What's new

Pakistan Successfully Tested Babur 3 Cruise Missile launch from Submarine : ISPR

.
By the way is it first time that they have shown a Missile hitting its target or they have shown even before ????????????

Yes in the Nasr missile test of multi tube launcher they showed the missile hitting the target pole and the anti ship also has video of hitting target
 
.
It factors in 6 torpedoes for each
Correct, I overlooked that. Still, it would mean these 8 subs cannot to much else besides sitting there and be a nuclear deterrent. Simply put, they would seek to remain undiscovered as best they could i.e. avoid any activity that can give them away. Which would leave PN with a gaping hole in its ASW, notwithstanding 8 SSKs. Likewise for anti-surface action (i.e. deterring aircraft carrier action). Also, I doubt PN would/can have these 8 subs out there at sea all at the same time (for pov of logistics, maintenance needs, crew fatigue etc. so in practice the number of 96 would unlikely be achieved at any given moment, unless with ample planning and up front and then only for a short duraton i.e. a first strike scenario.)
 
. . .
it is a very difficult and complicated technology, Pakistan has achieved a technological milestone with this Submarine launched cruise missile.. you should congratulate Pakistan on this..because usually one has to buy them off the shelf either from the US or France or others, and no one will give you ToT for this, so it is quite an achievement for Pakistan to be self sufficient in this very vital field..you can think of it as a 3rd, but minimum deterrent for now, still it is an important step for full 3rd capability deterrence..
I don't know if you noticed but I have in fact congratulated Pakistan several times now.
:crazy:

The above post you quoted explains how a cruise missile is launched from underwater. It does not contain any reason fro you to lecture me on what I should or should not do. In fact, I have in the past been pointing out here that there was no publicly available evidence that Pakistan had managed to produce this launching technique, precisely because having a submarine and having a missile alone is necessary but not sufficient condition. And in this thread I pointed out that one launch does not yet equal a credible sea based deterrent yet (PN would need at least 5 SSKs operational, all of which fitted for targeting and firing this particular missile as well as key communiations links to land, air and ship based command and control assets.) Pakistan is moving in that direction, but like I said, one launch doesn 't mean all the required stuff is in place and operational at this time.
:coffee:
 
Last edited:
.
height of ignorance...... Indian members are now posting articals that it was basically chines Sub launching Chines SLCM for us to claim it as baber haaahahahahahahah

Any ways JALNE WALO KA MU KALA ..............
Congrates to all who love this country with heart and soul..................

From the contents of this press-release, it can safely be deduced that the cruise missile, a member of the Hatf-7 family, has a wingspan of 3.1 metres, length of 6 metres, diameter of 0.514 metres, and a mass of 900kg. Range of this SLCM has been claimed to be 450km, although it can attain 600km when carrying a 300kg warhead. The press-release’s contents need to be dissected, since they provide some pretty interesting insights into what is really at play here.

Firstly, it has been claimed that the maiden test-firing of the Babur-3 SLCM was conducted from an underwater, mobile platform that was located at an undisclosed location in the Indian Ocean. This test-firing, hailed as a 100% successful effort, was witnessed by the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC) General Zubair Mahmood Hayat, DG Strategic Plans Division (SPD) Lieutenant General Mazhar Jamil, and the Commander Naval Strategic Force Command (NSFC). Notable absentees from this event were the PN’s Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Muhammad Zakaullah, and Shahid Nabeel, Chairman of the National Engineering and Science Commission (NESCOM)—a state-owned entity that owns the National Defence Complex, the industrial entity that has reportedly the Hatf-7/Babur family of cruise missiles. Short video-clips of this alleged test-firing () showed a cruise missiles breaking a water surface and adopting a shallow trajectory in elevation (meaning it was launched from a torpedo-tube and not a VLS cell), then cruising over land and finally hitting its designated target area somewhere in the vicinity of Balochistan’s Ras Koh mountain range.

Now, if the Babur-3 was indeed launched from a SSK belonging to the PN—and the PN has only three Agosta 90B and two Agosta 70B SSKs all of which are equipped with the THALES-supplied SUBTICS combat management system—then the fire-control system servers required for computing and transmitting the firing solution for/to the encapsulated Babur-3 would have to be integrated with the SUBTICS and the 533mm torpedo launch-tubes. This is an impossible task, given the fact that THALES does not share the operating source-codes of thre SUBTICS’ fire-control algorithms with anyone other than than own nation. Secondly, for the Babur-3 to have been fired from anywhere in the IOR and for the SLCM to reach Baluchistan, NOTAMs would have had to be issued at least 10 days in advance for clearly identifying the flight-path trajectory and cruising altitude for both airmen and merchant mariners. This was NOT done.
The closest NOTAM was in late December, which matches with the period of visit of Type-093 Shang class SSN to PakistanThirdly, as the video-clip shows, the test-firing was initiated from a submerged vehicle in clam waters (i.e. shallow waters), following which the SLCM cruised over a vast landmass, meaning the Babur-3’s entire flightpath was well within Pakistan’s territorial; waters and airspace. Lastly, the PN does not possess any naval vessel equipped with long-range precision-tracking radars, which is a prerequisite for any navy that is involved in test-firing land-attack cruise missiles. Therefore, all this brings us to only one conceivable conclusion:

The test-firing was initiated from a submerged Type 093 Shang-class SSN (that had left its homeport at Yulin in Hainan Island in the first week of December 2016) located well inside Pakistan’s territorial waters, and the SLCM fired was of 100% Chinese origin. Furthermore, this SLCM’s westward flightpath first along Pakistan’s coastline and then into western Baluchistan was ideal for the NESCOM’s missile trajectory-tracking sensors located at theSonmiani Flight Test Range in Sindh province. All this also ties in well with the Naval Strategic Force Command’s inauguration in 2012, and the commissioning of a VLF communications facility—PNS Hameed—on November 15, 2016.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/a-not-so-silent-war-babur-3-ssk-interception.471758/#ixzz4VLatbWB3
 
.
I don't know if you noticed but I have in fact congratulated Pakistan several times now.
:crazy:

The above post you quoted explains how a cruise missile is launched from underwater. It does not contain any reason fro you to lecture me on what I should or should not do. In fact, I have in the past been pointing out here that there was no publicly available evidence that Pakistan had managed to produce this launching technique, precisely because having a submarine and having a missile alone is necessary b ut not sufficient condition. And in this thread I pointed out that one launch does not yet equal a credible sea based deterrent yet (PN would need at least 5 SSKs operational, all of which fitted for targeting and firing this particular missile as well as key communiations links to land, air and ship based command and control assets.) Pakistan is moving in that direction, but like I said, one launch doesn 't mean all the required stuff is in place and operational at this time.
:coffee:
If you read my post, you'll find out that I have agreed with you, I asked you to congratulate Pakistan , since you haven't done it in that post, I saw you latest posts where you did, please do not take it personally, I was not lecturing you, i was just asking, since it is a milestone as I have mentioned in my post. minimal or maximal, for now it provides some new deterrent.. and for the 5 submarine requirement , Pakistan has them,,5 Agosta, 2 diesel-electric and 3 diesel-electric with AIP and Pakistan as for latest news was also working on communication links with its subs..So take it easy..
 
Last edited:
.
I don't know if you noticed but I have in fact congratulated Pakistan several times now.
:crazy:

The above post you quoted explains how a cruise missile is launched from underwater. It does not contain any reason fro you to lecture me on what I should or should not do. In fact, I have in the past been pointing out here that there was no publicly available evidence that Pakistan had managed to produce this launching technique, precisely because having a submarine and having a missile alone is necessary but not sufficient condition. And in this thread I pointed out that one launch does not yet equal a credible sea based deterrent yet (PN would need at least 5 SSKs operational, all of which fitted for targeting and firing this particular missile as well as key communiations links to land, air and ship based command and control assets.) Pakistan is moving in that direction, but like I said, one launch doesn 't mean all the required stuff is in place and operational at this time.
:coffee:

Respect your experience.
Babur 3 is fully operational now.

And this isn't the first launch.
 
.
north Korea has sanction and many more which had made more progress
:o:
Did any Pakistani poster provoke you ? My friend if you are here to cheerlead for the Indian plz go into the middle eastern section and celebrate along with em. You'll find plenty of indian strategic deals with Israel , uae and the u.s to cherish :D
 
.
Congratulations on the first public release on SLCM test. This is not the first test. Pakistan has long perfected tube / canister launched missile technology, being the operator of Harpoon since 30 years. This also demonstrates the indigenous submarine C4I developed by MTC in operation. Well done MTC and NDC.
 
.
I don't know if you noticed but I have in fact congratulated Pakistan several times now.
:crazy:

The above post you quoted explains how a cruise missile is launched from underwater. It does not contain any reason fro you to lecture me on what I should or should not do. In fact, I have in the past been pointing out here that there was no publicly available evidence that Pakistan had managed to produce this launching technique, precisely because having a submarine and having a missile alone is necessary but not sufficient condition. And in this thread I pointed out that one launch does not yet equal a credible sea based deterrent yet (PN would need at least 5 SSKs operational, all of which fitted for targeting and firing this particular missile as well as key communiations links to land, air and ship based command and control assets.) Pakistan is moving in that direction, but like I said, one launch doesn 't mean all the required stuff is in place and operational at this time.
:coffee:

Btw, where did you get that number of 5 SSKs?
 
