What's new

Pakistan conducts a successful test flight of indigenously developed Fatah-1, Guided Multi Launch Rocket System

We would need 100 systems max. Dont forget the guided rockets are pretty cheap to develop we can make 100,000s of them :D


What Your saying is :

100 MLRS with 100,000 rockets, if we were to simplify this further thats like having a single MLRS with a 1000 rockets (1:1000), the whole point of having such a system is to barrage the enemy with [saturation] attacks, considering the quantifiable delay in rearming beats its purpose, not to forget the logistics nightmare, It would make more sense if we were to produce far more MLRS at the cost of a fewer rockets.
 
Last edited:
.
Bro prahaar is a short ranged battlefield ballistic missile.
Fatah 1 is an MLRS.
If we indeed want something like prahar we have 2 options
Increase range of Nasr
or
Develop a multi launch platform for the older hatf series.
Prahaar is 150 KM tactical missile capable to carry ~150-200 KG warhead up to the range of 150 KM, while Indian Army is seeking its version with 200 KM range which might carry little heavier warhead than the existing version.

I believe FATAH-1 also is capable to carry warhead in the same weight class.

and I agree we have the option to work with short range Hataf missiles and in this case I think we should try either Abdali by adopting to work with lesser weight conventional warhead or some new system to work with rocket artillery as long range artillery up to the range of 300-400 KM.
 
.
Yep, it's incredible how some Pakistanis rage on about the S-400 more than the Indians...The intercept range is less than the stated 400km, that's the maximum range, and any system will never have a 100 accuracy ratio the same way through every Km, it's the same for air to air missiles.
Besides just where has there been a successful intercept of a major missile system by the S-400 in hostile conditions? There hasn't
How well did it do in Syria, the Israelis ran circles around it, the USAF tomahawks went clean through.
I know the Russians stated that the systems were not intended to defend Syrian infrastructure, but this seems more like a get out clause i.e. if they claimed it was switched on and couldn't take down US missiles it would have been a major embarrassment. It may be opinion based but I don't believe the Russians would have forgone an opportunity to down a US/Israeli missile, as the publicity generated would have been immense, with many nations wanting the system.

India will need Iron Dome to protect its assets from PGMs.
 
.
Yep, it's incredible how some Pakistanis rage on about the S-400 more than the Indians...The intercept range is less than the stated 400km, that's the maximum range, and any system will never have a 100 accuracy ratio the same way through every Km, it's the same for air to air missiles.
Besides just where has there been a successful intercept of a major missile system by the S-400 in hostile conditions? There hasn't
How well did it do in Syria, the Israelis ran circles around it, the USAF tomahawks went clean through.
I know the Russians stated that the systems were not intended to defend Syrian infrastructure, but this seems more like a get out clause i.e. if they claimed it was switched on and couldn't take down US missiles it would have been a major embarrassment. It may be opinion based but I don't believe the Russians would have forgone an opportunity to down a US/Israeli missile, as the publicity generated would have been immense, with many nations wanting the system.
Not to mention the HD class "audio visuals" of popping up the Russian EW, AD, Radar etc. systems like pop-corns by the combo actions from the Turkish drones and EW systems....
 
.
I would like to note two things:
1. An indigenous system has the distinct advantage that it can be produced instead of bought. So hopefully many many more systems can be inducted for the same money. Likely, the A100 was a stopgap and Fatah-1 is the main course. It doesn't matter if Fatah-1 is a direct copy of A-100, the important thing is that we can produce it. The position getting obliterated doesnt care if the design is 100% Pakistani or not. The death is of consistent quality. The only thing that matters is capability and availability/numbers are a key part of that.
2. It is good to see Pakistan focusing on nonnuclear systems. This will likely push our rocket tech to improve as the drive to have lighter, smaller missiles with longer ranges kicks in. Strong rocket tech will feed into many weapons programs.
 
.
I would like to note two things:
1. An indigenous system has the distinct advantage that it can be produced instead of bought. So hopefully many many more systems can be inducted for the same money. Likely, the A100 was a stopgap and Fatah-1 is the main course. It doesn't matter if Fatah-1 is a direct copy of A-100, the important thing is that we can produce it. The position getting obliterated doesnt care if the design is 100% Pakistani or not. The death is of consistent quality. The only thing that matters is capability and availability/numbers are a key part of that.
2. It is good to see Pakistan focusing on nonnuclear systems. This will likely push our rocket tech to improve as the drive to have lighter, smaller missiles with longer ranges kicks in. Strong rocket tech will feed into many weapons programs.
I agree. The long-term benefit is definitely there, but I hope we optimize the technology's deployment for short-term gains too. Basically, this should be the start of better air and land power integration, especially when we're making the necessary systems for it.

