Shaheen III | News & Discussions.

[The Deterrent]

So we can have a MIRVed, high-tech, effective ballistic missile but not with the range of 5500 km?

I have *some* background in Aerospace engineering, but no way near a technical guy, but from what I understood back then was that "range" is almost the "easiest" thing to increase..if you have some critical technology like seeker, guidance etc.

How accurate my above lines are?

Do you know what "exactly" the obstacle Pakistan is facing in the path of developing an ICBM? Talking about technical obstacle, not political ramifications etc.

Apologies, I should have said Pakistan "won't" instead of "can't". The technological base is there, and it can be done. It will take more time though (4-5 years). However Pakistan doesn't have any enemy that far so Pakistan won't develop an ICBM.

There are things like all-composite motor designs, efficient solid-fuel grain design (though advancements are being made in these two fields), canister development etc. But these obstacles can be overcome given time and proper incentive.

 

[AUz]

Apologies, I should have said Pakistan "won't" instead of "can't". The technological base is there, and it can be done. It will take more time though (4-5 years). However Pakistan doesn't have any enemy that far so Pakistan won't develop an ICBM.

There are things like all-composite motor designs, efficient solid-fuel grain design (though advancements are being made in these two fields), canister development etc. But these obstacles can be overcome given time and proper incentive.

Neither do Israel, France, and U.K...but still, all of them have 7,000 km+ range ICBMs....

Well I hope situation in Pakistan improves, and political/religious violence gets eliminated..with economy on track and more nationalist parties in power (PTI, a radicallyy improved PML-N (Hopefully) etc), we might decide to go for an ICBM in 2020's or something...but it is good that we do have the required technological base and advancements in different critical fields are also being made.

You know..the same old mantra can also work....Christians have it, Jews have it, Hindus have, Atheists have it, and so it is time for Muslims to have it. Lets build an Islamic ICBM! (Pun Intended).

 

[The Deterrent]

Neither do Israel, France, and U.K...but still, all of them have 7,000 km+ range ICBMs....

Well I hope situation in Pakistan improves, and political/religious violence gets eliminated..with economy on track and more nationalist parties in power (PTI, a radicallyy improved PML-N (Hopefully) etc), we might decide to go for an ICBM in 2020's or something...but it is good that we do have the required technological base and advancements in different critical fields are also being made.

You know..the same old mantra can also work....Christians have it, Jews have it, Hindus have, Atheists have it, and so it is time for Muslims to have it. Lets build an Islamic ICBM! (Pun Intended).

No, they all had enemies...UK and France had to target every part of Soviet Union. And Israelis have the Samson option.

Yeah, economy should be the main concern.

Haha

 

[AUz]

No, they all had enemies...UK and France had to target every part of Soviet Union. And Israelis have the Samson option.

Yeah, economy should be the main concern.

Haha

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!
But yeah, economy should be first priority...once we develop a respectable, advance economy, and come out of the clutches of uncle sam and IMF...and achieve our freedom in true sense Inshallah, then we can work towards "certain option" to protect all of that...

 

[kurup]

Of course, its just that the process has been restarted with a better approach in mind, which will be beneficial in the long run.

What is the new approach and how is it different from the old one ??

 

[shuntmaster]

When is the first test launch scheduled?

 

[genmirajborgza786]

@AhaseebA , will we be stuck at 2500 km only or is there missiles with more range being developed, I mean I can understand why we are not pursuing a 5500 km one , but still we can at least afford to have something more then the 2500 km range , what is the max range being developed @ the moment?

 

[araz]

Neither do Israel, France, and U.K...but still, all of them have 7,000 km+ range ICBMs....

Well I hope situation in Pakistan improves, and political/religious violence gets eliminated..with economy on track and more nationalist parties in power (PTI, a radicallyy improved PML-N (Hopefully) etc), we might decide to go for an ICBM in 2020's or something...but it is good that we do have the required technological base and advancements in different critical fields are also being made.

You know..the same old mantra can also work....Christians have it, Jews have it, Hindus have, Atheists have it, and so it is time for Muslims to have it. Lets build an Islamic ICBM! (Pun Intended).

That may be true but the eyes of the world are not on them. They are on you!! I dont think the strategy of "we dont need it" is right however the developement should be carried out for peaceful purposes like satellite launches. There is more to tech development than war. Similarly we are stopped from developing these things not because of fear that we will conduct a war but the fear that we will develop technologies further which would allow us a step into the next level and make us a competitor rather than a buyer which we currently are.
Araz

 

[The Deterrent]

What is the new approach and how is it different from the old one ??

It is different in the sense that it would support further development (as in larger and larger SLVs) with relative ease. Cannot elaborate more than that.

@AhaseebA , will we be stuck at 2500 km only or is there missiles with more range being developed, I mean I can understand why we are not pursuing a 5500 km one , but still we can at least afford to have something more then the 2500 km range , what is the max range being developed @ the moment?

We are currently stuck at 2000km
However, the max range capability being developed is closer to ~3000km. It is more focused towards better overall design and countering the BMDs, rather than range.

