# National Air Defense Command (NADCOM) - Updates & Discussions.



## eagle20054

*In an interview with the Global Times newspaper, Rao Qamar Suleman, air chief marshal of the Pakistan Air Force has confirmed the rumors that Pakistan Air Force will purchase up to four Chinese Surface-to-Air Missiles to meet its airdefence needs.*



*Air Chief Marshal Rao Suleman has said that Pakistan air force is evaluating, different Chinese surface-to-air missiles for the purchase of 3 to 4 SAM systems. One of the systems under evaluation is "HQ-18"surface-to-air missile system.
*
As per Jane's Defence weekly Hong Qi-18 (HQ-18) surface to air missile system is Chinese version based on the S-300 that is also known as SA-12A "Gladiator". HQ-18 system has a rand of 100 km and it can be used against short-range ballistic and cruise missiles as well as against aircraft.

Another surface to air missile that may be under consideration is China's indigenously developed HQ-12 / KS-1A SAM. These surface-to-air missiles are available with two engagement radars H-200 phased array radar and SJ-231 phased array radar.

The SJ-231 radar system for the KS-1A/HQ-12 SAM system is based on the on the HT-233 PESA engagement radar which is associated with the advance Chinese surface-to-air missile system HQ-9 / FD-2000. SJ-231 is a self propelled radar.
China's indigenously developed HQ-12 / KS-1A missile is a single stage missile that uses the solid propellant. It has very short span delta wing design that is very much like that of the US Hawk SAM. KS-1A Missiles uses the rail launchers. Depending upon the target&#8217;s speed maximum range of KS-1A varies from 38-50km. It can be used against targets flying as high as 27000m and as low as 300m.




Pakistan Military Review: Pakistan Air Force to Purchase 4 Chinese SAM Systems

---------- Post added at 03:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:05 PM ----------













*KS-1A*






*HQ-18*

Reactions: Like Like:
30


----------



## farhan_9909

I hope HQ-9 or HQ-19 is selected instead of Hq-18..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## bc040400065

*Paks arms purchases from China go into overdrive*
Thursday, November 18, 2010 12:47:20 PM by ANI

Guangdong, Nov 18 (ANI): Pakistan is interested in buying more defense systems and equipment from China, and hopes to deepen cooperation to upgrade its armed forces, a top Pakistan Air Force officer said on Wednesday.

*Pakistan is evaluating, among other options, three or four Chinese surface-to-air missiles, including the advanced HQ-18&#8243;, Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman told China Daily.*
*Janes Defence News, a publication that specializes in military topics, reported that China was building the Hong Qi-18 (HQ-18) missile system based on the Russian S-300V1 type 2 (SA-12A Gladiator), presumably under a license agreement.* But this has not been confirmed by the Chinese military, the paper added.

*The missiles, with a maximum range of 100 km, can be used against short-range ballistic missiles, aircraft or cruise missiles, with intercepts taking place between a low-level 25 meters and an altitude of 25 kilometers, according to Janes.*

Suleman also said that China had completed the first of four Chinese ZDK-03 airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft for the Pakistan Air Force on November 13.

The delivery to Pakistan will start in the early part of next year, said Suleman, who is also Pakistan Air Forces Chief of Air Staff.

*He said that the Pakistan Air Force was also looking at the option of purchasing Chinese engines, though any final decision will depend on the engines quality.*

Suleman brought FC-1 (Fighter China-1) Xiaolong aircraft, an improved version of Chinas new generation fighter jet co-developed with Pakistan, to the China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition in Zhuhai.

Military research and development cooperation with China will continue not only in aircraft production, but in other areas as well, he maintained.

*The Pakistan Air Force is increasing production docks for the FC-1 (named the JF-17 Thunder in Pakistan) from four to six, and is aiming to have about 25 aircraft assembled by the end of the year, the paper said.*

Its on a very fast track, and there is no other fighter aircraft anywhere in the world, which has been produced so quickly, pointed out Suleman.

China and Pakistan have traditionally had close military relations, and Suleman said that bringing the FC-1 Xiaolong aircraft to Zhuhai was to display solidarity with China and to show to the world that we have a tremendous amount of respect and love for our Chinese friends.

Commenting on cooperation in military research and development, he said China and Pakistan will continue working together. There is no shortage of trust and no shortage of will. There will be more projects developed successfully.

Meanwhile, Chinese experts noted that the envisaged cooperation, however, does not target any country, and is tiny in scale compared to huge defense deals signed by US President Barack Obama in India earlier this month.

Beijing-based military strategist Peng Guangqian said that Beijings weapons deal with Islamabad had almost no effect on the balance of military power between Pakistan and India, especially given the multi-billion dollar defense deals signed between the United States and India during Obamas visit.

The China-Pakistan deals should not be a cause of alarm for other countries, he said, referring to the foreign media reports that the FC-1 was a concern for the Indian Air Force.

Sun Shihai, director of the Center for South Asian Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, added that Obama also promised India that the US would give it easier access to high-tech equipment for both civilian and military use.

Despite the huge gap between the Pakistani and Indian military forces, especially in terms of conventional weapons, the situation in the region is basically balanced given the fact that both countries have nuclear weapons, he said. (ANI)



Pak&#8217;s arms purchases from China go into overdrive

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## SEAL

HQ-18 is better then KS-1A and just 4 systems?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Areesh

fox said:


> HQ-18 is better then KS-1A and just 4 systems?



Well this is just the beginning, the batteries would be increased later after proper induction.

Hey please someone share the differences between HQ-9 and HQ-18 with us here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TOPGUN

Good news i hope it just keeps on coming

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## wangrong

Areesh said:


> Well this is just the beginning, the batteries would be increased later after proper induction.
> 
> Hey please someone share the differences between *HQ-9 and HQ-18 *with us here.



PL12 and SD10


----------



## v9s

Sigh...though it's good that we're overcoming our air defence shortcomings by buying these SAMs, i'd rather have this money being invested in our crappy education sector.

When will our countrymen learn.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## unicorn

v9s said:


> Sigh...though it's good that we're overcoming our air defence shortcomings by buying these SAMs, i'd rather have this money being invested in our crappy education sector.
> 
> When will our countrymen learn.



Don't think this way our Air Defense require serious inductions of SAMS and especially the long range SAMS.It is currently Pakistan's army foremost requirement.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bratva

Can some one clarify Is Pakistan evaluating 3-4 SAM systems or they are evaluating HQ-18 and KS-1A and which one will get selected,it's 3-4 batteries will be bought?


----------



## unicorn

*Genesis of the Antey S-300V/SA-12A/B Gladiator/Giant*

While Antey's impressive S-300V family of SAM systems shares its earliest conceptual origins with the Almaz S-300P family, the two product lines diverged dramatically very early in their development histories. As a result, they share the same technology base but are essentially unique designs, optimised respectively for the needs of the prime customers, the V-PVO and PVO-SV. 

While the PVO-SV shared some static and semi-mobile radar systems with the V-PVO during the early 1960s, the PVO-SV deployed its own unique inventory of fully mobile SAM systems, reflecting its role of providing air defence cover for highly mobile Soviet tank and motorised infantry divisions. By the end of the 1960s the PVO-SV had deployed a three tier system, with the cumbersome ramjet powered command link guided 2K11/3M8 Krug / 1S12 Long Track / 1S32 Pat Hand / SA-4 Ganef system providing long range area defence, the quite effective 2K12/3M9 Kub / 1S91 Straight Flush / SA-6 Gainful system providing medium range area defence and the 9K33 Osa / 9K33 Romb / SA-8 Gecko, 9K31 Strela 1 / SA-9 Gaskin, and ubiquitous ZSU-23-4P SPAAG providing low altitude point defence. 

With the exception of the large 3M8/SA-4 Ganef this package was widely exported in the Arab world and Africa and whilst achieving some initial success against the Israelis in 1973 generally suffered greviously when applied against Western air power and electronic combat forces. By the early 1970s it was clear that a new generation of systems would be needed to challenge growing Western SEAD and EW capabilities. The S-300V system was to provide the top tier in the new air defence umbrella, directly replacing the 2K11/3M8 Krug / 1S12 Long Track / 1S32 Pat Hand / SA-4 Ganef system.

Unlike first generation PVO-SV 3M8/SA-4 Ganef the S-300V would have a much broader role, encompassing both long range / high altitude air defence but also defence against US tactical ballistic missiles, specifically the Lance and high performance Pershing I/II, the FB-111A's supersonic AGM-69A SRAM standoff missile, and the new US Air Force MGM-109 Ground Launched Cruise Missile - a trailer launched nuclear armed Tomahawk variant based in the UK and Western Europe. As a result the S-300V would have to provide exceptionally good detection and tracking performance against low radar cross section targets, at very high and very low altitudes, while retaining the very high offroad mobility so typical of established PVO-SV tracked area defence SAM systems, and possessing exceptional resistance to the much feared USAF EF-111A Raven tactical jammer force. 

The S-300V was the result of these pressures - an expensive, complex but highly capable dual role SAM/ABM system which remains without equivalent to this day. It was to be an Army level or Corp level asset, protecting the centre of gravity of the Red Army's mechanised land forces against attack by nuclear and conventionally armed systems. 

The S-300V was supplanted by the enhanced S-300VM during the 1990s, using the 9S15M2/MT2E/MV2E, 9S19ME, 9S32ME and 9S457ME components, and improved 9M82M and 9M83M missiles. This system has been marketed as the Antey 2500, intended to highlight its capability to engage 2,500 km range IRBMs with re-entry velocities around 4.5 km/sec. The 9M82M has double the range of the 9M82 against aerial targets, at 108 nautical miles, and increased terminal phase agility - a single shot kill probability of 98% is claimed against ballistic targets. The S-300VMK is a proposed wheeled configuration of the design, using a BAZ 69096 10 x 10 all terrain truck chassis.





The S-300V/S-300VM/Antey-2500 is the world's only truly mobile Anti Ballistic Missile system, and later variants are claimed to be capable of intercepting 4.5 km/sec reentry speed targets. The large size of the Grill Pan phased array and TELAR command link and illuminator antennas is evident. The system provides the capability to engage very low RCS aircraft at ranges in excess of 100 nautical miles. 





9M82 Giant round 










S-300VM Kinematic Envelopes





S-300V Battery components, above left to right, 9A83 TELAR, 9A84 TEL/TL with crane elevated, 9A82 TELAR, below left to right, 9S15 Bill Board acquisition radar, 9S457 CP and 9S32 Grill Pan engagement radar.





All principal components of the S-300V system are carried on the MT-TM Item 830 series tracked vehicle, with gross weights between 44 and 47 tonnes per vehicle - the S-300V is not a lightweight system - and has similar offroad mobility to a medium tank.

The S-300V system comprises no less than eight unique system vehicles, the 9S457 mobile command post, the 9S15 Bill Board acquisition radar, the 9S19 High Screen ABM early warning radar, the 9S32 Grill Pan engagement radar, the 9A82 and 9A83 TELARs (Transporter Erector Launcher and Radar), and the 9A84 and 9A85 TEL/Transloader vehicles.

The paired acquisition radars are each optimised for their specific roles, with a limited overlap in capabilities, as the 9S15 Bill Board has some ABM early warning capability, and the 9S19 High Screen can acquire and track airborne targets. The 9S32 Grill Pan is more narrowly optimised as an engagement radar for missile guidance.

The 9A82 and 9A83 TELARs each include high power CW illuminators for missile guidance and command uplinks, and also provide these guidance functions for the 9A84 and 9A85 TEL/Transloaders, which operate as slave TELs in the battery.

Typical battery integration involves datalink tie-ins with the divisional level 9S52/9S52M Polyana DM series command posts, and the use of the Pori P1 series radar data fusion centre. Often S-300V / SA-12 batteries are supplemented with a 1L13 Nebo SV VHF band 2D early warning and acquisition radar.

The S-300VM / SA-23 retains the basic battery structure of the earlier variant, replacing individual components with revised designs.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## unicorn

*HQ-9/FD2000*





HQ-9 TELs on 8 x 8 TAS-5380 chassis with HT-233 engagement radar 





HHQ-9 launch at motor ignition 





HQ-9 TEL using the Taian TAS-5380 chassis.





HQ-9 aft view of the deployed launch tube / transport container assemblies 





HQ-9 forward view of the deployed launch tube / transport container assemblies, with the hydraulically elevated gantry exposed - the ram arrangement is modelled on the S-300P self-propelled variant TELs and is similar to a dump truck arrangement. Note the embedded hydraulic rams in the gantry used to position the launchers once upright





HHQ-9 launch at motor ignition. The missile airframe closely resembles the 5V55/48N6 series





HHQ-9 launch, the weapon employs much the same cold launch technology as the Russian S-300P series it was modelled upon





HHQ-9 rounds on parade. The prominent external TVC vanes are very visible on these examples

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## unicorn

The FD-2000/HQ-9 round resembles the Soviet 5V55 series, with the exception of prominent external TVC vanes






Cutaway of the FT-2000 round from brochure material. Note the additional cruciform strake absent in the 5V55/48N6 family of missile airframes, and the baseline HQ-9





Chinese internet images described as the HQ-9 round, but more likely a Soviet era 5V55 series round. Below nozzle. Note the TVC vanes coupled to the aerodynamic controls, and different cruciform tail geometry






The HQ-9 has been in production for PLA-AF and PLA-N deployment for a number of years. The US DoD puts current deployments at 64 launchers, making for 8 to 16 batteries.

Since late 2008 the HQ-9 has been offered for export under the designation FD-2000. The anti-radiation FT-2000 was offered for export a decade ago.

To date there have been claims that Pakistan is procuring a number of systems, but details remain to be confirmed. Iran is also a possible future client, following the difficulties they have experienced in procuring the S-300PMU1 / SA-20 Gargoyle from Russia - there have been numerous speculative claims of an acquisition but no evidence to support them.

Given China's active marketing effort in Latin America, South Asia and most recently, Africa, it is likely that HQ-9 derivatives will be widely exported, as more affordable analogues to the Russian S-300PMU2 / SA-20B and S-400 / SA-21.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## unicorn

*HQ-9/FD-2000/FT-2000 Technical Data*

Operational Range (Aircraft Target)
7 - 125 km

Operational Altitude (Aircraft Target) 25 m - 27 km
Operational Range (Cruise Missile Target) 7 - 15 km
Operational Altitude (Cruise Missile Target) >25 m
Operational Range (Ballistic Missile Target) 7 - 25 km
Operational Altitude (Ballistic Missile Target) 2 - 15 km
Operational Range (Supersonic Missile Target) 7 - 50 km
Operational Altitude (Supersonic Missile Target) 1 - 18 km



FT-2000 Anti-Radiation SAM Characteristics (CNPMIEC)
Operational Range
12 - 100 km 
Operational Altitude
3 - 20 km
Missile Weight
1,300 kg
Missile Length
6.8 m
Missile Diameter
0.446 m
Seeker Band Coverage
2 to 18 GHz

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## unicorn

HQ-9


----------



## abaseen99




----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

It was said tht Pakistan was interested in HQ-9..... so its HQ-9 probably.


----------



## rsingh

Any Idea how much would it cost.


----------



## ANG

Hello Mr. RSingh, Pakistan gets soft loans (very low interest term loans and/or grants) to cover its purchases from China. Given Pakistan's lethargic current economic condition and her balance of payments crisis, she is in no position to take large foreign currency loans. Moreover, probably no one will offer her credit.

However, if you read this link, China is quietly relaxing financial loan terms to Pakistan to keep up weapons sales. Pakistan is lucky in this regards to have China by her side. Take care.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...financial-terms-sales-flood-hit-pakistan.html

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

We do really need 

Karachi 4 SAMS
Islamabad 4 SAMS
LAHORE 4 SAMS
Peshawar 4 SAMS
Paktoon Kuwa 3 SAMS

This is the absolute minimum requirement for our national defence 

When combined with SPADA and JF17 thunder the defensive needs of national need will be met to good extent

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PakSher

The growing threat posed by Indian arms purchases from Israel, US and Russia need to countered. All Indian purchases are offensive and these cannot be left unchecked. India is using China as an excuse, but it will never have the guts to fight with China. All those weapons will be used against Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nightcrawler

Konstantin Sivkov, the first vice president of the Academy for Geopolitical Sciences, believes that Iran is capable of establishing its own production of state-of-the-art missile systems.


"Their technical performance will be much worse than that of Russian systems, of course. Here is an example. The USA used to ship F-14 Tomcat fighters to Iran. The jets were equipped with air-to-air Phoenix missiles. It was the only country in the world that earned such an honor from the USA. As soon as the shah regime in Iran collapsed and ayatollahs came to power there, the military cooperation between the two countries was suspended. The US realized that its potential enemy possessed the arms that can drastically change the situation in a possible conflict. As a result, the USA did it best to deprive Iran of Tomcat spare parts and other equipment in a hope that the delivered planes and missiles would come out of order one day and Iran would not be able to establish their production afterwards. However, Iran launched its own production of both the spare parts and armament systems for F-14 planes, including Phoenix missiles.


"It brings up an idea that the Islamic Republic will be able to build a complex similar to S-300. They can do it with China's help. China purchased Russian export variants of S-300 and then started making its own versions of the system. However, as experience shows, everything that China copied from Russia was much worse than the originals.


"Let's take one of the most important parameters of the S-300 system - its interference resistance. This problem cannot be solved with mere copying. The data used in the design of S-300 interference resistance capability is a highly important state secret, which no one intends to make public.


"Nevertheless, even if Iran's systems are 20 or 40 percent worse than the Russian ones, they can become a serious obstacle for conducting air raids against the Islamic Republic. Neither the USA, nor Israel will attack the country if they are not certain that everything will happen strictly according to their plans. The Iranian administration can see that American threats to North Korea have been replaced with persuasion and diplomatic approach after North Korea has proved the possession of nuclear arms."


----------



## alibaz

v9s said:


> Sigh...though it's good that we're overcoming our air defence shortcomings by buying these SAMs, i'd rather have this money being invested in our crappy education sector.
> 
> When will our countrymen learn.



There needs a balance among different kind of spendings, may those be defence , education, road construction or administrative. Lets get out of fashion of condemning defence spendings.


----------



## Creder

v9s said:


> Sigh...though it's good that we're overcoming our air defence shortcomings by buying these SAMs, i'd rather have this money being invested in our crappy education sector.
> 
> When will our countrymen learn.



your in the wrong forum mate

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## v9s

alibaz said:


> There needs a balance among different kind of spendings, may those be defence , education, road construction or administrative. Lets get out of fashion of condemning defence spendings.



That's the thing, there isn't much of a balance.

I know that defence is the utmost importance to our country, but you know, after the flood that wreaked our country, and our economy in shambles, i think it makes sense to criticize our country a bit.

nevertheless, i'm proud that the army finally took care of its shortcoming.


----------



## Arsalan

fox said:


> HQ-18 is better then KS-1A and just 4 systems?



may be its four systems under evaluation that he is not pointing to and not four battries that you are confucing it with...


----------



## Arsalan

earlier repors were of Pakistan evaluating FT-2000 from china. this is based no HQ-9and termed as AWACS killer!

the FT-2000 news surfaced back in 2003 and nothing has materilized since then. i hope this new proceeding does not take that long.

BTW, i think we should have better sticked to HQ-9/FT-2000. they are long-medium range high altitude SAM, a system we badly need!

http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/20716-surface-air-missile.html

regards!


----------



## mughaljee

is this system best one which china have ?


----------



## Fact_ur_mine

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> We do really need
> 
> Karachi 4 SAMS
> Islamabad 4 SAMS
> LAHORE 4 SAMS
> Peshawar 4 SAMS
> Paktoon Kuwa 3 SAMS
> 
> This is the absolute minimum requirement for our national defence
> 
> When combined with SPADA and JF17 thunder the defensive needs of national need will be met to good extent



Congrats pakistan,

I think Karachi needs more SAMS compared with Lahore and Peshawar as it is major Economic Hub.


----------



## Super Falcon

Well i also heared that pakistan is close to buy these SAM systems well hope they have used their mind a bit HQ 18 which is copy of russian legandary S-300 from whom country like israel fears hope pakistan should go and buy that system 4 systems are bit too low atleast 12 of these will ensure air superioirity in pakistan skies


----------



## aks18

rsingh said:


> Any Idea how much would it cost.



no worries of cost when it comes to china

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## somebozo

high adaptability and customization potential of Chinese products makes them very suitable plus close relations ensure continuous supply of spares as well joint production possibility in future.


----------



## wali87

I have a strong feeling that these are the HQ-9... 

Considering that Pakistan has Crotale, SPADA, and other small point defense SAM systems. I think 8 - 10 of these would be a good number to ensure complete air supremecy of our skies...this is mainly because of the long range of the system. The longer the range.. the less we need.. 

Ofcourse we cant ignore the fact that Pakistan is crawling with short range SAM such as the ANZA and stinger..


----------



## graphican

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> We do really need
> 
> Karachi 4 SAMS
> Islamabad 4 SAMS
> LAHORE 4 SAMS
> Peshawar 4 SAMS
> Paktoon Kuwa 3 SAMS
> 
> This is the absolute minimum requirement for our national defence
> 
> When combined with SPADA and JF17 thunder the defensive needs of national need will be met to good extent



SAMS are not required to defend province by province but they are to defend strategic and high value targets that enemy likes to destroy first. No one will visit Pakhtoon Khua and it cannot unless it crosses bordering areas including Lahore, Islamabad and areas around. So a SAM placed anywhere before Pakhtoon Khua would be defending it as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Well any where strategic gives you protection 100-300 km radius is all good , which is why I imagined they would be placed in such a way that it would cover key areas 

Obviously what we need is a combination of high altitude defences and mid level defences 

If we can produce a local version it would be great for low-mid level 
protection 

But we do need 4 systems / province so enemy would know that all of the pakistan is properly covered 

No point putting a STEEL door on your right side and leave your back door open etc 

19-20 systems is really the bare minimum requirement for us and not just 3 systems -

During egypt vs Israel war the SAM egypt had were all placed along side the army on borders , so no one dared enter that airspace but obviously when egyptians decided to go in out of the protection zone ... with tanks 

They got hammered pretty good ... 

My be for us if we place these on city parameters would be ideal to prevent any one sneaking in


----------



## wali87

We definately need a system covering Faisalabad and more importantly Sialkot!


----------



## TOPGUN

Can we have some pic's of the sys's?


----------



## razgriz19

im just hoping we get a high altitude SAM system ASAP which can bring down ballistic missiles and cruise missiles and thats it!!


----------



## Ammyy

razgriz19 said:


> im just hoping we get a high altitude SAM system ASAP which can bring down ballistic missiles and cruise missiles and thats it!!



High altitude SAMs are not useful against cruise missiles 

To counter cruse missile you need low level SAMs like Iron Dom ...


----------



## Donatello

DRDO said:


> High altitude SAMs are not useful against cruise missiles
> 
> To counter cruse missile you need low level SAMs like Iron Dom ...





The S-300 performs both the tasks, though obviously you don't wan to hit a cruise missile with a missile larger than itself.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hataf

v9s said:


> Sigh...though it's good that we're overcoming our air defence shortcomings by buying these SAMs, i'd rather have this money being invested in our crappy education sector.
> 
> When will our countrymen learn.



i think better way for that is to be . . . . . .. 

The money, that is wasted in corruption should be saved and put in education. That would be worth billions and billions of dollars . . . . . . .


----------



## Super Falcon

HQ 18 is a way forward real killer to SU 30MKI

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ammyy

Super Falcon said:


> HQ 18 is a way forward real killer to SU 30MKI





Thanks for Information


----------



## GEMINI

well i think crotale system is being replaced with spada. am i right?


----------



## GEMINI

yes you are right Graphican, but i think india has got a base some where in central asia( although using it against pakistan comes with a lot of issues/strings) and further we might need a few over there in case we have to take care of the US(in case).


----------



## muse

Some of our younger forum members, primarily Pakistani, are not thinking about this procurement, as with other procurements, as a "system" and that this "system" is itself a component of a larger defense system - none of these will by itself change the security equation because our adversary will respond to this and adjust. The point I hope younger Pakistani readers will take from this post, is that there is no room for over confidence, that they think soberly --- 4 batteries or 4000 batteries, the problem to which we seek a reasonable solution, will not be solved by these numbers - So what will it take to create security for the Pakistani nation and state?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Mercenary

What we need is a deterrent and that is exactly what this SAM batteries offer us. India will know full well that if its Aircraft violate even an inch of Pakistani Air Space they will be shot down.

While we can't compete with India in terms of number of fighters, we can equalize the playing field by incorporating such weapon systems which renders their numerical superiority.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gin ka Pakistan

Chinese SAM with AWACS systems , cold start will get a warm reply


----------



## Dazzler

Main interest is in HQ-18/ 9 and contract is expected to be signed soon. Its improved version of FD-2000 (A variant) and tests witnessed by Pakistanis

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## muse

> Chinese SAM with AWACS systems , cold start will get a warm reply



Little solace if hostilities break out - I fully support a vigorous, robust defense capability for Pakistan, but it should go hand in hand with sincere diplomacy that gains consensus in Pakistan and abroad for the need to resolve problems and promote confidence. We can't just be answering provocations, we must seek to alter the paradigm such that Pakistani interests are furthered and the possibility of hostilities significantly reduced.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## graphican

Whats the more favorable scenario to use these SAMS? put them right at the border to kill any intruder or use them few hundred kilometers deep to defend tactical installations. I hope second-scenario would consume lesser shots and we will be able to use available batteries for longer period of time in war. Also this would give our defending aircrafts a marginal area of roughly 100-200 KMs during which they can do their required job and if some intruder aircraft slips by, these SAMs would say "Hello" to it. HQ-9 is also an anti-ballistic missile SAM which justifies its use as more of a tactical defender instead of fence watcher.

I feel we should also have an outer circle of HQ-19 to make penetration of enemy-aircraft still more difficult. Also 4-6 of HQ9 would cover entire boundary from Kashmir to Karachi.


----------



## graphican

India has bought six S-300 batteries in August 1995 for $1 billion, probably the S-300PMU-2 version, believed to consist of 48 missiles per system. These will most likely be used in the short-range ballistic-missile defence (BMD) role against Pakistani Ballistic missiles.

Reference: S-300 (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With Indian use in view, it is more likely to be used as Missile Defence Shiled for us.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Donatello

Seems like PAF is making sure the defense is left to the SAMs while our Combat aircraft take the fight to the enemy.

Before, the combat aircraft had too much to do, CAPs and offense missions.


----------



## Machoman

We need 200 of these babies not 4. the way India is spending we need to have those a lot a lot more.....


----------



## DV RULES

RaptorRX707 said:


> Do this system provide "Anti-hacking" or ?
> 
> I remember somewhere, recent Israel easily hacked network of SAMs system when enemy unable to detect on the radar when Israel jets cross the border.
> 
> Also note, this 4 Chinese SAM system doesn't make secure of our sky. The world is moving forward closer to stealth fighters. This is not 1980s anymore.
> 
> I think, Pakistan need to invest on Anti-Stealth Radar systems (new technology) in detecting them.



agree


----------



## Super Falcon

HQ 18 will do great job for pakistan airforce but we need more than 4 batteris atleast 15 to 20 pakistan need


----------



## Stealth_fighter

is it a long range SAM?


----------



## T-Rex

Stealth_fighter said:


> is it a long range SAM?



Each of these batteries contain 55-58 missiles; they are a mixture of short and long range missiles to shoot down high or low flying planes.


----------



## GUNS-N- ROSES

muse said:


> Little solace if hostilities break out - I fully support a vigorous, robust defense capability for Pakistan, but it should go hand in hand with sincere diplomacy that gains consensus in Pakistan and abroad for the need to resolve problems and promote confidence. We can't just be answering provocations, we must seek to alter the paradigm such that Pakistani interests are furthered and the possibility of hostilities significantly reduced.



well said mate. i couldnt agree more.


----------



## Arsalan

good news,
i ope we will stick to HQ-9 and/or FT-2000 as supposed earlier.

however this new statement atleast re initiates the deal and now we can hope to get some goodies. we have been hearing about this SAM procurement since 2003.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/20716-surface-air-missile-20.html#post1289331

regards!


----------



## Areesh

arsalanaslam123 said:


> good news,
> i ope we will stick to HQ-9 and/or FT-2000 as supposed earlier.
> 
> however this new statement atleast re initiates the deal and now we can hope to get some goodies. we have been hearing about this SAM procurement since 2003.
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/20716-surface-air-missile-20.html#post1289331
> 
> regards!



But this time it looks more credible. This time it is from the interview of the Chief itself.


----------



## IceCold

I have a question here if some one can perhaps answer. Can an AWACS guide a SAM towards its target or at least provide mid course correction? since AWACS have better situational awareness as compared to a ground based radar.


----------



## pakistantiger

spada 2000 low to medium altitude defence, and HQ-9 for high altitude defence and HQ-18 for limited missile defence

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

^ It looks fairly hyped !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

IceCold said:


> I have a question here if some one can perhaps answer. Can an AWACS guide a SAM towards its target or at least provide mid course correction? since AWACS have better situational awareness as compared to a ground based radar.


In theory, a missile of any type can be guided, or its guidance be correlated, by an external source such as AWACS. There are several issues. The main one is the quality of that source. The secondary issue is the degradation tolerance level of said source, meaning that *IF* the quality of that external guidance/correlative source degrades in comparison to another source, such as the missile's own sensor, what is the degradation threshold where that external source is discarded? Third issue is *IF* said external guidance/correlative source regain its previous level of confidence, should it be used again?

The analogy here is the proverbial 'back seat driver' that all of us must suffer occasionally throughout our lives. Is that person knowledgeable? Does he give reasonably accurate information? Does he have a clear voice? And so on...Now compare him with a GPS unit. See the differences? Now we must consider the entire situation of a missile chasing a target at several hundreds km/h and in the case of a maneuvering target, the problem compounds exponentially.

External guidance/correlation is simple in idea but fickle in application, especially if said external source can be unreliable, such as the AWACS being chased by a hostile. Now the quality-of-service (QoS) really really degrades. The missile designer must assume that said external source will not always be available to him and that they are a luxury, not a need. That is why it is always preferable, even for US, to have the best possible sensor for the missile despite our advances in AWACS and data links technology.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## subanday

It still amazes me that we were without a long range SAM system for long (till date), guess our longest range missile is the age old SA-2.... and now we r considering these beautiful and useful piece of weaponary.... dair aye durust aye


----------



## Safriz

RaptorRX707 said:


> YouTube - Skyshield - EW Solutions
> 
> 
> This is a must for Pakistan's offensive SkyShield Jammer against massive Anti-Air Defences. It is better option than purchasing surface-to-air Missiles (HQ-18). See @ 2:02- X-Guard Fiber Optic Towed Decoy!




One aircraft has been dedicated for jamming..the rest for attack.The whole squadron solely depends on one jamming pod attached to one plane..What if it fails or the enemy radars have countermeasures?
Not sure about the towed decoy..In straight flight,it will work..but if the plane needs to make evasive manoeuvrings or tight turns...The tow may become a hazard and get tangled somewhere....I had seen B-52s video where they launch decoys..But detached decoys...which fly on their own...not towed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Safriz

IceCold said:


> I have a question here if some one can perhaps answer. Can an AWACS guide a SAM towards its target or at least provide mid course correction? since AWACS have better situational awareness as compared to a ground based radar.



Gambit has given a very detailed answer..very informative...
But may be an AWACS can be used for marking target by laser,if not real time missile guidance.


----------



## topgun787

keep going pak.
well i think we should have a dosen of these boys


----------



## abaseen99

HQ-12


----------



## abaseen99

HQ18






HQ-9

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## fzgence

nice post thanx.


----------



## Fact_ur_mine

graphican said:


> SAMS are not required to defend province by province but they are to defend strategic and high value targets that enemy likes to destroy first. No one will visit Pakhtoon Khua and it cannot unless it crosses bordering areas including Lahore, Islamabad and areas around. So a SAM placed anywhere before Pakhtoon Khua would be defending it as well.





Absolutely *WRONG*.
READ about ballistic missiles first and than make a post.
They wont travel over border areas of Lahore and get caught.
Trajectory is such that it first goes out of exosphere...travels the distance and than again makes re-entry at almost directly over the head of target. If SAMS are installed it would get caught depending upon range , otherwise SORRY


----------



## MastanKhan

safriz said:


> One aircraft has been dedicated for jamming..the rest for attack.The whole squadron solely depends on one jamming pod attached to one plane..What if it fails or the enemy radars have countermeasures?
> Not sure about the towed decoy..In straight flight,it will work..but if the plane needs to make evasive manoeuvrings or tight turns...The tow may become a hazard and get tangled somewhere....I had seen B-52s video where they launch decoys..But detached decoys...which fly on their own...not towed.



Hi,

By the time the enemy reacts and has counter measures to neutralize the jamming, the flyers would be within striking distance or on top of their target.

Once your equipment gets jammed---it is not easy to overcome that obstacle.

I guess----we will have to refer to Gambit for the answer if he could.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## abaseen99

[New-type surface-to-air guided missiles shooting test at Bohai Bay 
( Source: China Military Online ) 2010-December-2 11:26 

&#12288;&#12288;A guided missile brigade of the air force under the Chengdu Military Area Command of the Chinese People&#8217;s Liberation Army stationed in southwest China&#8217;s Yunnan Province recently underwent a live-shell shooting test at the coast of the Bohai Bay, obtaining outstanding results of five shots all hitting the target and creating several records for a new-type surface-to-air missile developed in China.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Last Hope

Good news indeed!
But, why four??


----------



## abaseen99

HongQi (HQ) 9 vs Lockheed's Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC 3) 
K-Mart vs Lock-Mart, aka CPMIEC's HongQi (HQ) 9 vs Lockheed's Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC 3) for Turkey's $4 billion missile defense system.


I don't think it will be a fair match. However, the fact that PRC is offering their SAM to Turkey, a member of NATO, shows a degree of new found confidence by PRC's defense firm.

Here is a brief background on the HQ-9 system:


HQ-9 is an improved Russian S-300 SAM system with radar guidance incorporated US based technologies (SJ-231), possibly Lockheed&#8217;s Patriot&#8217;s Track-via-Missile (TvM). The TvM active radar homing guidance allows the HQ-9 to have a limited anti-ballistic missile capability up to 150 km in addition to the traditional anti-aircraft role.


It's naval version, HQ-9A, is currently fielded in PLAN&#8217;s Type 052C destroyer and has been spotted in number of Chinese cities included Hong Kong and Shenzhen as a replacement for the older HQ-2 systems.

The HQ-9 version offered to Turkey is likely to be the HQ-9B, an improved version with dual-mode semi-active radar seeker in addition to IR imaging.


----------



## maverick1977

There are different ways of deploying these SAMs.

1) Peace time, during peace time pakistan might wanna keep these SAMS deep into its territory as to avoid its enemy from picking up its radar signals from far away. The reason is, if our enemies pick up the radar signals, they might create counter measures to and eventually pods to blind these radars during hostilities. Pakistan should always be weary of keeping its strategic assessts as secret as possible, so element of surprise can be hammered on our enemies.... keep them guessing. !!!! 

2) During war time these batteries can be moved forward as to see and neutrazlie enemy threats before they cross the border. Hence, rendering effective long range defence and creating buffer for our fighters not only by providing air defence, but also by providing support when our package is going across the border for SEAD activities.... 

3) These SAMs will be primarily used as Anti ballistic missiles, so we can protect our strategic targets like commands and control, airbases and nuclear reactors against potential enemy ballistic threats. if nuclear reators are destroyed then its a huge catastrophe, command and control are gone then Pakistani armed forces are blind. I am very sure they will come into action after detecting that ballisitc missile is going to hit top one priorty target in Pakistan. hence, H18 kicking in.... 

based on this i am inclined to conclude, HQ18 will be a strategic assesst of Pakistani armed force not a Tactical one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chogy

I may have missed it, but are these frequency agile? How robust is the ECCM?

For every weapon "X", there is a weapon "Y" designed to counter it, like HARM and similar anti-radiation missiles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

This news will leave IAF 3rd/4th/4.5th generation fleet shivering in their hangers !

4 of these systems , SPADA-2000 , SA-2 and other systems already with PAF will provide a potent defense against the IAF but the question remains on Missile defense !


----------



## ANG

Hi Mr. Black Blood, while these systems are a force multiplier they are not a panacea. The IAF is a very competent air force with access to the latest Israeli/French technology. That means jammers; these SAM systems can be jammed and their radars hit with anti-radiation missiles, which the IAF also has. Take care.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Well the SAMs alone can't give you protection 

What they could do is still fear in enemy fighters that they not only have to worry about Air to Air BVR missile launches now but they can also be shot down from ground 

With out ample airforce planes the SAMs could be targeted by fighter planes belonging to an enemy but since we have almost 500 fighters planned till 2014 that not really our biggest concern

But if we can have availability of at least 4 -8 SAM systems/province allocated for strategic use by army units in all provinces it gives us a good high strategic ground that ok we can place these system any where for usage 
What PAKISTAN needs is 


Tier 1 : Chinese High Altitude Missile Defence Sheild
Tier 2 : SPADA missiles
Tier 3 : Should be Local Pakistani Models (High Quantities)
Tier 4 : Older generation Missile Options with kill ratio of 60-70&#37;
Tier 5 : Shoulder held missiles for low flying targets
Tier 6 : Atomatic Firing Guns etc , ideally ones from Turkey

What we could also do is we could turn 100 Missiles BVR to be used for F16 into air defence missiles if we can also purchase the land launch batteries for these missiles if we had an alternative option for our F16 , but we did get 500-800 of these missiles so I am sure we could turn 100 of these for usage for air defence from ground units as well its an optiona approach 






This really is what we should aim to achive , the chinese missile do fill a big VOID in our defence since perhaps the 70's or even 65 when we started seeing the technological gap emerge per decade vs our other nations of interest

After we have attained the High Altitude Missile defences we will have to focus on our own Missiles for demestic production in larger quantities to be deployed around border areas

Again the question is can the SD-10 also be converted into Groudn to Air mode or not like the American missiles - as shown in the jeep pic above - 

But never the less the SD-10 arrival is vital for air to air and - the chinese High Altitude defence is vital four our national defence - from intruding airforces or UAV etc


----------



## ANG

Hi, I never meant it to sound like these are not good systems. I just didn't want everyone to get over confident that is all. Have a 200KM+ high altitude SAM system is an absolute must for the PAF and a huge force and confidence multiplier. I would also like the PAF to be self-sufficient in these systems in due time. Take care.


----------



## rockstarIN

Black Blood said:


> This news will leave IAF 3rd/4th/4.5th generation fleet shivering in their hangers !
> 
> 4 of these systems , SPADA-2000 , SA-2 and other systems already with PAF will provide a potent defense against the IAF but the question remains on Missile defense !



So far Brahmos is undefeatable


----------



## rockstarIN

subanday said:


> It still amazes me that we were without a long range SAM system for long (till date), guess our longest range missile is the age old SA-2.... and now we r considering these beautiful and useful piece of weaponary.... dair aye durust aye



Very less countries in the world have long range SAM systems.

India doesn't have it, the experiments are going on.


----------



## rockstarIN

ANG said:


> Hi Mr. Black Blood, while these systems are a force multiplier they are not a panacea. The IAF is a very competent air force with access to the latest Israeli/French technology. That means jammers; these SAM systems can be jammed and their radars hit with anti-radiation missiles, which the IAF also has. Take care.



I, have few questions regarding the procurement of these SAMS,

*1) 5th Gen Fighter into IAF inventroy*
A SAM system probably take few years to procure and installation, by the time IAF will get PAK-FA/FGFA. Will these SAMs then serve the purpose as Anti-aircraft?

*2) High tech Jammers and Anti-Radiation missiles*

IAF has enough stockpile of good jammers+ anti radiation missiles, Is it a good option once IAF got the frequency once and make a counter measures?

*3)Supersonic/Possible Hypersonic Cruise Missiles.*

India has good amount of cruise missiles which will easily break these systems as its is supersonic and possible hypersonic in future. Also IAF will mount the same in Su-30.

*The question is, is it wise to shell out billions to induct such costly systems as there is already a possibility that the enemy has the counter measures or working on it? *


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Well Missile defence is simple Nuclear retaliation because moment the Missile launches will be detected the notion will be that its a nuclear attack coming down - 

And that will trigger the ultimate defence 

Nuclear armed F16, and Cruise Missiles and Modified Tamahwak missiles from sea , and Nuclear Armed missiles - 

It will be more like a knee jerk reaction on missile launch so anynation that fires a missile will be triggering a nuclear war - 

But in general a missile can be brought down if you have Awacs - that give you early warning and if you happen to have planes in air 

But high quantity is another story which really points back to the frist notion , UNLEASH THE FURY sorta sopeak -

There is a reason why Russia and US don't normally dare launch missiles over each other or even in proximity of each other to trigger an accidental launch becasue you have no way to know if its a normal missile a dud or a nuclear launch

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

safriz said:


> One aircraft has been dedicated for jamming..the rest for attack.


Yes.



safriz said:


> The whole squadron solely depends on one jamming pod attached to one plane..What if it fails or the enemy radars have countermeasures?


If the enemy has ECCM, then it is a battle between the two EW warriors. Victory will be determined by creativity as well as technology wielded by either side. If the ECM attack aircraft is damaged or even lost in combat, then the group is in danger.






Stand-in ECM is like a shield, designed to initially hide the true number of the attack force. Stand-off ECM is often used to distract. Between two or more ECM aircrafts, we can have 'mutual support jamming' (MSJ) tactic. This tactic required more extensive training for the ECM squadron. Last resort is 'self-screening jamming' (SSJ). This require the aircraft to carry its own ECM weapon, such as a pod, but this demand the attack aircraft to make a sacrifice -- a loss of a hardpoint.



safriz said:


> Not sure about the towed decoy..In straight flight,it will work..but if the plane needs to make evasive manoeuvrings or tight turns...The tow may become a hazard and get tangled somewhere....I had seen B-52s video where they launch decoys..But detached decoys...which fly on their own...not towed.


There is only one advantage -- a slight one -- that a towed decoy has over an ejected one and that is the towed decoy has the same airspeed as the parent aircraft, making it more difficult for a radar guided missile to discern the two radar objects. The towed decoy can be ejected if necessary.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Mani2020

*Gambit*

i have a question from you regarding ECM pods.

i was going through another forum and came across a comment "China is offering jamming pod with jf-17 this shows that in built ECM capability of jf-17 is not good" 

how much there is reality in this statement .do external ECM pod does speak for less capability of in built ECM?

if it is so then our f-16s also carry external jamming pod.does this statement also stand for them?


----------



## gambit

Mani2020 said:


> *Gambit*
> 
> i have a question from you regarding ECM pods.
> 
> i was going through another forum and came across a comment "China is offering jamming pod with jf-17 this shows that in built ECM capability of jf-17 is not good"
> 
> how much there is reality in this statement .do external ECM pod does speak for less capability of in built ECM?
> 
> if it is so then our f-16s also carry external jamming pod.does this statement also stand for them?


Electronic CounterMeasures (ECM) is broad and that would include the radar warning receiver (RWR) set. Does the JF-17 has a 'built-in' ECM capability similar to an external ECM pod? I doubt it. We can safely assume that it does have an RWR set. The internal volume space of a fighter is very limited, particularly in the forward fuselage section where the cockpit and the avionics bays resides. For self-screening ECM an external pod is necessary. But even if a fighter aircraft can be fitted with some offensive ECM capability, it would still be considerably less capable than an external pod simply because of size.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Donatello

gambit said:


> Electronic CounterMeasures (ECM) is broad and that would include the radar warning receiver (RWR) set. Does the JF-17 has a 'built-in' ECM capability similar to an external ECM pod? I doubt it. We can safely assume that it does have an RWR set. The internal volume space of a fighter is very limited, particularly in the forward fuselage section where the cockpit and the avionics bays resides. For self-screening ECM an external pod is necessary. But even if a fighter aircraft can be fitted with some offensive ECM capability, it would still be considerably less capable than an external pod simply because of size.





You state some very good points.
At the moment JF-17's space needs to be optimized for more powerful radar for it's primary role is Air to Air attack and Air-defense.

But the way electronics industry is making advances we can always retrofit the JF-17s later.

I mean, no one would have thought that F-16 would end up as powerful as the BLK52+



But hey this is SAM thread, so lets keep it that way.
We can move to JF-17 thread.


Good post Gambit, nonetheless.


----------



## ANG

Hi Mani2020, the Su-27/35 planes have wingtip mounted ECM jamming pods. The is the case even for such large airplanes which have a lot more internal volume. As such, having an external jamming pod is no reflection on the capability of the fighter. In fact most modern fighters carry external jamming pods. The F-16 also does. This allows for more upto date technology/pods to be used, rather then having to re-wire the internals of a plane. Take care.

AN/ALQ-184 Electronic Attack Pod

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Chogy said:


> I may have missed it, but are these frequency agile? How robust is the ECCM?
> 
> For every weapon "X", there is a weapon "Y" designed to counter it, like HARM and similar anti-radiation missiles.


Any air defense radar that does not have frequency agility is not worth putting in front of the service chiefs on paper, let alone the market in readied form. Frequency agility was difficult with analog technology, but no longer with the digitized age we are in today.

For interested readers...







Assume the above is a three-pulses pulse train in a transmission period. Frequency agility is the ability to shift -- higher or lower -- the frequency per train. The burden for the radar is to remember what freq was used in *WHICH* pulse train over time if that time period contains many trains. Pulse amplitude agility can also be incorporated but there would be an increase in data processing complexity in terms of hardware -- memory capacity -- and software sophistication to sort out the echoes' differences. Pulse level agility is possible and naturally required even more data processing capability. Keep in mind that for any pulse radar system, transmission characteristics manipulation is best reserved per train.

Another level of pulse train characteristics manipulations, or agility, is 'PRI jittering'.











For now...Focus on 'stable', 'stagger', and 'jitter'.

The 'stable' pulse repetition interval (PRI) type of pulse train is quite standard. Airport radars need not be more sophisticated to have effective traffic control. Police speed radars need not be more sophisticated to catch all you drivers who would defy governmental authority on the roads regarding speed limits.

The 'stagger' PRI type is where -- per pulse train -- there are 'time frames' or lower level pulse trains where the PRI has a variable but *PREDICTABLE* pattern. This pattern repeat from 'frame' to 'frame'. Helpful in tracking and analyzing the internal workings of a storm, for example...

Multi-PRI Signal Processing for the Terminal Doppler Weather Radar. Part I: Clutter Filtering - Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology | HighBeam Research - FREE trial


> Multiple pulse repetition interval (multi-PRI) transmission is part of an adaptive signal transmission and processing algorithm being developed to aggressively combat range-velocity ambiguity in weather radars.



The 'jitter' PRI waveform has practically no widespread civilian use. At the pulse train level, the PRI is usually as unpredictable as the data processing can make it. The longer the pulse train, the greater the demand for the radar to remember that pattern and to try to discern the same pattern from the echoes, if any. The target, of course, cannot predict when the next pulse will come.

The above two illustrations just give different graphical perspectives on these PRI manipulated waveforms.

The last waveform is 'dwell-and-switch', technically similar to 'stagger' but different in application. For the EW crowd, often it is called 'bait-and-switch'. The application here is electromagnetic (EM) and electronic warfare (EW) reconnaissance and this is where those RC-whatever aircrafts come into play. What happens is that the recon aircraft will transmit a series of pulses with predictable characteristics then switch to another set of pulses with another set of predictable pulses. In other words, this pulse train can have many 'frames' of predictable pulses but the frames themselves are unpredictable. The goal is to provoke or 'bait' the air defense radars into responding, hence 'bait-and-switch'. The 'dwell' time can vary according to those responses. This is sort of a passive ECM between the two sides. Active ECM is where the next response will contain missiles.

One can argue and ask that the air defense radars not respond at all to conceal its true capabilities as far as penetration of ECM attacks goes. Anyone does fencing? Any fencer will learn early into the sport on why it is important to learn how to 'read' his opponent's foil pressure against his own. Asking an air defense radar not to respond to a recon probe is like asking a boxer never to spar. The Soviets knew what we were doing with those orbiting RC-whatever aircrafts and they knew they had to respond in order to learn how quickly can we change our probing waveforms as it would indicate our technical prowess. The advantage is with the provocateur. If we do not know or can reasonably guess about the Soviets' air defense radar capabilities, we can safely assume the worst while the Soviets would be in the dark about how we could start an ECM attack based upon that 'worst' assumption. They had to respond to learn about US but the question is to what level lest they gave too much away about themselves.

The above is may be 1/100th of the many variations of radar waveforms based upon the four characteristics: freq, pulse amplitude, pulse width, and pulse repetition. The US has decades of experience at producing radars and ECM gears with these capabilities and at probing to find out what our adversaries can do that could degrade an actually assault at the EW level. If there is a shooting war between US and Iran/China/North Korea, many have argued that none of them are Iraq where the Iraqi air defense failed spectacularly. The argument is based upon the premise that the technological gap between Iran/China/NKR and the US are less than between Iraq and the US. True that they have made much progress since Desert Storm but if that technological gap is relatively the same because of US progress in this arena, then the odds are very good that the result will be similar to Iraq.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## malikkhawar

good news to have SAM System. in PAF


----------



## abaseen99

chanies air defence system


----------



## abaseen99




----------



## abaseen99




----------



## abaseen99




----------



## abaseen99




----------



## abaseen99




----------



## abaseen99




----------



## abaseen99




----------



## abaseen99

The PLA's Air Defense Missile Systems 

The PLA's airborne surveillance radar effort has paralleled the deployment of a range of advanced Eastern European and indigenous air defense radars and passive detection systems, some of which are intended to support interceptors, and some missile batteries. 

The indigenous CETC YLC-20 emitter locating system is modeled on the Czech Tamara/Vera and Ukrainian Kolchuga M, several of which were procured by the PLA. The United States has in the past blocked the export of the Czech Vera system. These networked sensors can precisely track aircrafts by exploiting their radar and network terminal radio frequency emissions. 

The most prominent counter-stealth radar developed to date is the two meter band CETC JY-27, similar to the Russian NNIRT Nebo SV/SVU series. The Russians are claiming that radars in this class can track stealth aircraft such as the F-117A stealth fighter at ranges of around 200 nautical miles. 

The centerpiece of the PLA&#8217;s SAM system is the imported variants of the formidable Russian Almaz S-300PMU/PMU1 (SA-10 Grumble / SA-20A Gargoyle) and S-300PMU2 Favorit (SA-20B Gargoyle), which are Russian equivalents to the U.S. Patriot PAC-1 and PAC-2 systems. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, the PLA has deployed 32 S-300PMU launch systems, 64 S-300PMU1 launch systems, and 32 new S-300PMU2 launch systems. These numbers amount to 16 to 32 batteries, subject to composition [14]. 

Russia is now deploying its first Almaz-Antey S-400 (SA-21) batteries, the system formerly known as the S-300PMU3. It incorporates much more powerful radars, the improved 48N6E3 missile, shorter range 9M96E/E2 missiles for self-defense against anti-radar weapons such as the US HARM, and the 200-nautical-mile long-range 40N6E missile. The latter is intended to kill surveillance aircraft like the E-3 AWACS and RC-135V/W Rivet Joint, as well as electronic warfare aircraft like the EA-6B Prowler and EA-18G Growler. There are claims that China contributed funding to the development of the S-400, as well as claims that the S-400 is now being marketed to the PLA, but no hard evidence has surfaced to date (China Brief, July 17). 

Unlike the U.S. Patriot missile system, the Russian S-300P series systems are highly mobile and include a diverse range of supporting radars, including the 30N6 Flap Lid and Tomb Stone phased array engagement radars, the 36D6 Tin Shield acquisition radar, and in the later variants 64N6 Big Bird series phased array acquisition radars. The S-300P series systems were built to engage low-flying cruise missiles and aircraft at all altitudes. The systems include the earlier 5V55 series missiles with ranges of up to 50 nautical miles and the more recent 48N6E series missiles with up to 110 nautical miles of range. The latter missiles allow a coastal battery in the Taiwan Strait to deny the use of airspace above Taiwan. There are claims that the PLA has experimented with the integration of two meter band radars as an acquisition component in these missile batteries [15]. 

The S-300P systems are supplemented by the HQ-9 missile and associated HT-233 radar, which use technology from the S-300PMU, with 64 launch systems deployed. The FT2000 &#8220;counter-AWACS&#8221; missile is part of this package. The indigenous mobile HQ-12/KS-1A missile and HT-200 radar are employed as gap fillers [16]. 

The most capable short-range missile system is the imported Russian 9K331 Tor M/M1 or SA-15 Gauntlet, which would be used to protect targets against smart munitions and cruise missiles. The Crotale has been further developed [17]. 

Conclusions 

China&#8217;s air defense system is maturing into the largest, most capable and technically advanced in Asia, and will be capable of inflicting very heavy attrition on any aircraft other than upper tier U.S. stealth systems. Until the U.S. deploys its planned &#8220;New Generation Bomber&#8221; post-2020, the United States will have only 180 F-22 Raptors and 20 B-2A Spirit bombers capable of penetrating the PLA&#8217;s defensive shield. This may not be enough to act as a credible non-nuclear strategic deterrent. The weakness of the U.S. strategic posture relative to China is further exacerbated by a limited number of bases across the West Pacific, with key sites at Kadena AFB on Okinawa and Andersen AFB on Guam unhardened and thus unusable were the PLA to launch DF-21 Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles, or cruise missiles, against these sites in the event of a conflict [18]. 

The existing U.S. military posture in Asia with close regional allies such as Japan, Australia and South Korea are predicated on the United States retaining a non-nuclear strategic capability advantage over the PLA. If that advantage continues to erode with improving PLA capabilities and declining United States relative capabilities, a seismic shift may eventually occur in Asia as the strategic balance in the West Pacific swings away from the United States in favor of China. The United States still has strategic options available that will however require the incoming administration depart fundamentally from the policy of ignoring PLA capability growth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## abaseen99

SAM System PLA Designation
Engagement Radar Acquisition Radars Status







SA-2/CSA-1
HQ-2B/J SJ-202 Gin Sling A
P-12/18 Spoon Rest
YLC-8
Legacy

SA-2/CSA-2 HQ-2B SJ-202 Gin Sling B
P-12/18 Spoon Rest
YLC-8
Legacy 
HQ-61
HQ-61 Type 341/342
P-15 Flat Face Legacy 
HQ-64
HQ-64/LY-60
LY-60 Track/Illuminate
LY-60 Acquistion
Production 
CSA-4
HQ-7/FM-80
FM-80FS/Type 345 FM-80SS Production 
CSA-5 HQ-7/FM-90
FM-90FS FM-90SS
Production 
FB-6A
FB-6A
FB-6A
FB-6A Production 
Yi Tian 
Yi Tian WZ551 Yi Tian Yi Tian Production 
FLV-1
FLV-1/FLG-1/FL-2000 FLV-1 FLV-1 Production 
LS-II
LS-II LS-II LS-II Production 
HQ-12
HQ-12/KS-1A H-200 / SJ-231
JY-11/JY-11B
YLC-18
JYL-1
Production

HQ-9/FD/FT-2000
HQ-9
HT-233
Type 305A
Type 305B
Type 120
Production

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## abaseen99

The L-band JY-29/Type 120 (depicted), YLC-18, JYL-1 and YL-11B are typical of the new generation of PLA self-propelled tactical 3D acquisition radars, designed to support a range of SAM systems.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## abaseen99

The new S-400 Triumf 92N6E Grave Stone engagement radar on MZKT-7930 chassis. It is the latest and most powerful evolution of the 30N6 Flap Lid family of engagement radars used with the SA-10/20/21 family of SAM systems .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## abaseen99

Russian arms dealers will sell to China by Zhuhai Airshow S-400 missile
Posted on November 14, 2010 by admin 


According to Russia&#8217;s &#8220;military industrial complex&#8221; website reported that Russian air defense weapons, the number one manufacturer of diamond &#8211; Aetna consortium, has been determined to be November 16 to participate in the opening of the Zhuhai Air Show. It is interesting that the Canadian &#8220;Chinese Defense Review,&#8221; As previously reported, the PLA in Fujian deployment of advanced Russian-made S-300PMU2 long-range surface to air missiles, &#8220;the Air Force severely restricts freedom of movement in Taiwan.&#8221; This missile is the diamond &#8211; Aetna Commonwealth&#8217;s leading products.

Forefront of competitive products to take root across the Taiwan Strait

According to Diamond &#8211; Aetna consortium spokesman, China is the company&#8217;s top markets. To this end, Diamond &#8211; Aetna consortium will show videos in this exhibition, but also disseminate information on S-400 &#8220;triumph&#8221; of the material surface to air missile system. This implies that the company is actively seeking more Chinese orders.

According to &#8220;Chinese and&#8221; October Road magazine reported, the PLA has deployed in Fujian eight S-300PMU2 missile launchers. The missile has a maximum range of 200 km, while the Taiwan Strait, the narrowest point is only 130 km north. Taiwan, &#8220;Apple Daily&#8221; have thus quoted as saying that the Taiwan military generals, S-300PMU2 of the Taiwan military aircraft out of the greater Taipei area pose a serious threat, &#8220;God is equal to a range of attacks on the mainland.&#8221;

According to the analysis, S-300PMU2 missile radar supporting distance of 300 km, enough to provide early warning, if you meet the data link, the big Lusan Jun can share information in order to achieve a similar system with the U.S. combat capability; the same time, with the S- 300PMU2 deterrent force, the PLA do not have to worry about the safety of other deep targets, strengthen the attacking force could release forces. Thus, the PLA forward deployment of advanced surface to air missiles in the Taiwan Strait, valued not only its range, but also because they can enhance the army&#8217;s overall combat effectiveness.

In fact, S-300PMU2 not a diamond &#8211; Aetna Commonwealth of the most advanced products. This summer, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin visited the company, visited with great interest during the S-400 missile production line, and personally got into the tube to see what all the missile launch. He half-jokingly said: &#8220;If you take I launched into an altitude of 15,000 meters, maybe I can lay several enemy intercontinental missiles.&#8221;

S-400 is the company spent 15 years developing the &#8220;ultimate product&#8221;, the biggest feature is compatible with both the missile, the first range of 400 km, is said to destroy stealth aircraft, can also be used to deal with airborne early warning aircraft and electronic jamming aircraft; The second and the U.S. &#8220;Patriot&#8221; PAC-3 missiles rather, the use of active radar guidance, can destroy only 5 meters altitude low altitude targets. These two complementary missile missing, may constitute a multi-level air defense. According to Russian News Agency reported, S-400 in the future with A-135 strategic missile defense system join forces to form the state-wide integrated air defense network in Moscow.

Diamond &#8211; Aetna Commonwealth of origin can be traced back to the Soviet Ministry of Electronics Industry 1983 Nianxia issued Decree No. 640. Under the Order, in Moscow Electrical Institute, located in Ventura&#8217;s &#8220;Heaven Arrow&#8221; Institute and an ordnance factory merged into Aetna Associates, specializing in air defense weapons development. April 23, 2002, when Russian President Vladimir Putin issued Decree No. 412, asked Aetna Inc. and Diamond Design Bureau to form a diamond &#8211; Aetna air defense concern unlimited stock company, under the jurisdiction of 46 research institutes and enterprises, largest in similar enterprises in the world.

However, the combination have not gone smoothly. Aetna Inc. and Diamond Design Bureau are reluctant to let the other party when the &#8220;overlord&#8221;, the result the two against each other, and even staged a &#8220;Infernal Affairs.&#8221; June 6, 2003, diamond &#8211; the Commonwealth&#8217;s first president, Aetna Eagle Klimov was shot dead in Moscow in front of their own, when he was 42 years old. The case has not solved, the police suspected the Russian diamond &#8211; Aetna officers within the Commonwealth of incitement to murder Klimov to fish in troubled waters.

Although there are some shady, but the diamond &#8211; the operational capacity of the Commonwealth of Aetna unaffected. So far from the Soviet Union, the company has exported a value of 80 billion dollars in anti-aircraft missiles and related facilities, almost equal to the amount of foreign exchange sales Su -27/30 famous Sukhoi fighter jets. Up to now, this for 3 years by the U.S. consulting firm Teal Group, included the ranks of the world&#8217;s top ten arms dealer business, nearly 100 countries to provide air defense systems to &#8220;protect the people of the world God&#8221; claim.


----------



## Tajdar adil

Well this is good news for Pakistan....


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

Areesh said:


> Well this is just the beginning, the batteries would be increased later after proper induction.
> 
> Hey please someone share the differences between HQ-9 and HQ-18 with us here.





*lol. HQ-18 is S-300PMU2. It is RUSSIAN, but in China it is called HQ-18. China can NOT sell HQ-18.*

*HQ-9A is currently China's state of the art SAM with equal performance of S-300PMU2. This is why China stopped buying S-300 from Russia.*

Pakistan could get HQ-9A from China. It is possible and will significantly enhcance Pakistan's air defence capability. HQ-9A can also intercept ballstic missiles.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## ANG

Hi, it is rumored the PAF is interested in FT2000, HQ-18. HQ-9A. Please just buy one of them and quit procrastinating! Take care.


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

ANG said:


> Hi, it is rumored the PAF is interested in FT2000, HQ-18. HQ-9A. Please just buy one of them and quit procrastinating! Take care.




It will be HQ-9A. The rumor says that HQ-9B is already in PLA so HQ-9A is now avaiable for export.

HQ-18 NOT Possible it is the same S-300PMU2.

FT-2000, a water down version for export back in early 2000's now it is gone. HQ-9A is competing in Turkey's advanced SAM program now and it is a contendor with S-300PMU2 and American PAC-3!!

Who will win?? No one knows yet, but there is a good possibility that HQ-9A can win if Chinese offer much TOT!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## abaseen99

Home :: Missile Defense Systems


Hongqi-9 (HQ-9)
Country: China
Basing: Land, Sea
Details
The Hongqi-9 (HQ-9) is a long-range, high-altitude, surface-to-air missile system developed and manufactured by China, designed to track and destroy aircraft, cruise missiles, air-to-surface missiles, and tactical ballistic missiles. It incorporates technology from the Russian S-300P (NATO: SA-10 Grumble), the U.S. Patriot missile, and preexisting Chinese systems. (1) At present, China is outfitting its Type 052C destroyers with a naval variant of the HQ-9.(2)

China&#8217;s decision to develop and manufacture its own anti-missile system is a manifestation of its twenty-first century goal of achieving what political scientists refer to as &#8220;great power status&#8221;&#8212;the buildup of political, economic, and military strength. A key ingredient of &#8220;great power status&#8221; is military modernization, in China&#8217;s case the renovation of certain outdated aspects of the People&#8217;s Liberation Army (PLA).(3) In particular, China has concentrated its recent efforts on boosting its offensive and defensive missile capabilities in order to compete with the U.S. and other Western powers.