The PA and PAF should be working together to identify and neutralize enemy air defence positions. There should be a shared IMINT capacity (likely in place, be it through our own satellites or via China) plus ISR and SIGINT coverage.

Next, long-range artillery (like Fatah-1 and incoming 155 mm/52-cal guns) should work in conjunction with drone ops (AZM MALE UAV) and SOW (via JF-17 and IREK).

The fact that we can source this stuff domestically means we can field quite a few joint air and land units to make LR-SAM deployment near the border very risky.

However, to achieve this we need a strong culture of out-of-the-box thinking, delegation and collaboration, and resource optimization among out decision-makers.
 
Last edited:
.
I would like to note two things:
1. An indigenous system has the distinct advantage that it can be produced instead of bought. So hopefully many many more systems can be inducted for the same money. Likely, the A100 was a stopgap and Fatah-1 is the main course. It doesn't matter if Fatah-1 is a direct copy of A-100, the important thing is that we can produce it. The position getting obliterated doesnt care if the design is 100% Pakistani or not. The death is of consistent quality. The only thing that matters is capability and availability/numbers are a key part of that.
2. It is good to see Pakistan focusing on nonnuclear systems. This will likely push our rocket tech to improve as the drive to have lighter, smaller missiles with longer ranges kicks in. Strong rocket tech will feed into many weapons programs.
Can we convert this to an ABM in future??
 
. .
I agree. The long-term benefit is definitely there, but I hope we optimize the technology's deployment for short-term gains too. Basically, this should be the start of better air and land power integration, especially when we're making the necessary systems for it.

The PA and PAF should be working together to identify and neutralize enemy air defence positions. There should be a shared IMINT capacity (likely in place, be it through our own satellites or via China) plus ISR and SIGINT coverage.

Next, long-range artillery (like Fatah-1 and incoming 155 mm/52-cal guns) should work in conjunction with drone ops (AZM MALE UAV) and SOW (via JF-17 and IREK).

The fact that we can source this stuff domestically means we can field quite a few joint air and land units to make LR-SAM deployment near the border very risky.

However, to achieve this we need a strong culture of out-of-the-box thinking, delegation and collaboration, and resource optimization among out decision-makers.
You mean there is an indigenous 155/52 cal howitzer under development?
 
. .
I agree. The long-term benefit is definitely there, but I hope we optimize the technology's deployment for short-term gains too. Basically, this should be the start of better air and land power integration, especially when we're making the necessary systems for it.

The PA and PAF should be working together to identify and neutralize enemy air defence positions. There should be a shared IMINT capacity (likely in place, be it through our own satellites or via China) plus ISR and SIGINT coverage.

Next, long-range artillery (like Fatah-1 and incoming 155 mm/52-cal guns) should work in conjunction with drone ops (AZM MALE UAV) and SOW (via JF-17 and IREK).

The fact that we can source this stuff domestically means we can field quite a few joint air and land units to make LR-SAM deployment near the border very risky.

However, to achieve this we need a strong culture of out-of-the-box thinking, delegation and collaboration, and resource optimization among out decision-makers.
Those are lofty (but realistic goals).

There is a (very) low-hanging fruit that should be pursued for deployment with all artillery units. Small scout drones that can fly out to 100km and direct fire. There is no reason why such a system cannot be completely autonomous, cheap, with every artillery battery. It will greatly enhance each battery's efficiency. I'd be shocked if such a system is not in service on some level already but a dedicated program will go a long way in acting as a "force multiplier". The system needs to be launched/recoverable easily in the field and be extremely easy to maintain and preferably linked directly to artillery fire control systems.
 
. .
How well did it do in Syria, the Israelis ran circles around it, the USAF tomahawks went clean through.
bro that is because of the volume was a huge volley of cruise missiles from ship and air launched. not all were intercepted as the volley was significantly large. however many cruise missiles were taken down and they were displayed by the Russians. secondly that was Syrian AD and none of those cruise missiles ventured close to the Russian base of operations where S400 are parked.
 
.
You are forgetting that Pakistan is a small & narrow country so for India a 90 to 100 rocket is enough.

Pakistanis are happy that 5 Indian bases are in range of this system but they forget that half of the population of Pakistan and almost 70% of our large cities are in 100-150 km of Indian border. That's why I keep saying we need to built 2 new cities in Balochistan and 1 in FATA, KPK each able to hold 3 million + citizens atleast.
 
Last edited:
.
I want to ask a basic question. Why it's called as rocket instead of missile? Isn't guided rocket is a missile?
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom