What's new

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

Heart warming to learn it's indigenous effort, Army should be self sustaining force bcoz it's not as tech intensive force as Navy or Airforce. We should posses our own local rifle even if it's little below the expectation, we will improve by time InshaAllah.
 
I want to ask a basic question. Why it's called as rocket instead of missile? Isn't guided rocket is a missile?
all most all rocket powered vehicles are called Missiles like Air to Air missiles (but its actually a AIR TO AIR ROCKET) Air to Surface Missiles with very few exceptions like cruise and anti ship missiles all air to surface missiles are rocket powered, there were very few exceptions MBLRS is one of them
 
Few of My observations about responses from Pakistani members:

- I believe this Fatah-1 is not developed to respond any of the version of Pinaka or Smerch MLRS in Indian inventory, but IF anything is relatively equivalent to this in India in the class of tactical level missiles with multiple launch capability or GMLRS then it is Prahaar Missile with 150 KM range and India Army is seeking its more extended range version, so any Pakistani member who is considering that Pakistan has taken lead in terms of range over India in MLRS or GMLRS field then he is slightly wrong.

- We now have just disclosed our capability to announce the restoration of balance in this field before India put extended range version of Prahaar Missile in use.

- Secondly it is also NOT a Response to S-400, it is my assumption that Pakistan will respond S-400 deployment with short range missile capable to be launched in depressed trajectory something similar to Russian Iskander Missile
Obviously it seems natural enough that this system might be developed against S400, Pinaka or SMerSH etc....but this is not the case. There are enough of important Indian military targets near the border which are worth several S-400....not in terms of cost maybe, but the EFFECTS they may have on the conduct of a conventional battle being fought nearby or even in another zone / theatre.

Gun positions, attacking / defending force assembly areas, logistic nodes / dumps, bridges (VERY IMPORTANT), road / rail nodes.....etc....

As an example, i'll not name, but destruction of a particular bridge may have much more destructive EFFECTS then destroying an S-400 battery....
 
Last edited:
Obviously it seems natural enough that this system might be developed against S400, Pinaka or SMerSH etc....but this is not the case. There are enough of important Indian military targets near the border which are worth several S-400....not in terms of cost maybe, but the EFFECTS they may have on the conduct of a conventional battle being fought nearby or even in another zone / theatre.

Gun positions, attacking / defending force assembly areas, logistic nodes / dumps, bridges (VERY IMPORTANT), road / rail nodes.....etc....

As an example, i'll not name, but destruction of a particular bridge may have much more destructive EFFECTS then destroying an S-400 battery....

Yup perhaps S400 is one of its potential target among many other important ones
 
Obviously it seems natural enough that this system might be developed against S400, Pinaka or SMerSH etc....but this is not the case. There are enough of important Indian military targets near the border which are worth several S-400....not in terms of cost maybe, but the EFFECTS they may have on the conduct of a conventional battle being fought nearby or even in another zone / theatre.

Gun positions, attacking / defending force assembly areas, logistic nodes / dumps, bridges (VERY IMPORTANT), road / rail nodes.....etc....

As an example, i'll not name, but destruction of a particular bridge may have much more destructive EFFECTS then destroying an S-400 battery....

Thanks. I was wondering if Fatah-2 should be 250 km range or more. Pakistan can already neutralise targets which pose a border threat. A small extension in the range may not bring us new tangeable benefits.
 
That all depends upon what type of munition will be used within the rocket. This video has only demonstrated that the rocket can go that much long distance.....not the different types of munitions that can be stuffed inside that rocket...that is the main thing which our enemies should be worried about....

Taking an example, if this rocket is having something like DP ICM or cluster ammo, the result can be disastrous over a wide area...
  • They can give a heavy, indirect-fire cannon the ability to engage area targets, with the spread compensating for their inherent inaccuracy;
  • With DPICM, artillery can be used against armored and mechanized formations with greater effect, being capable of destroying armor without having to resort to PGMs;
  • Due to their combined spread and airburst, they are more capable against dug-in troops than conventional HE rounds.

We, as an army, know very well which all important Indian assets, both static and mobile, are within 140 kms range of the border.... Indian will have to make a major effort, such as camo, move, re-locate, passive and active defences... in order to safeguard their own assets.
1610193683691.png


Any plans by Pakistan to build something similar. It can fire guided rockets from tubes but tubes can be replaced with the ones which fire ballistic missiles as shown here. Depends on the mission.

@PanzerKiel
 
Last edited:
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.

Bro heard it all before, including the massive volley. There are videos of single missiles flying through in extended intervals not facing any intercept. Yes some missiles were taken down, but this was a minority according to most neutral reports. The US and French said none were intercepted, the Russians and Syrians said about 70%.
The bottom line is that all the targets were struck and destroyed, the neutral SOHR stated this clearly. So that's an abject failure of these systems. Not only that there have been numerous times missiles have flown past the S-400 in other attacks.
Also Russia did say they would clearly defend their ally, which they didn't, and I've already addressed the issue regarding how the missiles never went near Russia's base of operations. You can't have it both ways i.e. promise support, then do nothing. Make immense claims about the S-400, but when the ideal testing scenario comes up it does nothing, or you put out statements about how the missile didn't come close or that it was switched off. They were made to look stupid plain and simple.
 
all most all rocket powered vehicles are called Missiles like Air to Air missiles (but its actually a AIR TO AIR ROCKET) Air to Surface Missiles with very few exceptions like cruise and anti ship missiles all air to surface missiles are rocket powered, there were very few exceptions MBLRS is one of them
But confusion is why Nasr is called missile and fatah1 is called rocket?
 
But confusion is why Nasr is called missile and fatah1 is called rocket?
Both are rocket bro but in military terms one can called rocket (MBLRS) and NASR called Missiles, there is minimal to no explanation to that, bro same goes to ICBM like US LGM peacekeeper ICBM (INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE) in 2005 when its retired from USAF it was used as a LV (Launch Vehicle/Rocket) as Minotaur IV
 
May b caz fateh 1 is not nuclear capable.
. Nasr is

What if MRLs too could be nuclearized with micro wareads? That can flatten the entire armoured division although scattered over miles.
 
What if MRLs too could be nuclearized with micro wareads? That can flatten the entire armoured division although scattered over miles.


Will give scorched earth a new meaning
 
What if MRLs too could be nuclearized with micro wareads? That can flatten the entire armoured division although scattered over miles.

That would mean immediate nuclear attacks by India on Pakistani cities, they've said this time and time again. The military is moving away from the whole idea of conventional thrusts being met by the nuclear option. That is a last resort. That's why there is massive beefing up of Pakistan's armoured divisions (hundreds of new tanks) , artillery, non PAF air support (drones, attack helicopters) etc.
 
Bro heard it all before, including the massive volley. There are videos of single missiles flying through in extended intervals not facing any intercept. Yes some missiles were taken down, but this was a minority according to most neutral reports. The US and French said none were intercepted, the Russians and Syrians said about 70%.
The bottom line is that all the targets were struck and destroyed, the neutral SOHR stated this clearly. So that's an abject failure of these systems. Not only that there have been numerous times missiles have flown past the S-400 in other attacks.
Also Russia did say they would clearly defend their ally, which they didn't, and I've already addressed the issue regarding how the missiles never went near Russia's base of operations. You can't have it both ways i.e. promise support, then do nothing. Make immense claims about the S-400, but when the ideal testing scenario comes up it does nothing, or you put out statements about how the missile didn't come close or that it was switched off. They were made to look stupid plain and simple.
Yikes, sorry bro but did you see the display of the missiles displayed in Moscow? and there were videos of so many interceptions. Do you know how many missiles were launched? The target was an airbase and the airbase was hit but not put out of commission the Syrians were still flying from that airbase.
 

Back
Top Bottom