Surface To Air Missiles | Terror in the Sky.

Iranian talash system:


Video of talash system ( missile is called sayyad-2)

Possible view of Pantsir-SM
to army in 2-3 years.

When it comes to SAM russia is best in thecartvof making best sam systems no one can match their sam sysyems

Andross said:

False info I can tell you right now India did not buy any S-300 systems it is a myth

Click to expand...

Thanks for bringing up the correction....
after 5 years

It was posted back in 2009 January.

India was reported to be in advance stages of negotiating a deal for S300 with Russia. It fell apart later may be because China went for S-300PMU-2 and also there interested was reported in the next in series, S400.

UPGRADED Chinese MANPAD, maybe a Idea for Pakistan to upgrade the ANZA 1 and 2 version:

Came across a news article that I know at least two people who will be massively interested in it. Noting confirmed, may well only be rumor but still very interesting.
@Oscar @Donatello

Pakistan, Russia sign defence co-operation agreement, discuss helo sales
Farhan Bokhari, Islamabad and Nikolai Novichkov, Moscow - IHS Jane's Defence Industry
Russia and Pakistan signed an ambitious agreement to expand defence and military ties on 20 November, setting in motion a new era of co-operation between the two former Cold War foes.

The agreement followed the recent confirmation by Pakistani officials to IHS Jane's that the two countries had agreed on the sale of up to 20 Mil Mi-35 attack helicopters to Islamabad. If concluded the helicopter deal would be the biggest military sale by Russia to Pakistan.

A military diplomatic source in Moscow told IHS Jane's that Pakistan is also interested in buying a batch of Mi-28NE 'Havoc' attack helicopters and that a Russian delegation is preparing to present data on the Mi-28NE as well as the Pantsir-S1 (SA-22), Tor-M2KM (SA-15), and Buk-M2 (SA-17) surface-to-air missile systems to Pakistani officials at the forthcoming International Defense Exhibition and Seminar (IDEAS) 2014 in Karachi.
Pakistan, Russia sign defence co-operation agreement, discuss helo sales - IHS Jane's 360

Click to expand...

In below quoted posts (from another thread), we had discussed how forward SAM cover is essential for army forward formations and how that is being totally ignored, a few reasons and arguments were brought up where my point was that systems like HQ-16 or HQ-9 do not fit it in this role as they can never keep up with fast moving attack formations. There was a point raised that a long range battery will still be able to provide some sort of cover as it can be securely based in cantonment and still be close enough to the border. Theoretically true but still not a perfect solution.

In light of all that debate, the above news and all these above mentioned systems, they do fit the bill perfectly.
The give a unit level air defence capability, are mounted on fast moving vehicles that can keep up with armored attack formations and provide them decent air defence umbrella. This is something that is not provided by HQ-16 or SPADA or other medium to long range missile systems. While the long range SAM are an integral part of any decent ground based air defence system, it is the options like the above (Specially impressed by Pantsir S-1 and Tor-M2K) that will provide the forward formations much needed air defence umbrella and will decrease PA's reliance on PAF for that role.

For example, Pantsir S-1 provides reasonable regimental level air defence umbrella, can be mounted on a tracked tank chasis so it keeps up with fast moving attach formations, is developed to operate in extreme hostile and jamming environment, good at dealing with any hostile helicopters, UAV's and cruise missiles and other precision attack munitions.

Have no idea how much reality is there in this but if we can get 12 to 18 systems for army, that will be MASSIVE. Then Pakistan can shift focus on medium to long range SAM for base defence duties while the forward formations will be protected by these.

Donatello said:

Sir just like you have support units for Army forces, SAMs can be too. Army should have it's own umbrella, so they can deploy with a decent air cover wherever they are. Considering, the front line is not far from many cantonments on our eastern side, having a potent mobile SAMs would only help. No need to travel long distances. 200km mobile range is enough.

Click to expand...

Oscar said:

While the issues facing a battlefield mobile SAM system are there, the attitude of the Army in this matter has also been lax. There are various countries that have been willing to sell us battlefield SAM systems that would provide a good level of performance vis a vis stand off attacks and guided munitions. Chief amongst them in terms of firms was PZA..