Beijing&#8217;s specific emphasis on air and missile defense has its roots in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, during which China observed the complete supremacy of U.S. and Coalition air power in Iraq. The ability of the U.S. to decimate Iraq&#8217;s ground-based military with cruise missiles and smart bombs served to highlight China&#8217;s relative inability to defend its major cities, military assets, industrial complexes, and other high-value assets against such an attack. The development of China&#8217;s HQ-9 surface-to-air missile, therefore, is rooted in its observation and understanding of U.S. military power.(4)

Ironically, Beijing has ranked among the most vociferous opponents of U.S. missile defense, having denounced various U.S. initiatives during the Clinton administration, and more recently, the Bush administration&#8217;s decision in 2002 to withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty.(5) Yet in recent years, China has followed a comprehensive two-track plan to bolster its own air and missile defenses: (1) the purchase of Russian surface-to-air missiles and (2) the development of its own missile defense systems.(6)

An example of this &#8220;redundant&#8221; acquisition and development program is China&#8217;s purchase of S-300P missiles from Russia, and the manufacturing of its own HQ-9 system.(7) The HQ-9, in particular, demonstrates China&#8217;s end goal of a comprehensive air and missile defense shield.(8) In a report to Congress on May 28, 2004, the U.S. Department of Defense emphasized this very point:

Significant developments over the past few years to improve China&#8217;s integrated air defense system include . . . [the] development of a land-based version of the long-range HQ-9, to precede a naval version, designed to be a long-range counter to high-performance aircraft, cruise missiles, ASMs, and tactical ballistic missiles.(9)


It is important to note, however, that the HQ-9 has been in development since the mid-1990s. In 1993, China purchased a large batch of S-300P missiles from Russia, and allegedly obtained a copy of the U.S. Patriot missile from Israel (although Israel denies that such a transfer took place).(10) The Chinese immediately began incorporating the S-300P and Patriot technology into their own air and missile defense system, the HQ-9. In 1997, the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence suggested that &#8220;technology from advanced Western systems may be incorporated into the HQ-9.&#8221;(11) That same year, an official at a Russian missile design bureau acknowledged that the HQ-9 would incorporate the Patriot guidance and propulsion systems, thus confirming U.S. suspicions.(12)

According to missile defense expert David A. Fulghum, &#8220;[the HQ-9] uses a seeker-aided ground guidance system. The seeker on the missile sends target data back to the ground, which then correlates the target data for an intercept.&#8221;(13) It is assumed that the HQ-9&#8217;s seeker is similar to the Patriot&#8217;s &#8220;Track-via-Missile&#8221; guidance system.(14) Such a system, if actually used by the Chinese, would allow the HQ-9 interceptor missile to fly straight toward its target and explode at the point of nearest approach, thus completely destroying the incoming ballistic missile (or aircraft) or knocking it far enough off course so that it misses its intended target. During the Persian Gulf War, the U.S. Patriot Advanced Capability-2 system, which employs &#8220;Track-via-Missile,&#8221; destroyed its targets between 40 and 70 percent of the time.

In addition to its land-based deployments, the HQ-9 has been recently modified to complement China&#8217;s burgeoning naval forces. Over the past few months, the People&#8217;s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) hasoutfitted two Type 052C destroyers with naval variants of the HQ-9, estimated to have a range of 65 nautical miles. Each Type 052C destroyer (similar to the U.S. Aegis destroyer) has six vertical launchers carrying approximately 36 missiles, as well as a phased-array radar system.(15) Initial reports indicate that the naval HQ-9 has a range of 65 nautical miles. The Type 052C destroyers will most likely be based at either Guangzhou or Zhanjiang.(16)

In October 2003, it was announced that China had sold its FT-2000 anti-radiation system, which uses HQ-9 missiles, to Pakistan as part of the latter&#8217;s military buildup against India. Many U.S. defense analysts predict that, over the next few years, the HQ-9 and its variants will be aggressively exported throughout Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.


----------



## MJaa

* Strategic Weapon Systems*

HQ-18 (S-300V) (China), Defensive weapons

Description 

There were reports that China was building the Hong Qi-18 (HQ-18) missile system, based upon the Russian S-300V1 type 2 (SA-12A 'Gladiator') missile system. This missile system first entered service in Russia in 1983, with the improved S-300V1 version following in 1996.

The missiles can be used against Short-Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBM), aircraft or cruise missile targets, with intercepts taking place at between 25 m and 25 km altitude. The missile has a length of 7.0 m, a body diameter of 0.72 m, and a launch weight of 2,345 kg.

The missile has a 150 kg HE fragmentation warhead, that may be directed towards the target. Guidance is inertial with command updates and a semi-active radar terminal seeker. The maximum range is 100 km. The Chinese may be developing an improved version, but there has been no confirmation. 

*An unconfirmed report in January 2010 stated that an intercept was made against an Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) target, and it is possible that this used an HQ-18 interceptor missile.*


----------



## MJaa

*HQ-9 and HHQ-9 (China), Defensive weapons
*

Type 


Short- and medium-range, ground- and ship-based, solid propellant, theatre defence missiles.

Development 

The Chinese are reported to have ordered Russian surface-to-air S-300 PMU (SA-10C 'Grumble') missile batteries in 1991, with follow-up orders in 1994 for the S-300 PMU-1 (SA-10D). 

These missiles entered service in Russia in 1985 and 1992 respectively. Some of the later missiles were assembled in China, and it is believed that the Russian manufactured missile systems have the Chinese designator Hong Qi-15 (HQ-15). The Fourth Research Insititute, now CASIC, are reported to have developed an improved version from 1994, and this version has the designator HQ-9. 

The HQ-9 and HQ-15 are capable of intercepting short-range ballistic missiles with a range of up to 600 km, cruise missiles, air-to-surface missiles, aircraft, helicopters and UAVs. An upgraded version, designated HQ-9A, was tested in 1999, and entered service in 2001.

A further version, designated HQ-9B, is being developed, with an improved seeker that is reported to have a dual-mode semi-active radar and imaging IR capability. A flight test for the HQ-9B version was reported in February 2006. 

An anti-radar SAM version, designated HQ-12 (export version FT-2000), is detailed in a separate record, but it is not clear if this is based upon the HQ-9 design.

The Chinese ordered some S-300 PMU-2 Favorit (SA-20 'Gargoyle') missile systems in August 2004, and it is expected that these will also be built under licence in China as a follow-on to the HQ-9 family.

The Chinese have developed a naval version of HQ-9, and this version is believed to have the designators Hai Hong Qi-9 (HHQ-9)


----------



## MJaa

*HQ-16/-17 (HHQ-16/-17 and MD-2000) (China), Defensive weapons*

Type 
Short-range, ground- and ship-based, solid propellant, theatre defence missile systems.

Development 

The Hong Qi-16 (HQ-16) project was reported to have been a joint Russian/Chinese development of the Russian Buk-M1 (SA-11 'Gadfly') and Ural/Buk-2M (SA-17 'Grizzly') Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) systems, for use from mobile ground vehicles and later from ships. Development is believed to have started in China around 1998, and started with the HQ-16 which is believed to be an improved version of the Buk-M1 system. 

This system is believed to have the Chinese export designator MD-2000. It was suggested that a naval version of improved HQ-16 missiles, designated Hai Hong Qi-16 (HHQ-16), would be used on the Chinese Sovremenny-class destroyers purchased from Russia, as later upgrades to the existing Urugan (SA-N-7 'Gadfly') missiles, but this has not been confirmed.

In 2003 reports of a further upgrade programme suggested that an HQ-17 version was being developed w*ith a range of 45 km,* and that this system was based on the Ural/Buk-2M version. 

*A naval HHQ-16 or -17 version has been developed with a Vertical Launch System (VLS), and this is fitted in Luyang 1 (Type 052B)-class destroyers with 48 missiles, and in Jiangkai II (Type 054A)-class frigates with 32 missiles per ship. *

The HQ-17 may include digital electronics, new display screens and improved training and simulation facilities, similar to those being offered by Russia for the Buk-MB upgrade programme.


----------



## ynmian

two quick questions
1. 4 SAM systems? that means 4 separate type of missiles?


2. are they equivalent to famous SA-5 And SA-6 or better


----------



## SQ8

ynmian said:


> two quick questions
> 1. 4 SAM systems? that means 4 separate type of missiles?
> 
> 
> 2. are they equivalent to famous SA-5 And SA-6 or better


 

1. Means 4 batteries.. a battery consists of the detection system(ala radar),missile launchers and a control system.

2. Much better.. equal to the newer Sa-12 system.


----------



## us1956

the HQ-9A is the navy version which is China currently used on type 52c destroyer. the HQ-9 and and improved version HQ-9B are currently offered to friendly nations. it's likely Pakistan goes for HQ-9B.
the design of HQ-9 was based on s300-pmu and Patriot guidance with better electronics components and faster Cpu


----------



## Silk

It is HQ-9B. About what is offered or not. It is about what PAF wants to pay. If Pakistan buys FC20/J10B does that mean PLA haS dumped it already and moved to big numbers of J20? I doubt that. So why did they provide SD10 version 2 if PAF could get the first version? Now PAF showed JF17 suddenly PLA is interested. How come? PAF had F7PG then China got J7G. We have to take these comments about offered lower tech as a spoon of salt. Based on old rhetoric. What is true is that there is an high certainty that the export versions differ from frequency or some components that could impact foreign interference. And there would be possible some different parts cause it needs to be part of netcentric warfare and had different usage then the long range usage in China. PAF needs to react in seconds and the distance is not the real problem. Even the height is not a problem cause it already has AWACS/long range ground radars to detect.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nightcrawler

> lol. HQ-18 is S-300PMU2. It is RUSSIAN, but in China it is called HQ-18. China can NOT sell HQ-18.



I need reassurances here!!


----------



## Super Falcon

HQ 18 will be deadly weapon against indian airforce


----------



## applesauce

nightcrawler said:


> I need reassurances here!!


 
http://tinyurl.com/4qwkn5a


----------



## Ababeel

HQ-9 


Type: Surface-to-air missile 
Place of origin: People's Republic of China 
Service history: In service 1997 
Used by People's Liberation Army
People's Liberation Army Navy 
Production history: Manufacturer CPMIEC 
Produced 1980s 
Specifications: 
Weight - 1300 kg 
Length - 6.8 m 
Warhead weight - 180 kg 
Engine: Two-stage solid propellant rocket

Operational range - 200 km (slant range) 
Flight ceiling - 30 km (98,425 ft) [1] 
Speed - Mach 4.2 
Guidance system - Inertial guidance with mid-course update and terminal active radar homing 
Launch platform - Taian TAS5380 8×8 transporter erector launcher (TEL) & Type 052C destroyer


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

There are huge differences between HQ-9 and HQ-9A.

HQ-9A is much more advanced with ballatistic missile interception capability. It can also down any aircraft (SU-30, Mig-29, Mirage-2000, F-15, F-18, F-16, Rafale, EF-2000) from over 180KM at 40 KM of altitude.

HQ-9B is even more advanced than HQ-9A and HQ-9B is not for sale, at least for now!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## monitor

AerospaceEngineer said:


> There are huge differences between HQ-9 and HQ-9A.
> 
> HQ-9A is much more advanced with ballatistic missile interception capability. It can also down any aircraft (SU-30, Mig-29, Mirage-2000, F-15, F-18, F-16, Rafale, EF-2000) from over 180KM at 40 KM of altitude.
> 
> HQ-9B is even more advanced than HQ-9A and HQ-9B is not for sale, at least for now!!


 
HQ-9B will be HQ-18 's variant or improved variant of HQ-9A ?


----------



## ANG

Hi, please refer to the link below. The HQ-9B is an improved variant of the HQ-9A, and was supposedly tested a few years ago. I honestly think if Pakistan wants the HQ-9B, China will sell it to it. Take care.

HQ-9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Kompromat

FT/D-2000












KS-1A






LS-II-ADS






FL-2000






Thread has been stuck , please post all upcoming news and discussions here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice_man

is Pakistan even remotely interested in FT/D 2000??? i doubt Pakistan has any plans to invest in SAMs! it prefers spending on fighters whatever money it has


----------



## Armstrong

I read somewhere that having a potent SAM system network (HQ 9s, SPADAs etc.) is a cost-effective alternative to having a potent air-force if your primarily defense oriented; is that so ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rafi

Talks between Pakistan and Russia - have included the S-300 SAM - Russia has indicated it's willingness to negotiate - will come up in discussions to be held with COAS in Moscow - CAS - has already had some technical talk with Russian counterparts - along with PAF Specialists.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Machoman

Just four are you kidding me?.............I wonder how much they cost?.....we need at least 30 or 40 of those.



Rafi said:


> Talks between Pakistan and Russia - have included the S-300 SAM - Russia has indicated it's willingness to negotiate - will come up in discussions to be held with COAS in Moscow - CAS - has already had some technical talk with Russian counterparts - along with PAF Specialists.



Dude Pakistan has no money what is the reason to talk Russia for any arm...............


----------



## Rafi

Machoman said:


> Just four are you kidding me?.............I wonder how much they cost?.....we need at least 30 or 40 of those.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude Pakistan has no money what is the reason to talk Russia for any arm...............



"Dude" - finance will be arranged.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dil Pakistan

Machoman said:


> Just four are you kidding me?.............I wonder how much they cost?.....we need at least 30 or 40 of those.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude Pakistan has no money what is the reason to talk Russia for any arm...............



Money is no problem. We can Have money from US and buy Russian systems


----------



## turbo charged

we should erect 200 and 300 meter tall poles in our border areas....on the top of each pole we should weld one anza mk-2 manpad....bring the wires down to earth so that it can be operated from an underground command center/bunker.....one small camera with anza will also help....

very cheap and indigenous idea......

later on we can weld BVR's too on top of 400 meter tall poles.


----------



## Armstrong

turbo charged said:


> we should erect 200 and 300 meter tall poles in our border areas....on the top of each pole we should weld one anza mk-2 manpad....bring the wires down to earth so that it can be operated from an underground command center/bunker.....one small camera with anza will also help....
> 
> very cheap and indigenous idea......
> 
> later on we can weld BVR's too on top of 400 meter tall poles.



Good Joke...!


----------



## MastanKhan

Armstrong said:


> I read somewhere that having a potent SAM system network (HQ 9s, SPADAs etc.) is a cost-effective alternative to having a potent air-force if your primarily defense oriented; is that so ?



A potent air defense system is a must for an air force like that of pakistan----. It is a force multiplier----and if it survives he first couple of days of war---you can rest assured---it will inflict heavy damage to the enemy.

Case in point the 73 ramazan war---. The israelis suffered heavy casualties when they came within range of egyptians ground to air missiles---and again---the turkish aircraft wanders into the range of syrian anti air battery and pays a heavy price----.

If your missiles can survive the strikes by the enemy against your air defense systems---it will deny them control over your air space.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Armstrong

MastanKhan said:


> A potent air defense system is a must for an air force like that of pakistan----. It is a force multiplier----and if it survives he first couple of days of war---you can rest assured---it will inflict heavy damage to the enemy.
> 
> Case in point the 73 ramazan war---. The israelis suffered heavy casualties when they came within range of egyptians ground to air missiles---and again---the turkish aircraft wanders into the range of syrian anti air battery and pays a heavy price----.
> 
> If your missiles can survive the strikes by the enemy against your air defense systems---it will deny them control over your air space.



*Mastan Bhai*, a noob question : Can Pakistan rely on our missiles (the SRBMs, the Battlefield Nukes, the Cruise Missiles etc.) to hit their FOBs and more into mainland India in case of war whereas we invest heavily in an elaborated network of Air-Defense Systems all over the country to deny them superiority over or near Pakistani Air-space instead of investing in say 300 4 th generation fighters.


----------



## Last Hope

turbo charged said:


> we should erect 200 and 300 meter tall poles in our border areas....on the top of each pole we should weld one anza mk-2 manpad....bring the wires down to earth so that it can be operated from an underground command center/bunker.....one small camera with anza will also help....
> 
> very cheap and indigenous idea......
> 
> later on we can weld BVR's too on top of 400 meter tall poles.



Aren't you same person who suggested the following two posts? I have had them saved for future humor.



> suppose there are two f-16's standing *on the runway....one is at the front and the other one is at the rear....then a rope or string is used to connect the f-16 at the rear with f-16 at the front...that is fire proof rope coming out of the tail of one F-16 and joining with the nose of *f-16 at the back....just like they connect gliders with propeller driver airplanes and take them into skies.......
> 
> will the F-16 at the front create such thrust that f-16 at the rear can also get airborne with engines off....so these two airplanes can travel from islamabad to karachi...over karachi the rear f-16 can get rid of the rope,start its engine and fly to towards its target further in the south?....then there can be no need of air-refuelers....like this we can work on and practice *and connect 3,4 f-16's too...so that we can incease the range........
> 
> we can master this technique so that later on we connect out of fuel f-16 near karachi coast with a f-16 full of fuel that takes off from karachi goes and connects with f-16 out of fuel and bring it back on land...we can use one hard rope like some stick to connect them with stability.





> fighter jet to fighter jet refueling also has potential to strike inside india....we can remove radar from one of our jf-17....put a fuel tank in it...add a long pipe in the front....it can be used to refuel planes short of fuel in air.....



Please show some maturity.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## [--Leo--]

is that anti-stealth?FT-2000 or HQ-18 
They must get AESA RAdAR system with s-300 missile kit anyways some thing is better than nothing


----------



## turbo charged

Last Hope said:


> Aren't you same person who suggested the following two posts? I have had them saved for future humor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please show some maturity.




sir americans were also shooting at japanese mitsubishi zero planes with 303 rifles and revolvers at pearl harbour........so why not manpads fitted on poles?

the basic idea is that one large 300 meter tall poll dosent has any heat signature so enemy plane will have to come near it to take it out since it will also have almost zero visibility it would be difficult to spot.....plus we can install these poles on jeeps and double cabins so that location can be changed as and when required.......

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nishan_101

bc040400065 said:


> *Paks arms purchases from China go into overdrive*
> Thursday, November 18, 2010 12:47:20 PM by ANI
> 
> Guangdong, Nov 18 (ANI): Pakistan is interested in buying more defense systems and equipment from China, and hopes to deepen cooperation to upgrade its armed forces, a top Pakistan Air Force officer said on Wednesday.
> 
> *Pakistan is evaluating, among other options, three or four Chinese surface-to-air missiles, including the advanced HQ-18&#8243;, Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman told China Daily.*
> *Janes Defence News, a publication that specializes in military topics, reported that China was building the Hong Qi-18 (HQ-18) missile system based on the Russian S-300V1 type 2 (SA-12A Gladiator), presumably under a license agreement.* But this has not been confirmed by the Chinese military, the paper added.
> 
> *The missiles, with a maximum range of 100 km, can be used against short-range ballistic missiles, aircraft or cruise missiles, with intercepts taking place between a low-level 25 meters and an altitude of 25 kilometers, according to Janes.*
> 
> Suleman also said that China had completed the first of four Chinese ZDK-03 airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft for the Pakistan Air Force on November 13.
> 
> The delivery to Pakistan will start in the early part of next year, said Suleman, who is also Pakistan Air Forces Chief of Air Staff.
> 
> *He said that the Pakistan Air Force was also looking at the option of purchasing Chinese engines, though any final decision will depend on the engines quality.*
> 
> Suleman brought FC-1 (Fighter China-1) Xiaolong aircraft, an improved version of Chinas new generation fighter jet co-developed with Pakistan, to the China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition in Zhuhai.
> 
> Military research and development cooperation with China will continue not only in aircraft production, but in other areas as well, he maintained.
> 
> *The Pakistan Air Force is increasing production docks for the FC-1 (named the JF-17 Thunder in Pakistan) from four to six, and is aiming to have about 25 aircraft assembled by the end of the year, the paper said.*
> 
> Its on a very fast track, and there is no other fighter aircraft anywhere in the world, which has been produced so quickly, pointed out Suleman.
> 
> China and Pakistan have traditionally had close military relations, and Suleman said that bringing the FC-1 Xiaolong aircraft to Zhuhai was to display solidarity with China and to show to the world that we have a tremendous amount of respect and love for our Chinese friends.
> 
> Commenting on cooperation in military research and development, he said China and Pakistan will continue working together. There is no shortage of trust and no shortage of will. There will be more projects developed successfully.
> 
> Meanwhile, Chinese experts noted that the envisaged cooperation, however, does not target any country, and is tiny in scale compared to huge defense deals signed by US President Barack Obama in India earlier this month.
> 
> Beijing-based military strategist Peng Guangqian said that Beijings weapons deal with Islamabad had almost no effect on the balance of military power between Pakistan and India, especially given the multi-billion dollar defense deals signed between the United States and India during Obamas visit.
> 
> The China-Pakistan deals should not be a cause of alarm for other countries, he said, referring to the foreign media reports that the FC-1 was a concern for the Indian Air Force.
> 
> Sun Shihai, director of the Center for South Asian Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, added that Obama also promised India that the US would give it easier access to high-tech equipment for both civilian and military use.
> 
> Despite the huge gap between the Pakistani and Indian military forces, especially in terms of conventional weapons, the situation in the region is basically balanced given the fact that both countries have nuclear weapons, he said. (ANI)
> 
> 
> 
> Paks arms purchases from China go into overdrive


 
Although would be much better if we had joined with Chinese over the development of different electronics and electrical devices with Chinese along with Sensors so that we can also develop such system at home like PAC(Avionics Division), KRL, Institute of Optronics and other Public Firms will join in with Chinese to develop such system which can used on our own developed Missiles(SAM class).


----------



## Edevelop

Pakistan should keep it simple. Just keep increasing Thunders, AWACS and the SAM systems. They will make us well defended...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## karan21

Its time Pak should build some weapons like sams on their own. If India can build long range sams Pakistan needs to prove it can too

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Last Hope

turbo charged said:


> sir americans were also shooting at japanese mitsubishi zero planes with 303 rifles and revolvers at pearl harbour........so why not manpads fitted on poles?
> 
> the basic idea is that one large 300 meter tall poll dosent has any heat signature so enemy plane will have to come near it to take it out since it will also have almost zero visibility it would be difficult to spot.....plus we can install these poles on jeeps and double cabins so that location can be changed as and when required.......



The point is not fixing Manpads on the fence, the point is first building a 300 meter long fence would cost a lot. Secondly, building it on the borderline would a difficult job, as the Indians would not only be against it but even ambush the team building the fence. Thirdly, in-case of a war, it will take just a few tank or artillery hits to break down the fence and hence millions of dollars wasted and nothing achieved. Not only the enemy aircraft would drift into Pakistani airspace without any hits by Manpads, but the Anza MkII would have hands laid on by Indians and they would determine the working and weak points, counter them and build a better Manpad copied from Anza themselves.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mymeaningislion

turbo charged said:


> we should erect 200 and 300 meter tall poles in our border areas....on the top of each pole we should weld one anza mk-2 manpad....bring the wires down to earth so that it can be operated from an underground command center/bunker.....one small camera with anza will also help....
> 
> very cheap and indigenous idea......
> 
> later on we can weld BVR's too on top of 400 meter tall poles.



Where were u before....we were so foolish to neglect that.....o wow.......kid go and have a loli pop.......you post is miserable....i am not laughing....


----------



## Arsalan

SAM is a must have for PAF and PA air defence units!
we currently seriously lack a good medium to high altitude SAM system.
there were talks about HQ-9, HQ-18 (Chinese S-300V), FT-2000 but nothin have been confirmed.
This was all discussed back in 2010 at:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistan-strategic-forces/20716-surface-air-missile-20.html
System details, there procurement news and all...

Also there was an official statement of Pakistan evaluating HQ-18.


> Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman told China Daily that Pakistan is evaluating, among other options, three or four Chinese surface-to-air missiles including the advanced "HQ-18".
> 
> Jane's Defence News, a publication that specializes in military topics, reported that China was building the Hong Qi-18 (HQ-18) missile system based upon the Russian S-300V1 type 2 (SA-12A "Gladiator"), presumably under a license agreement. But this has not been confirmed by the Chinese military.
> 
> The missiles, with a maximum range of 100 km, can be used against short-range ballistic missiles, aircraft or cruise missiles, with intercepts taking place between a low-level 25 meters and an altitude of 25 kilometers, according to Jane's.


http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2010-11/18/content_11566984.htm
But nothing have been confirmed.

Only there were rumors that PAF have actually acquired some HQ-18 batteries but that was never announced publicly!!

regards!


----------



## turbo charged

Last Hope said:


> The point is not fixing Manpads on the fence, the point is first building a 300 meter long fence would cost a lot. Secondly, building it on the borderline would a difficult job, as the Indians would not only be against it but even ambush the team building the fence. Thirdly, in-case of a war, it will take just a few tank or artillery hits to break down the fence and hence millions of dollars wasted and nothing achieved. Not only the enemy aircraft would drift into Pakistani airspace without any hits by Manpads, but the Anza MkII would have hands laid on by Indians and they would determine the working and weak points, counter them and build a better Manpad copied from Anza themselves.



sir i am not talking about fence....i am talking about poles...poles...poles.....a pole is a vertical thing and a fence is horizontal...a pole just like cricket stadium flood lights......just replacing the flood lights with manpads......

some this that is airborne all the time.....300 meters is a lot of altitude....has zero heat signature and is hardly visible to naked eye and not building on borders..erecting these poles in border towns and villages or even near senstive locations......luring the enemy aircraft to them and then booooom.

plus if we can erect this pole in the load compartment of a double cabin....it would be mobile...changing location....


----------



## Capt.Popeye

turbo charged said:


> sir i am not talking about fence....i am talking about poles...poles...poles.....a pole is a vertical thing and a fence is horizontal...a pole just like cricket stadium flood lights......just replacing the flood lights with manpads......
> 
> some this that is airborne all the time.....300 meters is a lot of altitude....has zero heat signature and is hardly visible to naked eye and not building on borders..erecting these poles in border towns and villages or even near senstive locations......luring the enemy aircraft to them and then booooom.
> 
> plus if we can erect this pole in the load compartment of a double cabin....it would be mobile...changing location....




Idea is really _Jazzy!_ Only just calculate the weight of this 300 mtr "pole" before monting it on the load-bed of a double cabin. Cos that Double Cabin will just topple over on its side. Apart from that- just a single "pole" 300 mtrs tall will just sway in the wind uncontrollably, what will happen to the MANPAD then?

Don't give your ideas to PAF please, that will just be adding insult to injury. 
But good for a smile though.

p.s. take a good look at the base and overall size of the light towers at the cricket stadia, you'll wisen up. And they're not even 300 mtrs tall. Only about 50 mtrs or so.


----------



## Aamir Hussain

Lack of Point Defense SAM's for higher altitude interception of both a/c and incomming SRBM's and A/SLCM's is serious issue with the planners at both PAF and SPD. 

MANPADS are not the answer and are designed for a differnt role. PAF, PN, and Army have been using these AA solutions to fill obvious gaps in a true integrated airdefense plan. But they are not the solution. Navy needs med. range SAM's. Both PAF and Strategic Air Defense requires Med. to High altitude SAM's. MANPADS will continue to play their role against low level interdiction in foward defense command posts, radar installations, dumps, and artilliary positions and provide mobile AA cover to fast moving armoured thrusts. For PAF they are interlaced with point defense Crotale to avert lowlevel interdiction at airbases, and radar sites.

The bottom line, need Med to long range SAM's for point defense of strategic assets and air bases.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ice_man

Aamir Hussain said:


> Lack of Point Defense SAM's for higher altitude interception of both a/c and incomming SRBM's and A/SLCM's is serious issue with the planners at both PAF and SPD.
> 
> MANPADS are not the answer and are designed for a differnt role. PAF, PN, and Army have been using these AA solutions to fill obvious gaps in a true integrated airdefense plan. But they are not the solution. Navy needs med. range SAM's. Both PAF and Strategic Air Defense requires Med. to High altitude SAM's. MANPADS will continue to play their role against low level interdiction in foward defense command posts, radar installations, dumps, and artilliary positions and provide mobile AA cover to fast moving armoured thrusts. For PAF they are interlaced with point defense Crotale to avert lowlevel interdiction at airbases, and radar sites.
> 
> The bottom line, need Med to long range SAM's for point defense of strategic assets and air bases.



our country's armed forces believe that the best defence is a good offence & a mobile moving defence rather than a stationary target! hence PAF always invests in fighters and not so much in SAMs! 

SAM systems are too costly & can be destroyed by SEAD operations. hence pakitan with its limited resources avoids good SAM systems. 

the first GULF WAR showed how a SAM system can be annihilated by a major super power on the first night of hostilies! hence PAF is not keen SAMs unfortunately.


----------



## trendmaker1

ice_man said:


> our country's armed forces believe that the best defence is a good offence & a mobile moving defence rather than a stationary target! hence PAF always invests in fighters and not so much in SAMs!
> 
> SAM systems are too costly & can be destroyed by SEAD operations. hence pakitan with its limited resources avoids good SAM systems.
> 
> the first GULF WAR showed how a SAM system can be annihilated by a major super power on the first night of hostilies! hence PAF is not keen SAMs unfortunately.



It's old strategy....There should be a balance in offensive as well as in defensive capabilities...!!!


----------



## Aamir Hussain

ice_man said:


> our country's armed forces believe that the best defence is a good offence & a mobile moving defence rather than a stationary target! hence PAF always invests in fighters and not so much in SAMs!
> 
> SAM systems are too costly & can be destroyed by SEAD operations. hence pakitan with its limited resources avoids good SAM systems.
> 
> the first GULF WAR showed how a SAM system can be annihilated by a major super power on the first night of hostilies! hence PAF is not keen SAMs unfortunately.



Rehtoric aside, if we are out preparing to fight a superpower, then this investment in fighter aircrafts will also turn out to be useless. From the same example that you gave, Iraqi AF could not even launch its aircrafts except for few initial sorties. 

However, in fight with a regional power, the use or lack of it would mean the difference between tieing down resources for point air defense or interdiction. In 65' and 71' we had far less strategic assets to defend. Today we have lot more of consequence. Therefore, SAM cover is a need and no more a luxury.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ice_man

Aamir Hussain said:


> Rehtoric aside, if we are out preparing to fight a superpower, then this investment in fighter aircrafts will also turn out to be useless. From the same example that you gave, Iraqi AF could not even launch its aircrafts except for few initial sorties.
> 
> However, in fight with a regional power, the use or lack of it would mean the difference between tieing down resources for point air defense or interdiction. In 65' and 71' we had far less strategic assets to defend. Today we have lot more of consequence. Therefore, SAM cover is a need and no more a luxury.



unfortunately for PAF the gulf war along with shooting down of 2 indian fighters in 1999 kargil theater & the shooting down of an indian drone (given to them by israel) in the 2002 military buildup has made our airforce totally believe in the theory of low altitiude manpads & SAMs and fighters for the rest of air defence as the doctrine adopted by PAF.


----------



## Aamir Hussain

Doctrine? Which one? Seems something is wrong here. Thinking of air defense from MANPADS and going for Spada 2000 and China for high altitude SAM's.

Thank God that planners at PAF are not sniffing glue and fully know the consequences of going against a superpower unlike the rest of the 180 million believers in this land of pure. 

Lack of resources is the reason for going slow on this and not a matter of Doctrine or design.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ice_man

Aamir Hussain said:


> Doctrine? Which one? Seems something is wrong here. Thinking of air defense from MANPADS and going for Spada 2000 and China for high altitude SAM's.
> 
> Thank God that planners at PAF are not sniffing glue and fully know the consequences of going against a superpower unlike the rest of the 180 million believers in this land of pure.
> 
> Lack of resources is the reason for going slow on this and not a matter of Doctrine or design.



high altitiude SAMs from CHINA? which ones sir? PAF hasn't even considered anything along those lines! the FT-2000 was mentioned by our ex CAS but never was looked into seriously. as for SPADA 2000s it sticks to the doctrine of medium range SAM system. with a range of 25 kms.


----------



## Last Hope

ice_man said:


> high altitiude SAMs from CHINA? which ones sir? PAF hasn't even considered anything along those lines! the FT-2000 was mentioned by our ex CAS but never was looked into seriously. as for SPADA 2000s it sticks to the doctrine of medium range SAM system. with a range of 25 kms.



Anything I say is sensitive on this matter but all I can say is that you're wrong. You're not updated with recent developments in Air Defense.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ice_man

Last Hope said:


> Anything I say is sensitive on this matter but all I can say is that you're wrong. You're not updated with recent developments in Air Defense.



so you are trying to say that PAF is purchasing high altititude SAMs in the cover of darkness and the world doesn't know! i am sorry but my information regarding the minhas events and purchase of SAMs is as acurate as it can be. but anyhow if we wish to enter a self made realm of "c lassified" then i guess this discussion can't proceeed!


----------



## Aamir Hussain

And what is your source of info. my friend?


----------



## Imran Khan

ice_man said:


> so you are trying to say that PAF is purchasing high altititude SAMs in the cover of darkness and the world doesn't know! i am sorry but my information regarding the minhas events and purchase of SAMs is as acurate as it can be. but anyhow if we wish to enter a self made realm of "c lassified" then i guess this discussion can't proceeed!



ye is ki purani adat ahi yaar remember 36 block-52


----------



## ANPP

ice_man said:


> unfortunately for PAF the gulf war along with shooting down of 2 indian fighters in 1999 kargil theater & the shooting down of an indian drone (given to them by israel) in the 2002 military buildup has made our airforce totally believe in the theory of low altitiude manpads & SAMs and fighters for the rest of air defence as the doctrine adopted by PAF.



Grow-up man,
MIG-21 & MIG-27 are the plane which were shot down by manpads.
None of MIRAG & JAGUAR was shot down by them.
Now few points...

These plane are in low altitude recogniz mission, & very old platform & that region is also Himalayan.
Now nearly all fighters are able to drop laser bomb in IAF & war is not just concern in J&K.


So if you are leaving your all air defense onto manpads & on fighters, than only god can save you.
Also manpads for base defense in very unlikely, I never heard like this before. They just provide very low altitude safeguard(max 4 km) & only useful for infantry where CAS is immediate threat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## aanshu001

ANPP said:


> Grow-up man,
> MIG-21 & MIG-27 are the plane which were shot down by manpads.
> None of MIRAG & JAGUAR was shot down by them.
> Now few points...
> 
> These plane are in low altitude recogniz mission, & very old platform & that region is also Himalayan.
> Now nearly all fighters are able to drop laser bomb in IAF & war is not just concern in J&K.
> 
> 
> So if you are leaving your all air defense onto manpads & on fighters, than only god can save you.
> Also manpads for base defense in very unlikely, I never heard like this before. They just provide very low altitude safeguard(max 4 km) & only useful for infantry where CAS is immediate threat.



Correction Mig 27 was down coz of technical problem not by manpads and in kargil Manpads were fired from 16000 - 18000 ft. not from sea level that's also make difference my friend.


----------



## Irfan Baloch

ice_man said:


> SAM systems are too costly & can be destroyed by SEAD operations. hence pakitan with its limited resources avoids good SAM systems.
> 
> the first GULF WAR showed how a SAM system can be annihilated by a major super power on the first night of hostilies! hence PAF is not keen SAMs unfortunately.




SAM systems are not as costly as a fighter plane, they are forever present in the area they are needed and dont need to be re-fueled. in the face of the SEAD operation they can be switched off if there is no alternative and it was the Serbian SAM system that brought down a stealth plane and caused them to exclaim "sorry we didnt know it was stealth"

SAM systems and aircrafts cover two entirely different positions of the same role like you have Artillery and Armour and foot infantry you cant discard one in favour of another. 

citing Gulf war and American adversary is unfair because American power is simply out of the league, no amount of air force is enough to thwart a determined attack from a power at American level. India on the other hand doesnt have that much of a parity otherwise it would have gone beyond the rhetoric during Mumbai or Indian Parliament attack .

pointing at potential threats and weaknesses of one system in isolation is meaningless, if SAMs have threat from SEAD operations then the SEAD aircrafts have threats from defending airforce fighters and if the defending airforce fighters have threat from fighter escorts of the SEAD planes then those escorts have threats from SAMs and so on.. a SEAD plane might have to fly low to avoid radar detection meaning it also presents itself to conventional Anti Aircraft artillery and manpads. 

just like a football team you got goal keeper, strikers, full backs and linkmen etc each and everyone plays his role, all cant be strikers and all cant be goalkeepers sorry for crude example

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## Aamir Hussain

Good explanation IB. There can not be a determined airdefense strategy without point defense SAM layer interlaced with CAP's. End of argument. I for one do not think that PAF planner are that stupid or unaware of this to not to weave in this important element in their air defense strategy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shbaziz

turbo charged said:


> we should erect 200 and 300 meter tall poles in our border areas....on the top of each pole we should weld one anza mk-2 manpad....bring the wires down to earth so that it can be operated from an underground command center/bunker.....one small camera with anza will also help....
> 
> very cheap and indigenous idea......
> 
> later on we can weld BVR's too on top of 400 meter tall poles.



Man! you really cracked me up! let me tell you a simple pole some 30 meters high and hosting telecom antennae requires being built quite wide. You could see around yourself. There is no way you could build a mono-pole some 200/300 meters high. Moreover, it will increase the range of Anza only marginally.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Irfan Baloch

shbaziz said:


> Man! you really cracked me up! let me tell you a simple pole some 30 meters high and hosting telecom antennae requires being built quite wide. You could see around yourself. There is no way you could build a mono-pole some 200/300 meters high. *Moreover, it will increase the range of Anza only marginally*.



 300 meters to be precise

joke aside, there is some out of the box thinking there and I must give a hint that some radical approaches adapted for airborne early warning so I would cut him some slack.

if a self stabilizing platform (a bucket) can be made that accommodates say two missile launch tubes of MANPAD category and then tie it underneath a helium balloon then this might be an interesting mix. the cost, effort and practicality will be a consideration vs the perceived benefit.such Balloons are already deployed as a passive defence and some carry sensors as well in different parts of Pakistan and they are as high as a good 800 to 1000 m high, tied and restrained by strings. adding mountains into the mix will further enhance their range.

on their own these balloons act as a passive area denial in the narrow pathways of the valley for low flying hostile aircrafts and are meant to destroy the aircraft on impact if the pilot is not fast enough to avoid them. I have lived and visited places where they were deployed in the air when the things got jittery with our Eastern neighbour and pulled back to ground when things calmed down.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## TacOps

ANPP said:


> Grow-up man,
> MIG-21 & MIG-27 are the plane which were shot down by manpads.
> None of MIRAG & JAGUAR was shot down by them.
> Now few points...
> 
> These plane are in low altitude recogniz mission, & very old platform & that region is also Himalayan.
> Now nearly all fighters are able to drop laser bomb in IAF & war is not just concern in J&K.
> 
> 
> So if you are leaving your all air defense onto manpads & on fighters, than only god can save you.
> Also manpads for base defense in very unlikely, I never heard like this before. They just provide very low altitude safeguard(max 4 km) & only useful for infantry where CAS is immediate threat.



I recommend you read before you post something like "Grow up man". Read the first word he wrote in his comment. He's pretty much saying the same thing you did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MuZammiL Dr. s[1]n

Last Hope said:


> Anything I say is sensitive on this matter but all I can say is that you're wrong. You're not updated with recent developments in Air Defense.


 ap ne kuchh kaha bhi nahi magar bohat kuchh keh bhi gaiy ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Green1

Better Get these fast because drones are in and soon planes will try to get in as well.


----------



## Last Hope

Irfan Baloch said:


> 300 meters to be precise
> 
> joke aside, there is some out of the box thinking there and I must give a hint that some radical approaches adapted for airborne early warning so I would cut him some slack.
> 
> if a self stabilizing platform (a bucket) can be made that accommodates say two missile launch tubes of MANPAD category and then tie it underneath a helium balloon then this might be an interesting mix. the cost, effort and practicality will be a consideration vs the perceived benefit.such Balloons are already deployed as a passive defence and some carry sensors as well in different parts of Pakistan and they are as high as a good 800 to 1000 m high, tied and restrained by strings. adding mountains into the mix will further enhance their range.
> 
> on their own these balloons act as a passive area denial in the narrow pathways of the valley for low flying hostile aircrafts and are meant to destroy the aircraft on impact if the pilot is not fast enough to avoid them. I have lived and visited places where they were deployed in the air when the things got jittery with our Eastern neighbour and pulled back to ground when things calmed down.



Here is one such in ADA.


----------



## Jango

Last time I saw these balloons, they were bright orange!!! Maybe because it was just peace time hence the visible colour.


----------



## ice_man

Last Hope said:


> Here is one such in ADA.



are these ADA's useful in the 21st ceuntry given BVRs,modern radar & avionic suits? or are they outdated since the 80s and early 90s?


----------



## Last Hope

ice_man said:


> are these ADA's useful in the 21st ceuntry given BVRs,modern radar & avionic suits? or are they outdated since the 80s and early 90s?



I have quoted a post by Irfan Baloch, please read it. He has mentioned about the role. 



> if a self stabilizing platform (a bucket) can be made that accommodates say two missile launch tubes of MANPAD category and then tie it underneath a helium balloon then this might be an interesting mix. the cost, effort and practicality will be a consideration vs the perceived benefit.such Balloons are already deployed as a passive defence and some carry sensors as well in different parts of Pakistan and they are as high as a good 800 to 1000 m high, tied and restrained by strings. adding mountains into the mix will further enhance their range.
> 
> on their own these balloons act as a passive area denial in the narrow pathways of the valley for low flying hostile aircrafts and are meant to destroy the aircraft on impact if the pilot is not fast enough to avoid them. I have lived and visited places where they were deployed in the air when the things got jittery with our Eastern neighbour and pulled back to ground when things calmed down.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Super Falcon

Can these missile have sure kill over su 30

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

Such Air balloons are a substitute for air-borne surveillance and are quiet effective and cheap IAF uses such balloons[containing radars] which are bigger in size to monitor air space and ground movement of troops across the border... using MANPAD like Anza on such balloon these days is close to stupidity as most modern aircraft and helos have flairs which can fool missiles like anza *until* anza uses a dual band seeker which would make the missile a lot bigger and close to air-air WVR missiles in size.



nuclearpak said:


> Last time I saw these balloons, they were bright orange!!! Maybe because it was just peace time hence the visible colour.



Such could've been used for testing and target practice for WVR missiles.


----------



## Jango

DARKY said:


> Such could've been used for testing and target practice for WVR missiles.



Sorry, no WVR testing in Kahuta in between mountains!!! And anyways, they were lowered and tethered to the ground.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

nuclearpak said:


> Sorry, no WVR testing in Kahuta in between mountains!!! And anyways, they were lowered and tethered to the ground.



Target practice baloons are too usually tethered to the ground else they can fly anywhere... you may be correct about the part... I thought such since the bright and flashy colors are usual choice to test WVR air-air missiles.

Perhaps the choice of color was made to alert helos and other low flying aircraft in or near those valleys.


----------



## subanday

These are highly effective defensive weapons. If the enemy releases a runway penetration bomb, the bomb will bounce back from these balloons and will, if luck is on our side, will hit the enemy air asset. Enemy intelligence has advised against hitting bases which are protected by this web of balloons...


Last Hope said:


> Here is one such in ADA.


----------



## Gentelman

ice_man said:


> are these ADA's useful in the 21st ceuntry given BVRs,modern radar & avionic suits? or are they outdated since the 80s and early 90s?



thesw ballons surely cause trouble for low altitude jets....
they r always great defense equip...
they can cause bomb to reflect back from target...i.e if such ballons r deployed on an airbase and if that airbase is under attack by hostile fighters then they play crucial role..
well we have many things causing small troubles...
and when these small troubles combine they change into a biggggg trouble....


----------



## Areesh

According to H Khan(Pakdef):



> Pakistan has tested and evaluated HQ-16A SAM system and they are very pleased with it.
> 
> Pakistan has requested to produce this missile in Pakistan.
> 
> Pakistan wants to test and evaluate FD-2000D SAM system also.
> 
> Initially Pakistan wants to purchase one battalion of HQ-16A.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Machoman

only 4.....dude are you kidding me?


----------



## Viper0011.

ice_man said:


> are these ADA's useful in the 21st ceuntry given BVRs,modern radar & avionic suits? or are they outdated since the 80s and early 90s?



The US still uses them in certain bases and installations. I think these are used throughout the Middle East based US bases too. They have many benefits against low flying objects. And a capable Aerostat radar can be placed high up there covering a wider area.



Aamir Hussain said:


> Doctrine? Which one? Seems something is wrong here. Thinking of air defense from MANPADS and going for Spada 2000 and China for high altitude SAM's.
> 
> Thank God that planners at PAF are not sniffing glue and fully know the consequences of going against a superpower unlike the rest of the 180 million believers in this land of pure.
> 
> Lack of resources is the reason for going slow on this and not a matter of Doctrine or design.



What Pakistan really needs is a capable SAM system that they can pretty much mass produce locally. And put that in large numbers in multiple tiers. The Outer and the middle tiers should be all high altitude and long range. The inner should be mid range and still high altitude, supplemented by area defense like Cortale, Spada, etc. But the border areas should be all protected with OVERLAPPING protection. Today's technology pretty much ensures area denial capability. If 20 jets come inbound, at least 10 to 12 will be taken out. That's a HUGE blow if you go to 200 jets inbound.


----------



## Rafi

Suffice to say, many developments and procurement's and capabilities will be kept on the down-low until, if and when it is decided to cry havok! and release the dogs of war.


----------



## Dazzler

HQ-16A a.k.a LY-80...


http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...e-hq-16-ly-80-air-defence-missile-system.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

two systems under evaluation.........

Pakistan consider purchase Chinese HQ-16 and HQ-9 air defense missile&#12288;

&#12288;[World Wide Web Roundup] the latest edition of the Han and Defense Review magazine (February 2013) published an article in 2012, the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC), the test is completed the latest improved HQ-16B (Red Flag-16B) type surface-to-air missiles, HQ-16B is expected to equip the next batch production 054B frigate. Pakistan consider purchasing HQ-16 and HQ-9, but that the price of your side.

&#12288;&#12288;Han and said that the Chinese Army's 38th, 39th Group Army air defense brigade equipped with a launch battalions HQ-16A, each camp has six launch vehicles. Navy Type 054A missile frigate equipped with HQ-16A. HQ-16A deal with the aircraft's range 3500-40000 meters against cruise missiles with a range of 3500-12000 meters, shot 15-15000 meters high vertical launch INS + semi-active radar-inducing way, the reaction time of 12 seconds, simultaneous attacks 4 targets. Improved HQ-16B against the maximum range of the aircraft was increased to 75 km, is mainly achieved through an improved charge, the charge of the engine compartment lengthened to 0.17 meters, which charge more flight trajectory control software has also been improved .

&#12288;&#12288;Han and said that the September re Northwest Range test the implementation of the anti-cruise missile engaged the subject, developed by the General Staff 60 S200/300 series drone was shot down. There are rumors, HQ-16B is expected to equip the next batch 054B frigate.

&#12288;&#12288;Han also said, HQ-16A has obtained the right to export, export-HQ-16A called LY-80. Pakistan Army sources said: negotiations with China have been a number of rounds, the Pakistan Army wants to buy a battalion HQ-16A test and, if necessary, transfer the production license. Pakistan requested the HQ-16A, B-type bomb has just completed the experimental results have also been communicated to the other party. This means that the B-type bomb the right to export to "friendly countries" will soon be approved. Pakistan news sources said, the price of your side of this missile.

&#12288;&#12288;Han and mentioned that Pakistan want FD-2000 (the export version of the HQ-9), the anti-aircraft missiles with a range of 125 km, has now entered the technical evaluation stage, FD-2000 is the product of the China Aerospace Science and Industry Group, Pakistan also think this The missile is too expensive. Pakistan hopes to FD-2000, SY-80 high school empty modern air defense systems

http://mil.huanqiu.com/observation/2013-02/3627273.html

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zarbe Momin

The Hatf IX, Nasr, is a solid fuelled battlefield multi tube ballistic missile (BRBM) system developed by NESCOM. I think it is possible with a little bit effort to convert it into surface to air defence missle and then can be integrated with chinas manufactured radar system.


----------



## Tehmasib

IAF losing edge over PAF...........................


----------



## Gandalf

Tehmasib said:


> IAF losing edge over PAF...........................



Pakistan still uses Chinese version of SA-2 aka HQ-2.



Tehmasib said:


> IAF losing edge over PAF...........................



Pakistan still uses Chinese version of SA-2 aka HQ-2.


----------



## ANPP

Tehmasib said:


> IAF losing edge over PAF...........................



*HOW*


----------



## Gentelman

ANPP said:


> *HOW*



he was dreaming about that last night..
or maybe it was a trap to chk out Indian guyz who troll a lot...


----------



## junaid1

sounds good to me


----------



## shehbazi2001

The problem with ground-based air defence is that how a SAM radar or any other radar going to distinguish between a jet-powered drone and a fighter (manned) or even an unmanned full-sized fighter jet? 
In the 1982 Bekaa valley conflict, Syrian SAM batteries wasted their missiles on the Israeli drones and thus became exposed to air attack themselves. That is why ground-based defences alone can't be relied upon and preference should be given to air power itself and the related command, control and communication systems. C3 is usually the first target in war and therefore it should be robust and redundant.
Still there are indispensable situations like mobile battlefield air defence that accompany army units, naval air defence etc where you must have these assets.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ANPP

shehbazi2001 said:


> *The problem with ground-based air defence is that how a SAM radar or any other radar going to distinguish between a jet-powered drone and a fighter (manned) or even an unmanned full-sized fighter jet? *
> In the 1982 Bekaa valley conflict, Syrian SAM batteries wasted their missiles on the Israeli drones and thus became exposed to air attack themselves. That is why ground-based defences alone can't be relied upon and preference should be given to air power itself and the related command, control and communication systems. C3 is usually the first target in war and therefore it should be robust and redundant.
> Still there are indispensable situations like mobile battlefield air defence that accompany army units, naval air defence etc where you must have these assets.



Just change software of system. Improve/change the tactics and better men training.

For long tern, just change the hole system with new one.


----------



## Chrome9

shehbazi2001 said:


> The problem with ground-based air defence is that how a SAM radar or any other radar going to distinguish between a jet-powered drone and a fighter (manned) or even an unmanned full-sized fighter jet?
> In the 1982 Bekaa valley conflict, Syrian SAM batteries wasted their missiles on the Israeli drones and thus became exposed to air attack themselves. That is why ground-based defences alone can't be relied upon and preference should be given to air power itself and the related command, control and communication systems. C3 is usually the first target in war and therefore it should be robust and redundant.
> Still there are indispensable situations like mobile battlefield air defence that accompany army units, naval air defence etc where you must have these assets.



All true, however I believe the PAF have still been neglectful in aquisition of SAM's. As of now neither high altitude SAM's which can potentially double up as ABM's or capable mobile SAM's been aquired in meaningful numbers. For a "defensive" forcesuch as the PAF where air denial is the main objective SAM's could be your best friend. Static sites of strategic importance need SAM's period. Also a defensive force creates "SAM Corridors" whereby you force your opposition into SAM traps which they might not have prior knowledge of.

Imagine an Indian strike package consisting of say mirages with SU-30 cover. They should be picked up by PAF ground radar and AWACS, but the question is how to engage? especially in lieu of the Sukhoi's impressive ability to punch from distance given it's powerful BAR's and associated BVR's. Incoming PAF aircraft will be detected by the Indians however, approach must be done in order to force IAF aircraft into these SAM zones. This way Indian's will either engage directly - which no Strike Package wants to do -be forced into SAM zone - which ultimately causes abortion of mission - wastage of fuel/countermeasures and leaves fleeing aircraft vulnerable - or abortion of mission which effectively is victory for the PAF. 

It's not as if SAM's arn't part of the PAF's agenda - we've been hearing from Musharraf's time Pakistan being keen on acquiring high altitude SAM's. Though finance and "politics has become a hurdle"

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## MastanKhan

Hi,

Electronic systems are very smart nowadays----what a room full of computers could do in the early 80 your hand held device can do more now---.

The sams hooked up to the air surveillance would do pretty good. Syrians have been pitiful operators of weapons systems.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chrome9

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> Electronic systems are very smart nowadays----what a room full of computers could do in the early 80 your hand held device can do more now---.
> 
> The sams hooked up to the air surveillance would do pretty good. Syrians have been pitiful operators of weapons systems.



Very true, I just recently had the pleasure to visit the John F Kennedy Space center in Florida. One interesting fact that emerged was that there is more computing power in a modern smart phone than there was in the mission control room of the 60's in JFK center. 
Imagine that! at the touch of your finger tips you have more computing juice than what launched, commanded and sustained the Apollo and Jupiter programmes and their behemoth rockets. 

However, newer doesn't mean more effective - its a cat and mouse game- whenever a new technology is introduced its counter is either then produced or new strategics formulated to nullify the threat - kinda like anti-viruses and viruses on modern day home computers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## shehbazi2001

Chrome9 said:


> All true, however I believe the PAF have still been neglectful in aquisition of SAM's. As of now neither high altitude SAM's which can potentially double up as ABM's or capable mobile SAM's been aquired in meaningful numbers. For a "defensive" forcesuch as the PAF where air denial is the main objective SAM's could be your best friend. Static sites of strategic importance need SAM's period. Also a defensive force creates "SAM Corridors" whereby you force your opposition into SAM traps which they might not have prior knowledge of.
> 
> Imagine an Indian strike package consisting of say mirages with SU-30 cover. They should be picked up by PAF ground radar and AWACS, but the question is how to engage? especially in lieu of the Sukhoi's impressive ability to punch from distance given it's powerful BAR's and associated BVR's. Incoming PAF aircraft will be detected by the Indians however, approach must be done in order to force IAF aircraft into these SAM zones. This way Indian's will either engage directly - which no Strike Package wants to do -be forced into SAM zone - which ultimately causes abortion of mission - wastage of fuel/countermeasures and leaves fleeing aircraft vulnerable - or abortion of mission which effectively is victory for the PAF.
> 
> It's not as if SAM's arn't part of the PAF's agenda - we've been hearing from Musharraf's time Pakistan being keen on acquiring high altitude SAM's. Though finance and "politics has become a hurdle"



The difficulty is that its hard to hide the radars of SAM batteries. ELINT aircraft and drones are on the constant watch to locate these radars through their radio and radar emissions. One way to get around this problem is to integrate these SAM sites with AWACS or AEW. AEW shall replace the surveillance radar of the SAM battery and order it to switch on its fire-control radar at a suitable moment. Also each SAM battery shall need a call-sign so that AEW can individually communicate with each battery.

But it should be kept in mind that first waves of air attack involve SEAD (suppression of enemy air defence) aircraft and SAM battery showing itself to SEAD aircraft means destruction by AGM-88 HARMs and other standoff missiles and guided bombs. This can be avoided to some extent by using laser radar or an intelligent coordination with AWACS/AEW with SAM battery switching its radar on only when aggressor aircraft are within the range of its missiles and aggressor aircraft have already overflown the SAM site. SAM battery can then engage the enemy from behind and be safe itself from their attack. 

Alternatively the fire-control radar can be separated from the missile launchers for example the Crotale SAM launcher has its missiles loaded around the fire-control/engagement radar which is not safe. Anti-radar missiles home on these radars and missiles themselves should be separated from them so that a quick change of antenna can bring back the battery to action.

Despite all these measures, it would remain difficult to decide about the placement and positioning of SAM batteries when faced with standoff missiles like APACHE and Storm Shadow, long-range guided bombs, anti-radiation missiles and hovering attack drones like FireShadow.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## MastanKhan

Shehbazi,

You are right---but your modern radar and surveillance system should be able to set them apart as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rajput_Pakistani

shehbazi2001 said:


> The difficulty is that its hard to hide the radars of SAM batteries. ELINT aircraft and drones are on the constant watch to locate these radars through their radio and radar emissions. One way to get around this problem is to integrate these SAM sites with AWACS or AEW. AEW shall replace the surveillance radar of the SAM battery and order it to switch on its fire-control radar at a suitable moment. Also each SAM battery shall need a call-sign so that AEW can individually communicate with each battery.
> 
> But it should be kept in mind that first waves of air attack involve SEAD (suppression of enemy air defence) aircraft and SAM battery showing itself to SEAD aircraft means destruction by AGM-88 HARMs and other standoff missiles and guided bombs. This can be avoided to some extent by using laser radar or an intelligent coordination with AWACS/AEW with SAM battery switching its radar on only when aggressor aircraft are within the range of its missiles and aggressor aircraft have already overflown the SAM site. SAM battery can then engage the enemy from behind and be safe itself from their attack.
> 
> Alternatively the fire-control radar can be separated from the missile launchers for example the Crotale SAM launcher has its missiles loaded around the fire-control/engagement radar which is not safe. Anti-radar missiles home on these radars and missiles themselves should be separated from them so that a quick change of antenna can bring back the battery to action.
> 
> Despite all these measures, it would remain difficult to decide about the placement and positioning of SAM batteries when faced with standoff missiles like APACHE and Storm Shadow, long-range guided bombs, anti-radiation missiles and hovering attack drones like FireShadow.



Quite agreed with your assessments Sir, but my question is what is the efficiency of SEAD/DEAD missions? Can our neighboring adversary has or will have in near future the capability to completely neutralize Pakistan air defenses? After all in Kosovo war, NATO was out of PGMs and HARMs against a much smaller adversary Serbia. Here is a very insight article about SEAD/DEAD and SAM challenges.

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21141.pdf

An excerpt from above article

A variety of new technologies and military systems could exacerbate the double
digit SAM challenge. First, commercial information and communications technologies
are enabling adversaries to better network the elements of their air defense systems. This
allows them to disperse radars, SAM launchers and other associated platforms throughout
the battlespace, and to share targeting information between launchers. This, in turn,
suggests that radars may be used less frequently and for shorter periods of time,
complicating U.S. SEAD efforts. Second, terminal defenses are being marketed by a
number of international defense companies. These radar-guided Gatling guns are designed
to protect double digit SAMs or other high value air defense assets, by shooting 3,000
to 4,500 rounds per minute into the sky. These systems could prove quite effective in
shooting down HARM or other missiles aimed at enemy air defenses. Third, Russia and
other countries have developed and are selling GPS jammers. Over varying distances,
these low-watt jammers degrade or totally disrupt the GPS guidance signals used by many
U.S. PGMs to augment inertial guidance systems, reducing their accuracy.


----------



## shehbazi2001

Rajput_Pakistani said:


> Quite agreed with your assessments Sir, but my question is what is the efficiency of SEAD/DEAD missions? Can our neighboring adversary has or will have in near future the capability to completely neutralize Pakistan air defenses? After all in Kosovo war, NATO was out of PGMs and HARMs against a much smaller adversary Serbia. Here is a very insight article about SEAD/DEAD and SAM challenges.
> 
> http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21141.pdf



The outcome of a conflict shall obviously depend on who is well-prepared, well-equipped and well-trained. Now our neighbour has gone into space with its spy satellites. These satellites can potentially locate radars and air defence units through optical means, ELINT and space-based radars. Pakistan lacks this capability. Other than that our neighbour is buying every high-tech weapon that money can buy.

If not well-equipped, Pakistan can try to be well-prepared. Pakistan can try to maximize the efficiency of its air defences through ISI by implanting trained mobile observers in the vicinity of enemy air bases. These agents should be able to safely communicate the type and numbers of aircrafts that took off from that specific air base at a specific time. Thus air defence units can prepare themselves in advance. Serbia used this strategy in Balkans war. 

During the 1st Gulf war, we put the blame of Iraqi defeat on stealth aircrafts and relieved ourselves of doing any study but the Libyan conflict was dominated by conventional fighters like Rafale and Eurofighter which means thats its not just Stealth than can degrade and destroy your air defence and command structure.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Mian H Amin.

lol such an old post ... how come it came on top ?


----------



## imiakhtar

shehbazi2001 said:


> The difficulty is that its hard to hide the radars of SAM batteries. ELINT aircraft and drones are on the constant watch to locate these radars through their radio and radar emissions. One way to get around this problem is to integrate these SAM sites with AWACS or AEW. AEW shall replace the surveillance radar of the SAM battery and order it to switch on its fire-control radar at a suitable moment. Also each SAM battery shall need a call-sign so that AEW can individually communicate with each battery.
> 
> But it should be kept in mind that first waves of air attack involve SEAD (suppression of enemy air defence) aircraft and SAM battery showing itself to SEAD aircraft means destruction by AGM-88 HARMs and other standoff missiles and guided bombs. This can be avoided to some extent by using laser radar or an intelligent coordination with AWACS/AEW with SAM battery switching its radar on only when aggressor aircraft are within the range of its missiles and aggressor aircraft have already overflown the SAM site. SAM battery can then engage the enemy from behind and be safe itself from their attack.
> 
> Alternatively the fire-control radar can be separated from the missile launchers for example the Crotale SAM launcher has its missiles loaded around the fire-control/engagement radar which is not safe. Anti-radar missiles home on these radars and missiles themselves should be separated from them so that a quick change of antenna can bring back the battery to action.
> 
> Despite all these measures, it would remain difficult to decide about the placement and positioning of SAM batteries when faced with standoff missiles like APACHE and Storm Shadow, long-range guided bombs, anti-radiation missiles and hovering attack drones like FireShadow.





shehbazi2001 said:


> The outcome of a conflict shall obviously depend on who is well-prepared, well-equipped and well-trained. Now our neighbour has gone into space with its spy satellites. These satellites can potentially locate radars and air defence units through optical means, ELINT and space-based radars. Pakistan lacks this capability. Other than that our neighbour is buying every high-tech weapon that money can buy.
> 
> If not well-equipped, Pakistan can try to be well-prepared. Pakistan can try to maximize the efficiency of its air defences through ISI by implanting trained mobile observers in the vicinity of enemy air bases. These agents should be able to safely communicate the type and numbers of aircrafts that took off from that specific air base at a specific time. Thus air defence units can prepare themselves in advance. Serbia used this strategy in Balkans war.



Excellent posts. 

There are many lessons to be learnt from the NATO air campaigns over Serbia. There is a youtube vid somewhere which explains how a Serbian SAM commander, using shoot and scoot tactics (and a little ingenuity) shot down an F-117.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shehbazi2001

imiakhtar said:


> Excellent posts.
> 
> There are many lessons to be learnt from the NATO air campaigns over Serbia. There is a youtube vid somewhere which explains how a Serbian SAM commander, using shoot and scoot tactics (and a little ingenuity) shot down an F-117.



Yes the Serb agents were reporting the take-off and landing activities from far-away airbases like in Italy from where the F-117s were operating.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rajput_Pakistani

^^^ Yes sir, we can have many valuable lessons from Operation Desert Storm (I & II) and NATO's air campaign against Serbia. Pakistan can not match India in numbers and also due to poor economic, political constraints, we may not get state of the art systems. So to counter aggressive Indian doctrines like CSD (where air cover will be the survival and death situation for Indian IBGs), we need to invest smartly & efficiently. What i have read about Serbian conflict and SAMs in particular, the following points are the important lessons.

