Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Archive for category Defence Technology

Pakistan launches Operation Bunyan Marsoos: What we know so far

Pakistan and India fired missiles at each other’s airbases in the latest escalation between the neighbours.

“Operation Bunyan Marsoos” refers to Pakistan’s military response to Indian predawn missile and drone strikes on three Pakistani airbases (Nur Khan, Murid, and Shorkot) and targets in Afghanistan on May 10, 2025. These strikes followed Pakistan’s downing of multiple Indian jets involved in “Operation Sindoor”. Pakistan vowed retaliation, with Islamabad reporting 33 fatalities and parallel cross-border shelling and drone raids, resulting in at least fifty deaths on both sides by May 9

During the wee hours of Saturday, Pakistan finally initiated a military operation named Bunyan-un-Marsoos against India as it launched Fatah-I missiles, targeting multiple Indian military installations in response to an unprovoked attack on its airbases.

Drawn from a verse of the Holy Quran, Bunyan-un-Marsoos means “a wall constructed of molten lead”, symbolising strength, solidarity and impenetrability.

A man takes photographs of projectile debris in a courtyard of a residential house, following Pakistani military attacks, at Wadala Bhitewadh village near Amritsar, India, on May 10, 2025
A man takes photographs of projectile debris in a courtyard of a residential house, following Pakistani military attacks, at Wadala Bhitewadh village near Amritsar, India, on May 10, 2025 [Stringer/Reuters]

By Abid Hussain

Published On 10 May 202510 May 2025

Islamabad, Pakistan – India and Pakistan fired missiles at each other’s military bases on Saturday morning, the latest escalation in their rapid drift towards an all-out war.

Pakistan accused India of carrying out attacks inside its territory for the fourth consecutive night, launching ballistic missile strikes on at least three air bases. Islamabad said that in response, it launched a major military campaign, “Operation Bunyan Marsoos” (Arabic for “a structure made of lead”) targeting at least six Indian military bases.

Recommended Stories from Al-Jazeera

list of 4 itemslist 1 of 4

‘Slippery slope’: How will Pakistan strike India as tensions soar?

list 2 of 4

India-Pakistan tensions: A brief history of conflict

list 3 of 4

India, Pakistan exchange claims over drone strikes

list 4 of 4

Could India, Pakistan use nuclear weapons? Here’s what their doctrines say

India, in turn, accused Pakistan of being the aggressor. Indian military officials claimed Pakistan had targeted several Indian military bases and that its missiles into Pakistani territory were in response.

Yet, regardless of who hit the other first on May 10, the very fact that India and Pakistan had struck each other’s military bases over such a wide swath of territory, well beyond Kashmir – the disputed region that they each partly control – means that the conflict has now veered into almost unknown territory.

Never have the South Asian rivals attacked each other on this scale outside the four wars they have fought.

Here is what we know so far about India’s attacks, Pakistan’s response, what both countries and global powers like the United States are saying, and the background to this intensifying conflict.

No Comments

Pakistan successfully test-fires surface-to-surface ballistic missile Ghaznavi -DAWN-Pakistan

Published August 12, 2021 – Updated about 11 hours ago

ISPR says the training launch was aimed at ensuring operational readiness of Army Strategic Forces Command, besides re-validating technical parameters of the weapon system. — Photo courtesy: ISPR
ISPR says the training launch was aimed at ensuring the operational readiness of Army Strategic Forces Command, besides re-validating technical parameters of the weapon system. — Photo courtesy: ISPR

Pakistan on Thursday conducted a successful training launch of surface-to-surface nuclear-capable ballistic missile Ghaznavi, the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) said.

According to a statement, the training launch was aimed at ensuring the operational readiness of Army Strategic Forces Command (ASFC) and re-validating technical parameters of the weapon system.

 

As per the military’s media wing, missile Ghaznavi is capable of delivering multiple types of warheads up to a range of 290 kilometres.