 

[genmirajborgza786]

It is different in the sense that it would support further development (as in larger and larger SLVs) with relative ease. Cannot elaborate more than that.



We are currently stuck at 2000km
However, the max range capability being developed is closer to ~3000km. It is more focused towards better overall design and countering the BMDs, rather than range.

errr I hate this !... I mean common bro, we re nuclear power & all we have is this damn India thingy I think we should also peruse a more robust power projection capability like the other 8 nuclear power's to make a place for Pakistan as a player @ the world stage, you know like for example Turkey . this other power besides India is seriously limiting our power projection capabilities, I mean just look at the Classic & one of a kind comrades we have in Nepal, Bhutan, BD, Sri Lanka, Myanmar & Maldives
this seriously sucks !

 

[The Deterrent]

errr I hate this !... I mean common bro, we re nuclear power & all we have is this damn India thingy I think we should also peruse a more robust power projection capability like the other 8 nuclear power's to make a place for Pakistan as a player @ the world stage, you know like for example Turkey . this other power besides India is seriously limiting our power projection capabilities, I mean just look at the Classic & one of a kind comrades we have in Nepal, Bhutan, BD, Sri Lanka, Myanmar & Maldives
this seriously sucks !

The other powers have far larger economies to support their weapons programmes for power projection, so economy should be our priority at the moment.

 

[The SC]

We didn't had it either when we were striving for becoming a nuclear power but in the end we made it .secondly every missile has a different role as they have different ranges and payload capability



Ghauri is a liquid fuel missile and Shaheen is a solid fuel missile and both have their own characteristics which distinguish them .i don't see any logic for scrapping one because of other ,instead they will go side by side



As i told you before we also didn't have money when we became nuclear power and when we tested the range of missiles currently serving us

International pressure was also there when we were on the verge of a nuclear explosion ,even we suffered from embargoes at that time when we were solely dependent on west .we didn't stop then when we were dependent on west so why would we stop now when we are no more dependent on them atleast not the way like we were in 90's. we are having JV's with China and shifting to China also our local industry is in good shape with the production of Al-Khalid,jf-17 etc

 

[The SC]

I am so amazed and surprised at the lack of knowledge being presented in certain posts like this one. 'American is being brought down to its knees'.......?? REALLY???? That's some serious big words son!!! and without a clue of the reality. It'll be nice to read up on American military, foreign policy, American interests, economy, etc. You'll get an answer that way.

With all the corruption and bad governance, with bankruptcy looming on the horizon every year for the past many years, with terrorism killing thousands of people every year, with businessmen moving to America and other foreign and eastern countries......I can still NOT say that Pakistan is going down on its knees. It still runs somehow in every aspects. Although poor but it still runs!!!

How could you POSSIBLY say that about the world's largest economy, extremely stable country and political environment for business and jobs, superb financial growth, the most modern, the strongest and the state of the art military...???? A country that can fight about seven consecutive wars if it really has to??? Unbelievable!!! the truth is, American doesn't want to and doesn't need to stay in Afghanistan with full force. There will ALWAYS be presence there, primarily to monitor the terrorist activity by Al-Qaeda, etc and to keep things in check and monitored about the Chinese and the Iranians. That would be done through the equipment and personnel that will remain behind in Afghanistan. There is enough electronic equipment and infrastructure to do the job with far less people. Why keep a full force there when they may not have enough to do there anymore??
How does reduction in forces make 'America bending down on its knees'?? You guys have some CRAZY thoughts and the post just sounds silly, no offense. It will be nice if you make comments that are somewhat realistic.

The main thing to retain from your post is that the US invasion of Afghanistan had as a primary objective, the monitoring of Iran and China, while the AlQaeda was the main scapegoat, which can be confirmed by the US support of it elsewhere in the World.

I'd highly recommend re-read your post and act a bit mature before making silly statements. You guys are very emotional and close minded and use these big terms for no valid reason. "A super power is being defeated"?? REALLY?
Here's the real view (and it'll hurt a little, sorry): Business finished. Al-Qaeda dismantled to a point where it poses little to no threat to the US and its allies. US bases are and will be in Afghanistan for strategic purposes.
That means keeping an eye on China and Iran and even Russia and other neighbors, the US military's ability to quickly conduct strikes in the region and control events as they want to due to assets that will remain in Afghanistan. After all this, it doesn't make sense to keep 100k troops when you have complete superiority in responding to any emerging threat!!
100K troops cause us to spend hundreds of billions and at this point, it may be a waste in the US government's eyes. When you can kill enemies with one short flight using a couple of A-10's or F-16's, why have thousands of troops sitting around? The US never went in with the idea to 'capture' Afghanistan. The purpose was to dismantle Al-Qaeda and kill OBL.

The last sentence does not hold to facts and logic.
The main thing the US has achieved is the killings of 100 of thousands of civilians (and almost a million in Iraq), mostly for the strategic reason of monitoring Iran, Russia and China. This US strategy is not guaranteed either; as soon as the US pulls its troops out of Afghanistan, no one can guarantee the safety of these installation.

 

[Viper0011.]

The main thing to retain from your post is that the US invasion of Afghanistan had as a primary objective, the monitoring of Iran and China/

Mostly for the strategic reason of monitoring Iran, Russia and China

You are incorrect in both.
1) The Iraq war was a lot more than just watching over Iran. Whether the WMD's existed or not, that was the main reason to go in there at the scale we did. Why do we need to attack a country when we have basis in Qatar, Dubai, many, many ships in the oceans like 20 minutes flight from Iraq and Iran??? You've got to think a bit more mature than this.....

2) We are in multiple stats next to Russia and we can monitor everything. We were their main and only foes for over 5 decades. You think we weren't watching them? So this argument of yours doesn't hold true. Iran is being watched from three sides, not sure why Afghanistan would bring such massive scale military of watch a small country with almost no credible military and 40 year old jets.

3) Afghanistan was because we got ATTACKED!!! And if we hadn't stepped in, these terrorist which were in hundreds of thousands in numbers back then, would've tried to attack us again else where. Then, they'd march up to Pakistan to gain access to the nukes and then to India and everywhere else. You'd be stupid to let such a grave threat to the world peace march by. If your argument is that this won't happen, you are mistaken. The Headquarters of Pakistan Army got attacked, their ports, many other military installation got attacked....their nuke facilities would be attacked if the force of the terrorists had remained the same and increased if there was no 911. 911 was a horrible day for the American public, but it also caused the Afghan war which then destroyed AQ in smaller chunks, reducing its capability to spread terrorism worldwide. The food and fuel for these ideology based terrorists is power and more power. Whenever you go nuts on religion and nationalism (Hitler), you'll end up wanting more force and will threaten a LOT of innocent people. Taliban seeking nukes by now, if there was no 911 specifically was the next step. Some idiot who has the ability to blow himself up, can also carry out a dirty attack at a larger scale causing a lot of civilians to die. Take a look at Karachi airport attack, attacks on schools, markets, etc, etc in Pakistan, Africa, and other places. You have got to understand that humanity doesn't need AQ and terrorism

 

[The SC]

You are incorrect in both.
1) The Iraq war was a lot more than just watching over Iran. Whether the WMD's existed or not, that was the main reason to go in there at the scale we did. Why do we need to attack a country when we have basis in Qatar, Dubai, many, many ships in the oceans like 20 minutes flight from Iraq and Iran??? You've got to think a bit more mature than this.....

2) We are in multiple stats next to Russia and we can monitor everything. We were their main and only foes for over 5 decades. You think we weren't watching them? So this argument of yours doesn't hold true. Iran is being watched from three sides, not sure why Afghanistan would bring such massive scale military of watch a small country with almost no credible military and 40 year old jets.

3) Afghanistan was because we got ATTACKED!!! And if we hadn't stepped in, these terrorist which were in hundreds of thousands in numbers back then, would've tried to attack us again else where. Then, they'd march up to Pakistan to gain access to the nukes and then to India and everywhere else. You'd be stupid to let such a grave threat to the world peace march by. If your argument is that this won't happen, you are mistaken. The Headquarters of Pakistan Army got attacked, their ports, many other military installation got attacked....their nuke facilities would be attacked if the force of the terrorists had remained the same and increased if there was no 911. 911 was a horrible day for the American public, but it also caused the Afghan war which then destroyed AQ in smaller chunks, reducing its capability to spread terrorism worldwide. The food and fuel for these ideology based terrorists is power and more power. Whenever you go nuts on religion and nationalism (Hitler), you'll end up wanting more force and will threaten a LOT of innocent people. Taliban seeking nukes by now, if there was no 911 specifically was the next step. Some idiot who has the ability to blow himself up, can also carry out a dirty attack at a larger scale causing a lot of civilians to die. Take a look at Karachi airport attack, attacks on schools, markets, etc, etc in Pakistan, Africa, and other places. You have got to understand that humanity doesn't need AQ and terrorism

Sorry buddy, but just the fact that the 9/11 affair has been proven to be a Mossad operation assisted by some US entities, makes all your claims false and flawed. it explains all the rest of your thoughts. What you are calling incorrect came from your own posts, that is why i have highlighted them because they were incorrect.
How can one explain why taliban, would want to attack the US after the friendship and help they have gotten to oust the Russians?
And how is the sat up invasion of Kuwait had to do with Iran?
You are avoiding by scheme or by ignorance the real reasons behind the Invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan, although you should know that the reasons have to do with the control of natural resources and their routes on top of the so called security of Usrael.
Iran is no small country, I am pretty sure it can inflict some very serious damage (unacceptable for the US) to the US forces in the area, besides making the conflict have international unacceptable ramifications too. Eventhough it has a 40 years old air force which has be overhauled and upgraded to the latest tech. And what about its state of the the art air defenses and missiles with pinpoint accuracy?
Pakistan false internal conflict has been designed in the same process of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, it was a policy engulfing the whole area to suit the security needs of USrael and India who have been conspiring for this since the 90's.
Your post seems to flow directly from some zionist propaganda you have been bombarded with for too long.