What's new

Why Pakistan unable to develop its own Air defence System

They made a difference in the Battle of Kiev.

SAM based AD are not effective against modern drones and missiles. This has been proven booth in the ME and Ukraine.

Considering the costs of modern SAM AD systems.....are they worth it?? Not really, IMO. Resources are better spent on offensive systems like Raad, Harbah, Shaheen and drones....which can destroy enemy AC on the ground.
If you don't decisively win the air war and then don't have extensive medium range and long range air defenses, you become a simple turkey shoot against anyone with air to ground munitions.


Someone simply needs to use bombers and HALE drones and bomb you into the stone age.


The U.S. "solution" to this problem is to have thousands of air superiority fighters.


Most other countries do not have the luxury of this solution.


The moment the Pakistan air force stops dominating the skies, Pakistan becomes another Armenia in the Armenia Azerbaijan conflict.


PS: Stop quoting retarded propaganda about the "Ghost Of Kiev".
 
I think their thinking has been that PAF will carry out the air defence. But within last decade or so mobile and long range air defence has really come into its own plus air defence has another role of missile defense as well. Hence back to back aquisitions of hq16 and hq 9.

We may in future see some joint ventures as well.
 
If you don't decisively win the air war and then don't have extensive medium range and long range air defenses, you become a simple turkey shoot against anyone with air to ground munitions.


Someone simply needs to use bombers and HALE drones and bomb you into the stone age.


The U.S. "solution" to this problem is to have thousands of air superiority fighters.


Most other countries do not have the luxury of this solution.


The moment the Pakistan air force stops dominating the skies, Pakistan becomes another Armenia in the Armenia Azerbaijan conflict.


PS: Stop quoting retarded propaganda about the "Ghost Of Kiev".
Offense is the best defense. Modern Air wars can not be won on the defense. USAF dominates the sky's because it attacks opposing ADs and AFs into oblivion......not because of thousands of air superiority fighters. Russia has not done this in Ukraine. Numerous ME wars prove that nations that relay on SAM based AD with no offensive counter punch......lose air superiority. Bekka Valley and GW1 are great examples of this. What if Syria launched thousands of drones and missiles against Israeli air bases in 1983.....they would have destroyed far more Isreali AC, IMO. Cost probable would have been cheaper then losing all those SAMs.

Pakistan's uses a "sword and shield" defensive posture. Offensive systems like stand off bombs, cruise/ballistic missile and drones......are more cost effective then LR SAM's to destroy AC.
 
Last edited:
Offense is the best defense. Modern Air wars can not be won on the defense. USAF dominates the sky's because it attacks opposing ADs and AFs into oblivion......not because of thousands of air superiority fighters. Russia has not done this in Ukraine. Numerous ME wars prove that nations that relay on SAM based AD with no offensive counter punch......lose air superiority. Bekka Valley and GW1 are great examples of this. What if Syria launched thousands of drones and missiles against Israeli air bases in 1983.....they would have destroyed far more Isreali AC, IMO. Cost probable would have been cheaper then losing all those SAMs.

Pakistan's uses a "sword and shield" defensive posture. Offensive systems like stand off bombs, cruise/ballistic missile and drones......are more cost effective then LR SAM's to destroy AC.
Armenia has plenty of offensive capability.


Still lost to air to ground munitions.


Russia has plenty of offensive capability.


Still in a stalemate almost entirely due to Ukraine's extensive soviet era air defenses.


The reason why Ukrainian air defenses work while Arab air defenses didn't is because Arabs are terrible at war.


You have to remember that the Ukraine/Russia conflict is Soviet vs Soviet in terms of force composition.


Saudis losing to Houthis is the counter to your example.


Saudis are losing to Houthis to this day because Saudis suck at war, despite pretty much their entire arsenal and doctrine being a carbon copy of the U.S.
 
They made a difference in the Battle of Kiev.

SAM based AD are not effective against modern drones and missiles. This has been proven booth in the ME and Ukraine.

Considering the costs of modern SAM AD systems.....are they worth it?? Not really, IMO. Resources are better spent on offensive systems like Raad, Harbah, Shaheen and drones....which can destroy enemy AC on the ground.
For general knowledge sake:

Saudi defenses have intercepted numerous ballistic missiles since 2015.

Following source kept track of Saudi intercepts up to Sep 2020:


Additional intercepts are documented independently. For example:


Saudi might not make much of the data public, however.

UAVs were able to slip through more easily due to flying at very low altitude(s) and/or there might be gaps in Saudi radar coverage that Houthi learned about from Iran and managed to exploit.

Saudi often used F-15s armed with AMRAAMs to intercept incoming UAVs. For example:


Saudi have done a good job in terms of protecting their lives and property with A2/AD assets on hand [on the whole].

But Saudi need to develop their defenses further. Patriot systems work but Saudi need to pair them with additional systems such as THAAD, C-RAM and Avenger, and plug radar coverage gaps across the country.

Let us see.
 