The launch of the ballistic missiles was witnessed by Commander Army Strategic Forces Command Lt Gen Muhammad Ali; senior officers from Strategic Plans Division, Army Strategic Forces Command and scientists and engineers of strategic organisations.

Gen Ali appreciated the excellent standard of training, handling of the weapon system and execution of the launch mission in the field by troops.

The president, prime minister, chairman joint chiefs of staff committee and the services chiefs also congratulated all ranks of ASFC, scientists and engineers on the successful conduct of the launch.

In February this year, the ASFC had cond­ucted a ‘training launch’ of Ghaznavi as part of its annual field training exercise.

“The missile is equipped with a proper terminal guidance system. In recent years tro­ops from the ASFC have conducted several training launches to check the handling and operating of the complex weapon system,” the ISPR statement had said at the time.

The Ghaznavi missile has been tested in both day and night modes, which indicates the high reliance of Army Strategic Force on this missile since it brings several Indian cantonments and military bases in areas along the border within its range even if launched from central Punjab.

No Comments

The Faulty and Dangerous Logic of Missile Defense by Laura Grego in Scientific American

Russia Sells India an anti-Missile System of Dubious Effectiveness- A Win-Lose Contract-Russia wins $ 5 Bn, India gets a Lemon.

Russia has sold India S-400 anti-missile missile system, whose effectiveness in battlefield conditions have not been proven. Such systems are defensive toys, which costs India $5 billion. In a massive air-attack from 5th generation fighter jets, followed by a barrage of thousands of missiles, such defensive systems fail. Israel tried to use, the US manufactured THAAD system against HAMAS and HIZBULLAH Tin Can Rockets FAILED. MIRVs such as NASR, RAAD, and ABABEEL make  S-400 ineffective white elephants, like the Indian use of 155 mm BOFORS GUNS in the rarified air of Kargil Heights.

North Korea’s recent and dramatic tests of long-range missiles have created a sense of urgency and vulnerability in the United States, leading to renewed calls for expanding missile defenses. The administration and Congress have approved huge funding increases for existing systems, and call for developing new types of defenses—potentially including interceptors in space.

Is this the answer? How should one think about missile defense: as a protective shield or a dangerous illusion?

Missile defenses have as long a history as missiles do, and in the late 1960s, American and Soviet scientists came to believe that a defense against long-range missiles would never be effective because the other country would build more weapons to defeat it, leading to a dangerous arms race. The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which placed strict limits on U.S. and Soviet/Russian strategic missile defenses, reflected that understanding.

President Reagan’s 1983 “Star Wars” speech challenged that idea by calling for the United States to develop a large defensive system that included orbiting interceptors. Recognized by most experts as unworkable, this expansive system was pared down over the next decade and finally shelved, although work continued on interceptor technology during the Clinton administration.

Then, in 2002, President George W. Bush abandoned the logic of the ABM Treaty, by withdrawing from it and announcing that the United States would field the first interceptors of a new Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) in less than two years. To do so, the administration exempted its development from the strict “fly-before-you-buy” rules that govern all other large Pentagon projects—a step that has had dire and long-lasting consequences.

GMD remains the sole system designed to counter intercontinental ballistic missiles. Its 44 silo-based interceptors in Alaska and California are designed to be guided by space, ground and sea-based sensors to collide with an incoming warhead and destroy it with the force of impact.

Reflecting the difficulty of the task, and the haste and lack of rigor of its development, the GMD system today has an abysmal test record, even though these tests were “scripted for success” according to former Pentagon head testing official Phil Coyle.

The problems are well documented. Only about half of the 18 intercept tests since 1999 successfully destroyed their targets, and the test record has not improved with time: only two of the last five tests were successful—and GMD has still has not been tested under operationally realistic conditions. Thus, there is no evidence that the GMD 40 billion system provides a reliable defense, even against a country like North Korea.

More fundamentally, even if the reliability is improved, GMD’s prospects for providing a valid defense in the future are poor because it will face countermeasures that any country that has developed a long-range missile and a nuclear warhead could readily use to confuse or overwhelm the system.

Despite these problems, however, the administration and Congress plan to expand the system; the current budget includes funding to build 20 additional interceptors.

Given North Korea’s pursuit of a nuclear-armed long-range missile, it seems reasonable to ask whether something isn’t better than nothing. That sounds plausible but does not hold up upon closer examination. The unconstrained pursuit of missile defenses can, perhaps counterintuitively, create even more significant risks.

For example, a belief that missile defense works better than it does can lead political and military leaders to adopt a more aggressive foreign policy and take more risks. U.S. officials regularly describe the system as much more capable than it has been demonstrated to be. Even President Trump stated on television last October that “We have missiles that can knock out a missile in the air 97 per cent of the time.” Yet the testing data show there is no basis to expect interceptors to work more than 40 to 50 per cent of the time even under the most generous and optimal conditions.

Using multiple interceptors against each target can improve these odds, but it does not fundamentally change the situation; the chance of a nuclear weapon getting through would still be dangerously high. Consider an attack with five missiles. Using four interceptors against each target, each with a kill probability of 50 per cent, the odds that one warhead gets through are 28 percent—or higher, if the failure modes are not independent of each other (for example, if the guidance systems of all the interceptors are faulty in the same way).

Overestimating defense effectiveness could increase policymaker support for a pre-emptive attack against North Korea, which might then fire missiles in retaliation. It would then become clear that the system could not stop those missiles.

Missile defenses can also increase nuclear risks by blocking arms control and providing incentives for Russia and China to build more and different kinds of weapons; preventing this dynamic was a core reason for the ABM Treaty’s limits. Russia and China worry the United States may come to believe it could launch a first strike without fear of retaliation because it could shoot down any surviving missiles. This fear is exacerbated by U.S. development of conventional “counterforce” weapons that can attack Chinese and Russian nuclear weapon systems.

These concerns are not theoretical. Russia has repeatedly stated that any future arms control agreements must include limits on missile defenses and says the expansion of U.S. defenses could lead it to withdraw from the New START treaty. And on March 1, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans to field several new nuclear systems that could avoid U.S. missile defenses, including nuclear-powered nuclear-armed cruise missiles and underwater drones.

China has begun to build more long-range missiles, develop hypersonic weapons and deploy multiple warheads on its missiles, and has also discussed putting its missiles on high alert. At worst, U.S. defenses are driving developments that result in more threats and risks; at best they are providing justifications for them. The irony is that they do not provide adequate defense in any case.

Unfortunately, things are on a path to get worse. The United States is developing a ship-based interceptor that in theory could intercept strategic missiles and plans to field hundreds of them in the coming years. An influential minority in Congress has been calling for space-based missile defenseswith plans for a “space test bed” that would put dedicated weapons in orbit for the first time. Chinese and Russian military planners will not ignore these developments.

As long as nuclear-armed countries continue to believe their security relies on the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons, missile defenses will interfere with efforts to reduce—and eventually eliminate—these weapons. Given the inherent problems with building reliable and effective missile defenses, these defenses are more a dangerous illusion than a realistic solution.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
Rights & Permissions

Reference

, , , ,

No Comments

IDEAS 2014: Nigeria ‘close to signing up’ for JF-17

Air Platforms

IDEAS 2014: Nigeria ‘close to signing up’ for JF-17

02 December 2014

Nigeria is close to signing up for one or two squadrons of JF-17s, according to Pakistani officials. Source: IHS/Patrick Allen

The Nigerian Air Force (NAF) is close to finalising an order for the purchase of one or two squadrons of the JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft co-produced by Pakistan and China, a senior Pakistani Ministry of Defence official told IHS Jane’s on 2 December.

Speaking at the International Defence Exhibition and Seminar (IDEAS) 2014 in Karachi, the official said the NAF finalised its recommendation for the purchase of 25-40 JF-17s after NAF chief air marshal Adesola Nunayon Amosu visited Pakistan in October. AM Amosu’s engagements in Pakistan included a visit to the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) at Kamra, north of Islamabad, where the JF-17 is manufactured.

So far, the PAC has produced 50 Block 1 JF-17s and began work on another 50 Block 2 variants in late 2013. Pakistan Air Force (PAF) officials have told IHS Jane’s that a Block 3 variant is being planned. While the JF-17 has PAF capability plans, it has so far failed to find an export customer.

COMMENT

PAF officials have described the JF-17 Block 3 as a fourth-generation-plus fighter, a term that is used to describe Western aircraft such as Lockheed Martin F-16 Block 60s, the Saab Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon, and Dassault Rafale, among others.

Western officials have previously said that a first successful export of the JF-17 holds the key for the programme’s long-term sustainment. Potential export customers mentioned as likely candidates for the JF-17 have included Egypt, Nigeria, Myanmar, and Venezuela.

Senior PAF officials have promoted the JF-17 as costing much less than comparable fighters produced by Western manufacturers. 

, , ,

No Comments

Myths & Facts about Pak Defence Budget

 WHY ARE PRO-INDIA POLITICiANS AND GEO SHOUTING THAT 80% BUDGET IS FOR DEFENCE FORCES? 

 

 Opinion

Myths & Facts about Pak Defence Budget

 

Dr Farrukh Saleem


Sunday, April 27, 2014 
403729_393869477364489_137662681_n

Myth 1: The allocation for defence is the single largest component in our budget. Not true. The single largest allocation in Budget 2013-14 went to the Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP). The second largest allocation in Budget 2013-14 went to servicing the national debt. The third largest government expenditure, including off the budget allocations, are the losses at public-sector enterprises (PSEs). Yes, the fourth largest government expenditure goes into defence.

Myth 2: The defence budget eats up a large percentage of the total outlay. Not true. In Budget 2013-14, a total of 15.74 percent of the total outlay was allocated for defence. PSDP and debt servicing were 30 percent each. What that means is that more than 84 percent of all government expenditures are non-defence related.

Myth 3: The defence budget has been increasing at an increasing rate. Not true. In 2001-02, we spent 4.6 percent of our GDP on defence. In 2013-14, twelve years later, our defence spending has gone down to 2.7 percent of GDP.

Myth 4: We end up spending a very high percentage of our GDP on defence. Not true. There are at least four dozen countries that spend a higher percentage of their GDP on defence. 

They include: India, Egypt, Sri Lanka, the United States, the United Kingdom, South Korea, France, Eritrea, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Liberia, Brunei, Syria, Kuwait, Yemen, Angola, Singapore, Greece, Iran, Bahrain, Djibouti, Morocco, Chile, Lebanon, Russia, Colombia, Zimbabwe, Turkey, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Ethiopia, Namibia, Guinea, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Algeria, Serbia and Montenegro, Armenia, Botswana, Ukraine, Uganda, Ecuador, Bulgaria, Lesotho and Sudan.

Myth 5: The Pakistan Army consumes the bulk of the defence budget. Not true. In the 1970s, the Pakistan Army’s share in the defence budget had shot up to 80 percent. In 2012-13, the Pakistan Army’s share in the defence budget stood at 48 percent.


Now some facts:

Fact 1: The Pakistan Army’s budget as a percentage of our national budget now hovers around eight percent.

Fact 2: Losses incurred at public-sector enterprises can pay for 100 percent of our defence budget.

Fact 3: Pakistan’s armed forces are the sixth largest but our expenses per soldier are the lowest. America spends nearly $400,000 per soldier, India $25,000 and Pakistan $10,000.

Fact 4: Of all the armies in the world, Pak Army has received the highest number of UN medals. Of all the armies in the world, Pak Army is the largest contributor of troops to the UN peacekeeping missions.

 

Mark Twain once remarked, “Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.”The writer is a columnist based in Islamabad. Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com Twitter: @saleemfarrukh

, , ,

No Comments