Our Announcements

Not Found

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

Archive for category Defence Technology

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


, , , ,

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.


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




Myths & Facts about Pak Defence Budget


Dr Farrukh Saleem

Sunday, April 27, 2014 

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: [email protected] Twitter: @saleemfarrukh

, , ,

No Comments



Pakistan Submarine Capabilities

  • Hangor (Daphne) SubmarineHangor (Daphne) Submarine
  • Hashmat (Agosta 70) SubmarineHashmat (Agosta 70) Submarine
  • Khalid (Agosta 90B) Submarine

Khalid (Agosta 90B) Submarine

The Pakistan Navy operates a fleet of five diesel-electric submarines and three MG110 miniature submarines (SSI).[1] Although these vessels are currently based at Karachi, it is possible that in the future some may also be based at Port Ormara.[2] The nucleus of the fleet comprises two Agosta-70 boats and three modern Agosta-90B submarines, all of Frenchdesign. Pakistan’s third Agosta-90B, the S 139 Hamza, was constructed indigenously and features the DCNS MESMA (Module d’EnergieSous-Marin Autonome) air-independent propulsion system (AIP). The two earlier Agosta-90B vessels will be retrofitted with the MESMA AIP propulsion system during their next major overhaul. [21]

Submarine Tables for Pakistan

The Agosta-90B Hamza (Khalid-class) was constructed at the Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works (KSEW).[3] Pakistani officials and media outlets extolled the accomplishment, treating the indigenous submarine’s 26 September 2008 commissioning as a significant step in the enhancement of the country’s naval capabilities vis-à-vis India.[4,5,6] It is the first conventional submarine in the Indian Ocean to feature the AIP system (in this case a 200KW liquid oxygen MESMA AIP), which allows the vessel to increase its submerged endurance for up to 3 weeks and improves its stealth characteristics.[13, 15, 16]

During the 1971 war between India and Pakistan, India effectively blockaded the port of Karachi, Pakistan’s only major harbor. In response, Islamabad was able to curtail India’s naval supremacy only through the use of its submarine force, which sank one Indian frigate.[7] Drawing on these experiences and the perceived threat posed by a larger Indian Navy, Pakistan has been continuously investing in its submarine force, within the constraints posed by its economy.

An effective sea-denial capability is vital to Pakistan. Foreign trade is increasingly important to the country’s economy, best illustrated by a trade to GDP ratio of 36.0 percent in 2007-2008.[8] Given that over 95 percent of this trade is seaborne, the Pakistan Navy and its submarine fleet is charged with protecting the country’s sea lanes of communication (SLOC).

Developments in India’s naval infrastructure and force posture significantly inform Pakistan’s own naval planning. In February 2001, the Pakistan Navy publicly considered the deployment of nuclear weapons aboard its submarines, arguing that it had to keep pace with developments in India.[9] Islamabad later rescinded its statement in January 2003, reaffirming Pakistan’s commitment to a “minimum credible deterrence.”[10] However, in the wake of India’s short-range Agni-I test that month, then Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Shahid Karimullah left the option open, saying that while the country had no plans to deploy nuclear weapons on their submarines, they would do so only if “forced to.”[11,12] But most experts agree that Pakistan is, at the very least, attempting to develop a sea-based version of the indigenously built nuclear capable ground-launched cruise missile ’Babur’. [13] This missile is similar in design to the American Tomahawk and Russian KH-55 cruise missiles.[14]

In an attempt to further improve its naval capabilities, Pakistan has also been negotiating with Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) about the possible acquisition of three diesel-electric Type 214 submarines equipped with an AIP system based on fuel cell technology. Discussions regarding the deal have been taking place since 2004, but due to political developments in Pakistan as well as Germany, it has been repeatedly delayed. [17] In November 2009, the German Ambassador to Pakistan announced that a final decision would be made soon. [18] Parallel to the negotiations with TKMS, France has also been attempting to sell its Scorpene-class submarines to Pakistan. [19, 20]