The Chinese had their own offerings and even Denel pitched in with its ideas... at IDEAS. But the interest was focused on lower tech artillery and indigenous development of the AAA system(which needs time to set up.. essentially meaning it cannot move with a formation).


So today all that there is to protect a formation on the move from air attacks are a couple of guys out in a Land rover with Anzas.

Click to expand...

Arsalan said:

Came across a news article that I know at least two people who will be massively interested in it. Noting confirmed, may well only be rumor but still very interesting.
@Oscar @Donatello



In below quoted posts (from another thread), we had discussed how forward SAM cover is essential for army forward formations and how that is being totally ignored, a few reasons and arguments were brought up where my point was that systems like HQ-16 or HQ-9 do not fit it in this role as they can never keep up with fast moving attack formations. There was a point raised that a long range battery will still be able to provide some sort of cover as it can be securely based in cantonment and still be close enough to the border. Theoretically true but still not a perfect solution.

In light of all that debate, the above news and all these above mentioned systems, they do fit the bill perfectly.
The give a unit level air defence capability, are mounted on fast moving vehicles that can keep up with armored attack formations and provide them decent air defence umbrella. This is something that is not provided by HQ-16 or SPADA or other medium to long range missile systems. While the long range SAM are an integral part of any decent ground based air defence system, it is the options like the above (Specially impressed by Pantsir S-1 and Tor-M2K) that will provide the forward formations much needed air defence umbrella and will decrease PA's reliance on PAF for that role.

For example, Pantsir S-1 provides reasonable regimental level air defence umbrella, can be mounted on a tracked tank chasis so it keeps up with fast moving attach formations, is developed to operate in extreme hostile and jamming environment, good at dealing with any hostile helicopters, UAV's and cruise missiles and other precision attack munitions.

Have no idea how much reality is there in this but if we can get 12 to 18 systems for army, that will be MASSIVE. Then Pakistan can shift focus on medium to long range SAM for base defence duties while the forward formations will be protected by these.

Click to expand...

Sir Russian Buk systems were designed to move with fast moving armored columns. That is their intended purpose. If Army has it's own AD SAMs, it can operate freely,without input from PAF. PAF's SAM need to be deployed at FoB during wartime.....they cannot release systems for Army.

Donatello said:

Sir Russian Buk systems were designed to move with fast moving armored columns. That is their intended purpose. If Army has it's own AD SAMs, it can operate freely,without input from PAF. PAF's SAM need to be deployed at FoB during wartime.....they cannot release systems for Army.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what i am saying. All these are made for regimental level air defence where they can accompany fast moving infantry and armored formations. So if we need to provide air defence umbrella to these units (that we need to do and that should be independent of PAF assets) then these are the systems to go for. These are not long range systems but then again, long range systems like HQ-9 or even HQ-16 cannot keep up with the forward formations. The best option is to get some medium to high range/altitude SAM for base defence roles and acquire systems like the Buk, TOR or Pantsir for air defense role for forward formations and moving armored formations.

Super Falcon said:

When it comes to SAM russia is best in thecartvof making best sam systems no one can match their sam sysyems

Click to expand...

Latest US SAM systems such as THAAD and MEADS are also excellent.

Is there no any one missile, which can be use from surface to air?

@Zarvan @Rockstar @Horus @AzadPakistan @Marrkhoor @cb4 sir h um ny kya socha hai phir koi new Sams k barey k clapping he karty rehna ha

Confirm Procurement of LOMADS, HQ-16A (LY-80)

Just to update this in this thread, started with the purpose to keep details of all SAM systems in one single place.

2013-2014 Procurement:


2014-2015 Procurement


A good news indeed as this gives a pretty decent Medium to low level ground based air defense cover.

The above year book images also confirm addition numbers of MAPNAD RBS 70 coming in.

Hisar MANPADS
Altitude: 4+ km
Range: 6+ km
Guidance: IR + UV or IIR
Test beginning: 2016
Development by: Aselsan / ROKETSAN