Armenia has plenty of offensive capability.
10 SU-25 with no precision strike capability is not "plenty of offensive capability."

Russia has plenty of offensive capability.
Yes. But Russian AF has not attacked Ukrainian AD on the scale USAF would do, IMO. Ukrainian AD could not stop Russian attacks against its critical infrastructure.....but this is coming late in the conflict. Russia should have done this much earlier, IMO.

Still in a stalemate almost entirely due to Ukraine's extensive soviet era air defenses.
NATO support is why there is a stalemate. Ukrainian losses are replaced. Russia can not attack NATO aerial surveillance platforms that help Ukrainian AD

Saudis losing to Houthis is the counter to your example.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Houthis lost control of much of Yemen.......KSA made mistakes but they are not losing.
 
10 SU-25 with no precision strike capability is not "plenty of offensive capability."


Yes. But Russian AF has not attacked Ukrainian AD on the scale USAF would do, IMO. Ukrainian AD could not stop Russian attacks against its critical infrastructure.....but this is coming late in the conflict. Russia should have done this much earlier, IMO.


NATO support is why there is a stalemate. Ukrainian losses are replaced. Russia can not attack NATO aerial surveillance platforms that help Ukrainian AD


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Houthis lost control of much of Yemen.......KSA made mistakes but they are not losing.
You keep bringing up one sided examples while pretending that the other side of those examples don't count.


Saddam had huge offensive capabilities.


He lost due to not having sufficient quantity and quality of air defenses versus the U.S. coalition.


Armenia has huge offensive capabilities.


He lost due to not having sufficient quantity and quality of air defenses versus the Azerbaijanis.


Vietnam had zero offensive capabilities against the U.S.


They won due to having sufficient quantity and quality of air defenses versus the U.S.


Air defense wins wars.


Those who do not have sufficient air defenses almost always lose wars post WWII.
 
For general knowledge sake:

Saudi defenses have intercepted numerous ballistic missiles since 2015.

Following source kept track of Saudi intercepts up to Sep 2020:


Additional intercepts are documented independently. For example:


Saudi might not make much of the data public, however.

UAVs were able to slip through more easily due to flying at very low altitude(s) and/or there might be gaps in Saudi radar coverage that Houthi learned about from Iran and managed to exploit.

Saudi often used to F-15s armed with AMRAAMs to intercept incoming UAVs. For example:


Saudi have done a good job in terms of protecting their lives and property with A2/AD assets on hand [on the whole].

But Saudi need to develop their defenses further. Patriot systems work but Saudi need to pair them with additional systems such as THAAD, C-RAM and Avenger, and plug radar coverage gaps across the country.

Let us see.
War in Yemen is an unconventional war. Best approach to fight the Houthi is to "ground pound them" with infantry and artillery supported by tanks and AC. This approach would have been too bloody for KSA and UAE since the Houthi control the high ground.

Pakistan's "sword and shield defense" is geared toward a conventional opponent.
 
War in Yemen is an unconventional war. Best approach to fight the Houthi is too "ground pound them" with infantry and artillery supported by tanks and AC. This approach would have been too bloody for KSA and UAE since the Houthi control the high ground.

Pakistan's "sword and shield defense" is geared toward a conventional opponent.
Yup, if only the Houthi Air Force just deployed superior numbers of F-35s they would have crushed the Saudi Air Force <-= Your argument in this thread.


Can't afford enough air defenses?


Build a larger air superiority force then your opponent!


Is a terrible argument and you should be able to see that from the beginning of the thread.


All you have to do is flip the examples you used in this thread and the absurdity of your argument becomes obvious.


"Saddam lost because air defense is a dumb concept, he should have simply built more F-15s and F-16s to the entire western coalition!"
 
Vietnam had zero offensive capabilities against the U.S.
An unconventional war. Airpower will not win unconventional wars. Afghans had almost no AD but won the Soviet-Afghan and NATO-Afghan wars.

It requires a huge amount of on the ground policing forces deployed for long periods to win unconventional wars. Major powers are not willing to do that in the modern age. They eventually pack up and go home.
 
War in Yemen is an unconventional war. Best approach to fight the Houthi is too "ground pound them" with infantry and artillery supported by tanks and AC. This approach would have been too bloody for KSA and UAE since the Houthi control the high ground.

Pakistan's "sword and shield defense" is geared toward a conventional opponent.

- Iraqi army that was created by Saddam Hussein could fight.
- Iranian army can fight.
- Hezbollah can fight.
- Israeli army can fight.

But Saudi army cannot fight for some reason.

Houthi do not represent impossible odds, they are rather amused.
 
Today we are building missiles like rad shaheen harbah we have tech why can't we build our own integrated air defense system India turkey Korea Iran all developing on their own Air defence Systems
How would Zardari, Sharif clan and rest of the elites including mil-establishment launder money out of Pakistan if they had to spend it on domestic industry and production.
 
Last edited:
How can you defend against drone armies? Swarms of killer drones can be used by enemy to get lethal damage
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom