Bilal Khan 777
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2015
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 62
- Country
- Location
Here is the 1/1 scale of SOM-J next to SOM-B1 introduced in a fair in recent weeks bro.
These are two different weapons all together.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Here is the 1/1 scale of SOM-J next to SOM-B1 introduced in a fair in recent weeks bro.
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.
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.
Hi,
Nasr has its own utility---very short range missile and long range missiles----it would be just like comparing a Mortar to a howitzer---.
Both have their utility----our small tactical nucs can be launched thru by MRL's if I am not mistaken---next to impossible to shoot it down.
But if we analyze the logistic risks attached with nasr and raad, Former has 100 x risks attached with it. First to move MLRS truck from point A to B. Then to battlefield. If the indians have broken through via Thar dessert, you can imagine the distance of moving Nasr from karachi or Punjab or from balochistan to near the battle-filed will take minimum two hours if it is airlifted and then to mission planning, and where to explode it and how to avoid NASR truck being obliterated by enemy fire and thus causing nuclear exploding within our own armored column as well as avoid getting captured.
Whereas single raad delieverd through mirage in far much less risk environment because it can be fired from much larger distance and can be deployed in much less time than Nasr could be
Hi,
I think that you need to re-evaluate your post----. Why would they be sitting in karachi or punjab---?
Because to avoid the preying eyes of America and its allies who are very much interested in knowing the location of Nasr missiles. So it is an assumption nasr are hidden in such regions.
The whole concept of Hot start is to attack Pakistan with utmost surprising element. India 1st corp is regularly exercising in Rajhstaan Desert. What if they attack us under the garb of such training exercises.
they dont need it
the raad was supposedly tested on the jf-17 on its last test. its classed as a sow missiles and i dont see why anther would be used. yes the som is smaller but that dont matter, why have two missiles to do one job. and for targets within 120km will be dealt with the glide bombs. sea targets will be dealth with c802. speaking of the c802 im sure it can be modified to engage land targets
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
The brimstone is the ideal weapon, but both it and PARS would be cut of by India whose purchasing patterns are aimed more at cutting off sources for Pakistan rather than an actual procurement strategy.
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