.
Congratulations! to whole nation and brothers for this success. We should not forget scientists and engineers, because of them this was possible.
 
.
Now, if the Babur-3 was indeed launched from a SSK belonging to the PN—and the PN has only three Agosta 90B and two Agosta 70B SSKs all of which are equipped with the THALES-supplied SUBTICS combat management system—then the fire-control system servers required for computing and transmitting the firing solution for/to the encapsulated Babur-3 would have to be integrated with the SUBTICS and the 533mm torpedo launch-tubes. This is an impossible task, given the fact that THALES does not share the operating source-codes of thre SUBTICS’ fire-control algorithms with anyone other than than own nation.
In Europe, the naval C4I systems industry is dominated by Thales, which builds a number of systems including Senit, Sewaco, Sic-21, Stacos, Tacticos and Tavitac

BAE Systems meanwhile produces a range of products including Acmis, Adaws-2000, Adimp, Nautis, SSCS and the SMCS-NG. Selex Sistemi Integrati of Italy produces the IPN-5, -10 and -20 systems, along with the Numc/Nupa Combat Management System (CMS). Saab Systems has enjoyed considerable success with its 9LV CMS series, while Atlas Elektronik has produced the Isus 90-1 system. Joint ventures between BAE Systems and Alenia Marconi have yielded the command and control systems for the Royal Navy's Type-45 class destroyers while collaborations between Thales and DCNS have resulted in the Subtics and Sycobs submarine command and control system, and the Setis-Fremm CMS. Finally, Terma has designed and produced the C-Flex system for the Kongelige Danske Marine (Royal Danish Navy) Absalon class command and support vessels.
Thales has enjoyed international success with its naval C4I systems. The company produced the Senit series of CMS which is deployed on the Marine Nationale (French Navy) Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier. Senit displays information from the ship's sensors and its communication systems and has been a popular choice for a number of navies. To this end, it equips the French Navy's Cassard class destroyers and the force's Foudre and Mistral class Landing Platform Dock and Horizon class frigates. Senit also equips the Royal Norwegian Navy's Skjold class fast attack craft and the Royal Saudi Navy's Al-Riyadh class frigates. The company has enjoyed similar widespread success with the Sewaco combat data system, which, like the Senit system, acquires information from the ship's sensors and communication systems. Sewaco can be teamed with the company's Tacticos CMS (see below). Sewaco is one of the most ubiquitous naval C4I systems, equipping ships in the German, Dutch, Hellenic, Qatari, Argentine and Belgian navies.
The company's Tacticos system consolidates the control of a ship's weapons, its sensors such as the air-search radar, and electro-optical systems and can be scaled according to the size of the vessel on which it will be deployed. Tacticos has been installed on a range of ships from patrol boats to destroyers. The Royal Navy of Oman has the system fitted on its al-Qahir class corvettes while the Hellenic Navy uses Tacticos on its Roussen class fast attack craft and the Republic of Korea Navy has Tacticos on its Kang-Ding class frigates. Thales also builds the Tavitac system which is able to perform automatic threat assessment by collating information from the vessel's sensors. It can also be linked to the vessel's fire control and countermeasures systems helping to coordinate self-protection.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Nava...d+and+control+stays+out+of+the...-a0184287848

Signaal / Thales Netherlands SEWACO = SEnsoren, WApensystemen en COmmandosystemen (SEnsors, WeAponsystems and COmmandsystems
Signaal / Thales Netherlands Sewaco VIII > SEWACO optimized for submarines
Signaal / Thales Netherlands STACOS > various export derivatives of SEWACO
Thales SEWACO FD > virtual machine on which TACTICOS command and control software runs
Tacticos > command system combining best features of Thomson-CSF Tavitac ad Signaal STACOS systems
https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm
http://www.thales7seas.com/html_2014/product398.html

China in the past has acquires Tavitac from the French and Italian IPN-10 command data systems and these have influenced Chinese systems. And while there never have been claims China obtained SEWACO from Signaall/Thales, it did manage to acquire e.g. that company's Ramses EW-system, suggesting at least contact.
Assessing China's Naval Power by Sarah Kirchberger
https://books.google.nl/books?id=tb...AQ6AEIPTAI#v=onepage&q=china tacticos&f=false

If SUBTICS has roots in SEVACO VIII, it may well be that China has better insight into this than presumed.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom