Pakistan Army Information

[fatman17]

E.D.A (Excess Defense Articles) Analysis.

As a Major Non-Nato Ally (MNNA), Pakistan is eligible to receive U.S. EDA stocks on a as is condition basis. Any upgrades of these EDA stocks are borne by the recipient country through its own sovereign funds or via FMF (Foreign Military Financing) regime offered by the U.S DSCA organization which is operated by the US Department of Defense.

Between 2003 & 2011, nearly 3,813 Grant / Aid items have been offered by the implementing agencies of the United States to the armed forces of Pakistan.

Pakistan Army:

Between 2003 and 2011, the Pakistan Army requested the US Department of the Army for the following EDA stocks,

1. UH-1H Helicopters: a total of 40 light utility helicopters were requested by the Pakistan Army valued at US$ 37 mill. Upon finalization of the request, only 20 of the 40 helicopters were acceptable to the Pakistan Army valued at US$ 18.5 mill. The Department of the Army was authorized to offer the EDA in August 2003 and the EDA was accepted in February 2005. However the delivery never materialized and the EDA was cancelled.

2. AH-1F Helicopters: 40 armed Cobra Helicopters were requested valued at US$ 265 mill. Of the 40 helicopters, 20 examples were to be upgraded and 20 examples were to be used as spares. The EDA was authorized to offer on August 2003 and the EDA was accepted in May 2004 and delivered on February 2005.

3. M113A2 APC’s: up to 500 Armoured Personnel Carriers were requested by the Pakistan Army with a value of US$ 135 mill. The EDA was authorized to offer on June 2010 and the EDA was accepted in September 2011. However due to souring of the relationship between the two countries only 69 examples have so far been delivered.

4. Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI) Plates: a total of 2,500 such plates valued at US$1.2 mill were delivered on September 2010.

This is the extent of the EDA grants requested by the Pakistan Army and delivered by the US Department of the Army.

PAF & PN Analysis forthcoming.

 

[Slav Defence]

The post by Sir fatman about NasrIX missile states:
'Nasr is a mobile,quick reaction four model weapon system capable of delivering it's nuclear armed short range ballistic missile upto 60km'
The article also defined it's salvo launch capability and it's competence with Indian Iron dome system which Indians have received from Israel.
Now if we compare the Israeli Iron dome systems with our salvo launch capable system which NasrIX has,we will find difference of range by 10 km,as Israeli Iron dome system is designed to counter short range missiles with a range upto 70km while NasrIX has that of 60km.
Well appreciated effort by our sectors-

 

[Donatello]

The post by Sir fatman about NasrIX missile states:
'Nasr is a mobile,quick reaction four model weapon system capable of delivering it's nuclear armed short range ballistic missile upto 60km'
The article also defined it's salvo launch capability and it's competence with Indian Iron dome system which Indians have received from Israel.
Now if we compare the Israeli Iron dome systems with our salvo launch capable system which NasrIX has,we will find difference of range by 10 km,as Israeli Iron dome system is designed to counter short range missiles with a range upto 70km while NasrIX has that of 60km.
Well appreciated effort by our sectors-

What is the point of having NASR with range of 60 km, when Army already has the Norinco A-100 MBRL, which can use guided rockets upto 120km????

 

[Slav Defence]

What is the point of having NASR with range of 60 km, when Army already has the Norinco A-100 MBRL, which can use guided rockets upto 120km????

As @Secur said:'Cost effective!?'

NasrIX is to counter short range missiles,covering a distance of 60km.
If you have weapons covering the larger distance such as 120km,or that of long range,that doesn't mean that you don't manufacture low cost,short range missiles.
It is just like,you are questioning over manufacture of small arms,when you are having 'bazooka!'
So,having such missiles will not only increase our capacity to counter response at every level,but it will also create a 'hype' over neighbouring countries,at the same time will enhance our skills for bring up new ideas and will bring richness in our inventory.

 

[Donatello]

As @Secur said:'Cost effective!?'

Not really.

I say this, because 60km range is too short for a ballistic trajectory. Which means, the missile after launch does not really gain much height, hence it can be located with counter-battery radars easily. A radar that can pick up an artillery shell from 50km away, can easily pick up a big missile from 60 km away.

A-100 offers the same offensive power, actually more, with more range, i.e. 120 km, and while keeping it self away from the counter battery radar/fire.

I do not know the exact trajectory of A-100 rockets or NASR, but i am assuming it would be very similar.

 

[Slav Defence]

Not really.

I say this, because 60km range is too short for a ballistic trajectory. Which means, the missile after launch does not really gain much height, hence it can be located with counter-battery radars easily. A radar that can pick up an artillery shell from 50km away, can easily pick up a big missile from 60 km away.

A-100 offers the same offensive power, actually more, with more range, i.e. 120 km, and while keeping it self away from the counter battery radar/fire.

I do not know the exact trajectory of A-100 rockets or NASR, but i am assuming it would be very similar.

Not really.


I say this, because 60km range is too short for a ballistic trajectory. Which means, the missile after launch does not really gain much height, hence it can be located with counter-battery radars easily. A radar that can pick up an artillery shell from 50km away, can easily pick up a big missile from 60 km away.

A-100 offers the same offensive power, actually more, with more range, i.e. 120 km, and while keeping it self away from the counter battery radar/fire.

I do not know the exact trajectory of A-100 rockets or NASR, but i am assuming it would be very similar.

Maybe there is quite difference of trajectory between A-100 and NASR?
One thing which I don't understand Dontello,the article says that NASR missile has salvo factor which has made it effective,at the same times describes it's effectiveness over Israeli dome system, The same question is disturbing me about it's effectiveness,as it is disturbing you,however I have represented you some logical/common reasons.
My question is that how salvo system NASR MISSILE can be effective over Israeli dome system,when we have difference of range of 10km?

 

[Donatello]

Maybe there is quite difference of trajectory between A-100 and NASR?
One thing which I don't understand Dontello,the article says that NASR missile has salvo factor which has made it effective,at the same times describes it's effectiveness over Israeli dome system, The same question is disturbing me about it's effectiveness,as it is disturbing you,however I have represented you some logical/common reasons.
My question is that how salvo system NASR MISSILE can be effective over Israeli dome system,when we have difference of range of 10km?

The term 'Salvo' in literal sense, is the simultaneous firing of the artillery/tank fire/ rocket launch etc.
So i am assuming that salvo in NASR's case means being able to launch more than one missile at the same time, to confuse the enemy radar and since the enemy Iron Dome can engage a certain amount of missiles, a salvo might give you the chance to sneak in some missiles without being taken down. However, salvo gives you speed, but then you run out of missiles quickly as well. Which means, you have to reload (using what ever the mechanism), and hence while the vehicle is being re-loaded it is effectively a sitting duck.

Now, A-100 launches it's rockets in a trajectory somewhat similar to ballistic trajectory, as explained in High School Physics, using the example of 'Projectile Motion'

The only difference i can see, is that NASR after being launched from it's tube, rise to a higher altitude (vertical) and then descends rapidly. Conventional wisdom suggests, Nasr would have peak altitude around 30km point, and at that point it may be wholly visible to the enemy radar.

A-100 on the other hand, would have 60km to peak in altitude (assuming the missile is configured for the maximum 120km range), however, the peak altitude it reaches *might* be less than the peak altitude of Nasr, thus effectively shielding it from the enemy radar.

Last, A-100 is a MBRL, but the rockets are assumed to be guided, so in essence they are guided missiles. A salvo of A-100 would do more damage than a salvo of Nasr, now whether the A-100 missiles are big enough to be nuke equipped, that is yet to be soon.

Now, please don't get me wrong, i know Nasr is a short range tactical ballistic missile, and A-100 is rocket launcher. But neither of them are guided in a straight line, and since Nasr's 60km range is too little, it might make sense to compare it with a long range guided rocket launch system.

Like i said, i do not know the exact trajectory of both the systems, so what i have stated is based on what can be credibly assumed.

 

[Slav Defence]

The term 'Salvo' in literal sense, is the simultaneous firing of the artillery/tank fire/ rocket launch etc.
So i am assuming that salvo in NASR's case means being able to launch more than one missile at the same time, to confuse the enemy radar and since the enemy Iron Dome can engage a certain amount of missiles, a salvo might give you the chance to sneak in some missiles without being taken down. However, salvo gives you speed, but then you run out of missiles quickly as well. Which means, you have to reload (using what ever the mechanism), and hence while the vehicle is being re-loaded it is effectively a sitting duck.

Now, A-100 launches it's rockets in a trajectory somewhat similar to ballistic trajectory, as explained in High School Physics, using the example of 'Projectile Motion'

The only difference i can see, is that NASR after being launched from it's tube, rise to a higher altitude (vertical) and then descends rapidly. Conventional wisdom suggests, Nasr would have peak altitude around 30km point, and at that point it may be wholly visible to the enemy radar.

A-100 on the other hand, would have 60km to peak in altitude (assuming the missile is configured for the maximum 120km range), however, the peak altitude it reaches *might* be less than the peak altitude of Nasr, thus effectively shielding it from the enemy radar.

Last, A-100 is a MBRL, but the rockets are assumed to be guided, so in essence they are guided missiles. A salvo of A-100 would do more damage than a salvo of Nasr, now whether the A-100 missiles are big enough to be nuke equipped.

Dontello,I do understand the 'salvo system',that is why I am questioning of it's effectiveness.
The article has only mentioned 'one quality factor' that is 'salvo system'
What I mean to ask that how we can assume this one factor to be enough to proove it's effectiveness,when we haven't studied 'range difference' 'trajectory difference','difference of altitude' and other important factors,especially rate of chances of visibility in target's radar system and other factors?
Plus,you are comparing missiles with great difference of range,altitude etc.
I think that we must also analyse and compare it with previous hataf,to understand it's effectivness.

 

[fatman17]

High level transfers, postings in Pakistan Army
Posted: November 19, 2013

ISLAMABAD: High level transfers and postings have been undertaken in Pakistan Army, Geo News reported Tuesday.
According to sources, Corps Commander Karachi Lieutenant General Aijaz Chaudhry has been reassigned as IG Arms GHQ while Quarter Master General, Lieutenant General Sajjad Ghani has been posted as Corps Commander Karachi while Lieutenant General Najibullah has been posted as Quarter Master General.
Sources further added that a special meeting of the Pakistan Army’s formation commanders will take place tomorrow (Wednesday).
Print this story

 

[Slav Defence]

High level transfers, postings in Pakistan Army
Posted: November 19, 2013

ISLAMABAD: High level transfers and postings have been undertaken in Pakistan Army, Geo News reported Tuesday.
According to sources, Corps Commander Karachi Lieutenant General Aijaz Chaudhry has been reassigned as IG Arms GHQ while Quarter Master General, Lieutenant General Sajjad Ghani has been posted as Corps Commander Karachi while Lieutenant General Najibullah has been posted as Quarter Master General.
Sources further added that a special meeting of the Pakistan Army’s formation commanders will take place tomorrow (Wednesday).
Print this story

This is old news,isn't it?
However,it wasn't discussed earlier.

 

[fatman17]

my bad sir

 

[Slav Defence]

my bad sir

Sir don't embarrass me,please..

 

[jaibi]

@Alpha1 can we work on this article in the meanwhile? An updated version of this would be best for the wiki.

@Aeronaut @Oscar can you move this up to R&D?

 

[ramakrishna]

Is there any Official Information that Pakistan Army Is Planning to make/buy some advanced Exoskeletons.

I have read similar kind of news in other defense forums but they to don't have any conformation..

Is this True ?

 

[TaimiKhan]

Is there any Official Information that Pakistan Army Is Planning to make/buy some advanced Exoskeletons.

I have read similar kind of news in other defense forums but they to don't have any conformation..

Is this True ?

Nothing as such. Kindly don't post stuff which has nothing to do with reality.

Is there any Official Information that Pakistan Army Is Planning to make/buy some advanced Exoskeletons.

I have read similar kind of news in other defense forums but they to don't have any conformation..

Is this True ?

Nothing as such. Kindly don't post stuff which has nothing to do with reality.