What's new

PN modified P-3C aircraft for land-attack missions

and what is there to back up your claim???
is this the peace loving nature of you people that maje yo claim so?? i hope it is not because that nature points to use of nukes even in terrorism!

regards!

No first use (NFU) refers to a pledge or a policy by a nuclear power to not use nuclear weapons as a mean of warfare unless first attacked by an adversary using nuclear weapons. The concept can also be applied to chemical or biological warfare.
- form the wiki

that means...we can't(/won't) use nukes unless you use them first...there'd be no preemptive nuke strike...
 
No first use (NFU) refers to a pledge or a policy by a nuclear power to not use nuclear weapons as a mean of warfare unless first attacked by an adversary using nuclear weapons. The concept can also be applied to chemical or biological warfare.
- form the wiki

that means...we can't(/won't) use nukes unless you use them first...there'd be no preemptive nuke strike...

paritosh,

Sorry, man, but nobody in their right mind is going to pay any attention to these "pledges".

You always plan for the worst case scenario and hope for the best case. As they say, better to have a gun and not need it, than the reverse.
 
well bro, as far as commiting some thing is concerned, we also mentain NFU and minimum deterance policy. the fact is that how reliable such commitment from a country like your really are who do not have a good track record in this thing,,,
i hope you get it!!

regards!
 
and as far as the nuclear deterrence is concerned...I still remember how Musharaf openly stated that he'd nuke India(and thereby target the civilian population) "if a single Indian army person crosses the LOC"
that clearly showed that you lacked the stomach for a conventional war back then....what you call deterence is what i call getting dirty...nukes dont differentiate between a man and an innocent child....
I'm not trying to score on any front, just stating some facts. I'm pretty sure nuclear weapons do not deter aggression unless it appears the owner is willing to use them. It doesn't matter to me what you think is "dirty", afterall according to you a conventional war between Pakistan and India would be a fair fight. Don't bring innocent children up, while both countries spend unbelieveable sums of money on weapons innocent children in both countries suffer.
use nukes or lose....use nukes and win?
please answer that...and think a bit about it.
If it ever came to nuclear war then both sides have already lost, hence India shows restraint to ensure the threshold is not crossed. Think about what? I never said Pakistan would win a nuclear war, if I did then I was mistaken. I agree with Developereo's point.
 
Last edited:
as the predicted, analysts have added to their list of charges - Pakistan should invite US to examine the inventory of P3 -- however; it should not do this without media campaign, first the Pakistani media and organizations such Xinhua, Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya --- after this, if the US analysts and policy makers still want to use media pressure, then let the gloves come off.

In the end this campaign is a contest between analysts and policy makers in the US, Pakistani readers should keep this in mind -- anyone thinking that US policy makers are ever speaking with a single voice may also belive that the NYT is totality of opinion in the US.
 
Brothers,
If we can modified this thing, then why we can't make our own one?
 
Happy Defence Day to all of you,

May Pakistan Live long,:pakistan::pakistan::pakistan:
Inshallah!

Happy Defence Day
 
Pakistan develops new cruise missile – NYT can’t bring themselves to believing it
The Artical By TechLahore on 30 aug 2009

http://techlahore.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/babar.jpg?w=296&h=280
Pakistan's Indigenously developed Babar Cruise Missile. This is now being integrated with Pakistan's Naval Ships.

This really got my goat! A friend just pointed out that the NYT has published a highly accusatory article about Pakistan’s latest ship launched cruise missile tests. The basic thrust of the story is that Pakistan has developed a new missile which was recently tested, but not officially announced. US officials ”leaked” the news to the New York Times (gotta love those leaks!!), stating that what was tested was most likely an “unauthorized” modification of a Harpoon missile. These are the very same Harpoons President Reagan had delivered to his comrade, that staunchest of staunch allies, President Zia of Pakistan in the early 1980s.

Of course, in typical NYT style when it comes to articles about Pakistan, the accusation is not justified with even a shred of evidence beyond the “leak”. But why do they need proof, I ask? I mean it’s not like those brown skinned idiotic Pakistanis are capable of inventing anything? Right? I mean it’s not like they’ve developed nuclear weapons, IRBMs, fighter aircraft, UAVs, tanks of other sophisticated military gear?!

So, though I want very much to tell the NYT where they can stuff their nonsense, instead, let me attempt to reason through this. In order for the story to make sense, the basic premise of modifying Harpoons has to at least be justified with a legitimate goal or need the Pakistani military has. For why else would they perform the modification? So, let’s first look at what the Harpoon is. It’s a sea and air launched anti-ship missile with a maximum range of between 100-300km depending on the platform it is launched from. The payload it carries is non-nuclear – it is simply designed to take out a ship. Payload capability is around 450lbs, which is really not sufficient to carry a nuclear weapon. If you wanted to increase range, it would likely come at the cost of the payload anyway, thus further reducing the 450lbs down to 250 or 300lbs.

The allegation, then, is that
a) the Harpoon missile has been modified to take out land targets and
b) that the P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft has been modified to carry out land attack missions. I am sure the discerning amongst my readership familiar with military issues will be rolling on the floor, consumed by laughter by now. But for those still able to sit straight and read, let me continue with my disection of this insidious and ridiculous allegation.

Now, as the idiots at the NYT should know, Pakistan has already developed its own cruise missiles, Raa’d and Babar. These are air launched and ground launched respectively. These have been shown on TV multiple times being launched from Mirage jets, fired from mobile launchers etc. The external design and form of both these missiles is completely different to the Harpoon. Their payload capacity is larger than the Harpoon’s, their guidance system is more modern and accurate, their range is greater and so on and so forth. In sum, there is absolutely no connection between these missiles and the Harpoon. They are in fact, better across multiple points of comparison, and of course, are also nuclear capable, unlike the Harpoons.

The Raa’d has been mated with Mach 2 capable Mirages and is now being integrated with Pakistan’s new fighter, the JF-17. The missile can be launched from a stand-off distance of almost 500km and employs more sophisticated guidance than the Harpoon. Why would Pakistan want to attack land targets with a slow, bulky aircraft like the P-3, firing shorter range Harpoon missiles, when it’s air force already has almost 175 Mirage aircraft with Raa’d cruise missiles and recently added in-flight refuelling capability? It makes no bloody sense.

The Pakistani Raa’d Air Launched Cruise Missile being tested from a Mach 2 Mirage jet

So, where is the rationale? What would Pakistan gain from this? Why would we – with a limited inventory of 165 Harpoons – modify a weapon system completely unsuited to land attack in line with NYT’s toxic insinuations? The Air Weapons Complex, NDC and other weapons labs in Pakistan have bigger fish to fry.

It is, in fact, quite amusing, that buried deep inside the article, a researcher from Janes Defence Weekly, a premier defence publication, is quoted as saying:

“They’re beyond the need to reverse-engineer old U.S. kit,” Mr. Hewson said in a telephone interview. “They’re more sophisticated than that.”
http://techlahore.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/mirageiiirefuel1.jpg?w=300&h=197
The Air Weapons Complex at Kamra has added in-flight refuelling capability to the Mirage fleet. The refuelling probe is visible to the left of the cockpit.

Exactly. When the M1A1 failed field trials in Bahawalpur, we built our own Al-Khalid tank. When the F-16s were embargoed, we developed the JF-17. When we were sanctioned on account of the nuclear program, we completed not only weaponization but also delivery capabilities. And now when the Predator is being denied for anti-terror operations, you will see Pakistani scientists and engineers develop and deploy a UCAV rapidly.

It would perhaps be a more productive use of their time if the NYT and the unnamed “US officials” who were the source of this “leak” would learn a thing or two about missiles – and even more importantly, about good old fashioned common sense. It would serve them better the next time they want to start spewing such bunkum. I will assume that this story resulted from a lack of education rather than a desire to sabotage Pakistan and create difficulties for it. Since we are close allies, that would just be ridiculous… wouldn’t it?
:pakistan:
 
Last edited:
I will assume that this story resulted from a lack of education rather than a desire to sabotage Pakistan and create difficulties for it. Since we are close allies, that would just be ridiculous… wouldn’t it?

To me they are just trying to write a pre text for sanctions on Pakistan once again and F-16 Block 52 will be the target of these stupid sanctions.
 
P-3 or any other aircraft is basically an airborne platform; thus can be used for bombing targets whether on land or at sea. During early stages of WW1, pilots attacked ground troops by dropping small bombs by hand! Understand in 1965 PAF used C-130 as bomber by literally dropping Napalm canisters in the same way you drop supplies. There is already a C-130 gunship in existence. It was even suggested to modify Boeing 707 for use as nuclear bomber.

I am personally witness to the IN Ossa boat destroying PRL shore based petroleum storage tanks with Styx missile. Therefore there is no logical reason why harpoon cannot be used to attack land targets. However why would one use an expensive Harpoon missile to do the job of a cheap iron bomb or rockets? And why risk a very expensive upgraded PC-3 when you could utilise other long range cheaper cargo planes just as well. Besides, any propeller driven plane attacking India would risk the same fate as the PN Atlantique.

Why then this hullabaloo in the American Press? The whole thing is the work of anti Pakistan lobby to sabotage Pakistan aid package as correctly pointed out by our US ambassador.
 
Aid package is another story of mystery. Pakistan will get merely more than 170 million per year hard cash while rest 1.3 billion will go back to USA by one way or other
 
Aid package is another story of mystery. Pakistan will get merely more than 170 million per year hard cash while rest 1.3 billion will go back to USA by one way or other

Understand that the balance $1.130 billion will be distributed directly by the US thru NGOs to ensure that it is actually spent where it is supposed to go. It does show GOP in a bad light but at least Mr 10% wont be able to get his share.
 
Understand that the balance $1.130 billion will be distributed directly by the US thru NGOs to ensure that it is actually spent where it is supposed to go. It does show GOP in a bad light but at least Mr 10% wont be able to get his share.

Sir, I do hope that you are correct. I have read news that money for expansion of US embassy and its security will also be deducted from this money.:devil: Can some one plz confirm this.
 
I am personally witness to the IN Ossa boat destroying PRL shore based petroleum storage tanks with Styx missile.

I hope the forces have learned from that incident.
 
Last edited:
can you give explanation about india carrying nukes with there planes, ships, missiles, and subs!!

are they a goodwill gesturr,
i mean do you guys want to go fishing on your neuclre subs carrying nuclear missiles!!

regards!

Mmm, I always thought India sought a degree of independence of larger powers e.g. US, USSR/Russia, China. Yeah, and particularly China. Maybe the nukes have something to do with Chine as well, and not just Pakistan.

Just guessing of course :wave:
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom