What's new

Iran Missile Strikes Reveal Potential Military Weaknesses

I asked him and he didn't responded. I didn't started this discussion at all in first place. He took a sentence out of my post and just created this debate.
I don't mind that Pakistan is weaker then Turkey militarily. why should i be? Pakistan is even weaker then Its Foe India. The only purpose of armed forces is to protect the homeland and secure geostrategic interests which we are capable of and that's it.
Iran is significantly weaker then Pakistan Militarily. And that's not a shame. Neither am i saying anywhere that Irani Forces are incompetent or fail to achieve there objectives. Whats the point of accepting? or prove me wrong
Yes, indeed. Your armed forces are much stronger than ours. But that's because your military is grown and trained to fight major powers like India.
But if we compare the overall situation of Iran and Pakistan we can see that the strength of the army is not a huge factor for the stability, security and prosperity of a nation.
 
@SOHEIL is well informed guy regarding Iranian military equipment and projects ... he's made many claims here on this forum which were taken lightly by other members which later on were proven right ...so if he claimed such a thing then he knows what he says ... you should ask him to explain it for you.

Time will explain everything :D

Actually who cares what ordinary people think? :)

PS: Something special in few months ;)

let consider Iranian missiles CEP is less than 500 meters and what we say is not true .. please share with us your country latest achievements regarding its missile program ...

:lol:


Loser... As always! :)
 
I asked him and he didn't responded. I didn't started this discussion at all in first place. He took a sentence out of my post and just created this debate.
I don't mind that Pakistan is weaker then Turkey militarily. why should i be? Pakistan is even weaker then Its Foe India. The only purpose of armed forces is to protect the homeland and secure geostrategic interests which we are capable of and that's it.
Iran is significantly weaker then Pakistan Militarily. And that's not a shame. Neither am i saying anywhere that Irani Forces are incompetent or fail to achieve there objectives. Whats the point of accepting? or prove me wrong

As far as it's a military forum discussing over these stuff is natural and no one should be ashamed and surely no one would accept his\her country is weakness ... and I think Iran has upper hands in many cases while it has problems in other sectors ... Pakistan has its own enemies and trains its army base on those threats and Iran has its own foes ...

Still You have not provided any info of your own missile program .... do you have any?

Time will explain everything :D

Actually who cares what ordinary people think? :)

PS: Something special in few months ;)



:lol:



Loser... As always! :)

What it would be? in which sector?
 
The retaliatory attacks against alleged Islamic State facilities in eastern Syria apparently failed to hit any of their intended targets, undermining Iranian deterrence and raising questions about the effectiveness of Iran's missile force.

On the evening of June 18, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) fired what were said to be six Zolfaqar medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) some 600 kilometers from its western provinces across Iraqi territory at what were described as Islamic State (IS) command-and-control and logistics targets, along with a suicide car factory in the Deir al-Zour province, in eastern Syria. An IRGC communique identified the attack as a "clear message" to the takfiri terrorists as well as their regional and overseas supporters -- an unmistakable reference to Saudi Arabia and the United States. Iran called it a "proportional response" to the IS terrorist attacks in the center of Tehran and at Ayatollah Khomeini's mausoleum eleven days earlier, citing a potential for future escalation should such attacks persist. Therefore, from the beginning, deterrence was high on the minds of Iranian leaders when they authorized the strike.

This is not the first time since the end of the Iran-Iraq War that the Islamic Republic has used ballistic missiles to exact punishment. On at least six occasions between November 1994 and April 2001, Iran reportedly fired Scud missiles at bases in Iraq of the Iranian opposition group Mujahedin-e Khalq. This latest episode, however, is the first time Iran has tested one of its "more modern" indigenous missile designs in actual operational conditions -- and the result appears to have been mixed at best.

Details of the Attack
The Iranian media has so far released five video clips supposedly recorded by overflying IRGC drones and ostensibly live-fed to its commanders in Tehran. Shown are what appear to be two missile impacts -- actually near misses as regards their targets -- in two different locations north and south of the town of Mayadin, 45 kilometers southeast of Deir al-Zour, a known IS stronghold. Four of the clips show only one target from different angles, and with only two actual missile rounds shown entering the frames in total, little evidence exists to support Iran's claims that all the missiles reached their intended targets and inflicted severe damage and casualties.

Targets appeared to be two telecommunications towers and associated buildings in the north, and an unidentified building surrounded by security walls 2 kilometers to the south. None evidently sustained direct hits, although impacts seem to have occurred 50 and 150 meters from their respective intended targets. In the second target area, one can also discern multiple brush fires but, again, no visible damage to the adjacent structures. According to a Syrian source quoted in the Times of Israel, the missile strikes caused no casualties.

According to Israeli military sources cited by Israeli analysts, several of a barrage of seven Iranian missiles (as compared to the six noted in other sources) actually landed in the Iraqi desert, with three other missiles missing their targets entirely and only one or two coming close. If these claims are accurate, they may indicate serious reliability problems with the Iranian missiles, which could only be exacerbated in future employment of Iran's longer-range and more complex missiles. All told, the latest Iranian strike should do little to enhance Iran's deterrence vis-à-vis its regional foes, which are being equipped with sophisticated antimissile systems. Even so, the ability of one or two missiles to hit within 50-150 meters of their targets, after having flown 600 kilometers, can be considered an achievement of sorts.



Assessing the Zolfaqar
The missile used in the Syria strikes is known, as noted, as the Zolfaqar, a nine-meter-long MRBM that represents a development of the Fateh-110, whose range it extends from about 300 to 700 kilometers. The Fateh family includes several versions of the inertial guided Fateh, as well as terminal guided Khalij-e Fars and Hormuz versions. They are generally considered the most versatile and accurate ballistic missiles in the Iranian arsenal, with the Fateh-110 and -313 claimed to have a circular error probable (CEP) of only 10 meters at their maximum range -- although, given the performance of the Zolfaqar, this seems highly unlikely.

The Zolfaqar is believed to share the Fateh guidance system, or to incorporate a slightly improved version. While having the same length and diameter as the Fateh, the Zolfaqar may attain its longer range from its lighter composite body material -- hence the Iranian claim that it is virtually undetectable by radar -- and an improved solid-fuel motor. The high-explosive warhead might have been reduced from its reported 500 kilograms to save weight, thereby allowing it to travel such longer distances. A cluster warhead is also reported to have been deployed with these missiles, but is believed not to have been used in the latest attack.

Iranian media reports also suggested some of the missiles were actually of the liquid-fuel Qiam type, a local development of the Scud missile with a claimed 800-kilometer range and a 700-kilogram warhead. Televised footage of the launches, however, showed only the Zolfaqar.

Iran's Retaliatory Options
By using ballistic missiles, Iran appears to have chosen the least risky option to retaliate against the Islamic State -- and a comparatively effective one in terms of the message it sends. It also offered an opportunity for the IRGC to show off its missile arsenal and restore its domestic image, thought to be tarnished following the Tehran attacks. Alternatively, to send an even more potent regional message -- not to mention cause more damage -- the IRGC could have used its more powerful, longer-range Shahab-3 or Ghadr missiles. But these might have been even less accurate than the Zolfaqar, bringing unforeseen embarrassment as well as civilian casualties. This does not mean, though, that such missiles will not be employed in future escalations. In addition, the IRGC chose to launch missiles from its own territory rather than use Fateh or other shorter-range missiles forward-deployed to the western Iraqi desert, assuming Iraq would allow such positioning. That option could have yielded better accuracy but probably lacked the desired deterrent and morale-boosting effects of using "homeland" bases.

Iran had other options as well. Given its significant military presence already in Syria, Iran could theoretically have used its IRGC special forces to raid high-value IS targets in eastern Syria, but such raids could also have proven too risky. Iran could instead have opted to use its air force's F-4 Phantom fighter-bombers, which have ample range to reach their targets in eastern Syria and return by refueling over Iraq. After all, on January 12, 2015, several Iranian Phantoms bombed IS positions in northern Iraq.

Depending on the numbers used, Phantoms could also deliver a deadlier payload more accurately -- in broad daylight, perhaps -- but this option would have entailed a high risk of possible encounters with the U.S.-led coalition air assets that have lately been very active over eastern and southeastern Syria. Indeed, reports have indicated intensified bombings of Mayadin by both U.S.-led coalition and Russian air forces as recently as June 17. Also, on June 18 a U.S. Navy F/A-18E shot down a Syrian air force Sukhoi Su-22, which had reportedly dropped munitions near U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces units south of al-Tabqa, about 200 kilometers northwest of Mayadin. Iranian Shahed 129 drones have also been increasingly targeted over eastern Syria, with the latest downed June 20 by an American F-15E.

Conclusion
The recent Iranian missile strikes against the Islamic State stronghold of Mayadin were clearly intended to boost Iran's deterrence as well as achieve retaliatory results. However, preliminary independent assessments (supported by the graphic above) show four out of the six missiles Iran says it fired failed to reach their targets, and those that did were not as accurate as claimed by Islamic Republic officials.

By extension, the missile strike shows Iran is probably grappling with serious quality-control and reliability issues within its missile program. While this episode could prompt the Iranians to review and revise those manufacturing and quality-control procedures, further delaying their existing projects, Tehran might also seek solutions to these evident shortcomings in foreign technology sources.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/iran-missile-strikes-reveal-potential-military-weaknesses.
When our junk failed miserably?

Source?
 
We are talking about advanced ballistic missiles not soviet scuds!

Not even American, Chinese and Russian Balistic Missiles can achieve pin point acuracy no matter how advanced they are compared to scuds or whatever. There is a reason both Americans and Russians used Cruise Missiles to hit targets in Syria. The word Ballistic should give away the meaning.
 
Not even American, Chinese and Russian Balistic Missiles can achieve pin point acuracy no matter how advanced they are compared to scuds or whatever. There is a reason both Americans and Russians used Cruise Missiles to hit targets in Syria. The word Ballistic should give away the meaning.
No country invested so much time and money in Ballistic missile development as Iran. Yes not even Russia or US.
 
Are you seriously dragging me into this debate of How Pakistan armed forces are better equipped then irani counterparts?
Told you before we are not enemies. we face different threats still you asking me this. I hate Vs threads we are not enemies man whats the point of this comparison?
anyways for your info.

Pakistan Air force is equipped with a Fleet
76 F16 which are all BVR Capable and State of the art and 18 of them are Blk52 rest are MLU Blk40.
100 JF17 Fighters which are MRCAs all BVR Capable domestically supplied and Sate of the art 4th generation fighters which are Potent in Air to Air and Air to Ground roles
Along with a fleet of Massive 200 F7 Interceptors
Along with them is the fleet of 170 Mirage III/5s which is soon to retire
7 AWACS including SAAB EREYE and Chinese Y8
4 Strategic Transport Aircraft Il-78 and
28 Tactical Support Aircraft mostly C130 Hercules

Ground Forces have:
In Artillery
385 Self Propelled Artillery guns with 60 203mm and 325 155mm
3300 Towed Artillery Guns including 30 200mm 400 155mm 1656 105mm+ and 1200 small 88mm
300 MRLS
Launchers

In Armoured
820 state of the art Heavy Tanks including Ukaranian T-80 and Pakistani Alkhalid
1900 Potent Modernised tanks including Pakistani Modernized Alzarar and Chinese T85 and T69II
3000 APCs and IFVs including Talha, M113, Otokar BTR and MAxxpro

Around 35,000 ATGM Missiles Inventory is maintained including BAktar Shikan, TOW Sniper and Cobra

Missile Defence Forces have Ballistic Missiles that can reach upto 2750 KM that incluide Ghauri, Sheheen Abdali Ghaznavi and Ababeel
And Precision Strike Cruise Missiles including GLCM Babur with 750km Range and ALCM Raad 550km
Also Having Battlefield Cruise Missiles armed with tactical Nukes
Pakistan also have MIRV Technology that negates anti ballistic missiles shield with its swarm effect.

All this is manned by an Armed Forces of 550,000 Army personnel 200,000 Rangers and FC
and 500,000 Active Reserves Totaling 1,250,000 men ready for deployment in case of war.

All the above equipment have active suppliers providing state of the art upgra
And we operate such massive armed to teeth Armed forces because we have an enemy 7 times larger.


I am intentionally ignoring NAVY

Iran on the other hand have a crumbling airforce.
44 F14 Tomcats that have been discontinued and not Supplied with much needed American equipment. They are still made operational by local parts
25 Mig29A which are also now obsolete as it did not got upgraded with latest upgrades from Russia
Rest are all Third generation with 45 of them being F7 and Mirage F1 which i assume are properly supplied with upgrades and parts
And the rest American Third Generation 60 F4 Phantoms and 60 F5s again maintained by Iran locally without any modern upgrades.
And some 40 50 3rd Generation Russian Sukhois

Kindly provide the rest of Iran Armed forces equipment as compared to Pakistan will you please. So that we have a better comparison. i have provided Pakistani side here.
Still i believe there is no point comparing Pakistan and Irani Forces.


Irans main offensive weapon is its Missile program. If we are going to do a neck to neck comparison of Iran vs Pakistan Missile program, I would need mods guarantee first that one liner trolls will be kept out and such posts will be deleted right away, because I dont otherwise want to waste time and energy. Without hateful trolling, we will be able to do comparisons technically.

SLV
Safir vs ??
Kavoshgar vs ??
Simorgh vs ??

MRBMs
Sejjil-2/3 vs Shaheen II/III
Ashura/Ghadr/Shahab-3B/M vs Ghauri II
Emad vs Pakistani MaRV ?
Iranian MIRV vs Ababil

SRBM
Fateh 313, Zolfaghar, Qiam, Hormuz vs Abdali, Ghauri-1 Shaheen-1, Ghaznavi

ASh-BM
Persian Gulf Missile vs ??

LA-Cruise Missiles

Somar vs Babur

AShCM

Ghader vs Pakistani indigenous AShCM (zarb ???)

It will be a fun to do comparison. We both started around same time with foreign procurement from almost same sources. It will be an amusingly informative thread only if trolls stay out.

....................................................




But since you talked about Airforce,

IRIAF is a sanctioned and choked out entity which has become a victim of politics. It used to be the glorious force (one of the largest and modern most at one point in whole world). IRIAF played an immense role in defeating Iraqi baathist invasion during 1980s. Our F-14A tomcats downed 159 Iraqi aircrafts while loosing only 3 (neutral source, I can post). Worlds most successful F-14A ace is not from USN but is from IRIAF with 11 A2A kills(Jalil Zandi). Our F-5E's even downed the mach 3+ Mig-25. IRIAF carried out one of the largest and farthest attack in modern jet history some 1000 km away from our borders at H-3 bases near Jordan.

It used to be that kind of force.

Air force procurement, buying jets, purchasing assembly lines with TOT etc has more to do with position of the nation at international levels. Was not your own country's air-force flying hundreds of Chinese Mig-19 derivatives until FC-1 came into play and US supplied more F-16 ? Because political environment changed into your favor. When it was in Irans favor, Iran had 80 F-14A, 230+ F-4E/D/R, ~200 F-5A/B/E/F ... and that was in 1970s. There were even orders of 240 F-16 and talks for local manufacturing of F-17/F-18A (hence the HESA obsession of V-tail). Even post 80s war, IRIAF was supposed to receive 148 (If i remember correctly) Mig-29 but Kremlin was in political jeopardy itself and bowed to US pressure.

I personally believe IRIAF will stand up again in 2020s, there have been official talks between Tehran and Moscow on Su-30SM. Intended numbers have not been disclosed but I personally believe that IRIAF at-least should go for 10-11 squadrons with TOT. Supplemented by 6 squadrons of fully functional of F-14AM armed with Phoenix/Fakour LR-BVR and upgraded Mig-29 (Upto SM or M standard). This means that 17 interceptor 4.0-4++ air-superiority squadrons. There were reports of extensive Chinese up-gradation for of F-4E/D Fleet (They carry our LA/ASh-CMs). Them combined with Su-24 MK total upto 6 squadrons for launching S2A CMs or taking attack role (which Iran will need in future in its proxy theatres). Among domestic projects, I have most expectation from Kowsar jet trainers, If avionics suite can come russia or china then Kowsar has the potential to form advanced jet trainer with meaningful Ground attack capability (Syrian-Iraqi theater). This force will be able to pack a punch.

This combined with our thriving MALE-UCAV and Surveillance UAV program.

Shahed-129 MALE UCAV (Combat operational over Syria and Iraq)

7tfZYaB8pcg.jpg



Fotros MALE UCAV

fotros.jpg



Hamaseh UCAV

1950207_882.jpg


Simorgh

1686015_-_main.jpg


Mohajer-6

Mohajer6_2.jpg
 
Or, precision BMs are a relatively new capability and hence comparing them to past TBMs is moot.

You don't have all necessary means to deliver BMs with accuracy on specific targets, and you BMs are not as advance as Russia, China or US have.
 
What it would be? in which sector?

Drone, AD, submarine...

The retaliatory attacks against alleged Islamic State facilities in eastern Syria apparently failed to hit any of their intended targets, undermining Iranian deterrence and raising questions about the effectiveness of Iran's missile force.

On the evening of June 18, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) fired what were said to be six Zolfaqar medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) some 600 kilometers from its western provinces across Iraqi territory at what were described as Islamic State (IS) command-and-control and logistics targets, along with a suicide car factory in the Deir al-Zour province, in eastern Syria. An IRGC communique identified the attack as a "clear message" to the takfiri terrorists as well as their regional and overseas supporters -- an unmistakable reference to Saudi Arabia and the United States. Iran called it a "proportional response" to the IS terrorist attacks in the center of Tehran and at Ayatollah Khomeini's mausoleum eleven days earlier, citing a potential for future escalation should such attacks persist. Therefore, from the beginning, deterrence was high on the minds of Iranian leaders when they authorized the strike.

This is not the first time since the end of the Iran-Iraq War that the Islamic Republic has used ballistic missiles to exact punishment. On at least six occasions between November 1994 and April 2001, Iran reportedly fired Scud missiles at bases in Iraq of the Iranian opposition group Mujahedin-e Khalq. This latest episode, however, is the first time Iran has tested one of its "more modern" indigenous missile designs in actual operational conditions -- and the result appears to have been mixed at best.

Details of the Attack
The Iranian media has so far released five video clips supposedly recorded by overflying IRGC drones and ostensibly live-fed to its commanders in Tehran. Shown are what appear to be two missile impacts -- actually near misses as regards their targets -- in two different locations north and south of the town of Mayadin, 45 kilometers southeast of Deir al-Zour, a known IS stronghold. Four of the clips show only one target from different angles, and with only two actual missile rounds shown entering the frames in total, little evidence exists to support Iran's claims that all the missiles reached their intended targets and inflicted severe damage and casualties.

Targets appeared to be two telecommunications towers and associated buildings in the north, and an unidentified building surrounded by security walls 2 kilometers to the south. None evidently sustained direct hits, although impacts seem to have occurred 50 and 150 meters from their respective intended targets. In the second target area, one can also discern multiple brush fires but, again, no visible damage to the adjacent structures. According to a Syrian source quoted in the Times of Israel, the missile strikes caused no casualties.

According to Israeli military sources cited by Israeli analysts, several of a barrage of seven Iranian missiles (as compared to the six noted in other sources) actually landed in the Iraqi desert, with three other missiles missing their targets entirely and only one or two coming close. If these claims are accurate, they may indicate serious reliability problems with the Iranian missiles, which could only be exacerbated in future employment of Iran's longer-range and more complex missiles. All told, the latest Iranian strike should do little to enhance Iran's deterrence vis-à-vis its regional foes, which are being equipped with sophisticated antimissile systems. Even so, the ability of one or two missiles to hit within 50-150 meters of their targets, after having flown 600 kilometers, can be considered an achievement of sorts.



Assessing the Zolfaqar
The missile used in the Syria strikes is known, as noted, as the Zolfaqar, a nine-meter-long MRBM that represents a development of the Fateh-110, whose range it extends from about 300 to 700 kilometers. The Fateh family includes several versions of the inertial guided Fateh, as well as terminal guided Khalij-e Fars and Hormuz versions. They are generally considered the most versatile and accurate ballistic missiles in the Iranian arsenal, with the Fateh-110 and -313 claimed to have a circular error probable (CEP) of only 10 meters at their maximum range -- although, given the performance of the Zolfaqar, this seems highly unlikely.

The Zolfaqar is believed to share the Fateh guidance system, or to incorporate a slightly improved version. While having the same length and diameter as the Fateh, the Zolfaqar may attain its longer range from its lighter composite body material -- hence the Iranian claim that it is virtually undetectable by radar -- and an improved solid-fuel motor. The high-explosive warhead might have been reduced from its reported 500 kilograms to save weight, thereby allowing it to travel such longer distances. A cluster warhead is also reported to have been deployed with these missiles, but is believed not to have been used in the latest attack.

Iranian media reports also suggested some of the missiles were actually of the liquid-fuel Qiam type, a local development of the Scud missile with a claimed 800-kilometer range and a 700-kilogram warhead. Televised footage of the launches, however, showed only the Zolfaqar.

Iran's Retaliatory Options
By using ballistic missiles, Iran appears to have chosen the least risky option to retaliate against the Islamic State -- and a comparatively effective one in terms of the message it sends. It also offered an opportunity for the IRGC to show off its missile arsenal and restore its domestic image, thought to be tarnished following the Tehran attacks. Alternatively, to send an even more potent regional message -- not to mention cause more damage -- the IRGC could have used its more powerful, longer-range Shahab-3 or Ghadr missiles. But these might have been even less accurate than the Zolfaqar, bringing unforeseen embarrassment as well as civilian casualties. This does not mean, though, that such missiles will not be employed in future escalations. In addition, the IRGC chose to launch missiles from its own territory rather than use Fateh or other shorter-range missiles forward-deployed to the western Iraqi desert, assuming Iraq would allow such positioning. That option could have yielded better accuracy but probably lacked the desired deterrent and morale-boosting effects of using "homeland" bases.

Iran had other options as well. Given its significant military presence already in Syria, Iran could theoretically have used its IRGC special forces to raid high-value IS targets in eastern Syria, but such raids could also have proven too risky. Iran could instead have opted to use its air force's F-4 Phantom fighter-bombers, which have ample range to reach their targets in eastern Syria and return by refueling over Iraq. After all, on January 12, 2015, several Iranian Phantoms bombed IS positions in northern Iraq.

Depending on the numbers used, Phantoms could also deliver a deadlier payload more accurately -- in broad daylight, perhaps -- but this option would have entailed a high risk of possible encounters with the U.S.-led coalition air assets that have lately been very active over eastern and southeastern Syria. Indeed, reports have indicated intensified bombings of Mayadin by both U.S.-led coalition and Russian air forces as recently as June 17. Also, on June 18 a U.S. Navy F/A-18E shot down a Syrian air force Sukhoi Su-22, which had reportedly dropped munitions near U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces units south of al-Tabqa, about 200 kilometers northwest of Mayadin. Iranian Shahed 129 drones have also been increasingly targeted over eastern Syria, with the latest downed June 20 by an American F-15E.

Conclusion
The recent Iranian missile strikes against the Islamic State stronghold of Mayadin were clearly intended to boost Iran's deterrence as well as achieve retaliatory results. However, preliminary independent assessments (supported by the graphic above) show four out of the six missiles Iran says it fired failed to reach their targets, and those that did were not as accurate as claimed by Islamic Republic officials.

By extension, the missile strike shows Iran is probably grappling with serious quality-control and reliability issues within its missile program. While this episode could prompt the Iranians to review and revise those manufacturing and quality-control procedures, further delaying their existing projects, Tehran might also seek solutions to these evident shortcomings in foreign technology sources.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/iran-missile-strikes-reveal-potential-military-weaknesses.

Is that your source?

According to Israeli military sources cited by Israeli analysts, several of a barrage of seven Iranian missiles (as compared to the six noted in other sources) actually landed in the Iraqi desert, with three other missiles missing their targets entirely and only one or two coming close.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/iran...to-detect-missiles-warhead-separation.503367/

img_20170624_142906-jpg.406100


:lol:

Please don't disgrace yourself...

Not even American, Chinese and Russian Balistic Missiles can achieve pin point acuracy no matter how advanced they are compared to scuds or whatever. There is a reason both Americans and Russians used Cruise Missiles to hit targets in Syria. The word Ballistic should give away the meaning.

This is losers mentality... Time will prove that!

You don't have all necessary means to deliver BMs with accuracy on specific targets, and you BMs are not as advance as Russia, China or US have.

You know nothing about our industrial and technological capabilities... So please keep this bs for yourself... We don't buy random people's bs!

In the next 5 years people will find your comment a funny joke!

In 2011 people said we can't even make a flying wing Drone fly...

1a5a0e26-3d4c-4c2f-8397-ca36c6b4e5f2.jpg


In 2016 :

2016-10-02-13-15-19-jpg.343140


It's not far... A big *** flying wing UCAV is underway :D

Infact when FC-1 fired a missile to shahed-129, it made your situation much worse... Because this time you have to deal with stealth!
 
You don't have all necessary means to deliver BMs with accuracy on specific targets

What do you call this then?

fateh110eo_31.jpg


And this?


And indeed, this?


and you BMs are not as advance as Russia, China or US have.

And? The most advanced missiles of those countries are ICBMs. The Zolfaqar is a TBM. The US doesn't operate TBMs. And the Zolfaqar is very similar to the Russian Iskander and Chinese DF-12 in terms of precision and difficulty to intercept (though the Zolfaqar has a greater range).
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom