Additional Arms

[Mubashar.]

Originally posted by Sid@Feb 22 2006, 11:12 PM
Pakistan Army already has paratroopers and snipers. Paratroopers are mostly confined to the SSG, particularly the Musa Company. Now there are two sets of snipers; one type attached to the SSG and the other with the regular army.

Since SSG requires more precision and accuracy and failure is NOT an option they use the M82-A1A sniper rifle which is Anti-Armour, has 2+miles range and is 50 cal.

The regular army snipers use the locally manufactured G-3 which isn't that great.

There are only a few hundred M82-A1A sniper rifles in use as of now which, when we talk about enhancements and improvements of the Pakistani forces, should be made the standard. The G-3 should be done away with and the M82-A1A given to snipers working with the regular army units.

As for the SSG snipers, I think its about time they got an upgrade for their weapons. Pakistan should use its good relations with the US and buy M87-ELR sniper rifles that are currently in use by the American forces. They are just amazing, in that they are highly accurate (ofcourse the level of accuracy also depends on the sniper himself and his observer) and less prone to jamming.

[post=6108]Quoted post[/post]​

i understand that specialist units i.e SSG stuff. but i am talking a dedicated sniper unit like a two man team kind of thing. a unit only concentrating on snipering issues.

as for weapons i would'nt exactly jump for american weapons straight away because europeans also make some decent rifle's.

bolt lock being the professional choice. i would that they rather went for L96 standard bolt lock and a G3 scoped is another grat sniper rifle.

heavy caliber M82 is an excelent option and i think AW/50 can also be a very good option.

 

[Sid]

That is what I said. SSG units and regular army units contain 'dedicated' snipers whose job is only to snipe at enemy positions and nothing else. And yes its a two man team, the observer and the sniper himself. In certain SSG missions, the observer is taken out to lessen presence on the field.

If you're talking about creating a sniper unit in the sense, how there's a SSG unit or the SSGN, it wouldn't make much sense since snipers are part of the larger force to inflict damage over distances. Left on their own, they can do little when the enemy moves too close for comfort.

L-96 has been designed keeping certain environmental factors (where it will be used) in mind, plus doesn't have as much a range as the M-87 or even the M-82. And certainly almost everyone I know in the 'serious circles' would prefer PA to induct the M87-ELR (which is also bolt-lock) to increase sniper effectiveness.

 

[sword9]

Additional Arms that we can acquire. We will be looking into many weapons, equipments, tanks, and armoured vehicles.

I just wanted to re-active this thread. I assume that when the webby asked additional weapons that needed to be acquired, he means force multipliers and not seemingly minor issues like sniper rifles.

First, what is the aim or capability required?
Second, one has to see what is present and what the deficiencies vis-à-vis are the opponent’s weapons system.
Third, can the system be used in the various topographical regions of the country?
Fourth, what is the quantity required?
Fifth, what are the sources of procurement and financials involved?

Since the webmaster did mention an artillery system. I wish to address this first, and I hope we all actively participate.
Current artillery systems operated by PA as under (According to PDF website):
Artillery (Towed)Type Calibe No
T- 56 85 mm 200
M- 101 105 mm 300
M- 56 105 mm 50
T- 60 122 mm 200
T-54 122 mm 400
T-59 I 130 mm 200
M-59 155 mm 30
M- 114 155 mm 60
M- 198 155 mm 100
M- 115 203 mm 26

Artillery (Self Propelled)
M-7 105 mm 50
M-109 Series A-2 155 mm 150
M-110 Series A-2 203 mm 40

Lets discuss the option of the Paladin w.r.t to the current inventory.

 

[sword9]

Artillery (Self Propelled)
M-7 105 mm 50
M-109 Series A-2 155 mm 150
M-110 Series A-2 203 mm 40

1. Let us compare the Paladin to its predecessor in the PA - M109A2

Paladin (M109A6)
Cannon - M284
Mount - M182A1
Max unassisted range - 23,500 (23.5 km)
Max assisted range - 30,000 (30 km)
Cost per howitzer - $1.5 - 1.8 million

M109A2
Cannon - M185
Mount - M178
Max unassisted range – 18,000 mtrs (18 km)
Max assisted range – 23,500 mtrs (23.5 km)

M109A5 (Basically an upgraded M109A2)
Cannon - M284
Mount - M182
Max unassisted range - 23,500 (23.5 km)
Max assisted range - 30,000 (30 km)
Cost per howitzer - $292, 721

Since an increase in range and performance is needed one would recommend the upgraded version of the M109A2,i.e the M109A5 that has almost the same capability of the Paladin (M109A6) and is much less expensive. Buy 6 M109A5's for the cost of 1 Paladin.

2. The M110 A2 system meets the range requirements of the Paladin and it packs quite a punch with its 200 pound shell. Beisdes when its not broken why change it.

3. The M-7 105 mm - this can be phased out any replaced with any 155 mm SP system or the M109A5 to logistical ease.

Please comment if others think differently.

But since Pakistan is getting the M109A5 as per last December's news (However, at a costlier price tag of approx $486,956 per howitzer. This seems to be this line of thinking that will be generally followed.

 

[sigatoka]

You want F-16s and Thunder to be frontline jets of PAF? Using your logic, the Su-30s would take out all our frontline jets before our 'frontline' jets even get a chance to have a lock-on on the Sukhois. Either you don't know the capabilities of IAF's Sukhois or you're just a blind patriot.

Sid, you over estimate Sukhois. I do not know of a single instance where a Sukhoi has scored a kill over any other plane, let alone an F-16. In Aerial combat an F-16 is an equal of the Sukhoi, it is only in the Air-Ground role that the the Sukhoi pulls far, far ahead. This should not be a problem because it is not Pakistan that will be invading India, but the other way around. Therefore Pakistan doesn't require an airforce that is structurally similiar to that of India. It requires an airforce where Air defence is emphased over Air to ground capabilities. This Air-Ground capability is not free, SU-30's are quite expensive.

You also underestimate the FC-1. The beauty of FC-1 is that it is very cheap to produce, and very capable for the price. This has come about because China chipped in for the Development Budget and the plane uses Russian Engine's which further reduces costs. An Su-30 might easily take out an FC-1, but because FC-1's are much cheaper, a greater quantity of them could be procured.

Secondly planes are one thing, without rigourous pilot training and adequate missiles and logistics support there are not very effective.

 

[sigatoka]

None of the three Pakistani forces can 'take on' India and that has never been there objective either. They are designed and structured for 'minimum deterrence' which implies that they take a defensive posture.

Defend to the last man and make the aggressor pay so dearly in terms of lives and equipment losses that he loses all taste for battle. This would prevent any aggressor to not attack in the first place.

I strongly disagree Sid. If deterrence of Indian invasion was truely the only objective, then Pakistan would be spending 90% of its defence budget on nuclear weapons. The entire military would be geared to fighting a nuclear, not a conventional war.

Infact Pakistan's strategy is more complex than simple deterence.

 

[Bull]

Sid, you over estimate Sukhois. I do not know of a single instance where a Sukhoi has scored a kill over any other plane, let alone an F-16. In Aerial combat an F-16 is an equal of the Sukhoi, it is only in the Air-Ground role that the the Sukhoi pulls far, far ahead. This should not be a problem because it is not Pakistan that will be invading India, but the other way around. Therefore Pakistan doesn't require an airforce that is structurally similiar to that of India. It requires an airforce where Air defence is emphased over Air to ground capabilities. This Air-Ground capability is not free, SU-30's are quite expensive. .

Sukhois have performed well against the f16s

An Su-30 might easily take out an FC-1, but because FC-1's are much cheaper, a greater quantity of them could be procured.
.

What abt pilot flying it?

 

[sigatoka]

Sukhois have performed well against the f16s

Where Prashant? Where have Sukhois outperformed F-16's and more importantly how many kills have they scored in combat? In fact without combat data, its hard to say how the Su-30 is much better than the FC-1.