the Mirages, this could be a relatively slow and gradual program, but if it isn't in the pipeline, it needs to be (for the sake of maintaining our airborne strategic deterrence). If we design that new ALCM to be configurable with guided sub-munitions as well, then all the better.
 
Well. The airborne stand-off range nuclear deterrent has to live on beyond the Mirage. Worst case scenario, we at least know the idea to develop a lighter and smaller ALCM exists, it is just a matter of time if and when it materializes. Best case scenario, we'd get the new ALCM as well as a new platform.

The Mirage will be around 2030 mainly for this reason.
 
forget SOM go for Spear 3

SPEAR-mockup-740x555.jpg
 
The Mirage will be around 2030 mainly for this reason.
14 years in terms of Pakistan is not very long if you think about it... The Super-7 was offered to the PAF by CAC in 1995, it was signed in 1999, and the first operational squadron was live in 2010.

forget SOM go for Spear 3

SPEAR-mockup-740x555.jpg
It is an interesting idea. It's basically a lightweight missile powered by a turbojet. I'm not sure how they're planning to make this scalable and affordable though.

We have the H-2 and H-4 line, derived from the Denel Raptor-I and Raptor-II. If we wanted to go further, it'd be with the Raptor III. These are high-explosive conventional munitions, we can use them to tear bridges and bunkers from stand-off range.

If you want something that fulfills the same core role as the MBDA SPEAR, then it would be acquiring a 100km range extension kit for our Mk81 and Mk82 bombs. These kits can be tipped with semi-active laser and IIR seekers too.
 
Last edited:
The development challenge will be a smaller and lighter ALCM that retains the range and room for a nuclear warhead.

I agree with a subtle point made by @Oscar and @Bilal Khan 777 - there's no point in SOM. No matter what, we have to look at the SOM from the perspective of Turkey's defence needs, and those needs do not include nuclear strike as a vital component. Minus the prospect of Turkey violating its agreements on curbing nuclear proliferation and abiding by the MTCR. At best, we'd get a conventional stand-off range weapon, and we have plenty of conventional SOW options (e.g. glide bombs, re-purposed AShM, etc.

But at the same time, I wasn't alluding to buying the SOM. Rather, I wanted us to incorporate (if any) design aspects that we haven't mastered in Pakistan. What this is ... I don't know, but for argument's sake, if it is in the area of making an even lighter - very composite heavy - airframe, then we need that. If it is swapping out the electronics for even lighter counter parts, so be it. If it involves a lighter and more efficient micro-turbojet, then let's get that too.

The best approach is R&D collaboration, we want these precious capacities to grow in-house (if they aren't already). Since there is no rush in getting rid of the Mirages, this could be a relatively slow and gradual program, but if it isn't in the pipeline, it needs to be (for the sake of maintaining our airborne strategic deterrence). If we design that new ALCM to be configurable with guided sub-munitions as well, then all the better.

If Russia can sell the Brahmos to India, what's stopping Turkey from selling the SOM to Pakistan? It almost certainly ain't the MTCR. In fact, in situations like these, being a member of the MTCR shields both Turkey and Russia in selling missiles as MTCR member countries don't face missiles export related sanctions. In fact, even recipient countries won't face sanctions if the exporting country is an MTCR member country. This is why after its induction into the MTCR, India is now heavily engaged in efforts to export Brahmos missiles to Vietnam and Co.
 
So After beating this topic to its rightful death, on the lighter hypoglycaemic side:

What good is a SOM? (Some Odd Missile) ?
 
Last edited:
This is the most promising development out of Turkey, which is a few years out of being realised.

Actually development of the KALE 3500 Turbojet have been finished. Kale send 2 of their prototypes to SSM for the integration into SOM missiles and tests.

Source: S&H magazine 173. issue
"Çalışır durumdaki iki Kale-3500 Turbojet Motor prototipinin uçuş testleri için Haziran 2o16'da [daha önce Nisan 2o16 olarak açıklanmıştı] Savunma Sanayi Müsteşarlığı [SSM]'na teslim edilmesi planlanmıştır."
http://sadfor.savtera.org/index.php?topic=112.15
 
It looks cool ... look, it even has a little brother (SOM-J for internal bays). But if anything, it could be inspiration for what a Ra'ad II (for JF-17) could look like (whilst retaining the nuclear capacity and range of the Ra'ad).

http://cdn.teknolojioku.com/data/gallery/620x465/som-j-projesi-buyuk-ses-getirdi1.jpg

Other day it got me thinking, why we need nasr when we have RAAD, which has a greater range, can be launched in less time than that of NASR and from a far greater range as well.
 
We have a kit that lets you send the dumb bomb to 100-120km away without engine.İf you release it from 30k ft.
What is good at SOM?

You don't need to go 30k ft
You have connection with missile to do anything.
You lost connection? It does its job with build on gps/ins
İt will most probably has ground-ground or even naval-ground versions.
It's not a big boy.

Surely there are biggier or smaller versions of this kind of missiles.It is just the matter of what you need.
You can send a ballistic to 300km away target or send a SOM.It is just preference on the situation.
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom