Not everybody is short-termist like Mr.10%. Russia seeks a bulwark against Islamic extremism/terrorism to its South (i.e. Pakitan), and population overspill to the East (i.e. China). That strategic partner would be………India (not Saudi Arabia).

Funnily enough the US takes the same view for Pakitan, with India as an economic/ military counterweight to China.
It’s nice when everyone wants to be your friend, things like annualised GDP growth of ~8% during a recession also help……but that’s not within the remit of this thread- and neither is anything you and your friends have to say.

Really believing the above shows a certain ignorance of geo-politics.

Russian provision of engines for JF-17
Russian provision of all sophisticated number of weapons to China. In fact too many to mention.

India was unable to stop any of this from its “ally”.

Please dont be fooled by “everyone wants to be Indias friend”. Nations do not have friends. Just interests.Selling massive amounts of arms and making obscene amounts of money from India and even upping its prices whenever they feel like it suits them very well. Hell, it would suit anyone very well.

I would rather keep religion out of it, Russia is happy to sell weapons to alot of Islamic nations and is on of Iran’s bigest suppliers.

Thanks for reply.

100 warheads of what size?

Just 4 missiles for a city? That is mass? Someone can define mass attack?

Another thing from logistics POV, As per Tellis book, the nuclear components of Pakistani WMD is kept in various places. How many they can even assemble before the international communities will pickup the activity? Even if you manage to put all those bombs in the missiles, do you have so many launchers to launch it? Do you have the ratio of missiles (with entire command and guidance), per launcher?

I see, most of the operational missiles mentioned in your list is < 2500 kms. They are within the parameters of a current generation BMD capability. Especially, if they are just 4 per incoming per target. If there is a equipment failure in even 1 missile , it will make it 3 missiles per target. What if the rumored S-300 defenses have been already been set up in key places in India? That would make missiles hitting less important targets.

You know, the mass attack scenario you have tried to put up has been debunked by many international experts. Another point they say is that Pakistan has nothing to achieve with a mass nuclear attack. They say, a counter attack with much fewer bombs will obliterate Pakistan.

Some how, the concept of mass nuclear attacks with missiles are best left undiscussed. This is something not possible in real life scenario.

Zero

This is exactly my point. I can post alot of info about weapon yeild sizes and missile numbers and work on MIRV. Yet as you say, best left undiscussed, the same way any discussion about shooting down all of Pakistans nuke arsenal is pointless………

The hit probability will be higher than that if it is concentrated on high value assets. Pakistan has not yet demonstrated MIRV capability so the chance of successful intercepts are quite high.

Hang on. India does not have working ABM system in place yet you talkof high chance of intercepts? How you guys gonna do this?

Another long Keypublishing Forum post highlighted in bold then emailed to the Pakistani Missile crew warning them!? :p

Dr. Saraswat said that in between 5 to 80 km altitude India can launch four interceptors for every single target with PAD and AAD. This will lead to 99% probability of hitting a target. As for MIRV, India is developing multiple kill vehicle missile named AD-2 which will be able to destroy target missile upto 250 km altitude along with AD-1. Both AD-1 and AD-2 are new missiles under development. But current PAD and AAD are enough for Pakistan’s current inventories.

Theory is great aint it!? :p

I think if Gripen does with the MRCA with some stake in MCA SAAB will not go anywhere near Pakistan other than the current supply of Erieyes.

In the case of America they really do not need Indian sales and will continue with their policy regardless. The same cannot be said about the Swedes.

As for the French they do not make any fighters which are affordable to the PAF.

Quadbike

I dont think weapons suppliers operate like that. They would soon run out of customers if they did. Case in point Russia still manages to sell to Chine and India, and they are often desperate for money.

Remmber, right now, as Swedes are competing in MRCA they are working side by side with PAF officers in Sweden working on EW systems and radars which can be suited to detect IAF aircraft. In theory that should be a big black mark against them.

France is right now installing AIPupgrades to Pakistani Navy subamrines,enabling them to remain under water much longer then any Indian ones, yet they are competing in MRCA.

US is supplying massive amounts of weaponry despite competing in MRCA.

UK, Germany and Italy (both Eurofighter partner nations) are currently supplying avionics,UAVs, Torpedos radars and potentially sumbamrines To Pakistan. Despite competing in MRCA.

None of this will actually stop when they bag the contract.
Unless their strategic interests are trheatened they wont stop supplying arms. India is not in a position to do this. In fact India may in fact hurt itsself by blacklisting countries as this will increase the negoatiating strength of the rest of the suppliers.

Add to this 5 out of 7 countries above have troops in Afghanistan which are supplied via Pakistan and then you can start to understand more countries individual strategic positions.

Actually with regards to the Gripen Ankush’s links are bit more clear cut. Your link says Gripen is an option (it is if the Swedes offer it). I think they may if the Gripen do not win the Indian MRCA. 😉

Unfortunatley Quad, its not about what we “Think may happen”. He was wrong when he posted a 6 year old Indian press link and I posted a recent Aviationweek one.

Swedes would be happy selling to both sides, as French and US have been doing for years…

You are right it is more like damage limitation. But a few of these around high value targets against an enemy which do not have MIRV capability will really make a difference in terms of a nuke war.

You think anything can make a difference in a nuclear age? A city getting nuked 3 times instead of 4?

How do you define “make a difference”?

They’d better stick to affordable fighters that they can get as part of some FMS or with long-term credit agreements. Pakistan cannot afford to buy Gripen NGs in any meaningful numbers.

Ankush

I will repeat this again. Afordibility was not the debate. You claimed Gripen was never offered. Yet again you have been proven wrong.

This is the 3rd sweeping satement of yours proven incorrect.

You make claims, they are questioned and you cannot explain yourself.

Better take a rest…