Template talk:Missiles of Pakistan

Template Description

This Template lists all missiles in active service of Pakistan's Armed Forces. This includes missiles produced indigenously, missiles produced under license and missiles procured from other countries. {Raza0007 | Talk} 18:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Missiles in active service and template references

I have removed some of the legacy missiles from the template that Pakistan used to carry in its inventory, but are no longer in active service. This was done to prevent clutter and keep the template current. I tried my best to determine which missiles are currently in active service, and which are retired, but since most of this data is classified, I might have made a mistake. If you find that some missiles have been removed in error, feel free to add them back.

I have also decided to remove the references from the template page, as most of the references were out of date and contained dead links. I no longer have time to maintain them. Valid references are available on the respective missile pages, and those are actively maintained by the community. Raza0007 (Talk) 21:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

AIM-120 AMRAAMS

The official Raytheon Press Release states the deliveries of aim-120 will start in 2008 and go through 2011. There is no mention of it being linked to F-16's procurement. During recent India-Pakistan stand-off when Gen Kayani told Mullen Pakistan will shoot down Indian aircraft if they ever appear this close. He was referring to aim-120. Otherwise India has 120 Km range Russian bvr on their fighters and Pakistan would not have gotten near them. Anyway, leave it in the template as we have official Rayteon press release as citation. {Raza0007 | Talk} 19:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read that press release? "The country of Pakistan has signed a Letter of Offer and Acceptance for the procurement of 500 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM)". It does not say ANYWHERE in that release that AMRAAM has been delivered. Check the date of that press release, it was given well before the US congress cleared export of AMRAAM to Pakistan. AMRAAM has not yet been delivered to the PAF. If you can provide proof that it has, please do so. I don't know why you are bringing up that statement by Gen. Kiyani. Nowhere has that statement even been confirmed, it is merely a rumour until it is confirmed by a reliable source. How can you say he was referring to AIM-120? You have absolutely no evidence for that wild claim. How can you possibly know what that fighter was armed with? You don't even know if it was an F-16 or Mirage - Mirage can't fire AMRAAM.

I have removed H-2 and H-4, unless somebody can provide evidence that they are BVRAAMs, there is ample proof they are actually South African glide bombs and should not be added as BVRAAMs again. I have edited the H-2 and H-4 articles to reflect this, using a Pakistani newspaper article as a source. PAF officials have stated several times that JF-17 and SD-10 will be their first BVRAAM weapon systems. Hj108 (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no source saying the deliveries of the missiles have not started either. The official Raytheon press release lists the date of start of delivery as 2008. Unlike Pakistan, Western companies do not usually violate contract/delivery date. So unless there is authentic source saying the delivery of missiles has been delayed, leave it on the template. If you find such source feel free to remove it.

I only added H4 BVRAAM as I found a referenced article here on wikipedia about it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the only criteria is to add articles that are properly referenced and cited. If an article meets this criteria then it is okay. The references on the H4 article say it was reversed engineered from South African T-Darter BVR missile and its capabilities have been compared to AA11, AA12 and Python 4 in Indian arsenal.

I planed to add a glide bomb and a torpedo category to the template as well, so we can add H2 and H4 there. I am extremely busy at the moment but most likely will finish it by the end of this month.{Raza0007 | Talk} 17:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose there's no point debating about whether or not AMRAAM has been delivered yet, since from what I have read it has been cleared for delivery and first batch will be delivered next year with the new F-16C/D. May as well leave it in the template.

About the H-2 and H-4. The Indian sources say it is a "BVRAAM reverse-engineered from the T-darter, comparable to AA12 and python4". But we know from the Pakistani source that they are not BVRAAMs at all, they are stand-off glide bombs. So how can you take the "reverse-engineered" claim seriously? Not only that, how do you reverse engineer an Infra-red Imaging seeker for H-2/H-4 from a radar homing seeker in the T-darter? The Indian articles cannot be used as sources for the simple reason that they are grossly inaccurate. Hj108 (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the Dawn article about H4. The source mentioned by Dawn are the "official sources". I do not know what this means. The Indian news websites just copied the same article released by Dawn.

Where did you read about AIM-120 being delivered with the first batch of F-16C/D?

{Raza0007 | Talk} 14:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I did not read the entire Dawn article, I just assumed you meant the Indian articles. My fault, apologies for that. Anyway, my point is that the sources are very vague. In my opinion the H-2 and H-4 articles should go no farther than saying Pakistan is manufacturing these weapons and arming its jets with them. But then again we are supposed to go with what the sources say. I'll edit the articles and see how it looks.

Sorry, no concrete source about the AMRAAM delivery date. But right now PAF has nothing that can launch the AMRAAM anyway, not until either F-16C/D or the first upgraded F-16A/B MLU jets arrive.Hj108 (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Air to Surface cruise missiles

Should the Maverick missile be in this section? Isn't it just a guided air to ground missile? Good work adding a guided bomb section for H-2 and H-4. Hj108 (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This category of guided bomb and air to surface missile is quite blurred. Technically all air to surface missiles are basically guided bombs. The difference is in sophistication and accuracy. A guided bomb is expected to have a accuracy of 10-30 m but a air to surface cruise missile is expected to have an accuracy of around 5 m. Maverick for example can be used to engage a target as small as a tank but you will not use a guided bomb like JDAM or H-2 for that role. Hellfire, AS-30L, Maverick, Ra'ad are air to surface cruise missiles but can also come under the category of guided bomb. But since the technology involved in their manufacture is advanced so they are normally differentiated from ordinary guided bombs. Hope you got the point. Putting maverick under guided bomb will degrade it as it is hell of a lot sophisticated then an ordinary guided bomb. I will add more Torpedoes and guided bombs and their references when I get the time. {Raza0007 | Talk} 13:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You have made a mistake here Raza. Maverick is an air-to-surface missile, not a cruise missile. The Maverick's wiki article says it is an air to surface missile. Same with Hellfire. Guided bombs and guided missiles are not separated by their accuracy. Guided bombs are free-fall weapons, they fall under the force of gravity, whereas missiles have a propulsion system. If this template is dedicated to "missiles in service of Pakistan", it should not have any bombs in it at all. Perhaps it should be renamed. Hj108 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a general purpose air to surface missile, like I said the categories are slightly blurred. If you keep on adding sub-categories to this template, this template will become unreadable. Leave it in the general category of air to surface cruise missiles. We have a link to its article and anybody who is curious can go there and read it. most air to surface missiles are cruise missiles, otherwise you can get the job done by a general purpose air dropped bomb.

If powered bombs are not guided bombs then H-4 can not be put under this category. Go and read the article for guided bombs and you will find hellfire and maverick there as well.

A cruise missile is a powered bomb that can hit its target with pinpoint accuracy. Same with maverick. It is used in A-10 to take out tanks.

If you keep looking at the small details then as you know there are many kinds of torpedoes and if I start making a sub-category for each it will ruin and complicate the template. People can click on the respective names and read about the missiles themselves. {Raza0007 | Talk} 14:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove Babur from air-to surface cruise missiles? Babur is based on Tomahawk tech and like Tomahawk it can be launched from air. By taking it out from air-to-surface missiles you are saying that Babur can not be launced from air platforms. Which is not true. When Pakistan tested Ra'ad they did not say it was going to replace Babur. Keep in mind that Ra'ad and Babur were developed by two different depts. Please undo your last edit. Thanks {Raza0007 | Talk} 15:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Raza please think about it, you are wrong. From cruise missile article:

"A cruise missile is a guided missile that carries an explosive payload and uses a lifting wing and a propulsion system, usually a jet engine, to allow sustained flight; it is essentially a flying bomb. Cruise missiles are generally designed to carry a large conventional or nuclear warhead many hundreds of miles with high accuracy."

Maverick does not have a lifting wing. It does not have a range of hundreds of miles. Therefore it is a tactical weapon, not a strategic weapon like a cruise missile. Maverick is in no way a cruise missile. Blurred categories? This is an encyclopaedia, not a children's book! It should not be "dumbed down" to this extent. Most air to surface missiles are NOT cruise missiles. Cruise missiles are far more advanced, as stated by the above paragraph. There is no article for guided "bomb". The article that mentions Maverick is titled "Precision-guided munition". Maverick is a munition because "munition" is the same as "ammunition". This does NOT mean it is a guided bomb. It is a guided missile. There is a difference between bomb and missile, whether they are guided or not, missiles have a propulsion system and bombs do not. Although H-4 has a propulsion system, the propulsion system is just a rocket motor strapped to a glide bomb - it is still intended to be a glide bomb (it can be referred to as a "powered" or "boosted" glide bomb). The sole purpose of the rocket motor is to boost the range of the glide bomb.

I am not saying add separate categories for torpedoes, I'm saying make each section accurate. Maverick is NOT a cruise missile. It is a tactical air to surface missile. Torpedoes are not missiles either, why are they in a template called "Missiles in service of Pakistan"? Why are bombs in this template?

Raza, if you want to say "Babur can be launched by aerial platforms," then we have to say that all of Pakistan's artillery guns are aerial weapons! AC-130 is armed with a howitzer artillery gun, therefore artillery cannons are airborne weapons? Babur is intended to be a ground launched, ship launched submarine launched missile. It was also intended to be modified for air launch. Ra'ad is the modified air-launched version. How do you know they were developed by different organisations? AWC worked with Babur's developers to make Ra'ad. You are making so many false statements it is difficult to correct them all. Please understand I am not here to work against you, I want to work with you to improve this template. We must make it accurate, not dumb it down and simplify it to the point where it is woefully inaccurate. Note I have not edited the template, I have no intention of doing so until we can come to a consensus. Hj108 (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

A paragraph from the Air to surface missile article:

"An air-to-surface missile (also, air-to-ground missile, AGM, ASM or ATGM) is a missile designed to be launched from military aircraft (bombers, attack aircraft, fighter aircraft or other kinds) and strike ground targets on land, at sea, or both. They are similar to guided glide bombs but to be considered a missile, they usually contain some form of propulsion system."

Hj108 (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many sub-categories of missiles. I created this template to present missiles in Pakistan's arsenal in a concise, easy to read manner. If you start creating sub-categories on trivial differences between missiles then this template will grow and become unreadable and the whole point of creating a template will be lost. I added Maverick and AS-30L to the general Land attack air-to surface category, as I did not want to create a separate category for them. They are air-to surface missiles. The are generally used used for land attack, thus they are in this category. If someone wants to find out what Maverick is, they can click on its entry and go to its page and read all about it. Same for cruise missile. Same for guided bombs. Curious people can click on the respective tabs and learn about them. Torpedoes and glide bombs to not generally come under the heading of missiles but I do not see any harm in adding them there. Someone disagrees then they can click on the torpedo category and read all about what a torpedo is. The title represents main substance of this template and the main substance is still missiles.

For anti-ship missiles, there are many subcategories like sub-sonic,supersonic,short range, long range etc. But they are all anti-ship missiles. So instead of creating 5-6 different subcategories just one anti-ship category will suffice.

I originally wanted to created this template for ballistic missiles only, so I made sub-categories for ballistic missiles only. But then I decided to add all other missiles in Pakistan arsenal here too, but did not want to remove subcategories for ballistic missiles.This template is perfect as it is. I hope you got my point. I am not saying you are in the wrong.

Read Penguin missile, it is similar to maverick but is also falls under the category of a cruise missile and nobody has any problems with it. A normal missile can not travel 28 Km like Maverick without having an aerodynamic body. {Raza0007 | Talk} 16:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh and about Babur, Babur is developed by NESCOM sub-dept of NDC and Ra'ad is developed by AWC. They are both different departments. Babur is primirary designed to be ground-launched, but has the capability to be launced by air. This does not mean f-16, f-17 etc but air platforms like larger p-3 etc. fact is that Pakistan said it can be launced from air platforms so putting Babur under air-launced cruise missles is perfectly justified. Removing babur from there is doing an injustice to its creators. I had enough problems with Indians comming here on our missiles pages trying to disrupt and confuse articles without any point, I did not know I had to content with a countryman too. {Raza0007 | Talk} 16:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Raza we are fighting the same battle here, you do not have to contend with me. After doing some research I agree with you that the Babur cruise missile should stay in the air-to-surface section also. Please understand I do not want to "disrupt and confuse", I simply want to make the template as accurate as possible. Nothing more, nothing less. Hj108 (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In the process of improving the template you are going to make it complicated. I had this argument with an other person some time ago who wanted me to add references inside the template in front of missile names. Even though it was a good idea, but adding those references inside the template would have made this template unreadable.

As I said earlier, missiles can fall under various categories. Maverick, for example, also falls under the category of guided munition. TOW can be used to hit low flying helicopters etc. Look at this C-701, this is a Chinese copy of Maverick and if you look at the template of Chinese missiles underneath on the same page, you will find that the author has put it under anti-ship subsonic cruise missile. There are various other missiles there that can fall under other categories as well.

Cruise missiles are not only those missiles that have wings attached to them, but any bomb that is powered and has a guidance system comes under the category of a cruise missile. Cruise missiles are differentiated by their ability to maintain a sustained horizontal flight. For short distances it can be done by simply using a rocket motor and a basic aerodynamic frame. As a rocket motor can produce great amount of thrust you do not need wings to keep the missile moving in a horizontal flight. C-802, Exocet, Harpoon, etc all come under the heading of cruise missiles but none of them have wings as they are equipped with rocket motors.

Rocket motors are not fuel-efficient. So, the missile can only travel as far as the fuel in its tank. In order for a missile to travel long distances like Babur, Ra'ad, Tomahawk etc you need a fuel efficient jet engine/motor. But jet motors can not produce the amount of thrust like rocket motors, so you not only need aerodynamic bodies, but also wings on the missile to make sure it can sustain a horizontal fight corresponding with its range.

I hope I made my point. You are correct, but putting missiles like maverick under general land-attack cruise missile category is not inaccurate either. This is what I am trying to say. By adding to many trivial sub-categories we are going to make this template confusing. People can just click on the missile name and find out the details behind it. {Raza0007 | Talk} 14:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Understood, you made your point well. I agree with what you're saying, I wasn't thinking like that before. Hj108 (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have spend a lot of time in compiling, editing this template that I feel a little possessive about it. Feel free to edit and improve the template. Just make sure that you do not make it complicated. Otherwise the whole point of a template will be lost. Also, please remain on a lookout for vandals on this template and other Pakistan missile pages. I am extremely busy nowadays and expect to remain busy for the next couple of months, so I can only contribute after every 2 days or so. Also, I am planning to change the guided bomb category to glide bomb and then removing JDAM from it, unless I can find firm evidence that it can also come under a glide bomb category. JDAM has a range of 28 Km. I am not sure how it manages to travel the distance if it does not have wings or motor. Your thoughts? {Raza0007 | Talk} 15:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand your feelings completely sir. No worries, I'm pretty busy too so mainly just keeping Pakistan related articles free from the usual nationalistic vandalism and adding new sources that I come across to the articles. Well JDAM is a guided bomb, if it is not normally described as a glide bomb then why complicate matters? I say just leave it in the Guided Bomb section unless you have sources that state it is a glide bomb. Hj108 (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed SA-7 and Yu-7

I have for now removed SA-7 and Yu-7 from the template as I could not find any credible sources that confirm these missiles to be in service of Pakistan. Most sources claim Anza Mk1 to be a copy of SA-7. Since, Anza is already added to the template so I have removed SA-7. No source actually claim Pakistan ever purchased or produced the actual SA-7 SAM.

I read a report that the Z-9 helicopter purchased by Pakistan along with F-22P frigates from China were equipped with Yu-7 torpedoes. Since then I have been unable to find the same article again. I will re-add it as soon as some credible source is found. If somebody else can locate a credible source for the above two missiles, feel free to add them back. {Raza0007 | Talk} 15:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)