Pakistan will get New Air Defence system within this Year - CAS on ARY News .

[mingle]

There was a news item from Janes back in 16/17 that indicated a unknown customer for the air defense system from MBDA. Has anyone figured out who the customer was?

PAF is theior existing customer Sapada 2000 I believe it would be SAMP/T Italian based solution

 

[The Raven]

It might not be a SAM system necessarily. The PAF gave a hint about their new updated C4I capabilities in the recent excercise with the Saudis. In addition, I would suggest taking a closer look at the agreements we made with Ukraine.

 

[FuturePAF]

Italian using this system to replace spada and also manufacturing ER while Britain [emoji636] has standard camm

CAMM-ER | FORCE PROTECTION, Ground Based Air Defence | MBDA

CAMM-ER, the Common Anti-air Modular Missile Extended Range, is from the CAMM family of next generation air defence missiles, designed for land, sea and air environments.

www.mbda-systems.com

Any indication if this missile will be put on the F-22P frigates as well?

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Any indication if this missile will be put on the F-22P frigates as well?

None, but technically, this might be doable if they're using the ExLS VLS? @Akh1112

 

[FuturePAF]

None, but technically, this might be doable if they're using the ExLS VLS? @Akh1112

For commonality sake, quad packing CAMM-ER into 8 VLS cells should give the F-22P a respectable self defense capability of 32 missiles, with minimal structural changes to the ship. Also for commonality sake, the same radar as being installed on the Type 054A/P should be put on the F-22P.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

For commonality sake, quad packing CAMM-ER into 8 VLS cells should give the F-22P a respectable self defense capability of 32 missiles, with minimal structural changes to the ship. Also for commonality sake, the same radar as being installed on the Type 054A/P should be put on the F-22P.

I'd take the commonality argument a step further and say that the PAF should probably consider the CAMM-ER to build-out its Hi-MADS layer. Though MBDA is promoting the CAMM-ER as a replacement for the Spada 2000, I think retaining the Spada 2000 is a good idea as its Lo-MADS and SARH-based. Adding the CAMM-ER would diversify our coverage types with an ARH-based system.

The advantage of the CAMM-ER is that it would fit within our existing IADS as-is. So, we wouldn't need any special illumination radars (like RAC-3D), the new gap-filler radars should suffice (@kursed).

The real concern would be the cost of the CAMM-ER missiles themselves. I expect they'll be a fair bit costlier than the Aspide. However, that need not be an upfront cost; the PAF can build the missile inventory through the long-term, especially since it is a new product. Even if each CAMM-ER costs $1M per unit, the PAF could start with 100 units (enough for ten 8-cell batteries and 20 spares), but add 20-50 missiles a year whenever there's money for it. I suspect the PN is taking a similar approach.

The unfortunate part here is that if the PN (and potentially PAF) are moving towards incremental missile purchases from Europe, then why didn't we develop our own SAM? If the concern was keeping a production line warm for 15-20 years, then annual batch purchases were the perfect solution.

The one thing we can hope for now is that if we bundle the PAF and PN requirements, we can push MBDA to help us develop our own medium-range SAM. We wouldn't be able to export it (as MBDA wouldn't want any competitors), but we can at least save on hard currency through the long-term. @JamD

 

[FuturePAF]

I'd take the commonality argument a step further and say that the PAF should probably consider the CAMM-ER to build-out its Hi-MADS layer. Though MBDA is promoting the CAMM-ER as a replacement for the Spada 2000, I think retaining the Spada 2000 is a good idea as its Lo-MADS and SARH-based. Adding the CAMM-ER would diversify our coverage types with an ARH-based system.

The advantage of the CAMM-ER is that it would fit within our existing IADS as-is. So, we wouldn't need any special illumination radars (like RAC-3D), the new gap-filler radars should suffice (@kursed).

The real concern would be the cost of the CAMM-ER missiles themselves. I expect they'll be a fair bit costlier than the Aspide. However, that need not be an upfront cost; the PAF can build the missile inventory through the long-term, especially since it is a new product. Even if each CAMM-ER costs $1M per unit, the PAF could start with 100 units (enough for ten 8-cell batteries and 20 spares), but add 20-50 missiles a year whenever there's money for it. I suspect the PN is taking a similar approach.

The unfortunate part here is that if the PN (and potentially PAF) are moving towards incremental missile purchases from Europe, then why didn't we develop our own SAM? If the concern was keeping a production line warm for 15-20 years, then annual batch purchases were the perfect solution.

The one thing we can hope for now is that if we bundle the PAF and PN requirements, we can push MBDA to help us develop our own medium-range SAM. We wouldn't be able to export it (as MBDA wouldn't want any competitors), but we can at least save on hard currency through the long-term. @JamD

Definitely. For the amount of money being spent, ToT and Local production should be prioritized, for the long term support of this project and to feed our overall indigenous missile capabilities.

 

[JamD]

I'd take the commonality argument a step further and say that the PAF should probably consider the CAMM-ER to build-out its Hi-MADS layer. Though MBDA is promoting the CAMM-ER as a replacement for the Spada 2000, I think retaining the Spada 2000 is a good idea as its Lo-MADS and SARH-based. Adding the CAMM-ER would diversify our coverage types with an ARH-based system.

The advantage of the CAMM-ER is that it would fit within our existing IADS as-is. So, we wouldn't need any special illumination radars (like RAC-3D), the new gap-filler radars should suffice (@kursed).

The real concern would be the cost of the CAMM-ER missiles themselves. I expect they'll be a fair bit costlier than the Aspide. However, that need not be an upfront cost; the PAF can build the missile inventory through the long-term, especially since it is a new product. Even if each CAMM-ER costs $1M per unit, the PAF could start with 100 units (enough for ten 8-cell batteries and 20 spares), but add 20-50 missiles a year whenever there's money for it. I suspect the PN is taking a similar approach.

The unfortunate part here is that if the PN (and potentially PAF) are moving towards incremental missile purchases from Europe, then why didn't we develop our own SAM? If the concern was keeping a production line warm for 15-20 years, then annual batch purchases were the perfect solution.

The one thing we can hope for now is that if we bundle the PAF and PN requirements, we can push MBDA to help us develop our own medium-range SAM. We wouldn't be able to export it (as MBDA wouldn't want any competitors), but we can at least save on hard currency through the long-term. @JamD

Yeah but what example of inter-service cooperation like that do we have except the use of Babur/Harbah? The Navy doesn't even salute like the PAF and PA lol.

 

[Akh1112]

None, but technically, this might be doable if they're using the ExLS VLS? @Akh1112

Yea you can pretty much slap ExLS on anything. You can also retrofit mk41 if you wanna pay like the Thai navy did, they have it on their 053h3s.

IMO f22p's should be upgraded with new sonar/ TA suite and be turned into littoral asw frigates

 

[Shabi1]

I'd take the commonality argument a step further and say that the PAF should probably consider the CAMM-ER to build-out its Hi-MADS layer. Though MBDA is promoting the CAMM-ER as a replacement for the Spada 2000, I think retaining the Spada 2000 is a good idea as its Lo-MADS and SARH-based. Adding the CAMM-ER would diversify our coverage types with an ARH-based system.

The advantage of the CAMM-ER is that it would fit within our existing IADS as-is. So, we wouldn't need any special illumination radars (like RAC-3D), the new gap-filler radars should suffice (@kursed).

The real concern would be the cost of the CAMM-ER missiles themselves. I expect they'll be a fair bit costlier than the Aspide. However, that need not be an upfront cost; the PAF can build the missile inventory through the long-term, especially since it is a new product. Even if each CAMM-ER costs $1M per unit, the PAF could start with 100 units (enough for ten 8-cell batteries and 20 spares), but add 20-50 missiles a year whenever there's money for it. I suspect the PN is taking a similar approach.

The unfortunate part here is that if the PN (and potentially PAF) are moving towards incremental missile purchases from Europe, then why didn't we develop our own SAM? If the concern was keeping a production line warm for 15-20 years, then annual batch purchases were the perfect solution.

The one thing we can hope for now is that if we bundle the PAF and PN requirements, we can push MBDA to help us develop our own medium-range SAM. We wouldn't be able to export it (as MBDA wouldn't want any competitors), but we can at least save on hard currency through the long-term. @JamD

Good idea and thats how it should be
Licensed production in Pakistan via TOT for our own needs, cheaper than directly importing and no risk of a failed product if developed inhouse. But condition is volume of the order should justify the licensing fee.

 

[crankthatskunk]

I see, we have a new toy to discuss.

Are there any better tools to search than Google!!
That is the question.

Good idea and thats how it should be
Licensed production in Pakistan via TOT for our own needs, cheaper than directly importing and no risk of a failed product if developed inhouse. But condition is volume of the order should justify the licensing fee.

TOT in Pakistani context is a very difficult option. Would the European ready to do it!!

 

[Shabi1]

I see, we have a new toy to discuss.

Are there any better tools to search than Google!!
That is the question.


TOT in Pakistani context is a very difficult option. Would the European ready to do it!!

Italians have allowed it in past so not a far fetched idea.
Grifo 7 Radar on F-7
Selex Falco Drone
etc....
Swedes sold full rights for SAAB Safari/Supporter which led to MFI-17 Super Mushak.

Issue is do we have the volume for justifying the upfront licensing fee. There is a minimum order quantity (MOQ) for feasibility of such things, else its more convenient buying straight from supplier.

 

[kursed]

The advantage of the CAMM-ER is that it would fit within our existing IADS as-is. So, we wouldn't need any special illumination radars (like RAC-3D), the new gap-filler radars should suffice (@kursed).

The one thing we can hope for now is that if we bundle the PAF and PN requirements, we can push MBDA to help us develop our own medium-range SAM. We wouldn't be able to export it (as MBDA wouldn't want any competitors), but we can at least save on hard currency through the long-term. @JamD

Not sure what PAF has in mind on this front. The last time there was to be an inter service coordination on a buy, we got the AW 139s between Army and the Air Force, so let’s see.

 

[Zarvan]

There was a news item from Janes back in 16/17 that indicated a unknown customer for the air defense system from MBDA. Has anyone figured out who the customer was?

Which system it was ?

There was a news item from Janes back in 16/17 that indicated a unknown customer for the air defense system from MBDA. Has anyone figured out who the customer was?

I think the one we are buying for Navy for our ADA class if that has a land version then that is the one.

 

[Vapnope]

Which system it was ?

I think the one we are buying for Navy for our ADA class if that has a land version then that is the one.

No. Air defence system was mentioned only.