[1] “Chapter Seven: Central and South Asia Caribbean and Latin America”, The Military Balance 2009, International Institute of Strategic Studies, Routledge, 2009.
[2] Interview with Vice Adm. Clees van Duyvendijk, Commander in Chief RNN, “Navy Chiefs of Staff on MCM and minelaying,” Naval Forces, 2001, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 62-68; in ProQuest Information and Learning Company, http://proquest.umi.com.
[3] The Royal Institute of Naval Architects, Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works retrieved on 28 January 2010 from www.rina.org.uk.
[4] “Pakistan navy inducts new submarine”, Associated Press of Pakistan, 27 September 2008; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, http://web.lexis-nexis.com.
[5] “India submarine ‘threatens peace’”, BBC News, 28 July 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk.
[6] “Pakistan on verge of selecting HDW submarine”, Jane’s Defence Weekly, 2 December 2008, www.janes.com.
[7] “Bangladeshi War of Independence: Indo-Pakistani War of 1971″, GlobalSecurity.Org, www.globalsecurity.org.
[8] “Economic Survey 2008-2009″, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, www.finance.gov.pk.
[9] “Pakistan may install nuclear missiles on its subs”, Los Angeles Times, 23 February 2001, www.latimes.com.
[10] “Pakistan to retain minimum nuclear deterrence, PM says”, The News, 07 January 2003; in Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com.
[11] Catherine Philp, “India stokes the fires with new missile test”, The Times, 10 January 2003, www.timesonline.co.uk.
[12] “Pakistan navy chief denies plan to equip submarines with nuclear warheads”, The News, 26 January 2003; in Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com.
[13] Feroz Hassan Khan, Pakistan’s Perspective on the Global Elimination of Nuclear Weapons,Report prepared for the Henry L. Stimson Center, April 2009.
[14] Ottfried Nassauer, Deutsche U-Boote fuer Pakistan: Fakten und Gedanken zu einem problematischen Exportvorhaben, Berliner Zentrum fuer Transatlantische Sicherheit, Research Note 8.1 (December 2008).
[15] “Agosta Class,” Jane’s Underwater warfare Systems, 25 September 2009.
[16] “MESMA,” Direction des Constructions Navales Services, September 2008, www.dcnsgroup.com.
[17] Ottfried Nassauer, Deutsche U-Boote fuer Pakistan: Fakten und Gedanken zu einem problematischen Exportvorhaben, Berliner Zentrum fuer Transatlantische Sicherheit, Research Note 8.1 (December 2008).
[18] “German Parliament discussing approval for submarines,” Business Recorder, 11 November 2009.
[19] “U-Boot Deal auf der Kippe,” Der Spiegel, 30 April 2007.
[20] “Poker mit Pakistanern,” Der Spiegel, 13 July 2009.
[21] “Pakistan Submarine Forces,” Jane’s Underwater Warfare Systems, 25 September 2009, www.janes.com.


New-gen submarines: Pakistan steals a march on India 
The Tribune, India ^ | January 20,2011 | Ajay Banerjee 

Posted on January 22, 2011 8:39:37 PM MST by sukhoi-30mki

New-gen submarines: Pakistan steals a march on India

Signs deal with China to co-produce six subs with the technology that India wants

These could tilt balance in favour of the Pak Navy in Arabian Sea

Ajay Banerjee/TNS

New Delhi, January 20 Even as India has announced its intent to have new generation diesel-electric submarines, Pakistan has gone ahead and signed a deal with long-standing ally China to produce submarines with the same technology that India wants.

The Pakistan Navy and China’s Ship Building Corporation signed a deal that got the seal of finality during the visit of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao to Pakistan last December. Indian security agencies in know of the matter have cautioned the government that this could tilt the balance in favour of the Pakistan Navy in the Arabian Sea.

India is looking to spend Rs 50,000 crore to acquire six new diesel-electric submarines that will be equipped with air-independent propulsion (AIP) technology to boost operational capabilities. Conventional diesel-electric submarines have to surface every couple of days for oxygen to recharge their batteries. A submarine using AIP technology can stay submerged for 12-15 days at a stretch, thus increasing its capacity to hunt down enemy warships without being detected. Nuclear powered submarines can stay underwater for even longer periods.

Under the latest agreement, China will co-produce six AIP technology submarines with Pakistan. Currently, the neighbouring navy has only one submarine — PNS Hamza. Pakistan is also looking at an AIP system produced by a French or German maker to fit on to the Chinese made hull of the vessel, said an official.

What is worrying for India is the known pace of Chinese construction. China could well provide three-four new generation AIP technology submarines to the neigbouring country within two years. The Chinese had supplied four frigates to the Pakistan Navy in 18 months flat! The two nations have also co-produced the single-engine J-17 fighter that was inducted into the Pakistan Air Force last summer.

For India, it could take upto five years to induct its first such submarine, as it will have to go through the process of trying out offers from various global bidders before ordering the vessels.

The Indian Navy has a bigger fleet in terms of number but it is dwindling and will be down to eight conventional diesel-electric vessels by 2015. By then, the first of the six under-construction Scorpene submarines will join the fleet followed by five more till 2018. The AIP technology vessels will follow later. Going by estimates, Pakistan would complete the induction of its fleet of AIP technology vessels by the time India starts off with its line of such submarines.

However, India will maintain its edge over Pakistan in case of nuclear-powered submarines. It hopes to induct the Akula-II Class attack submarine K-152 Nerpa on a 10-year lease from Russia in the next few weeks while the first indigenous nuclear submarine INS Arihant is expected to be inducted by early-2012.

Indian Navy Chief Admiral Nirmal Verma has already declared that nuclear-powered submarine INS Arihant would be on ‘deterrent patrol’ to provide the ability of a retaliatory ‘second strike’ if the country faces a nuclear attack.

What Worries India

The Chinese are known for their pace of construction and could provide three-four new generation submarines to Pakistan within two years.

It could take India upto five years to induct the first of its diesel-electric submarine.

The Indian Navy fleet is dwindling and will be down to eight conventional diesel-electric vessels by 2015.

 Additional Reading: Indian Article (Tainted Viewpoint) 



After inducting advance fighter jets from China, Pakistan plans to buy six state-of-the-art submarines from the neighbouring country in a bid to boost its under-sea warfare capabilities.

Islamabad is planning to buy six submarines outright with options of joint development of conventional submarines with China, The Express Tribunereported.

The newspaper did not mention the class of submarines being sought by Pakistan saying merely that Islamabad wanted advanced under-sea vessels with air independent propulsion (AIP) system, which would give them capabilities to stay submerged longer and operate noiselessly.

The Defence Ministry has asked the federal Cabinet to approve the purchase of Chinese submarines to counter “emerging threats” faced by Pakistan, the paper said.

Pakistan has a total of five active diesel electric submarines plus three midget submarines. While the three submarines are of German SSK class, Islamabad had recently inducted two French Agosta class ones.

With attempts to acquire AIP technology, Islamabad would be in race with New Delhi, which plans to arm its French Scorpene submarines with the technology but only by 2013.

Pakistan’s Defence Ministry informed the Cabinet that the country’s Navy is facing a “critical force imbalance” in terms of the number of submarines and ships in its fleet.

The “capability gap is widening exponentially with the passage of time”, the report said.

The Navy plans to acquire the six AIP conventional submarines that can operate in a “multi-threat environment under tropical conditions” and are capable of launching torpedoes and missiles, theBusiness Recorder daily quoted official documents as saying.

A protocol for joint development and co-production of submarines by the Pakistan Navy and China Shipbuilding and Offshore Corporation will be signed shortly after approval by the federal Cabinet, the paper said.

In view of “urgent naval requirements”, the issue of acquiring Chinese submarines was part of the talking points for President Asif Ali Zardari’s visit to China in 2009, media reports said.

The matter was also discussed during Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to Pakistan in December 2010, the reports said.

The Cabinet has been told that Naval Headquarters had pursued the purchase of submarines with Chinese authorities, who have assured Pakistan of their “firm support” for the submarine project.

Under the proposed protocol, four submarines will be constructed at a Chinese shipyard and the remaining two in Pakistan.

Co-development and production will include joint development, training of Pakistani personnel, upgrades of Pakistan Navy’s shipyard and other related aspects.

Pakistan is in the process of inducting 36 J-10 fighter aircraft from China in a deal worth more than $1.4 billion, with options open for induction of more similar aircraft.

Islamabad and Beijing are also collaborating to build an advanced fighter — JF-17 or ‘Thunder’.



, , , , ,

No Comments