1. SAMs are the game changer, where adversary have superior air power.
2. Mobile SAMs have double survivability as compared to fixed ones.
3. GPRS jammers, decoys are cheap solutions to effectively put the enemy in an awkward situation. Consider a US$20000 PGM being wasted. We have seen such example where Indians ran out of all their stocks of LGB in Kargil war.
4. Medium and short range mobile SAMs for battlefield and LRSAM for strategic points.
5. Passive Electro-optical systems have not those deficiencies of traditional radars. Radars can detect the threats at longer ranges but while doing so they themselves become exposed, and so become a victim of HARM. Whereas EO systems have no such problems and can also detect Stealth fighters and UAVs too.
6. More then 1000 state of the art NATO fighters, after 100+ days of air campaigns were only able to destroy about 60% of the Serbian air defenses. The size of Serbia is not more then our Sindh province. This is probably the most important lesson for us to learn and capitalize while we plan to counter Indian CSD.
7. Networking, networking and Networking

Regards and please continue this discussion and contribute / correct more to my knowledge.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GURU DUTT

shehbazi2001 said:


> The outcome of a conflict shall obviously depend on who is well-prepared, well-equipped and well-trained. Now our neighbour has gone into space with its spy satellites. These satellites can potentially locate radars and air defence units through optical means, ELINT and space-based radars. Pakistan lacks this capability. Other than that our neighbour is buying every high-tech weapon that money can buy.
> 
> If not well-equipped, *Pakistan can try to be well-prepared. Pakistan can try to maximize the efficiency of its air defences through ISI by implanting trained mobile observers in the vicinity of enemy air bases. These agents should be able to safely communicate the type and numbers of aircrafts that took off from that specific air base at a specific time. Thus air defence units can prepare themselves in advance. Serbia used this strategy in Balkans war. *
> 
> During the 1st Gulf war, *we put the blame of Iraqi defeat on stealth aircrafts and relieved ourselves of doing any study but the Libyan conflict was dominated by conventional fighters like Rafale and Eurofighter which means thats its not just Stealth than can degrade and destroy your air defence and command structure.*



now now sir well here in India owr bases dont have to run shadee halls and bakeries anywhere near it let alone to let some so called highly trained foreign assets do the snooping job we have a dedicated force just for that as we learned and experienced the same in 1965 and paid heavily for it aswell so in short we have learned owr lessons the hard way and after kandhar & Kargill episode things did showed us the same weakness= your over zelous strategick assets doing the damage this time around we are prepared where as we have a very very potent 3D & ASEA based ground , aerostat & airborn Radar coverage backed by latest and very very leathel short , medium & long range multi layered SAM coverage + SAT cover & a big inoventory of Drone's to keep your strategikk assets & AIR Force at bay but can the same be said about you 

for SEAD deptt. we have a dedicatet force aswell now please care to tell me how will pakistan overcome all of them in case of war and very soon Rafales , FGFA's will join IAF for the same with already a potent force with Upgraded M2K's ,Jaguar's & Mig 27 for the same job


----------



## ejaz007

GURU DUTT said:


> now now sir well here in India owr bases dont have to run shadee halls and bakeries anywhere near it let alone to let some so called highly trained foreign assets do the snooping job we have a dedicated force just for that as we learned and experienced the same in 1965 and paid heavily for it aswell so in short we have learned owr lessons the hard way and after kandhar & Kargill episode things did showed us the same weakness= your over zelous strategick assets doing the damage this time around we are prepared where as we have a very very potent 3D & ASEA based ground , aerostat & airborn Radar coverage backed by latest and very very leathel short , medium & long range multi layered SAM coverage + SAT cover & a big inoventory of Drone's to keep your strategikk assets & AIR Force at bay but can the same be said about you
> 
> for SEAD deptt. we have a dedicatet force aswell now please care to tell me how will pakistan overcome all of them in case of war and very soon Rafales , FGFA's will join IAF for the same with already a potent force with Upgraded M2K's ,Jaguar's & Mig 27 for the same job



IAF at the moment does not have rafaels. Rafael was selected in 2012 as the winner and it is 2013 and you have not signed any contract. Delivery shall commence after three to four years once you sign the contract. Going by the way Indian procurement is done don't consider Rafael as an IAF fighter till the contract is signed and aircraft delivered.

FGFA is also a future potential fighter which shall join at the earliest in 2018. No need to mention that fighter as well.

Mirage 2000's have not been upgraded as yet and already some questions are being asked about the cost of the project. A similar thread is there on the forum.

In short lot of what you tried to scare PAF of is not in IAF inventory. Let us get scared once you have the stuff.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ice_man

well a lesson must be learnt from the Gulf War of 1991 where the HARM missiles litreally took out all the Radars of the Iraqis within the first 24 hours! & all the SEAD operations were succesful. blinding the Iraqi airforce from then on it was a case of how quickly the allies could totally take control.


----------



## notorious_eagle

ice_man said:


> well a lesson must be learnt from the Gulf War of 1991 where the HARM missiles litreally took out all the Radars of the Iraqis within the first 24 hours! & all the SEAD operations were succesful. blinding the Iraqi airforce from then on it was a case of how quickly the allies could totally take control.



Actually, if you study the first Gulf War in more detail, you will realize that Iraq C&C was intact. Before the commencement of Desert Storm, NATO conducted 30 days of intense bombing sorties. Despite these intense punitive strikes, Iraqi C&C was intact and still able to command and coordinate. It was only the ground operations that delivered the final punch to the Iraqi War Machine. Without an effective ground based operation, air strikes are at best punitive and don't degrade the ability of the enemy to reground and fightback.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## rockstarIN

ejaz007 said:


> IAF at the moment does not have rafaels. Rafael was selected in 2012 as the winner and it is 2013 and you have not signed any contract. Delivery shall commence after three to four years once you sign the contract. Going by the way Indian procurement is done don't consider Rafael as an IAF fighter till the contract is signed and aircraft delivered.
> 
> FGFA is also a future potential fighter which shall join at the earliest in 2018. No need to mention that fighter as well.
> 
> *Mirage 2000's have not been upgraded as yet and already some questions are being asked about the cost of the project. A similar thread is there on the forum*.
> 
> In short lot of what you tried to scare PAF of is not in IAF inventory. Let us get scared once you have the stuff.



The deal is signed and the jets are getting upgraded one by one.


----------



## ice_man

notorious_eagle said:


> Actually, if you study the first Gulf War in more detail, you will realize that Iraq C&C was intact. Before the commencement of Desert Storm, NATO conducted 30 days of intense bombing sorties. Despite these intense punitive strikes, Iraqi C&C was intact and still able to command and coordinate. It was only the ground operations that delivered the final punch to the Iraqi War Machine. Without an effective ground based operation, air strikes are at best punitive and don't degrade the ability of the enemy to reground and fightback.



true however, due to the succesful SEAD operations against Iraqi Sams & radar instalations the iraqis could not see or predict where will the enemy hit next. the main aim of the Allies was to blind the iraqis. this lead to the allies have a complete air superiority which was the main diffrence once the ground operations started. 

and this was proven in the iraqi pullout of kuwait and the so called "highway to hell". where 2,000 armed vehicles were destroyed by air power of the Allies. 

The Massacre of Withdrawing Soldiers on "The Highway of Death"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarbe Momin

Some body can give me a satisfied answer why pakistan is not going to develop its own air defence missle system. If the task given to NESCOM is not a difficult job.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shehbazi2001

notorious_eagle said:


> Actually, if you study the first Gulf War in more detail, you will realize that Iraq C&C was intact. Before the commencement of Desert Storm, NATO conducted 30 days of intense bombing sorties. Despite these intense punitive strikes, Iraqi C&C was intact and still able to command and coordinate. It was only the ground operations that delivered the final punch to the Iraqi War Machine. Without an effective ground based operation, air strikes are at best punitive and don't degrade the ability of the enemy to reground and fightback.



In the Gulf war, the ground offensive was launched after the air war had been won by the Allies. Air Force and Navy win or lose earlier than Army. Army's fate in conventional battles usually depends on the outcome of air and naval battles. 

In the eastern theater of 1971, PAF and PN lost first and PA felt it enormously difficult to continue the fight. PA then had to fight alone with IAF, IA and IN together. 

In WW2, German air force and navy lost ahead of the Army. German AF went on the defensive ahead of Army. Beginning from 1944, Luftwaffe failed in stopping day and night bombing offensive of the Allies over German cities. By end 1944, German army was also on the retreat on the western front. 

As the air force wins or loses first among the three services (AF, Navy and Army), it should logically be the strongest of all.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## IceCold

shehbazi2001 said:


> In the Gulf war, the ground offensive was launched after the air war had been won by the Allies. Air Force and Navy win or lose earlier than Army. Army's fate in conventional battles usually depends on the outcome of air and naval battles.
> 
> In 1971, PAF and PN lost first and PA felt it enormously difficult to continue the fight. PA then had to fight alone with IAF, IA and IN together.
> 
> In WW2, German air force and navy lost ahead of the Army. German AF went on the defensive ahead of Army. Beginning from 1944, Luftwaffe failed in stopping day and night bombing offensive of the Allies over German cities. By end 1944, German army was also on the retreat on the western front.
> 
> As the air force wins or loses first among the three services (AF, Navy and Army), it should logically be the strongest of all.



Thumps up. You summed it up beautifully. We need to get out of this mentality of diverting majority of funds to the army while air force and navy is neglected.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shehbazi2001

shehbazi2001 said:


> In the Gulf war, the ground offensive was launched after the air war had been won by the Allies. Air Force and Navy win or lose earlier than Army. Army's fate in conventional battles usually depends on the outcome of air and naval battles.
> 
> In the eastern theater of 1971, PAF and PN lost first and PA felt it enormously difficult to continue the fight. PA then had to fight alone with IAF, IA and IN together.
> 
> In WW2, German air force and navy lost ahead of the Army. German AF went on the defensive ahead of Army. Beginning from 1944, Luftwaffe failed in stopping day and night bombing offensive of the Allies over German cities. By end 1944, German army was also on the retreat on the western front.
> 
> As the air force wins or loses first among the three services (AF, Navy and Army), it should logically be the strongest of all.



I forgot to add that Iraqi AF also lost ahead of the Iraqi Army. The same is true for Serbian AF which lost ahead of the Serb Army. Another case is of Libyan AF. When Air Force loses a war, the maximum you can do is to start a guerrilla warfare if your country is mountainous (Afghanistan) or has vast jungles (Bush war fought by South Africa).

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## notorious_eagle

shehbazi2001 said:


> As the air force wins or loses first among the three services (AF, Navy and Army), it should logically be the strongest of all.



Sir

I completely agree with your entire post except for this part. There is no doubt that a strong Air Force is a necessity to fight a modern day battle. But that being said, an AF alone cannot win the war for you. At best it can help you launch punitive strikes and give cover to your Naval and Ground Assets. 

At the end of the Day, it is the Army that will win the war especially in our part of the world. The reason why i referred to First GW is because the point i was trying to raise is that even after intense bombing, the Iraqi C&C and infrastructure was still intact in Kuwait. It was only after the Ground Invasion that NATO was able to evict the Iraqis out of Kuwait and deliver the final punch. The Iraqis were more than contempt with aerial bombardments, but it was the ground invasion that sealed their final fate. 

No matter how much a fighter aircraft evolves, it will remain subservient to a tank. A strong AF can no doubt play a very important part in winning the war. But the AF is still a supporting element to the boots on the ground that can drive forward and capture a position. This is why traditionally all Armed Forces around the world especially land based States invest majority of their funds in the Army. An Air Force is a very important tool, but it is a supporting tool.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## razgriz19

fair enough, but the Army has over 1 million soldiers (active and reserve). I heard salaries take over half of the army budget.


----------



## shehbazi2001

Coming back to the topic of the thread, guys what do you think, why should Pakistan not use AMRAAM as Surface-to-Air missile as PAF has already selected it as air-to-air BVR missile? Its ground-based SAM version is SL-AMRAAM.
if despite the on-off relationship of Pakistan-US, we get our 500+ order of AMRAAMs, then we have enough stock for using them as SAMs because IAF does not have 500 top of the line fighters and even with 200 loses, IAF would cease to exist as a potent force. To maximise the utility of these missiles, they should be configured for dual-usage, ie, either air to air or surface to air. If PAF loses some F-16s, then how these 500 AMRAAMs are going to be used? We should be able to put them to use as SAMs too.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Donatello

shehbazi2001 said:


> Coming back to the topic of the thread, guys what do you think, why should Pakistan not use AMRAAM as Surface-to-Air missile as PAF has already selected it as air-to-air BVR missile? Its ground-based SAM version is SL-AMRAAM.
> if despite the on-off relationship of Pakistan-US, we get our 500+ order of AMRAAMs, then we have enough stock for using them as SAMs because IAF does not have 500 top of the line fighters and even with 200 loses, IAF would cease to exist as a potent force. To maximise the utility of these missiles, they should be configured for dual-usage, ie, either air to air or surface to air. If PAF loses some F-16s, then how these 500 AMRAAMs are going to be used? We should be able to put them to use as SAMs too.



I don't think it would wise to invest in Ground based SAM systems of AMRAAM.

First, it's not simply just loading the missile and firing it. We need the radars for them too. Where are we going to get the target acquisition and surface search radars from? And how do we integrate them?

Then comes the actual case of the platform that would carry these missiles.


I think PAF should go for the Chinese SD-10 based SAMs, or perhaps, go for a dedicated air-defence like HQ9/18 with dedicated radars and C4I Systems.


We have 500 AMRAAMs, but also 63+ F-16s to carry them. If two are loaded per plane, then that is about 126 missiles gone. Plus if PAF purchases additional MLU-ed f-16s then we really don't have many missiles.


----------



## GURU DUTT

shehbazi2001 said:


> Coming back to the topic of the thread, guys what do you think, why should Pakistan not use AMRAAM as Surface-to-Air missile as PAF has already selected it as air-to-air BVR missile? Its ground-based SAM version is SL-AMRAAM.*
> if despite the on-off relationship of Pakistan-US, we get our 500+ order of AMRAAMs, then we have enough stock for using them as SAMs because IAF does not have 500 top of the line fighters and even with 200 loses, IAF would cease to exist as a potent force. *To maximise the utility of these missiles, they should be configured for dual-usage, ie, either air to air or surface to air. If PAF loses some F-16s, then how these 500 AMRAAMs are going to be used? We should be able to put them to use as SAMs too.



well sir you seem to forget that IAF planes that will come first for the strike and face your devine F16's will be MKI's(whose Radar can track and engage a F 16 before it sees MKI+Its ECM capabilities are unmached as of now) then we have 162 MKI's against 63 F16 where as a MKI can carry thrice the ammount of BVR's as compared to your F16's + we have Radars that track all of your airspace as far as afghanistan as of now and im not even counting Phalcons and other AA batteries we have 

for the record we have Spyder , PUM 300 & 400 , Akash , and some russian & french stuff count that too

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bigzgvr4

GURU DUTT said:


> well sir you seem to forget that IAF planes that will come first for the strike and face your devine F16's will be MKI's(whose Radar can track and engage a F 16 before it sees MKI+Its ECM capabilities are unmached as of now) then we have 162 MKI's against 63 F16 where as a MKI can carry thrice the ammount of BVR's as compared to your F16's + we have Radars that track all of your airspace as far as afghanistan as of now and im not even counting Phalcons and other AA batteries we have
> 
> for the record we have Spyder , PUM 300 & 400 , Akash , and some russian & french stuff count that too



The MKI wont SeE f-16 because of awacs and will be engaged Before MKI see f-16 because of the datalink and AWacs directing the engagement with out the F-16 using its radar and Pakistani awacs have longer range then MKi, WHY is IT YOU ARE COMPARING INDIAN SAMs with PAKIstan in this thread this thread is about aquasition of Sam for Pakistan and not India so Dont cook up your War fantasy here about india have this and india have that and pakistan does not Please not ever thread here is about india 
Thank you come again

back to topic IN Zuhai air show or dubai air Show the Sd-10 was based as Ly-60(80) or some thing like that as an SAM setup I think pakistan should go for those and hq-9/18 because no one will sell them Patriots


----------



## ANPP

bigzgvr4 said:


> The MKI wont SeE f-16 because of awacs and will be engaged Before MKI see f-16 because of the datalink and AWacs directing the engagement with out the F-16 using its radar and Pakistani awacs have longer range then MKi, WHY is IT YOU ARE COMPARING INDIAN SAMs with PAKIstan in this thread this thread is about aquasition of Sam for Pakistan and not India so Dont cook up your War fantasy here about india have this and india have that and pakistan does not Please not ever thread here is about india
> Thank you come again
> 
> back to topic IN Zuhai air show or dubai air Show the Sd-10 was based as Ly-60(80) or some thing like that as an SAM setup I think pakistan should go for those and hq-9/18 because no one will sell them Patriots



In this side of border, air force also use AWACS which are much powerfull than west side of border, so again MKI have edge with/without awacs.


----------



## bigzgvr4

ANPP said:


> In this side of border, air force also use AWACS which are much powerfull than west side of border, so again MKI have edge with/without awacs.



YUP ITS ALL ABOUT INDIA YA

"Thank you Come again"

I think they should seriously consider that Ly-60(80) its based on sd-10 and its a SAM

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GURU DUTT

bigzgvr4 said:


> *The MKI wont SeE f-16 because of awacs and will be engaged Before MKI see f-16 because of the datalink and AWacs directing the engagement with out the F-16 using its radar and Pakistani awacs have longer range then MKi, *WHY is IT YOU ARE COMPARING INDIAN SAMs with PAKIstan in this thread this thread is about aquasition of Sam for Pakistan and not India so Dont cook up your War fantasy here about india have this and india have that and pakistan does not Please not ever thread here is about india
> Thank you come again
> 
> 
> back to topic IN Zuhai air show or dubai air Show the Sd-10 was based as Ly-60(80) or some thing like that as an SAM setup I think pakistan should go for those and hq-9/18 because no one will sell them Patriots


well we have a AWACS too and owrs are twice as powerfull as yours + they are even called one of the Best if not the best in the world as of now and they fly at a higher altitude + we have net centrikk warfare cpapbilities two and all owr Fighter force are intigrated with these systems + an Phalcon flying over amritsar will track and scan all of your airspace withowt even getting into danger zone + MKI's can also be used as mini AWACS and ever heared of novotar missiles

K-100 (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EL/W-2090 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ilyushin Il-76 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/FILES/5/37545.pdf


----------



## ejaz007

rockstar said:


> The deal is signed and the jets are getting upgraded one by one.



An indian member wrote about upgraded mirages that is why I replied stating that they have not yet been upgraded. What you have said is the same thing only different wording has been selected.

They are undergoing upgrades and have not been upgraded as of this moment. The deal is under scruitny for high costs of upgrades. Lets wait and see what happens.


----------



## shehbazi2001

Donatello said:


> I don't think it would wise to invest in Ground based SAM systems of AMRAAM.
> 
> First, it's not simply just loading the missile and firing it. We need the radars for them too. Where are we going to get the target acquisition and surface search radars from? And how do we integrate them?
> 
> Then comes the actual case of the platform that would carry these missiles.
> 
> 
> I think PAF should go for the Chinese SD-10 based SAMs, or perhaps, go for a dedicated air-defence like HQ9/18 with dedicated radars and C4I Systems.
> 
> 
> We have 500 AMRAAMs, but also 63+ F-16s to carry them. If two are loaded per plane, then that is about 126 missiles gone. Plus if PAF purchases additional MLU-ed f-16s then we really don't have many missiles.




Air Forces have a large stock of arms and ammunition but unfortunately when an air force gets defeated or its aircraft defect or are lost or its runways are put out of usage, then the whole ammo dumps of the air force become suddenly useless. It has happened many times and I don't need to again quote examples.

On a large scale, efforts and studies should be carried out as to how we can put to use all the arms and ammo of air force even when air force is unable to fight itself. Using AMRAAMs as SAM is just part of this whole strategy. Even Sidewinders should be able to be put to other uses in air defence like the US CHAPARRAL air defence system based on Sidewinders. Even the guns of fighter jets like NR-30 of F-6s should be mounted on armored vehicles for usage on ground. We should be able to put the bombs of air force fighter jets to other uses like land mines and sea mines etc. This should be undertaken as a special and separate project (hope for the best but prepare for the worst scenario). 

The radars of SL-AMRAAM are obviously sold by the original manufacturer or you can integrate them to french or chinese radars too.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## rockstarIN

ejaz007 said:


> An indian member wrote about upgraded mirages that is why I replied stating that they have not yet been upgraded. What you have said is the same thing only different wording has been selected.
> 
> They are undergoing upgrades and have not been upgraded as of this moment. The deal is under scruitny for high costs of upgrades. Lets wait and see what happens.



All Defense deals will be under scrutiny all the time, but does not mean it is not getting executed. Specially Mirage deal.

IAF do not want to do it all together, do not want all jets to get unavailable at a time.


----------



## DARKY

I Don't understand why is this thing still active here... If the administration and moderation had even little shame... they would have banned it permanently as it is the old rickwhawpuller troll... who has changed names after ver2 was banned.




bigzgvr4 said:


> *The MKI wont SeE f-16 because of awacs and will be engaged Before MKI see f-16* because of *the datalink and AWacs directing the engagement with out the F-16 using its radar* and Pakistani awacs have longer range then MKi, WHY is IT YOU ARE COMPARING INDIAN SAMs with PAKIstan in this thread this thread is about aquasition of Sam for Pakistan and not India so Dont cook up your War fantasy here about india have this and india have that and pakistan does not Please not ever thread here is about india
> Thank you come again
> 
> back to topic IN Zuhai air show or dubai air Show the Sd-10 was based as Ly-60(80) or some thing like that as an SAM setup I think pakistan should go for those and hq-9/18 because no one will sell them Patriots





bigzgvr4 said:


> YUP ITS ALL ABOUT INDIA YA
> 
> "Thank you Come again"
> 
> I think they should seriously consider that Ly-60(80) its based on sd-10 and its a SAM



For other members who is having an argument with this moron must realize that it is not worth... and will only get you dirty.

1.As you can see it is claiming that somehow its AWACS will guide the missile from F-16 while F-16 can have its radar off... little does he realize that you would 1st need to have a proper AWACS in the air to make this AWACS argument... and since one is already destroyed and perhaps two under repairs with TTP looking good with their ladder and RPG combination things doesn't look much bright here.

2.Secondly you can see it reaching new levels of stupidity when it says that Its AWACS can guide the missile... If that would be the case there was no need of FCR on a fighter plane but how can we explain that to it since it was taught otherwise by the mulla in madarsa.

3.It doesn't realize that Indian SAMs can target PAF planes just as they take off from the runway and attain some altitude once Barak-LR is integrated... Thanks to the 4D Elta-2084 and its Indian version Anuradha MMR Radar.


----------



## bigzgvr4

DARKY said:


> I Don't understand why is this thing still active here... If the administration and moderation had even little shame... they would have banned it permanently as it is the old rickwhawpuller troll... who has changed names after ver2 was banned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For other members who is having an argument with this moron must realize that it is not worth... and will only get you dirty.
> 
> 1.As you can see he is claiming that somehow its AWACS will guide the missile from F-16 while F-16 can have its radar off... little does he realize that yo would 1st need to have a proper AWACS in the air to make this AWACS argument... and since one is already destroyed and perhaps two under repairs with TTP looking good with their ladder and RPG combination things doesn't look much bright here.
> 
> 2.Secondly you can see him reaching new levels of stupidity when he says that Its AWACS can guide the missile... If that would be the case there was no need of FCR on a fighter plane but how can we explain that to him since he was taght otherwise by the mulla in madarsa.
> 
> 3.It doesn't realize that Indian SAMs can target PAF planes just as they take off from the runway and attain some altitude once Barak-LR is integrated... Thanks to the 4D Elta-2084 and its Indian version Anuradha MMR Radar.



"THank you come Again"

@ mods i am tired of this i even requested them in every post about staying on topic its not my fault they make every thing about INdia 


What about Paf getting Some Turkish Made Sams i dont know if they are in testing phase or what not but this turkish defence makes Nato Complience Stuff so it will be a good Induction and would further help ties

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rajput_Pakistani

DARKY said:


> I Don't understand why is this thing still active here... If the administration and moderation had even little shame... they would have banned it permanently as it is the old rickwhawpuller troll... who has changed names after ver2 was banned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For other members who is having an argument with this moron must realize that it is not worth... and will only get you dirty.
> 
> 1.As you can see it is claiming that somehow its AWACS will guide the missile from F-16 while F-16 can have its radar off... little does he realize that you would 1st need to have a proper AWACS in the air to make this AWACS argument... and since one is already destroyed and perhaps two under repairs with TTP looking good with their ladder and RPG combination things doesn't look much bright here.
> 
> 2.Secondly you can see it reaching new levels of stupidity when it says that Its AWACS can guide the missile... If that would be the case there was no need of FCR on a fighter plane but how can we explain that to it since it was taught otherwise by the mulla in madarsa.
> 
> 3.It doesn't realize that Indian SAMs can target PAF planes just as they take off from the runway and attain some altitude once Barak-LR is integrated... Thanks to the 4D Elta-2084 and its Indian version Anuradha MMR Radar.



You are a Moron or what?

AIM-120c cant be guided through data-link with AWACS? really?


Child go ahead and read before your stupid rants on this forum.

AMRAAM uses two-stage guidance when fired at long range. The aircraft passes data to the missile just before launch, giving it information about the location of the target aircraft from the launch point and its direction and speed. The missile uses this information to fly on an interception course to the target using its built in inertial navigation system (INS). This information is generally obtained using the launching aircraft's radar, although it could come from an infrared search and tracking system (IRST), from a data link from another fighter aircraft, or from an AWACS aircraft.

Dont worry about TTP. we are killing those Indian stooges by the dozens, and in a couple of year we will finish them off once and forever.

*3.It doesn't realize that Indian SAMs can target PAF planes just as they take off from the runway and attain some altitude once Barak-LR is integrated... Thanks to the 4D Elta-2084 and its Indian version Anuradha MMR Radar. *

Really? what is your source? what is the range of these systems? How will you acquire and shoot down targets at such a long range? Are you planing to install these systems inside Pakistan territory??

How do you think your mighty MKI coming inside Pakistani territory, facing SAMs, MANPADS, Ground based surveillance Radars, AWACS and Fighter planes with potent BVRs like AIM-120c and SD-10. Just give me a real scholarly explanation of how can a fighter based radars ECM can counter a Ground based radar?

And for the last time stop your statements about Islam, Mudrassa and Pakistan. Remain in your limits.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## notorious_eagle

DARKY said:


> What an AWACS or FLIRST can do is provide co-ordinates to fighter aircraft as to where the target is... the fighter aircraft still has to do the main work of turning the nose pointing the radar, using the tracking beam painting the target with that beam and guiding the AMRAAM towards the target using that tracking beam till the active seeker picks up.



Most Hon @gambit

Can you please advise on the following quoted post. I remember in the past, you explained quite eloquently how an AWAC can guide a modern BVRAAM towards a target, unfortunately i cannot find that post. Your comments would be most appreciated regarding this topic.

Cheers

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Chak Bamu

@DARKY, do you enjoy exhibiting some of the reasons why we Pakistanis are lucky not to live with your types? Can't you be civil? Please try, you might surprise yourself.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## quranak343

In an interview with the Global Times newspaper, Rao Qamar Suleman, air chief marshal of the Pakistan Air Force has confirmed the rumors that Pakistan Air Force will purchase up to four Chinese Surface-to-Air Missiles to meet its airdefence needs.


----------



## Tacticool

So how many SAMs we've got by now?


----------



## khanasifm

Cooperative engagement AWACS and interceptor


Pakistani Defence Forum
&#8594; Pakistan's National Security
&#8594; Air Force Forum


thread Saab 2000 Awacs - Hot !

Page 2


----------



## Super Falcon

well what i know with stealth jets in air we need best and spohisticated sams now no waste money on middle class sams now

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## khanasifm

khanasifm said:


> Cooperative engagement AWACS and interceptor
> 
> 
> Pakistani Defence Forum
> &#8594; Pakistan's National Security
> &#8594; Air Force Forum
> 
> 
> thread Saab 2000 Awacs - Hot !
> 
> Page 2



_http://www.****************/pictures/data/3978/Amraam-performance.jpg_

http://www.****************/pictures/data/3978/Amraam-performance.jpg


----------



## khanasifm

http://www.****************/pictures/data/3978/Amraam-performance.jpg


----------



## khanasifm




----------



## Super Falcon

we need state of the art sam systems which can hit targets on all ranges and easy trasferable to any location


----------



## Major Sam

Rajput_Pakistani said:


> You are a Moron or what?
> 
> AIM-120c cant be guided through data-link with AWACS? really?
> 
> 
> Child go ahead and read before your stupid rants on this forum.
> 
> AMRAAM uses two-stage guidance when fired at long range. The aircraft passes data to the missile just before launch, giving it information about the location of the target aircraft from the launch point and its direction and speed. The missile uses this information to fly on an interception course to the target using its built in inertial navigation system (INS). This information is generally obtained using the launching aircraft's radar, although it could come from an infrared search and tracking system (IRST), from a data link from another fighter aircraft, or from an AWACS aircraft.
> 
> Dont worry about TTP. we are killing those Indian stooges by the dozens, and in a couple of year we will finish them off once and forever.
> 
> *3.It doesn't realize that Indian SAMs can target PAF planes just as they take off from the runway and attain some altitude once Barak-LR is integrated... Thanks to the 4D Elta-2084 and its Indian version Anuradha MMR Radar. *
> 
> Really? what is your source? what is the range of these systems? How will you acquire and shoot down targets at such a long range? Are you planing to install these systems inside Pakistan territory??
> 
> How do you think your mighty MKI coming inside Pakistani territory, facing SAMs, MANPADS, Ground based surveillance Radars, AWACS and Fighter planes with potent BVRs like AIM-120c and SD-10. Just give me a real scholarly explanation of how can a fighter based radars ECM can counter a Ground based radar?
> 
> And for the last time stop your statements about Islam, Mudrassa and Pakistan. Remain in your limits.



he is just behaving likes idiots.

well may be we will get Aim-9xx and more Amraan soon 

but still how we can fight with SUper dooper Indians who has sam which can target inside pakistan m really worried. yara


----------



## Shaped charge

a little humor is good, the Flag pole sam system idea gave me more laughs than Hangover 3 and on a serious note SAMs are and will remain essential part of air-defence and can't be over looked by anyone except USAF who always move about in complete air supremacy


----------



## Kompromat

New canister TEL for KS-1A.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## trident2010

So any new SAMs inducted with PAF?


----------



## Kompromat

@trident2010

The most latest induction is MBDA-SPADA 2000.

www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/aspide-2000_ds.pdf

4 Chinese origin systems are being eveluated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Viper 94

pakistan needs to reduce the budget of the army and divert it to the navy and air force 
air force and navy are the real war winners army is just there to man the area clear by the air force 

also we have to improve our air defense system we do have enough radar coverage through land based radars and awacs 
but we lack enough SAMs to counter advance air threats 
pakistan has many types of advance man portable system and anti aircraft guns
but spada is the only SAM system that is advance enough others are aging such as SA-2 or crotale

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neptune

Can anybody notify and provive detailed information regarding active air radars of PAF, meanwhile i want to learn the radar systems of Pakistan. thx


----------



## imiakhtar

Neptune said:


> Can anybody notify and provive detailed information regarding active air radars of PAF, meanwhile i want to learn the radar systems of Pakistan. thx



Lockheed Martin TPS-77 for long range surveillance:

Ground-Based Air Surveillance Radars · Lockheed Martin

I don't know about the rest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Neptune said:


> Can anybody notify and provive detailed information regarding active air radars of PAF, meanwhile i want to learn the radar systems of Pakistan. thx




some that i know about..

Marconi Type 992 radar

TRS 2215 3-D radar & TRS 2230 3-D radar

AN/ALR-69 radar warning receiver


Mobile Pulse Doppler Radar

1.AR-1/15Six: AR-1 radars were installed in 1968-9. They have a range of 150 km.

2.MPDR45: MPDRs were obtained from Siemens of Germany in 1979-80. They are
controlled from six control and reporting centers which are also mobile. The three versions
available with Pakistan are :

MPDR 45 (with 45 km. range)

MPDR 60 (with 60 km. range)

MPDR 90 (with 90 km. range) 




*Long Range Radar Systems*

*Lockheed AN/TPS-77 or AN/FPS-117

YLC-2 
YLC-2 Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


YLC-6 Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


AN/TPS-43 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





FPS-89/100:
There are two installations, at Sakesar near Sargodha and Badin in the Thar desert. They are modernized versions of the US-supplied MAP radar, the FPS-6/20. The former is the height-finder, the latter is the search radar with a 350 km range. Sakesar also has a Plessey HF-200 height-finder acquired in 1967. Badin's FPS-6 was destroyed in the 1965 war and was replaced with a Chinese height- finder.

Type 514: This is a Chinese system first acquired in 1978. It is known to be installed at Skardu and Gilgit in the Northern areas and at other locations. No other details are available.

Condor: The high-level system was acquired from the UK in 1968 and serves with Nos. 400, 403 and 410 Squadrons.

TPS-43G: This transportable radar is expected to remain in first line US service till 2010. Pakistan purchased sis systems at a cost of $60 million and all were commissioned by 1985. It consists of two modules, each less than 3 tons, and can be transported by two 5-ton trucks, a C-130, or two medium-lift helicopters. A six-man team can reassemble the radar within 50 minutes. It's high-level range is 400 km, but its low-level range is classified. It is a 3D system with a 4 megawatt output. The system was the second phase of Project Crystal initiated in 1976 to provide Pakistan with a modern air defence system.

Thomson-CSF ATC: As far back as 1984 the Pakistan Government planned a modern Air Traffic Control System that could be netted into its ADGE. Possibly owing to financial stringency, the six radar started arriving only in 1987. The Pakistani ATC radar are at Pasni, Jiawani, Karachi, Rahim Yar Khan, Lahore and Rawalpindi. Though the locations correspond strictly to Pakistan's growing civil air traffic routes, they are ideally placed to boost early warning from the Indian frontier.

It is of interest that in 1969 two Soviet P.35 high-level radar are PRV height-finders were installed, being decommissioned in 1979 owing to maintenance and spares difficulties.

Low Level Radar Systems

AR-1/6 Radar: In 1968-69 six AR-1 Plessey low level radars were installed, followed by 3 of the mobile versions, called AR-15. The range is about 150 km.

MPDR: very major investment was made between 1979-80 in 45 Mobile Pulse Doppler Radars acquired from Siemens of Germany. These are called the SILLACS MPDR 45/E. SILLACS stand for Siemens Low Level Air Defence Control System. They are controlled from six Control and Reporting Centers which are also mobile, and correspond presumably the PAF's six MPDR wings.

Each CRC can control up to 8 radars; the CRC is data-linked to the Sector Operations Center. According to Janes Weapons System 1987-88 edition, there are two fully mobile versions one with 45km range another with 60 km. There is a third version, transportable, with a 90 km range. The first two are single vehicle system with a radar mast extendable to 18 meters and a shelter for the operating crew. The CRC is in two units, a shelter with 4 workstations and two assistant's positions and power generators on trailers.

The MPDR project was the first phase of Project Crystal.

US Low Level Systems
Pakistan has been buying US-low level systems, probably the TPS-63 or 70 or both. One such buy for four low-level air defence radars was identified in a march 1990 list to the US Congress.

It may be noted that Pakistan has the capability to completely overhaul all radars except the Chinese type 514s and possibly the US TPS-43. *

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## monitor

Pakistan Air Force will ink a contract with China’s state-owned Aerospace Long-March International Trade Co Ltd (ALIT) for acquiring a Regiment of the 70km-range LY-80E LR-SAM.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## NKVD

monitor said:


> Pakistan Air Force will ink a contract with China’s state-owned Aerospace Long-March International Trade Co Ltd (ALIT) for acquiring a Regiment of the 70km-range LY-80E LR-SAM.


china’s state-owned Aerospace Long-March International Trade Co Ltd (ALIT) has developed a new-generation medium-range surface-to-air missile (MR-SAM), called the LY-80E, which can neutralise a wide range of airborne threats, ranging from manned combat aircraft to cruised missiles.LY-80E’s maximum/minimum interception altitude is 18km/15 metres, while its maximum interception range for combat aircraft is 40km, and between 3.5km and 12km for cruise missiles flying at an altitude of 50 metres at a speed of 300 metres/second.Single-shot kill probability is a claimed figure of 85 per cent against combat aircraft, and 60 per cent against cruise missiles. The MR-SAM rounds are cannisterised, and are cold-launched in vertical mode. The missile guidance system is of the composite type, comprising initial independent inertial guidance plus intermittent illumination, and semi-active homing terminal guidance. A single LY-80E MFV can engage four targets simultaneously, and the entire system has a reaction time of 12 seconds.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## monitor

Indian defence blog trisul blogspot reporting Pakistan Air force will sign contact fro a regiment of LY-80E SAM system in Zhuhai Air show 2014


----------



## monitor




----------



## he-man

Well we will have barak-8,,so its all fine

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

he-man said:


> Well we will have barak-8,,so its all fine



That statement is the intellectual equivalent of a 4 year old fighting with another claiming that his father's rolex is better than the other fellow's Patek. Then you wonder why you get warning for low quality posts. 

The barak has little to do with the purchase of PAF's sam. The Barak and Ly-80 will not be duelling it out sunshine.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
45


----------



## Armstrong

Oscar said:


> That statement is the intellectual equivalent of a 4 year old fighting with another claiming that his father's rolex is better than the other fellow's Patek. Then you wonder why you get warning for low quality posts.
> 
> The barak has little to do with the purchase of PAF's sam. The Barak and Ly-80 will not be duelling it out sunshine.



Yaaar Oscar naraaaz haii ?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Donatello

Good news, can complement Spada.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Donatello

Oscar said:


> That statement is the intellectual equivalent of a 4 year old fighting with another claiming that his father's rolex is better than the other fellow's Patek. Then you wonder why you get warning for low quality posts.
> 
> The barak has little to do with the purchase of PAF's sam. The Barak and Ly-80 will not be duelling it out sunshine.


Well, the Patek is always better.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## manojb

he-man said:


> Well we will have barak-8,,so its all fine


difference is barak8 is joint development .


----------



## rockstar08

@Horus @Oscar any official news on this ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## he-man

Oscar said:


> That statement is the intellectual equivalent of a 4 year old fighting with another claiming that his father's rolex is better than the other fellow's Patek. Then you wonder why you get warning for low quality posts.
> 
> The barak has little to do with the purchase of PAF's sam. The Barak and Ly-80 will not be duelling it out sunshine.


Right,anything else??
I thought i made no comparison saying x was better than y.

U may think otherwise though


----------



## he-man

manojb said:


> difference is barak8 is joint development .



Yeah but we are contributing mainly in pulse motors which is no big deal for israel.
We wanted work as we were paying 50 percent


----------



## Zarvan

monitor said:


> Indian defence blog trisul blogspot reporting Pakistan Air force will sign contact fro a regiment of LY-80E SAM system in Zhuhai Air show 2014


Well we need at least 3 similar kind of systems and of different ranges


----------



## he-man

Armstrong said:


> Yaaar Oscar naraaaz haii ?



Yeah,,only with benign people and easy targets like me who cannot/won't abuse others just for fun.
Its all good


----------



## ali_raza

wise thinking as long range sams have proved less effective then short or medium range systems


----------



## aliaselin

Can't understand， is it a news?


----------



## SQ8

he-man said:


> Right,anything else??
> I thought i made no comparison saying x was better than y.
> 
> U may think otherwise though



Yeah. X being better than Y has ZERO implications on the threat X brings to the operators of Y.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## he-man

Oscar said:


> Yeah. X being better than Y has ZERO implications on the threat X brings to the operators of Y.



I implied nothing except for the satisfaction that we have a similar system??
Whats the reason for ur fury here??


----------



## SQ8

he-man said:


> I implied nothing except for the satisfaction that we have a similar system??
> Whats the reason for ur fury here??



Then that fury is even further. You brought in satisfaction for wholly useless purposes. Hence the pointless of it other than say self appeasement.


----------



## he-man

Oscar said:


> Then that fury is even further. You brought in satisfaction for wholly useless purposes. Hence the pointless of it other than say self appeasement.



Now i can't even feel happy for my country without mocking or making fun of the concerned party here.?
What had i suggested just for the sake of it that barak-8 is better??

U would have banned me instantly looking at ur current mood


----------



## SQ8

he-man said:


> Now i can't even feel happy for my country without mocking or making fun of the concerned party here.?
> What had i suggested just for the sake of it that barak-8 is better??
> 
> U would have banned me instantly looking at ur current mood



I am looking at banning a lot of the tricolors instantly from now on. Winter is coming.

Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## he-man

Oscar said:


> I am looking at banning a lot of the tricolors instantly from now on. Winter is coming.



We killed 2 frost giants already

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

he-man said:


> We killed 2 frost giants already



You'll be dealing with dragons soon. In either case, focus with posts and quality or thou shall face my wrath.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Donatello

he-man said:


> I implied nothing except for the satisfaction that we have a similar system??
> *Whats the reason for ur fury here*??



The reason is that no one gives a shyt about what you have in this topic.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## he-man

Donatello said:


> The reason is that no one gives a shyt about what you have in this topic.



U did give a shyte sir.
Plus i was feeling happy for pakistanis as we have a similar system so no need for us to match u guys there.No need to make it a big issue sire


----------



## Donatello

he-man said:


> U did give a shyte sir.
> Plus i was feeling happy for pakistanis as we have a similar system so no need for us to match u guys there.No need to make it a big issue sire


OFF Topic posts by trolls is a serious issue.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Derolo

Specs are 15km altitude and 40km range

So MR-SAM or LR-SAM?

Also these can or cannot be fitted into F-22P?


----------



## ali_raza

where the money coming from?mbt 3000,cutters,mi35,fc31!!!


----------



## MastanKhan

ali_raza said:


> wise thinking as long range sams have proved less effective then short or medium range systems



Hi,

The current versions of LR sams are indeed extremely deadly.


----------



## SQ8

Derolo said:


> Specs are 15km altitude and 40km range
> 
> So MR-SAM or LR-SAM?
> 
> Also these can or cannot be fitted into F-22P?



MR-SAM.. along the same lines(because it is a purchased/reverse engineered/modified) Buk Missile that forms the basis for the HQ-16.

While this version is canisterized and may have naval potential, so far there is no inkling of a naval version. Again, its possible that somewhere in Zhuhai there are models or brochures that outline Naval version of various Chinese SAM systems but as we dont know.. well.. we dont know.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Donatello

Oscar said:


> MR-SAM.. along the same lines(because it is a purchased/reverse engineered/modified) Buk Missile that forms the basis for the HQ-16.
> 
> While this version is canisterized and may have naval potential, so far there is no inkling of a naval version. Again, its possible that somewhere in Zhuhai there are models or brochures that outline Naval version of various Chinese SAM systems but as we dont know.. well.. we dont know.



It is fine to have short to medium range coverage, but didn't spada provide that pretty well? 40km is more like short range not medium, considering long range is 100km+ S200/300/400 etc


----------



## SQ8

Donatello said:


> It is fine to have short to medium range coverage, but didn't spada provide that pretty well? 40km is more like short range not medium, considering long range is 100km+ S200/300/400 etc



While the Spada is a slightly better system in certain respects to this system so this basically covers up the bases and areas left by the inability to afford more SPADA batteries.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Imran Khan

he-man said:


> Well we will have barak-8,,so its all fine


bachy bara ho ga every thread same BS is not good

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## fatman17

Donatello said:


> Good news, can complement Spada.


Is it true that spada has been renamed anza III?


----------



## Donatello

fatman17 said:


> Is it true that spada has been renamed anza III?



Hah, god forbid no....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ali_raza

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> The current versions of LR sams are indeed extremely deadly.


 thanks fir reply sir.but isnt it a fact that even bvr,s cant be trusted with there full range.!!


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

No source just speculation

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

@Stealth can you confirm from your source in PAF about we getting this ?


----------



## aliaselin

Oscar said:


> While the Spada is a slightly better system in certain respects to this system so this basically covers up the bases and areas left by the inability to afford more SPADA batteries.


spada 2000 is an upgrade of aspide, or say ly60, which may correspont with ly600. it is not the same generation as ly80, both from the system and missle. while the missle is particularly out of date as a derivative of sparrow


----------



## monitor

fatman17 said:


> Is it true that spada has been renamed anza III?



Anza-III is the improve variant of manpad Anza-II .


----------



## MastanKhan

ali_raza said:


> thanks fir reply sir.but isnt it a fact that even bvr,s cant be trusted with there full range.!!



Hi,

You are correct on that-----re the BVR's---but the SA LR missiles are extremely deadly.


----------



## MastanKhan

Zarvan said:


> @Stealth can you confirm from your source in PAF about we getting this ?



Hi,

Don't confirm----if PAF wants to---thy will release the info----why would you want to volunteer info.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## syedali73

monitor said:


> Anza-III is the improve variant of manpad Anza-II .


Is there anything like Anza III? We have been hearing about alleged Anza III for almost a decade but so far no confirmation.


----------



## monitor

syedali73 said:


> Is there anything like Anza III? We have been hearing about alleged Anza III for almost a decade but so far no confirmation.


*





Yes as per army recognition 
Anza Mk-I: *The first MANPADS produced by Pakistan for use by the Pakistan Army. Development is believed to have been assisted by China and the design is similar to the Russian-made SA-7 Grail.
*- Anza Mk-II: *A third generation MANPADS based on the Chinese QW-1 MANPADS.
*- Anza Mk-III: Based on the Chinese-made QW-2 MANPADS, modifications made to meet Pakistan Army requirements include a new firing unit similar to the Russian 9K38 Igla MANPADS*.


----------



## syedali73

monitor said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes as per army recognition
> Anza Mk-I: *The first MANPADS produced by Pakistan for use by the Pakistan Army. Development is believed to have been assisted by China and the design is similar to the Russian-made SA-7 Grail.
> *- Anza Mk-II: *A third generation MANPADS based on the Chinese QW-1 MANPADS.
> *- Anza Mk-III: Based on the Chinese-made QW-2 MANPADS, modifications made to meet Pakistan Army requirements include a new firing unit similar to the Russian 9K38 Igla MANPADS*.


Sir that is Anza MK-II and not MK-III


----------



## Arsalan

Donatello said:


> Well, the Patek is always better.


No, it is a case of whatever my father have is better, ALWAYS!!
I am loving the views of our neighbors on PA possible procurement of Mi35s, overnight, the chopper have been declared junk now 
And dear MR. Oscar  you see you have been doing what we (you in fact) always ask us to refrain from, " Replying to Troll" . You see how they can engage you and bring people down to there level.  

Anyway, on topic, the HQ-16 procurement will be a MASSIVE step forward in our ground based air defense system. They will complement the already existing SPADA that are more of a low-to-medium range system. The only thing is there is no port about anything happening in this regard on the internet.



Oscar said:


> While the Spada is a slightly better system in certain respects to this system so this basically covers up the bases and areas left by the inability to afford more SPADA batteries.


Plus SPADA 2000 have 25Km range
Also we do have to admit to the fact that MR-SAM have proved more effective then LR-SAM.
The Chinese developed HQ-16 to fill in the gap between HQ-7 short-range SAM and the HQ-9 long-range SAM systems, we can do the same IF we get a longer range SAM some day. That will complete a good three tire ground base air defense system. And, we do need a few batteries of long range SAM as well but can afford to leave that for a time when we have more funds available. For now SPADA is giving good base defense options and now if we do get HQ-16 that will further improve the situation,


----------



## monitor

syedali73 said:


> Sir that is Anza MK-II and not MK-III



yea i know but i did't get the anza-III picture .


----------



## syedali73

monitor said:


> yea i know but i did't get the anza-III picture .


Because most probably there is no such thing as Anza MkIII.


----------



## Assault Rifle

LY-80 is a missile with a nax range of 45 km.
Why are Pakistanis thinking this as a LR-SAM. IT is more of a MR-SAM.

Anyways it is just the chinese copy of Russian Buk system. 

I will take anything from Prasun with a pinch of salt.


----------



## Donatello

Arsalan said:


> No, it is a case of whatever my father have is better, ALWAYS!!
> I am loving the views of our neighbors on PA possible procurement of Mi35s, overnight, the chopper have been declared junk now
> And dear MR. Oscar  you see you have been doing what we (you in fact) always ask us to refrain from, " Replying to Troll" . You see how they can engage you and bring people down to there level.
> 
> Anyway, on topic, the HQ-16 procurement will be a MASSIVE step forward in our ground based air defense system. They will complement the already existing SPADA that are more of a low-to-medium range system. The only thing is there is no port about anything happening in this regard on the internet.
> 
> 
> Plus SPADA 2000 have 25Km range
> Also we do have to admit to the fact that MR-SAM have proved more effective then LR-SAM.
> The Chinese developed HQ-16 to fill in the gap between HQ-7 short-range SAM and the HQ-9 long-range SAM systems, we can do the same IF we get a longer range SAM some day. That will complete a good three tire ground base air defense system. And, we do need a few batteries of long range SAM as well but can afford to leave that for a time when we have more funds available. For now SPADA is giving good base defense options and now if we do get HQ-16 that will further improve the situation,



I think these systems are more geared towards the attack helicopters, since high flying fast moving jets are not really their target, especially if they are carrying 100km range Anti radiation missiles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Arsalan

Donatello said:


> I think these systems are more geared towards the attack helicopters, since high flying fast moving jets are not really their target, especially if they are carrying 100km range Anti radiation missiles.


Surely it is all about what you can lure into your trap! Most of the weapons these days have counter measures and counter counter measures and you can keep adding counter in the start  but this still do not cancel out the need for these systems. I mean, why even mentioned high flying fast moving jets with missiles, standoff strikes can also be served by ballistic missiles. Still these are not replacement of one an other.
SPADA and HQ-16 are both mainly base defense missiles that can engage any aggressor moving towards them, missiles, jets, helos, drones etc. What will be there efficiency or efficiency of any weapons platform against another one is a separate debate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.Rafay

monitor said:


> Anza-III is the improve variant of manpad Anza-II .


Are you an ISI spy in Bangladesh? Be careful there.


----------



## Donatello

Arsalan said:


> Surely it is all about what you can lure into your trap! Most of the weapons these days have counter measures and counter counter measures and you can keep adding counter in the start  but this still do not cancel out the need for these systems. I mean, why even mentioned high flying fast moving jets with missiles, standoff strikes can also be served by ballistic missiles. Still these are not replacement of one an other.
> SPADA and HQ-16 are both mainly base defense missiles that can engage any aggressor moving towards them, missiles, jets, helos, drones etc. What will be there efficiency or efficiency of any weapons platform against another one is a separate debate.



That is true, but some units need to be given to Army as well, modern warfare has no place for Anzas and Stingers. A cheaper Chinese alternative like this LY80/HQ16 etc can make that possible. Plus we really need a High altitude long range system. Even a few would do, since their area of coverage is very large (since circular range, corresponds to Pi*Rsquared), a system that doubles the engagement range from say 45km to 90 km, is giving you 4 times the coverage. So a 2-3 times more cost is well and truly justified.


----------



## SQ8

aliaselin said:


> spada 2000 is an upgrade of aspide, or say ly60, which may correspont with ly600. it is not the same generation as ly80, both from the system and missle. while the missle is particularly out of date as a derivative of sparrow



Not exactly. The Spada may be an updated Sparrow.. the missile itself along with the targeting electronics are much more sophisticated than the LY-60.. and from what I can tell, more sophisticated and accurate than the LY-80.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

Arsalan said:


> Plus SPADA 2000 have 25Km range
> Also we do have to admit to the fact that MR-SAM have proved more effective then LR-SAM.
> The Chinese developed HQ-16 to fill in the gap between HQ-7 short-range SAM and the HQ-9 long-range SAM systems, we can do the same IF we get a longer range SAM some day. That will complete a good three tire ground base air defense system. And, we do need a few batteries of long range SAM as well but can afford to leave that for a time when we have more funds available. For now SPADA is giving good base defense options and now if we do get HQ-16 that will further improve the situation,



Range is not the only gauge, the probability of getting a kill within that range is. The SPADA has a better Pk than what the LY-80 offers.


----------



## aliaselin

Oscar said:


> Not exactly. The Spada may be an updated Sparrow.. the missile itself along with the targeting electronics are much more sophisticated than the LY-60.. and from what I can tell, more sophisticated and accurate than the LY-80.


It is hard to decide which one has better electronics without specific data revealed, but a simply truth is LY-80 has larger seeker and thus may have larger power; moreover, since Spada use the missle body of Sparrow, so its speed is only M2 and maneuverability is less than 30G，this will greatly limit its accuracy and hit ratio and can not be improved from electronics. With this limited performance, it uses only a radar of only 45 km, which indicate that its power is for sure less than LY-80(140 km), as Aspide-2000 is a semi-active missiles, it means its accuracy is greatly depends on the signal from the illuminating radar, even though we accept that it has better seeker though with smaller diameter, the receiving signal is much less potent from Spada system.
I do not say Spada-2000 is correspondent with LY-60, but guess may to LY-600, however, I do not have specific data about LY-600, so just an estimation.

By the way, I have replied to you about the F-80 medium range air to air missile, any more input?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Arsalan

Oscar said:


> Range is not the only gauge, the probability of getting a kill within that range is. The SPADA has a better Pk than what the LY-80 offers.


Yes it is not, that is why i said that it will complement SPADA. 
but the thing is we are still missing on main point "There is no news about any such deal as of yet" so i wonder if we are discussing this for nothing.


----------



## SQ8

aliaselin said:


> It is hard to decide which one has better electronics without specific data revealed, but a simply truth is LY-80 has larger seeker and thus may have larger power; moreover, since Spada use the missle body of Sparrow, so its speed is only M2 and maneuverability is less than 30G，this will greatly limit its accuracy and hit ratio and can not be improved from electronics. With this limited performance, it uses only a radar of only 45 km, which indicate that its power is for sure less than LY-80(140 km), as Aspide-2000 is a semi-active missiles, it means its accuracy is greatly depends on the signal from the illuminating radar, even though we accept that it has better seeker though with smaller diameter, the receiving signal is much less potent from Spada system.
> I do not say Spada-2000 is correspondent with LY-60, but guess may to LY-600, however, I do not have specific data about LY-600, so just an estimation.



It is rather difficult to compare the systems on their performance levels but the ASPIDE 2000 missile may have come from the Sparrow yet it is much more sophisticated and has a very high probability of kill. The SPADA system can engage 4 different targets at once with 97% success rate even in high jamming environments.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/spada_2000_ds.pdf
Request Rejected
Aspide 2000 establishes another exceptional record

Versus this the LY-80 has a lower probability of kill but then is also cheaper. It is based off the Buk SAM system with improvements in electronics so it is going to be a good replacement for the older Crotale systems now obsolete.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Arsalan

Donatello said:


> That is true, but some units need to be given to Army as well, modern warfare has no place for Anzas and Stingers. A cheaper Chinese alternative like this LY80/HQ16 etc can make that possible. Plus we really need a High altitude long range system. Even a few would do, since their area of coverage is very large (since circular range, corresponds to Pi*Rsquared), a system that doubles the engagement range from say 45km to 90 km, is giving you 4 times the coverage. So a 2-3 times more cost is well and truly justified.



We cannot compare Anza or Stingers with HQ-16. The first are short range shoulder fired missiles, MANPADs where as SPADA or HQ-16 re decent medium rang medium altitude missiles.
Surely we do need long range missiles but these wont be integrated with army battalion or on war fronts. These are deployed in zones/sectors to give area defense Umbrella. A few of these along the border give a good ground based air defense shield and once supported with Medium and short range systems that are MORE efficient it will give headache to any adversary.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

Arsalan said:


> Yes it is not, that is why i said that it will complement SPADA.
> but the thing is we are still missing on main point "There is no news about any such deal as of yet" so i wonder if we are discussing this for nothing.



We spent some 150 pages discussion the J-10 which was thought by all(except me) to be sure shot deal. 
So I supposed certain rumours can be entertained to pass the time.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

Arsalan said:


> We cannot compare Anza or Stingers with HQ-16. The first are short range shoulder fired missiles, MANPADs where as SPADA or HQ-16 re decent medium rang medium altitude missiles.
> Surely we do need long range missiles but these wont be integrated with army battalion or on war fronts. These are deployed in zones/sectors to give area defense Umbrella. A few of these along the border give a good ground based air defense shield and once supported with Medium and short range systems that are MORE efficient it will give headache to any adversary.



Try explaining that to the Pakistan Army.. which is so utterly convinced that MANPADS and Oerlikons are all the air defence it needs.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## Ray_of_Hope

Any link to this ``news`` or a piece of self made news just to feel good


----------



## Donatello

Arsalan said:


> We cannot compare Anza or Stingers with HQ-16. The first are short range shoulder fired missiles, MANPADs where as SPADA or HQ-16 re decent medium rang medium altitude missiles.
> Surely we do need long range missiles but these wont be integrated with army battalion or on war fronts. These are deployed in zones/sectors to give area defense Umbrella. A few of these along the border give a good ground based air defense shield and once supported with Medium and short range systems that are MORE efficient it will give headache to any adversary.



Well that's what i meant, Manpads are not that effective in modern warfare in which you've got jets flying at 30,000ft. That is why Army should have some LY80 type mobile units for it's own use. PAF cannot be everywhere. 

Long range should be integrated with our AD network, which will almost always be the PAF's C4I. 

Actually, you only need Long range for eastern borders, since the normal fighter CAPs would be enough for the western border (for the time being)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Donatello

Oscar said:


> Try explaining that to the Pakistan Army.. which is so utterly convinced that MANPADS and Oerlikons are all the air defence it needs.



I think PAF can help in that regard, take the jernail to a proper firing test. Let JF-17s and F-16s/Mirage drop those JDAMs/LS-6/MAR-1/Durandals etc from 50-100km out. They'll get the idea immediately (hopefully, if not high on JDs), that this is what you will face on the eastern front. Your AKs and Haiders and M109s would be useless pieces of metal.

Oerlikons can't hit what they can't see.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Viper0011.

Oscar said:


> That statement is the intellectual equivalent of a 4 year old fighting with another claiming that his father's rolex is better than the other fellow's Patek. Then you wonder why you get warning for low quality posts.
> The barak has little to do with the purchase of PAF's sam. The Barak and Ly-80 will not be duelling it out sunshine.



LOL, well said and agreed. But, does anyone thinks that instead of having another medium range SAM like the SPADA, it was time to get a long range SAM that can hit out to 100,000 feet, 100 miles away and not just 18,000 feet 40 KM's away?


----------



## Viper0011.

Donatello said:


> The the normal fighter CAPs would be enough for the western border (for the time being)



In fact, the medium range SAM system may be good enough around Afghanistan as you are already thousands of feet above sea level. So on top of mountain say 12000 feet height, a batter that can hit at max altitude of 18000 feet, is really expanding its range from 18000 to 30000 feet (adding mountainous terrain's height in the picture).

But I do think Pakistan needs a long rage, high altitude SAM system placed in two tiers, preferably with TOT so it can produce in numbers.

A long range, high altitude SAM system in multiple tiers and numbers supported by 400 4th Gen/+ BVR jets and a few squadrons of some Stealthy platform guarantee enough protection for Pakistan.


----------



## Donatello

orangzaib said:


> LOL, well said and agreed. But, does anyone thinks that instead of having another medium range SAM like the SPADA, it was time to get a long range SAM that can hit out to 100,000 feet, 100 miles away and not just 18,000 feet 40 KM's away?



I think that is what we are discussing. Long range is need of the hour, to be automated and integrated with PAF's overall C4I.
Pakistan procured 10 batteries of Spada, which are enough for 10 areas at a time. We have a lot more assets than just air bases. During wartime your FOBs will need protection too, along with other critical infrastructure, for example, the TPS-77 radars positioned towards the eastern front. Big a** radar, but equally big and juicy target for an Anti Radiation Missile. Plus the usual facilities like Wah, PAC Kamra, AWC, Suparco, Naval bases, Khushab, Nilore etc.

A long range SAM would be the first deterrent to keep enemy high up and away where our fighters can engage them. In case they sneak through, there should be a credible last line of defense in forms of MR and SR SAMs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Donatello

orangzaib said:


> In fact, the medium range SAM system may be good enough around Afghanistan as you are already thousands of feet above sea level. So on top of mountain say 12000 feet height, a batter that can hit at max altitude of 18000 feet, is really expanding its range from 18000 to 30000 feet (adding mountainous terrain's height in the picture).
> 
> But I do think Pakistan needs a long rage, high altitude SAM system placed in two tiers, preferably with TOT so it can produce in numbers.
> 
> A long range, high altitude SAM system in multiple tiers and numbers supported by 400 4th Gen/+ BVR jets and a few squadrons of some Stealthy platform guarantee enough protection for Pakistan.



Afghanistan doesn't have Airforce. In case they do get one, it's a long shot for them to take strike missions. Same with Iran.
400 BVR jets is not going to happen soon. With talks of J-31, it may never happen.


----------



## aliaselin

Oscar said:


> It is rather difficult to compare the systems on their performance levels but the ASPIDE 2000 missile may have come from the Sparrow yet it is much more sophisticated and has a very high probability of kill. The SPADA system can engage 4 different targets at once with 97% success rate even in high jamming environments.
> 
> http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/spada_2000_ds.pdf
> Request Rejected
> Aspide 2000 establishes another exceptional record
> 
> Versus this the LY-80 has a lower probability of kill but then is also cheaper. It is based off the Buk SAM system with improvements in electronics so it is going to be a good replacement for the older Crotale systems now obsolete.



The designed hit ratio does not mean is exactly that number but means no less than, while in real test, HQ-16A got hit ratio of 28 in 29, that is 96.5%. 
http://news.ifeng.com/mil/2/detail_2011_12/17/11390804_2.shtml
Moreover, I should correct you is the 97% hit is not reached under a condition of engage 4 different targets at once, but all of the test combined from many different test, this raise a question: the hitting is through 1 missile on 1 target or 2 on 1 test?
Moreover, to fairly compare, we should know: what it the speed of target? what kind of maneuvering the target is doing? what is the distance from the launcher to the target? Since LY-80 has a much larger distance than Spada-2000, I think we can safely deduce that the target distance in the test is much larger than in Spada-2000 (2 fold from their range? ). If so, with a hit ratio of 96.5% compared to 97%, the accuracy of Spada-2000 is far behind LY-80


----------



## Viper0011.

Donatello said:


> I think that is what we are discussing. Long range is need of the hour, to be automated and integrated with PAF's overall C4I.
> A long range SAM would be the first deterrent to keep enemy high up and away where our fighters can engage them. In case they sneak through, there should be a credible last line of defense in forms of MR and SR SAMs.



I agree. I think the number that makes sense is about 400 4th gen (+ if possible) BVR jets (-16's and the JFT), a few squadrons of twin turbines (J-11 or 15?) and a few of J-31 in the future, supported by a three tier SAM system, medium range by the border as it'll be within close proximity of the Indian AF's reach, about 30-40 miles behind the Medium range SAM, should be the long range SAM system overlapping sectors. Then point defense fighters like the F-7's and SRSAM's as the last line of defense. I think this situation would result in almost giving out a security guarantee to Pakistan as anyone venturing in would lose about 75-80% of their fleet. I don't think anyone wants to risk so many air assets to take out a few things.


----------



## fatman17

HQ-16 / LY-80 SAM

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Viper0011.

Donatello said:


> Afghanistan doesn't have Airforce. In case they do get one, it's a long shot for them to take strike missions. Same with Iran. 400 BVR jets is not going to happen soon. With talks of J-31, it may never happen.



Afgahnistan is about to get a few squadrons of used - 16's......watch it in the next 12-18 months. There are other talks (supported by India) to get them three squadrons of SU's (half the money paid or loaned by India)......and the US will happily sell PAC1 or 2 to them. So don't discount Afghanistan as a future threat, specially when the IAF starts to operate out of one of their bases after the US leaves!!
400 jets isn't that difficult....150-200 JFT, 70 -16's (plus get about 40 more so to hit 100),60 J-11, etc supported by existing Mirages and F-7's (which are over 120 right now)? So you are around 400 currently. 
With the economy going vertical, you'll have a few billion for the AF easily. I'd say use it.


----------



## SQ8

Donatello said:


> I think PAF can help in that regard, take the jernail to a proper firing test. Let JF-17s and F-16s/Mirage drop those JDAMs/LS-6/MAR-1/Durandals etc from 50-100km out. They'll get the idea immediately (hopefully, if not high on JDs), that this is what you will face on the eastern front. Your AKs and Haiders and M109s would be useless pieces of metal.
> 
> Oerlikons can't hit what they can't see.



The Jernail's first reply would be: "But that far is out what you are here for".

Durnadals are dropped from 400m out.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Donatello

orangzaib said:


> I agree. I think the number that makes sense is about 400 4th gen (+ if possible) BVR jets (-16's and the JFT), a few squadrons of twin turbines (J-11 or 15?) and a few of J-31 in the future, supported by a three tier SAM system, medium range by the border as it'll be within close proximity of the Indian AF's reach, about 30-40 miles behind the Medium range SAM, should be the long range SAM system overlapping sectors. Then point defense fighters like the F-7's and SRSAM's as the last line of defense. I think this situation would result in almost giving out a security guarantee to Pakistan as anyone venturing in would lose about 75-80% of their fleet. I don't think anyone wants to risk so many air assets to take out a few things.



With J-31s on the horizon, forget Flankers or any other twin engines. If there is a technology that PAF would let go of it's 'single engine' philosophy, it would be Low RCS/Stealth.
F-16s can be had, but not so soon. Building a 300 jet BVR fleet will take at least another 5-8 years, if things speed. Big IF. Right now it is just chugging along.


----------



## Donatello

Oscar said:


> The Jernail's first reply would be: "But that far is out what you are here for".
> 
> *Durnadals are dropped from 400m out*.



I stand corrected in that case..


----------



## Donatello

orangzaib said:


> Afgahnistan is about to get a few squadrons of used - 16's......watch it in the next 12-18 months. There are other talks (supported by India) to get them three squadrons of SU's (half the money paid or loaned by India)......and the US will happily sell PAC1 or 2 to them. So don't discount Afghanistan as a future threat, specially when the IAF starts to operate out of one of their bases after the US leaves!!
> 400 jets isn't that difficult....150-200 JFT, 70 -16's (plus get about 40 more so to hit 100),60 J-11, etc supported by existing Mirages and F-7's (which are over 120 right now)? So you are around 400 currently.
> With the economy going vertical, you'll have a few billion for the AF easily. I'd say use it.



In order to operate jets that advanced you need some and history some capacity. I am not saying that they cannot have it, all i am saying is, not right now. Yes, India is a big factor, but then get your act together. Even if they have Sukhois and unless IAF opens up a front, Pakistan will not have much problem to force a defeat on them. We have ample firepower to cover Afghanistan.


----------



## monitor

A.Rafay said:


> Are you an ISI spy in Bangladesh? Be careful there.


----------



## monitor

syedali73 said:


> Because most probably there is no such thing as Anza MkIII.



may be but wiki and some other pak defe forum also mention the mane .


----------



## Donatello

monitor said:


> may be but wiki and some other pak defe forum also mention the mane .



Probably just some local improvements, rocket motor, electronics, weight etc. Not very high tech you know. Anyway, let's stick to LY80


----------



## Basel

@monitor can't access your posted links.


----------



## Basel

If PAF is purchasing it then it is good news as this system can engage high altitude targets where Pakistan lags, but 40 km range is low even as per MR-SAMs, but as Pakistan don't have SAM above 25 km range till now, it will be good addition.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/chin...data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video.html


----------



## Zarvan

Basel said:


> If PAF is purchasing it then it is good news as this system can engage high altitude targets where Pakistan lags, but 40 km range is low even as per MR-SAMs, but as Pakistan don't have SAM above 25 km range till now, it will be good addition.
> 
> HQ-16A LY-80 ground to air defence missile system technical data sheet specifications pictures videoÂ -Â Army RecognitionÂ -Â Army Recognition


Yes our Air Defence area sucks we need three kind of similar systems but with far more range


----------



## boke

巴基斯坦需要的中国拥有的装备基本上要引进都不会有什么问题的，至少从所接触到的新闻报道看，这方面的交易从没发现有政治障碍或者技术限制，我们是朋友。这种防御性质的导弹也不违反国际公约，这才叫有利于世界和平！


----------



## kaku1

Donatello said:


> In order to operate jets that advanced you need some and history some capacity. I am not saying that they cannot have it, all i am saying is, not right now. Yes, India is a big factor, but then get your act together. Even if they have Sukhois and unless IAF opens up a front, Pakistan will not have much problem to force a defeat on them. We have ample firepower to cover Afghanistan.



Why not going for HQ-9 instead of this? Maybe in future India can deploy AAD based SAM or even PDV drived SAMs.


----------



## ali_raza

i think we need a ring of AD batteries mixed systems but thats a good addition.if confirmed


----------



## Arsalan

Oscar said:


> We spent some 150 pages discussion the J-10 which was thought by all(except me) to be sure shot deal.
> So I supposed certain rumours can be entertained to pass the time.


Point understood and agreed with. 



Donatello said:


> Well that's what i meant, Manpads are not that effective in modern warfare in which you've got jets flying at 30,000ft. That is why Army should have some LY80 type mobile units for it's own use. PAF cannot be everywhere.
> 
> Long range should be integrated with our AD network, which will almost always be the PAF's C4I.
> 
> Actually, you only need Long range for eastern borders, since the normal fighter CAPs would be enough for the western border (for the time being)





Oscar said:


> Try explaining that to the Pakistan Army.. which is so utterly convinced that MANPADS and Oerlikons are all the air defence it needs.


Well at least we have been pointing out that it is otherwise for a few years here:

Surface To Air Missiles | Terror in the Sky.

But i guess it is not that Army do not realize this, it is more of "we cannot acquire these" and this time, it is not ONLY FINANCIAL reasons, it is also about availability.

@Donatello and @Oscar 
The thing is that you can surely not carry HQ-9 or even HQ-16 batteries in forward offensive formations or armored brigades. These are more of base defense system/area defense systems, at least how we handle our things. The mobility of these goes only as far as driving it from one point to another and keep doing so to avoid enemy mapping out your position. They cannot go in with the strike corps, they are not that fast.

For forward deployments, or for deployment with our offensive formations we need a highly mobile system and we do not have much options that we can acquire in this category. By mobile, i mean a tank or APC chassis fitted with short to medium range SAM, like Crotale system, this is only way these can keep up with fast moving offensive formations of IFV, PAC and Tanks. These are not only fast on move but the reaction time is also better since missiles are in a ready to fire state. The HQ-16 or HQ-9 cannot keep up with that, they are way to big and heavy and the launch truck (an 8x8 truck) is also not a very good option to carry along with the forward formations or fast moving attack brigades or armored strike corps. For that we need some highly mobile SAM system that can keep up with the fast moving strike corps

The HQ-9 and even HQ-16 are more of a base defense oriented platform. We can place a few batteries along the border and form a ground base air defense system. They can protect the border deployment but as soon as the armored formations start moving forward they will be out of range for these SAM batteries and on there own and will depend there MANPADS (as they do now) or high speed tank based short to medium range SAM like Crotale or HQ-7 (cannot figure out many options) and most importantly, on PAF!


----------



## SQ8

Arsalan said:


> Point understood and agreed with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least we have been pointing out that it is otherwise for a few years here:
> 
> Surface To Air Missiles | Terror in the Sky.
> 
> But i guess it is not that Army do not realize this, it is more of "we cannot acquire these" and this time, it is not ONLY FINANCIAL reasons, it is also about availability.
> 
> @Donatello and @Oscar
> The thing is that you can surely not carry HQ-9 or even HQ-16 batteries in forward offensive formations or armored brigades. These are more of base defense system/area defense systems, at least how we handle our things. The mobility of these goes only as far as driving it from one point to another and keep doing so to avoid enemy mapping out your position. They cannot go in with the strike corps, they are not that fast.
> 
> For forward deployments, or for deployment with our offensive formations we need a highly mobile system and we do not have much options that we can acquire in this category. By mobile, i mean a tank or APC chassis fitted with short to medium range SAM, like Crotale system, this is only way these can keep up with fast moving offensive formations of IFV, PAC and Tanks. These are not only fast on move but the reaction time is also better since missiles are in a ready to fire state. The HQ-16 or HQ-9 cannot keep up with that, they are way to big and heavy and the launch truck (an 8x8 truck) is also not a very good option to carry along with the forward formations or fast moving attack brigades or armored strike corps. For that we need some highly mobile SAM system that can keep up with the fast moving strike corps
> 
> The HQ-9 and even HQ-16 are more of a base defense oriented platform. We can place a few batteries along the border and form a ground base air defense system. They can protect the border deployment but as soon as the armored formations start moving forward they will be out of range for these SAM batteries and on there own and will depend there MANPADS (as they do now) or high speed tank based short to medium range SAM like Crotale or HQ-7 (cannot figure out many options) and most importantly, on PAF!



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.


----------



## Donatello

kaku1 said:


> Why not going for HQ-9 instead of this? Maybe in future India can deploy AAD based SAM or even PDV drived SAMs.


Because that is a long range system, more like a static system which needs time to be integrated into the C4I network of the PAF. Medium range systems can be quickly delivered and integrated, plus are cheaper to procure.


----------



## kaku1

Donatello said:


> Because that is a long range system, more like a static system which needs time to be integrated into the C4I network of the PAF. Medium range systems can be quickly delivered and integrated, plus are cheaper to procure.



But HQ-9 also can be integrated in C4I, and even 200 Km range has its own advantage, plus it gives the protection from ballistic missile somehow.


----------



## Arsalan

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.



No debate on whether Army was interested in acquiring battlefield SAM, surely they were not very aggressive in this matter and also i agree that this leaves the attack corps quite vulnerable to stand-off attacks (i wont even consider the anza as they will be effective mostly against attack helicopters, idea of Anza shooting down a fourth generation fighter that is engaging you in stand-off attack is not really reliable). As a matter of fact, it is not only battle field missiles, we lack seriously in land based anti-air systems. Pakistani SAM capabilities are something is need of maximum attention and probably among the weakest link.

I was not aware of the options we had in battlefield SAM, you have mentioned PZA, can you clarify that or quote a link where i can look for it. cannot find it on internet by this name. 

Regarding anti-aircraft guns, while they also form a last layer of ground based air defense system, unfortunately, practically that is all we have. Will also like to take this opportunity that we do have good anti-aircraft guns however, indigenous as well as imports, radar controlled etc, but again, these are as good as they can get! cant argue the need so medium and long range SAM.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

Arsalan said:


> I was not aware of the options we had in battlefield SAM, you have mentioned PZA, can you clarify that or quote a link where i can look for it. cannot find it on internet by this name.
> 
> Regarding anti-aircraft guns, while they also form a last layer of ground based air defense system, unfortunately, practically that is all we have. Will also like to take this opportunity that we do have good anti-aircraft guns however, indigenous as well as imports, radar controlled etc, but again, these are as good as they can get! cant argue the need so medium and long range SAM.



PZA is a polish firm. They had an offering for a guided AAA system on a tank chassis(easily could be the Type 55 or 85) that would provide at least on the move protection for formation. There was also the provision for adding quadruple Strela or ANZA launchers if asked for.. this is IDEAS 2004.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ACE OF THE AIR

@Oscar any info what might be on IDEAS 2014


----------



## Donatello

kaku1 said:


> But HQ-9 also can be integrated in C4I, and even 200 Km range has its own advantage, plus it gives the protection from ballistic missile somehow.



That is what i said, but integrated a complicated system takes time and money. PAF has its hand full at the moment. That's like pushing for more JF-17s while waiting and thinking about the next gen medium weight combat aircraft.


----------



## kaku1

Donatello said:


> That is what i said, but integrated a complicated system takes time and money. PAF has its hand full at the moment. That's like pushing for more JF-17s while waiting and thinking about the next gen medium weight combat aircraft.



There is no requirement of SAM in PA? Amazing?


----------



## Donatello

kaku1 said:


> There is no requirement of SAM in PA? Amazing?



That is what me and Oscar were debating. PA believes manpads and Oerlikons would suffice. Army needs to have it's own MR SAM.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Donatello

Arsalan said:


> No debate on whether Army was interested in acquiring battlefield SAM, surely they were not very aggressive in this matter and also i agree that this leaves the attack corps quite vulnerable to stand-off attacks (i wont even consider the anza as they will be effective mostly against attack helicopters, idea of Anza shooting down a fourth generation fighter that is engaging you in stand-off attack is not really reliable). As a matter of fact, it is not only battle field missiles, we lack seriously in land based anti-air systems. Pakistani SAM capabilities are something is need of maximum attention and probably among the weakest link.
> 
> I was not aware of the options we had in battlefield SAM, you have mentioned PZA, can you clarify that or quote a link where i can look for it. cannot find it on internet by this name.
> 
> Regarding anti-aircraft guns, while they also form a last layer of ground based air defense system, unfortunately, practically that is all we have. Will also like to take this opportunity that we do have good anti-aircraft guns however, indigenous as well as imports, radar controlled etc, but again, these are as good as they can get! cant argue the need so medium and long range SAM.



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.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kaku1

Donatello said:


> That is what me and Oscar were debating. PA believes manpads and Oerlikons would suffice. Army needs to have it's own MR SAM.



It is my personal belief that, a LR-SAM is much more important in army, rather then airforce. An airforce already have enough assets for anti-air role. 

And Man-Pads are good, but only against helicopter.


----------



## Dazzler

is a news piece from prasun, i forgot how many times he's been wrong on pak defence inductions. Just LOL.


----------



## Wolfhound

Horus said:


> @trident2010
> 
> The most latest induction is MBDA-SPADA 2000.
> 
> 4 Chinese origin systems are being eveluated.


do they all have a different range class and till when can we see them integrated in our network


----------



## fatman17

3 batteries of this LOMADS purchased with radar (~US270m). more on the way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Judge

Dazzler said:


> is a news piece from prasun, i forgot how many times he's been wrong on pak defence inductions. Just LOL.


He has been wrong god-knows-how-many-times on Indian defense inductions as well.


----------



## HRK

Pakistan has acquired LY-80 SAM sys .from China








Source: Pakistan Air Force | News & Discussions. | Page 100

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bilal.

I hope for future batteries we go for IBIS-200 Radars instead.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Basel

Donatello said:


> That is what me and Oscar were debating. PA believes manpads and Oerlikons would suffice. Army needs to have it's own MR SAM.



True, PA must al least have truck or tank mounted SL version of SD-10 & PL-10 with support systems in NCW environment backed by good CIWS mobile systems in case fist tier fails or weapons fired from enemy has to be intercepted.


----------



## notorious_eagle

Donatello said:


> That is what me and Oscar were debating. PA believes manpads and Oerlikons would suffice. Army needs to have it's own MR SAM.



There has been a change in the mindsets of our Senior Officers. There is a consensus that modern LR SAM Systems are required to counter the threat from an increasingly menacing threat the IAF represents. 

This is why FT2000 and HQ-9 batteries were procured. Negotiations have been ongoing for a while to procure HQ-18 batteries, PAF likes the product and has tested it. Unfortunately, funds were diverted to upgrade PA's COIN capabilities and further investment into the JF17 program putting this project on the back burner.


----------



## Donatello

notorious_eagle said:


> There has been a change in the mindsets of our Senior Officers. There is a consensus that modern LR SAM Systems are required to counter the threat from an increasingly menacing threat the IAF represents.
> 
> This is why FT2000 and HQ-9 batteries were procured. Negotiations have been ongoing for a while to procure HQ-18 batteries, PAF likes the product and has tested it. Unfortunately, funds were diverted to upgrade PA's COIN capabilities and further investment into the JF17 program putting this project on the back burner.



Sir, even if HQ-9 and FT-2000 systems were procured, they were too limited in number. We need a full spectrum coverage on the eastern front. That means starting with the south in Karachi/Kutch area to LOC in AJK.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Basel

notorious_eagle said:


> There has been a change in the mindsets of our Senior Officers. There is a consensus that modern LR SAM Systems are required to counter the threat from an increasingly menacing threat the IAF represents.
> 
> *This is why FT2000 and HQ-9 batteries were procured.* Negotiations have been ongoing for a while to procure HQ-18 batteries, PAF likes the product and has tested it. Unfortunately, funds were diverted to upgrade PA's COIN capabilities and further investment into the JF17 program putting this project on the back burner.



Can you confirm the bold part?


----------



## My-Analogous

manojb said:


> difference is barak8 is joint development .



Read the topic again and its not about barak8 and for that create a thread and discuss there.


----------



## Otocal

I wonder why topic has not been edited as its 40km range not 70km range


----------



## nomi007



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## My-Analogous

kaku1 said:


> It is my personal belief that, a LR-SAM is much more important in army, rather then airforce. An airforce already have enough assets for anti-air role.
> 
> And Man-Pads are good, but only against helicopter.



No that is not true, we successfully test against fighter plane


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

I had a question, when they say , that a country purchased a battery of SAM , or 20 batteries etc
Just how many Units (Delivery Units) and how many missiles in general are part of that package ?

Is there a standard , 1 Battery = *One Unit* = 4-5 missiles

Example : 
Is this 1 Battery ? , if so its only covering mere 3.5 km range a true air defence can only be attained with combination of SAMs and Anti Aircraft guns etc


----------



## nomi007

1 battery=6 sam

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Super Falcon

Any picture of hq 15 missiles plz post


----------



## Super Falcon

It is not like russian buk system


----------



## Basel

What is different from Buk-M2KM system as Russia is offering it to Pakistan? Which one is better?


----------



## Truth Hurts

The Russian S-500 is the best Air defense System Until Now even China Bought the S-400 from Russia for Beijing Skies, The Exp Version Available in Russian Stockpile is S-400 which is also a Nightmare for pilots


----------



## Basel

Truth Hurts said:


> The Russian S-500 is the best Air defense System Until Now even China Bought the S-500 from Russia for Beijing Skies, The Exp Version Available in Russian Stockpile is S-400 which is also a Nightmare for pilots



Man you need to increase your information about military systems before you post about them, S-500 is not operational yet and S-400 is top of the line SAM from Russia.


----------



## khanasifm

The CASC LY-80 medium-range surface-to-air missile system (HQ-16 in Chinese service) uses semi-active radar homing missiles. Unlike the missiles used in the Russian Buk-M1 system, the LY-80 missiles have thrust vectoring for greater maneuverability. Credit: Bill Sweetman


The LY-80 system has a claimed intercept range of 40 km (25 mi.). Each vehicle carries six ready-to-fire vertical-launch missiles. The same missile is also fired from China’s anti-air-warfare destroyers. Credit: Bill Sweetman

1 battery = multiple launchers (2-12) and associated tracking radars (~3) and main surveillance radar (1)
A regiment/BATALLION can have 3-4 batteries 

Main Surveillance radar = IBIS-150 (8 ordered) assuming 2 launcher and 1 tracking radar plus 1 main SURVEILLANCE ibis 

RUSSIAN MISSILE BATTALION HAS 20 LAUNCHER USUALLY, NOT SURE IF MISSILE BATTALION AND REGIMENT ARE SAME , INFANTRY REGIMENT CONSISTS OF MULTIPLE BATTALIONS 

Each Battery can function independently or in a network dispersed

Photo Gallery: China Defense Close-Up | Aviation Week

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## khanasifm

The SAM regiment was an important part of a Motorised Rifle Division or Tank Division's effort to envelop the battlefield in an extensive air defence network. Numbering a little over five hundred personnel total, the SAM regiment consisted of a regimental headquarters in charge of twenty SA-6 Gainfuls organised into five missile firing batteries; most were SA-6a platforms although since 1979 a limited number of SA-6bs were also deployed and some regiments used the SA-8 Gecko as an alternative. Each missile battery, along with the regimental headquarter and missile technical battery, were also equipped with three MANPADs, either the SA-7 Grail, SA-14 Gremlin or SA-16 Gimlet. Besides the missile technical battery, other support subunits included an artillery reconnaissance battery, motor transport company, maintenance company and chemical protection platoon.[13]

*Antiaircraft Artillery Regiment*
Antiaircraft artillery (AAA) regiments in the late 1980s took the place of SAM regiments in divisions which were assigned to rear areas. These were equipped with twenty-four S-60 57mm Anti Aircraft Guns organised into four firing batteries. Each firing battery along with the regimental headquarters were also equipped with three MANPADs, either the SA-7 Grail, SA-14 Gremlin or SA-16 Gimlet. Additional subunits include a command and control battery and service battery.[14]

Regiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Basel

@Oscar @WebMaster Please correct the name of thread, this system don't have 70 km range, it has 40 km range.


----------



## fatman17

LY-80C MRSAM

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Super Falcon

We need new radars i think and wit atleast 150 tp 200 km range


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Super Falcon said:


> We need new radars i think and wit atleast 150 tp 200 km range


Which we do posses..


----------



## Basel

Pakistan need new ground based long range AESA radars (like Indian Green Pine radar) with capability to handle ECM and deploy ECCM effectively.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

LY-80 LRSAM , three batteries bought as an initial batch.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Donatello

Russians were to present their SAM systems as well.


----------



## Viking 63

I would also like to see Thousands of 57mm AA guns all over Pakistan providing Low cost but highly effective coverage.


----------



## Storm Force

57mm aa guns against rafale su30 and mirage2000.

Your kidding right.

Su30 will carry supersonic brahmos cruise missle range 300km five times speed of sound.

Rafale will carry 500km stealth attack storm shadow or scalp cruise missiles.

And you want aa guns


----------



## Thorough Pro

Every system is different. One battery can comprise multiple (1-3) radar and multiple (up to 6 or more) firing units. one firing unit can have multiple tubes/missiles.




AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> I had a question, when they say , that a country purchased a battery of SAM , or 20 batteries etc
> Just how many Units (Delivery Units) and how many missiles in general are part of that package ?
> 
> Is there a standard , 1 Battery = *One Unit* = 4-5 missiles
> 
> Example :
> Is this 1 Battery ? , if so its only covering mere 3.5 km range a true air defence can only be attained with combination of SAMs and Anti Aircraft guns etc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Areesh

Change the thread title. It is not LRSAM and it is no more a rumor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ray_of_Hope

Areesh said:


> it is no more a rumor.


What do u mean to say??Are we acquiring this system or the rumor is totally dead???


----------



## Areesh

war khan said:


> What do u mean to say??Are we acquiring this system or the rumor is totally dead???



It has been procured already. 3 batteries and few guidance vehicles. More would be procured soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal.

Areesh said:


> It has been procured already. 3 batteries and few guidance vehicles. More would be procured soon.



Assuming there is 1 search radar per battery and since 8 radars have been procured. We can assume that atleast 8 batteries will be procured.


----------



## Ray_of_Hope

Bilal. said:


> since 8 radars have been procured.


Can u please provide me a link to this purchase???


----------



## Areesh

Bilal. said:


> Assuming there is 1 search radar per battery and since 8 radars have been procured. We can assume that atleast 8 batteries will be procured.



Yup that makes sense.


----------



## Bilal.

war khan said:


> Can u please provide me a link to this purchase???



http://www.modp.gov.pk/gop/index.php?q=aHR0cDovLzE5Mi4xNjguNzAuMTM2L21vZHAvdXNlcmZpbGVzMS9maWxlL1llYXIlMjBCb29rJTIwMjAxMy0xNC5wZGY=

Go to page 51.

Also procured additional 12 oerlikons and 6 skyguard radars.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ray_of_Hope

Bilal. said:


> http://www.modp.gov.pk/gop/index.php?q=aHR0cDovLzE5Mi4xNjguNzAuMTM2L21vZHAvdXNlcmZpbGVzMS9maWxlL1llYXIlMjBCb29rJTIwMjAxMy0xNC5wZGY=
> 
> Go to page 51.
> 
> Also procured additional 12 oerlikons and 6 skyguard radars.


Thanks bro


----------



## RAMPAGE

Pakistan has bought LY-80 LOMADS SAM.

Credit: @HRK 

He deserves a few + ratings. 






http://www.modp.gov.pk/gop/index.php?q=aHR0cDovLzE5Mi4xNjguNzAuMTM2L21vZHAvdXNlcmZpbGVzMS9maWxlL1llYXIlMjBCb29rJTIwMjAxMy0xNC5wZGY=

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Bilal.

RAMPAGE said:


> Pakistan has bought LY-80 LOMADS SAM.
> 
> Credit: @Bilal.
> 
> He deserves a few + ratings.
> 
> View attachment 161617
> 
> 
> http://www.modp.gov.pk/gop/index.php?q=aHR0cDovLzE5Mi4xNjguNzAuMTM2L21vZHAvdXNlcmZpbGVzMS9maWxlL1llYXIlMjBCb29rJTIwMjAxMy0xNC5wZGY=



No @HRK deserves the the + ratings. He reported it initially.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## RAMPAGE

Bilal. said:


> No @HRK deserves the the + ratings. He reported it initially.


Who posted the MoD link?


----------



## Bilal.

RAMPAGE said:


> Who posted the MoD link?



He did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Burhan Wani

Amazing news.


----------



## farhan_9909

Range upto 50km,impressive.But are three batteries enough?


----------



## Bilal.

farhan_9909 said:


> Range upto 50km,impressive.But are three batteries enough?



40 km. 8 search radars. Since each battery has 1 search radar we can assume at least 5 more on their way.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## RAMPAGE

farhan_9909 said:


> *Range upto 50km*,impressive.But are three batteries enough?


Source?


----------



## farhan_9909

RAMPAGE said:


> Source?



Chinese user mention it as 50km

Chinese HQ-16(LY-80) Air Defence Missile System

Anyway we need something like HQ-9 in near future.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

Posted already.

This is just an initial batch for T&E. A follow up order maybe placed after its been properly assessed.


----------



## rockstar08

Really , A much Awaiting news .....
more SAM's and we can easily take down IAF within our territories...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## farhan_9909

I have seen this being posted on facebook by one of the member of this forum 2 weeks earlier


----------



## Kompromat

Bilal. said:


> 40 km. 8 search radars. Since each battery has 1 search radar we can assume at least 5 more on their way.



I think LY-80 has an upgraded motor. Its range is longer than the HQ-16.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Areesh

Horus said:


> I think LY-80 has an upgraded motor. Its range is longer than the HQ-16.



Its range is 40 or 50?


----------



## Bilal.

Horus said:


> I think LY-80 has an upgraded motor. Its range is longer than the HQ-16.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_IDbkY_cc...e+Surface+To+Air+Missile+(SAM)+System+(1).jpg


----------



## farhan_9909

Horus said:


> I think LY-80 has an upgraded motor. Its range is longer than the HQ-16.



Earlier it was reported that Pakistan will ink the deal for LY-80E,which has a range of 70km


----------



## Muhammad Omar




----------



## Kompromat

farhan_9909 said:


> Earlier it was reported that Pakistan will ink the deal for LY-80E,which has a range of 70km



Can you quote a reasonable source?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sugarcane

Why all of sudden you started posting in 4 years old thread?


----------



## Hyperion

Because (as per some sources here on PDF) we are about to sign a deal to acquire LY80E. So, if it's true, then it is justified to become part of this thread.



LoveIcon said:


> Why all of sudden you started posting in 4 years old thread?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sugarcane

Hyperion said:


> Because (as per some sources here on PDF) we are about to sign a deal to acquire LY80E. So, if it's true, then it is justified to become part of this thread.



For me all alpha numeric codes are same. But anyway if it gives some heartburn to my beloved friends than good news

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RAMPAGE

LoveIcon said:


> For me all alpha numeric codes are same. But anyway if it gives some heartburn to my beloved friends than good news





Hyperion said:


> Because (as per some sources here on PDF) we are about to sign a deal to acquire LY80E. So, if it's true, then it is justified to become part of this thread.


PAF's acquisition of Integrated Air Defense Network. | Page 26


----------



## IHK_PK

Wao. I can't believe I. Shukkar hey Allah ka if it's true.


----------



## Viper0011.

Storm Force said:


> *57mm aa guns against rafale su30 and mirage2000.
> Your kidding right.*
> Su30 will carry supersonic brahmos cruise missle range 300km five times speed of sound.
> Rafale will carry 500km stealth attack storm shadow or scalp cruise missiles.
> *And you want aa guns*



The guns aren't against the SU's or the Rafale's. These are Close in Weapon Systems.....similar to the ship defense systems. Believe it or not, these are EXTREMELY effective against cruise and other missiles, stand off munitions, low flying objects and UAV's.
If you think India will take a chance to put 200 of their SU's or the Rafale's at risk, you are crazy. 

Losing 50 SU 30's and say 20 Rafale's would have tremendous effect on the reputation, moral and the $$. Majority of these things will happen from stand off distances.

There is a reason as to why the PAF is looking into acquiring multiple short / medium range SAM systems in large numbers and more than likely, they'll soon build one too. The main threat is not from the SU-30'2 or Rafal's or the Jags, its from the munition they would fire and the amount of munitions being fired. 

When India can have 100 jets at any time firing weapons towards Pakistan from 20 Miles inside the Indian territory, its as dangerous as if these jets are inside Pakistani airspace (but with much more risk of course). 

So if you can destroy munitions before hitting their targets, you've essentially countered the SU-30 and Rafale. If 70% or 80% of the munition don't hit the target....what's left? 

The next step is to do aerial bombardment and that would result in losing a big number of SU's and Rafale's....I don't think a power projecting country like India wants to show the world "we destroyed 120 Pakistani jets, but we lost 60 SU-30's and 20 Rafale's in a five day war". 

What are you allowing the world to see in this case? That JFT is perhaps better than or equal to the SU-30's or Rafale's? or that F-16's, even block 15 ones, destroyed a few SU's or Rafales in dog fight.....so imagine if Pakistan had 1:1 parity....these "junior" platforms would've produced numbers from the above statement to ....pretty much the same on both sides? That's power humiliation, not power projection.

However, both the nations should work like the European Union and help the humanity in the region. Its the most populous region yet most poor too. Between India, Pakistan, China and Russia.....trillions of trade is possible BY ROAD. Why do you want to be enemies when so much more can be achieved for all humans living there if you can create some peace??



RAMPAGE said:


> Pakistan has bought LY-80 LOMADS SAM.



The document says 3 units were purchased. Does one unit come with 6 missiles on a TEL / VLT? So it'd be 18 missiles total? That's very little.....can someone explain a bit more please on the quantity?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## aliaselin

A little confusion. HQ-16 is used by PLA but not PLAAF, why PAF bought it but not the army?


----------



## Thorough Pro

3 units, 225 million USD. looks like three batteries.





orangzaib said:


> The guns aren't against the SU's or the Rafale's. These are Close in Weapon Systems.....similar to the ship defense systems. Believe it or not, these are EXTREMELY effective against cruise and other missiles, stand off munitions, low flying objects and UAV's.
> If you think India will take a chance to put 200 of their SU's or the Rafale's at risk, you are crazy.
> 
> Losing 50 SU 30's and say 20 Rafale's would have tremendous effect on the reputation, moral and the $$. Majority of these things will happen from stand off distances.
> 
> There is a reason as to why the PAF is looking into acquiring multiple short / medium range SAM systems in large numbers and more than likely, they'll soon build one too. The main threat is not from the SU-30'2 or Rafal's or the Jags, its from the munition they would fire and the amount of munitions being fired.
> 
> When India can have 100 jets at any time firing weapons towards Pakistan from 20 Miles inside the Indian territory, its as dangerous as if these jets are inside Pakistani airspace (but with much more risk of course).
> 
> So if you can destroy munitions before hitting their targets, you've essentially countered the SU-30 and Rafale. If 70% or 80% of the munition don't hit the target....what's left?
> 
> The next step is to do aerial bombardment and that would result in losing a big number of SU's and Rafale's....I don't think a power projecting country like India wants to show the world "we destroyed 120 Pakistani jets, but we lost 60 SU-30's and 20 Rafale's in a five day war".
> 
> What are you allowing the world to see in this case? That JFT is perhaps better than or equal to the SU-30's or Rafale's? or that F-16's, even block 15 ones, destroyed a few SU's or Rafales in dog fight.....so imagine if Pakistan had 1:1 parity....these "junior" platforms would've produced numbers from the above statement to ....pretty much the same on both sides? That's power humiliation, not power projection.
> 
> However, both the nations should work like the European Union and help the humanity in the region. Its the most populous region yet most poor too. Between India, Pakistan, China and Russia.....trillions of trade is possible BY ROAD. Why do you want to be enemies when so much more can be achieved for all humans living there if you can create some peace??
> 
> 
> 
> The document says 3 units were purchased. Does one unit come with 6 missiles on a TEL / VLT? So it'd be 18 missiles total? That's very little.....can someone explain a bit more please on the quantity?


----------



## khanasifm

LY-80 

Battery configuration with ibis-150 target search radar The S-band radar has a range of 140 km and can detect targets flying at an altitude of 20 km.

and 3 target tracking radar

A single radar guidance vehicle controls *two to four launcher units with six missiles ready to launch. *

The tracking and guidance radar vehicle performs target acquisition and tracking, and identification of target types. It also controls the missile launching and illuminates the target after the missile is fired. L-band passive phased-array radar is mounted at the rear of the vehicle and has a range of 85 km. The L-band radar can detect up to six targets and track four of them, and provide fire-control/guidance for up to eight missiles.


HQ-16A LY-80 ground to air defence missile system technical data sheet specifications pictures videoÂ -Â Army RecognitionÂ -Â Army Recognition

Same radar ibis 150 is employed with sky dragon 50 and a newer version ibis 200 is now available, IBIS 200 radar has a range of 250 km when in early warning mode - substantially further than the IBIS-150's 130 km range - and 150 km in target designation mode.

SAM Sky Dragon 50

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Alfa Khan

its good to hav it bt Army should also think about its capabilities with a new change in weaponinstead of  that old G-3A3


----------



## asad71

LY-80 E MRSAM is a fantastic weapon. Congrats PAF. Btw, PAF is the second customer, BAF was the first to receive this 4th generation of SAM which is more accurate than the 3rd generation of LY80

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Kompromat

Alfa Khan said:


> its good to hav it bt Army should also think about its capabilities with a new change in weaponinstead of that old G-3A3



That will cost over 1 billion dollars.


----------



## khanasifm

Per OEM IBIS 150 is a target designation radar
So now I am confused, 8 bought along with 3 missile battery 

Radar and Electro-Optic Equipment--北方工业

Malaysia is going to buy LY-80E (Export) as well as manufacture it locally

Egypt is buying S300/400, 6 battalions for $*3 Billion, so its .5* Billion for a battalion, $225 Million for a battalion of 3 batteries or systems which can be deployed independently at 1/2 the price of S300/400 

1 Battery ISBD/KHUTA/Taxila/Kamra complex (Covering the whole area)
1 Battery Sargodha Complex
1 Battery Karachi complex

I assume there will be follow on at least 2-3 more, another battalion 

Again these are *area defense* weapons so is SPADA 2000, low/medium/high altitude (15-15000 meters)
Crotale, Mistral etc. are point defense systems, low level under 10-15 k feet altitude


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Things are bit out of control , too many systems being mentioned with out a deal going thru

We are hearing almost 3 systems from Russia
We are hearing these 1-2 Systems from China

However we have not signed or received an item , and backed that claim up with solid source

Also worth consideration is with the advancement in Stealth platform or 5th generation being accessible to most armies of world, is it wise to still pump in 1-2 Billion dollars into these systems when World Air-forces will start inducting 5th generation Jets in 10 years time

If anything , the system should be purchased now so we can use them for at least 10-14 years max and the cost should cover the fact stealth planes are present in air


----------



## Hurter

Have we already bought it? If yes then how many?


----------



## subanday

Kh-31p used by india can hit a radar at a range of 110 km.... LY80 missile range is 40-50 km.... i dont see any justification for low medium SAMs unless under cover of longer range SAMs like S-300 pmu2 etc.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

subanday said:


> Kh-31p used by india can hit a radar at a range of 110 km.... LY80 missile range is 40-50 km.... i dont see any justification for low medium SAMs unless under cover of longer range SAMs like S-300 pmu2 etc.



Do you think thats how SEAD weapons work?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kaku1

I was expecting HQ-15.


----------



## subanday

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Do you think thats how SEAD weapons work?


Yup, i see it this way, kindly correct me on it, koi umeed dekha dain, kuch tension kum ho...


----------



## Rafi

Been told that Pakistani LY80EP will be likely advanced 70km version with possible local production, plan is for these missiles to guard bases of three services and also defence production facilities.

These will complement long range FD2000 (HQ9A) missiles that will cover large areas such as cities etc.






Cold launch of the missile is so sxy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LonE_WolF

Rafi said:


> Cold launch of the missile is so sxy.



link for he video plz


----------



## Rafi

LonE_WolF said:


> link for he video plz


----------



## Gufi

what is our current position on improving our air defense capabilities with reference to Chinese deals... signed deals and not rumors

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jungibaaz

subanday said:


> Yup, i see it this way, kindly correct me on it, koi umeed dekha dain, kuch tension kum ho...



You are wrong if you think it's that simple.



Gufi said:


> what is our current position on improving our air defense capabilities with reference to Chinese deals... signed deals and not rumors



You won't get told any. The last time we heard a peep about SAM acquisitions it was a leak and not intended to be known. 
So, don't expect any leaks, any news is either confirmed, or false.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gufi

Jungibaaz said:


> You won't get told any. The last time we heard a peep about SAM acquisitions it was a leak and not intended to be known.
> So, don't expect any leaks, any news is either confirmed, or false.


you know that actually makes me feel much better about our air defense capabilities thank you.....


----------



## alimobin memon

Rafi said:


> Been told that Pakistani LY80EP will be likely advanced 70km version with possible local production, plan is for these missiles to guard bases of three services and also defence production facilities.
> 
> These will complement long range FD2000 (HQ9A) missiles that will cover large areas such as cities etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold launch of the missile is so sxy.


Wait ! what ! we have FD 2000? we gettin em or somethin ?


----------



## Viper0011.

alimobin memon said:


> Wait ! what ! we have FD 2000? we gettin em or somethin ?



I thought Pakistan had acquired a few batteries of FD2000 long range SAMS. Does anyone has a range and max altitude for these?


----------



## Rafi

alimobin memon said:


> Wait ! what ! we have FD 2000? we gettin em or somethin ?



I see them here, I see them their, I see them everywhere, is it a bird - is it a plane, it's our Sam.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Rafi said:


> I see them here, I see them their, I see them everywhere, is it a bird - is it a plane, it's our Sam.


it is just a rumors give me solid evidence, i don't think that we have FD-2000 aka HQ-9A


----------



## Rafi

pakistanipower said:


> it is just a rumors give me solid evidence, i don't think that we have FD-2000 aka HQ-9A



You are free to believe what you want, no classified info will be given out.


----------



## Rafi

pakistanipower said:


> what a foolish post if it is a classified info, where did you get those info that pakistani military have FD-2000 aka HQ-9A, dose pakistani military reaveld it classified info only to you use the commansense and than write you fool, it is all rumors and nothing else



Calm down sonny, don't blow a gasket.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Rafi said:


> Calm down sonny, don't blow a gasket.


so you don't have a answer for me, why you are assuming that pakistan has FD-2000, it's a wishful thinking


----------



## Rafi

pakistanipower said:


> so you don't have a answer for me, why you are assuming that pakistan has FD-2000, it's a wishful thinking



You are free to believe whatever you want, eh pal.


----------



## MilSpec

Rafi said:


> I see them here, I see them their, I see them everywhere, is it a bird - is it a plane, it's our Sam.


May be you forgot your meds.... Check your left drawer...


----------



## Rafi

sandy_3126 said:


> May be you forgot your meds.... Check your left drawer...



You're the one who forget his meds - you pilagen.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Rafi said:


> You are free to believe whatever you want, eh pal.


so you don't have any info, just your wishful thinking, if i am wrong give me a prove


----------



## Zarvan

We need to go for 40 to 60 batteries of 3 to 4 medium and long range Air Defence systems in next 5 years

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MilSpec

Rafi said:


> You're the one who forget his meds - you pilagen.


whoa, what a grown up comeback..... Bravo!


----------



## Ultima Thule

sandy_3126 said:


> May be you forgot your meds.... Check your left drawer...


what a retard,baseless and wishful thinking argument, i am going to report mod to spread your false thought on PDF


----------



## A2Z

We need medium and long range SAM systems and in numbers.
Can anyone tell where Pakistan's integrated SAM network stand from 1 to 10? 10 being the highest.


----------



## Wolfhound

A2Z said:


> We need medium and long range SAM systems and in numbers.
> Can anyone tell where Pakistan's integrated SAM network stand from 1 to 10? 10 being the highest.


4 because we only have short to medium range sams and those also in small numbers

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Viper0011.

A2Z said:


> We need medium and long range SAM systems and in numbers.
> Can anyone tell where Pakistan's integrated SAM network stand from 1 to 10? 10 being the highest.



I have NEVER understood that. To me, this is a HUGE failure in PAF's strategy. I can understand that Pakistan was under sanctions and all and add bad to almost default economy in the mix. BUT.....it would've been much easier to procure SAM tot from someone even in late 90's or early 2000's or even around or after 2010. Pakistan has a lot of expertise in the missile related tech, so by now, you could've added much more teeth to that 90's tech or whatever.

But as the IAF increased its numbers and PAF was going through the "lost decade", it could've procured SAMs in numbers and put in tiers of SAMS. Pakistan is long and not too much width so you could easily put multiple rings covering multiple zones or sectors. 

Any invading force would have heartburn knowing they can be targeted from multiple sides as the layers / rings would over lap. That would give Pakistan a huge strategic advantage and would to some degree make up for the shortages in jets or bvr jets.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## انگریز

4 units of HQ-9/FD-2000 were stated to be in Pakistan's arsenal by former Air cheif Rao Qamar. These are deployed to protect our Nuclear assets.

The another at least 3 HQ-16A were confirmed by an official document issued by Pakistan Ministry of defense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A2Z

Viper0011. said:


> BUT.....it would've been much easier to procure SAM tot from someone even in late 90's or early 2000's or even around or after 2010. Pakistan has a lot of expertise in the missile related tech, so by now, you could've added much more teeth to that 90's tech or whatever.



I agree with you that Pakistan has not invested a lot in SAM networks but its not like that they have done nothing. Due to the sanctions a lot of setbacks were faced but as soon as they were lifted Pakistan did whatever was possible considering the economic conditions, SPADA 2000 was bought in 2010. As far as domestic work is considered PA focused on indigenous Anza (short range MANPAD) apart from this it is always said Pakistan posses FT-2000.
Even FM-90 was reveled during 23rd March Parade and before that no one knew Pakistan had them.

So to conclude I would agree that yes more should have and should be done regarding SAM networks but some advancements have been made. We should not forget that PA and PAF do not reveal the air defense systems they posses and if they do, exact quantity is never told.


----------



## Basel

Pakistan should also look into these type of systems as they can be good force multiplier and can fill gaps where needed.


----------



## vizier

Sam is to protect airbases and nuclear sites for surprise attacks for a short period of time. Planes on the ground will be no good if the runways or even plane hangars are destroyed.

That being said considering the S300 system it can be said that its range is unmatched but future potential buyers need to be concerned about its field performance. S300 was breached many times by israel before and S400 once today by israel. After India purchase israel as a close ally will find every glitch in S400 as well and transfer to nato. For India who is good with israel and usa it does not seem to be a problem but for other potential buyers need to be concerned more with Chinese systems which seem to be better for example Pakistans quick reaction point airbase defence needs to replace old hq2 sams. 

A 100-150km range high altitude system(HQ9 or similar) will be enough to protect airbases and nuclear sites from a quick surprise high altitude boming(like israel does in Syria often taking out strategic targets and airforce cannot respond to the quick attacks). There are alrady low altitude systems to take out low flying cruise missile long range attacks like HQ16. 

There are lpi measures like frequency hopping, scan pattern and modulation, beamforming but these measures hiding the radar from enemy recievers is debatable. Maybe there are confidential ones as well since there is this vulnurability issue of radars or emitters.

For harms or position detection for a gps bomb attack a cheap mechanical decoy system perhaps will do the job that transmits same radar signals towards targets mechanically turning their dishes towards targets guided by the real radar. Targets will see many radars tracking them instead of one that would highly complicate the situation for the enemy.

Laser can also protect sam radars from close but several batteries are needed to protect single radar as each of them recharges after each shot considering a saturation attack.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mrrehan

Basel
Yes nice, Agreed


----------



## sidra tul munteha

Jonah Arthur said:


> Amazing news.


which news??



Horus said:


> Can you quote a reasonable source?
> 
> View attachment 161629


waooo


----------



## Burhan Wani

sidra tul munteha said:


> which news??
> 
> 
> waooo


PAF's acquisition of Integrated Air Defense Network.


----------



## khanasifm

??
http://www.dawn.com/news/1258570/china-may-seek-base-in-pakistan-other-countries-says-pentagon

The report pointed out that Pakistan remains China’s “primary customer” for conventional weapons and China engages in both arms sales and defence industrial cooperation with Pakistan.

This includes j*oint production of LY-80 surface-to-air missile systems,* F-22P frigates with helicopters, main battle tanks, air-to-air missiles, and anti-ship cruise missiles. In June 2014, Pakistan started co-producing the first two of 50 Block 2 JF-17s, which is an upgraded version of the Block I JF-17, the report adds.


----------



## khanasifm

CPMIEC’s HQ-9 surface-to-air missile (known as the FT-2000 performance in Turkey

HQ-9 has a series of advantages; it can detect targets in a range of 120 kilometers and track 100 air targets within 90 kilometers simultaneously. I*t takes 180 kilogram warhead and has a highest speed of Mach 4.2. The maximum range is 125 kilometers, a bit less than that of S-300 of Russian, but its reaction time is only 15 seconds and can deal with nearly 50 targets simultaneously, compared to 6 targets of S-300.*

*was the only missile that successfully shot all the nine drones in the test.*


http://www.china-arms.com/2015/12/c...ake-by-giving-up-hq-9-surface-to-air-missile/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## airbus101

nice video on PAF AIR DEFENCE

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Gryphon

_FM-90 (HQ-7B) SR-SAM_


Analyst Haris Khan of Pakistan Military Consortium think tank has disclosed that Pakistan has formed a new Integrated Army & Air Force Command to manage air defense operations across the country.

15 systems of LY-80 (HQ-16A) MR-SAM were ordered by the PAF in 2013. All were delivered by August 2016.
Another 15 systems might be ordered by the air force for providing air defense to all of its airfields and other sensitive installations.

PAF already operates Crotale and MBDA Spada 2000 SR-SAM's and HQ-2B MR-SAM.

Pakistan is in advanced talks with CPMIEC for purchasing several systems of the HQ-9 LR-SAM. The feasibility of integrating HQ-16 with HQ-9 SAM system has already been completed.

Pakistan has also completed the feasibility of incorporating FM-90 (HQ-7B) SR-SAM with Chinese CIWS for its Army.


*HQ-16A Surface-to-air missile (SAM) system: 




*
_HQ-16 SAM_

The HQ-16A is a Chinese-made surface-to-air missile defence system which was introduce in the Chinese armed forces in September 2011. This is a land based version of the HQ-16 system used in ships (and fired from VLS (Vertical Launch System) containers. The HQ-16A is based on a joint development of the Russian Buk-M1 (SA-11 'Gadfly') and Ural/Buk-2M (SA-17 'Grizzly') Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) systems, for use from mobile ground vehicles and later from ships. The HQ-16A is able to engage aerial targets at high altitude; the mid-range HQ-16 is also able to intercept very low-flying targets at a distance of up to about 40 kilometers, filling the gap between the HQ-7 short-range SAM and the HQ-9 long-range SAM systems. The HQ-16A missile can hit targets of an altitude from 400 to 10,000 meters.

*Technical Data*

_Design_
The HQ-16A (LY-80) launcher missile system is carried by an 8x8 truck that contains a command and control station behind the cab, and behind those are six firing missile containers in two rows of three. These containers are tilted back so that the missiles can be fired straight up, just as they are from VLS (Vertical launch System) cells. In firing position, the wheels are raised off the ground and the carriage is supported at four points by hydraulic jacks, two at the rear and one on each side.

_Missile_
The HQ-16A (LY-80) missile can intercept an aerial flying target from an 15 m to 18 km of altitude, while its maximum interception range for combat aircraft is 40 km, and between 3.5 km and 12 km for cruise missiles flying at an altitude of 50 meters at a speed of 300 meters/second. Single-shot kill probability is a claimed figure of 85 per cent against combat aircraft, and 60 per cent against cruise missiles. The missile guidance system is of the composite type, comprising initial independent inertial guidance and intermittent illumination and semi-active homing terminal guidance.

_Control and command systems_
The HQ16A (LY-80) SAM components comprise a searching radar vehicle, command vehicle, radar tracking and guidance vehicle, launcher unit vehicle, and missiles canister. Technical support equipment includes missile transportation and loading vehicle, power supply vehicle, maintenance vehicle, and missile-test equipment. A single radar guidance vehicle controls two to four launcher units with six missiles ready to launch. The command vehicle is responsible to send target information and combat orders.
The searching radar vehicle is equipped with solid-state S-band 3-D passive phased-array radar mounted on the top of a mast. When the target is detected, the searching radar vehicle performs automatic IFF (Identification Friend-or-Foe), threat judgment, flight path processing and provide target engagement information for the tracking-and-guidance radar. The S-band radar has a range of 140 km and can detect targets flying at an altitude of 20 km.





_IBIS150 3D Target Designation Radar_

The tracking and guidance radar vehicle performs target acquisition and tracking, and identification of target types. It also controls the missile launching and illuminates the target after the missile is fired. L-band passive phased-array radar is mounted at the rear of the vehicle and has a range of 85 km. The L-band radar can detect up to six targets and track four of them, and provide fire-control/guidance for up to eight missiles.








@Horus @Windjammer @Quwa @Areesh @New Resolve @Oscar

Reactions: Like Like:
43


----------



## Areesh

Thanks for the tag. Good to see Pakistan finally focusing on air defense.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## The SC

TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> _FM-90 (HQ-7B) SR-SAM_
> 
> 
> Analyst Haris Khan of Pakistan Military Consortium think tank has disclosed that Pakistan has formed a new Integrated Army & Air Force Command to manage air defense operations across the country.
> 
> 15 systems of LY-80 (HQ-16A) MR-SAM were ordered by the PAF in 2013. All were delivered by August 2016.
> Another 15 systems might be ordered by the air force for providing air defense to all of its airfields and other sensitive installations.
> 
> PAF already operates Crotale and MBDA Spada 2000 SR-SAM's and HQ-2B MR-SAM.
> 
> Pakistan is in advanced talks with CPMIEC for purchasing several systems of the HQ-9 LR-SAM. The feasibility of integrating HQ-16 with HQ-9 SAM system has already been completed.
> 
> Pakistan has also completed the feasibility of incorporating FM-90 (HQ-7B) SR-SAM with Chinese CIWS for its Army.
> 
> 
> *HQ-16A Surface-to-air missile (SAM) system:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> _HQ-16 SAM_
> 
> The HQ-16A is a Chinese-made surface-to-air missile defence system which was introduce in the Chinese armed forces in September 2011. This is a land based version of the HQ-16 system used in ships (and fired from VLS (Vertical Launch System) containers. The HQ-16A is based on a joint development of the Russian Buk-M1 (SA-11 'Gadfly') and Ural/Buk-2M (SA-17 'Grizzly') Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) systems, for use from mobile ground vehicles and later from ships. The HQ-16A is able to engage aerial targets at high altitude; the mid-range HQ-16 is also able to intercept very low-flying targets at a distance of up to about 40 kilometers, filling the gap between the HQ-7 short-range SAM and the HQ-9 long-range SAM systems. The HQ-16A missile can hit targets of an altitude from 400 to 10,000 meters.
> 
> *Technical Data*
> 
> _Design_
> The HQ-16A (LY-80) launcher missile system is carried by an 8x8 truck that contains a command and control station behind the cab, and behind those are six firing missile containers in two rows of three. These containers are tilted back so that the missiles can be fired straight up, just as they are from VLS (Vertical launch System) cells. In firing position, the wheels are raised off the ground and the carriage is supported at four points by hydraulic jacks, two at the rear and one on each side.
> 
> _Missile_
> The HQ-16A (LY-80) missile can intercept an aerial flying target from an 15 m to 18 km of altitude, while its maximum interception range for combat aircraft is 40 km, and between 3.5 km and 12 km for cruise missiles flying at an altitude of 50 meters at a speed of 300 meters/second. Single-shot kill probability is a claimed figure of 85 per cent against combat aircraft, and 60 per cent against cruise missiles. The missile guidance system is of the composite type, comprising initial independent inertial guidance and intermittent illumination and semi-active homing terminal guidance.
> 
> _Control and command systems_
> The HQ16A (LY-80) SAM components comprise a searching radar vehicle, command vehicle, radar tracking and guidance vehicle, launcher unit vehicle, and missiles canister. Technical support equipment includes missile transportation and loading vehicle, power supply vehicle, maintenance vehicle, and missile-test equipment. A single radar guidance vehicle controls two to four launcher units with six missiles ready to launch. The command vehicle is responsible to send target information and combat orders.
> The searching radar vehicle is equipped with solid-state S-band 3-D passive phased-array radar mounted on the top of a mast. When the target is detected, the searching radar vehicle performs automatic IFF (Identification Friend-or-Foe), threat judgment, flight path processing and provide target engagement information for the tracking-and-guidance radar. The S-band radar has a range of 140 km and can detect targets flying at an altitude of 20 km.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _IBIS150 3D Target Designation Radar_
> 
> The tracking and guidance radar vehicle performs target acquisition and tracking, and identification of target types. It also controls the missile launching and illuminates the target after the missile is fired. L-band passive phased-array radar is mounted at the rear of the vehicle and has a range of 85 km. The L-band radar can detect up to six targets and track four of them, and provide fire-control/guidance for up to eight missiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Horus @Windjammer @Quwa @Areesh @New Resolve @Oscar


15 systems like in the last picture means 10 launch vehicles with 6 missiles each, that makes it 60 missiles per system, multiplied by 15 makes 900 missiles..add another 15 systems and it is 1800 air-defense missiles.. something I was wishing for Pakistan; a massive integrated air-defense network, which will be completed by the HQ-9 and other systems..This forms a (air-defense) deterrent on its own

Reactions: Like Like:
28


----------



## Viking 63

Great news !!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cornered Tiger

Include Navy & their assets as well...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ram Mahadev

TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> _FM-90 (HQ-7B) SR-SAM_
> 
> 
> Analyst Haris Khan of Pakistan Military Consortium think tank has disclosed that Pakistan has formed a new Integrated Army & Air Force Command to manage air defense operations across the country.
> 
> 15 systems of LY-80 (HQ-16A) MR-SAM were ordered by the PAF in 2013. All were delivered by August 2016.
> Another 15 systems might be ordered by the air force for providing air defense to all of its airfields and other sensitive installations.
> 
> PAF already operates Crotale and MBDA Spada 2000 SR-SAM's and HQ-2B MR-SAM.
> 
> Pakistan is in advanced talks with CPMIEC for purchasing several systems of the HQ-9 LR-SAM. The feasibility of integrating HQ-16 with HQ-9 SAM system has already been completed.
> 
> Pakistan has also completed the feasibility of incorporating FM-90 (HQ-7B) SR-SAM with Chinese CIWS for its Army.
> 
> 
> *HQ-16A Surface-to-air missile (SAM) system:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> _HQ-16 SAM_
> 
> The HQ-16A is a Chinese-made surface-to-air missile defence system which was introduce in the Chinese armed forces in September 2011. This is a land based version of the HQ-16 system used in ships (and fired from VLS (Vertical Launch System) containers. The HQ-16A is based on a joint development of the Russian Buk-M1 (SA-11 'Gadfly') and Ural/Buk-2M (SA-17 'Grizzly') Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) systems, for use from mobile ground vehicles and later from ships. The HQ-16A is able to engage aerial targets at high altitude; the mid-range HQ-16 is also able to intercept very low-flying targets at a distance of up to about 40 kilometers, filling the gap between the HQ-7 short-range SAM and the HQ-9 long-range SAM systems. The HQ-16A missile can hit targets of an altitude from 400 to 10,000 meters.
> 
> *Technical Data*
> 
> _Design_
> The HQ-16A (LY-80) launcher missile system is carried by an 8x8 truck that contains a command and control station behind the cab, and behind those are six firing missile containers in two rows of three. These containers are tilted back so that the missiles can be fired straight up, just as they are from VLS (Vertical launch System) cells. In firing position, the wheels are raised off the ground and the carriage is supported at four points by hydraulic jacks, two at the rear and one on each side.
> 
> _Missile_
> The HQ-16A (LY-80) missile can intercept an aerial flying target from an 15 m to 18 km of altitude, while its maximum interception range for combat aircraft is 40 km, and between 3.5 km and 12 km for cruise missiles flying at an altitude of 50 meters at a speed of 300 meters/second. Single-shot kill probability is a claimed figure of 85 per cent against combat aircraft, and 60 per cent against cruise missiles. The missile guidance system is of the composite type, comprising initial independent inertial guidance and intermittent illumination and semi-active homing terminal guidance.
> 
> _Control and command systems_
> The HQ16A (LY-80) SAM components comprise a searching radar vehicle, command vehicle, radar tracking and guidance vehicle, launcher unit vehicle, and missiles canister. Technical support equipment includes missile transportation and loading vehicle, power supply vehicle, maintenance vehicle, and missile-test equipment. A single radar guidance vehicle controls two to four launcher units with six missiles ready to launch. The command vehicle is responsible to send target information and combat orders.
> The searching radar vehicle is equipped with solid-state S-band 3-D passive phased-array radar mounted on the top of a mast. When the target is detected, the searching radar vehicle performs automatic IFF (Identification Friend-or-Foe), threat judgment, flight path processing and provide target engagement information for the tracking-and-guidance radar. The S-band radar has a range of 140 km and can detect targets flying at an altitude of 20 km.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _IBIS150 3D Target Designation Radar_
> 
> The tracking and guidance radar vehicle performs target acquisition and tracking, and identification of target types. It also controls the missile launching and illuminates the target after the missile is fired. L-band passive phased-array radar is mounted at the rear of the vehicle and has a range of 85 km. The L-band radar can detect up to six targets and track four of them, and provide fire-control/guidance for up to eight missiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Horus @Windjammer @Quwa @Areesh @New Resolve @Oscar



Why don't Pakistan have Sam beyond 40 km range. Or do they have any?


----------



## Vapnope

Ram Mahadev said:


> Why don't Pakistan have Sam beyond 40 km range. Or do they have any?


The newer ones delivered have 75km range.

Reactions: Like Like:
19


----------



## Ram Mahadev

The SC said:


> 15 systems like in the last picture means 10 launch vehicles with 6 missiles each, that makes it 60 missiles per system, multiplied by 15 makes 900 missiles..add another 15 systems and it is 1800 air-defense missiles.. something I was wishing for Pakistan; a massive integrated air-defense network, which will be completed by the HQ-9 and other systems..This forms a (air-defense) deterrent on its own



Really massive deployment. At least with numbers. What about its range. If it's 40 and 10 for Mr and SR Sam



Vapnope said:


> The newer ones delivered have 75km range.


Oh OK cool


----------



## Major Sam

The SC said:


> 15 systems like in the last picture means 10 launch vehicles with 6 missiles each, that makes it 60 missiles per system, multiplied by 15 makes 900 missiles..add another 15 systems and it is 1800 air-defense missiles.. something I was wishing for Pakistan; a massive integrated air-defense network, which will be completed by the HQ-9 and other systems..This forms a (air-defense) deterrent on its own



In Pakistani Version we have 8 missiles on each launcher.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## DavidSling

Air Defense and Cyber capabilities become more important every day.
Nice development for Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
23


----------



## Path-Finder

Am I right in saying that a ground based CIWS is in the works as well? of Chinese origin!


----------



## Mentee

Vapnope said:


> The newer ones delivered have 75km range.


Link plz


----------



## Vapnope

Mentee said:


> Link plz


Asked some people they said these are the ones we got. I think Quwa also mentioned it somewhere on that thread 
http://quwa.org/2016/09/07/china-reveals-70km-version-hq-16-surface-air-missile-system/

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## New Resolve

I think if we go the HQ9 path as well then PAF will wait till a 5th gen option becomes available and only rely on more JF17's and old F16's if available.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## tarrar

The best thing for Pakistan is to strengthen its air defence in every possible way, no air space should be left unchecked. If Pakistan can acquire Tor m1 air defence from Russia, (as it is already offered to Pakistan) this will add a strong punch in our air defence.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GumNaam

Soldier-X said:


> Why don't we have a special forces Command btw?



I'm sure we do. But like everything related to special forces, it is kept secret.


----------



## YeBeWarned

DavidSling said:


> Air Defense and Cyber capabilities become more important every day.
> Nice development for Pakistan



Its cheap to have 2-3 level of Good Air Defense System with Cover from your existing Air force Fleet .. our neighbors are big , Financially strong and have big Budget so we can't always keep up with them when it comes to buying Modern Fighters .. and we have no intentions to Attack India or Israel ( JK ) .. so our main Objective is to maintain minimum deterrence , or in other words , we won't let Indians Gaining Air superiority over Pakistan's Skies ..
i really have this wish that Pakistan and Israel maintain some Back door diplomatic relationships .. so in future we can see some deals

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HttpError

We need bigger and better SAMs we need to buy TOT of HQ-9 and do indigenous development on Air Defence.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Super Falcon

We need two more air defence system S 2 PANTSIR and S 350 from rusdia


----------



## saiyan0321

I think this is a positive step and it showcases that pakistan is indeed focusing on air defence systems. Slowly the ranges will increase as well as accuracy. The fact of the matter is that our doctrine is based on defensive capabilities and a great aur defence truly boosts that capability.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Finally we are moving towards Air Defence Systems...

secure every inch of Pakistan air space...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Thəorətic Muslim

Soldier-X said:


> Why don't we have a special forces Command btw?



Do a google search...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## war&peace

Thəorətic Muslim said:


> Do a google search...


Good!!! No need for spoon feeding the imbeciles

A step in the right direction we should also integrate our Naval forces into the system too. A few LR- and HA SAMs should also be inducted immediately off-the-shelf and further should be developed under ToT and JVs

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Mentee

Vapnope said:


> Asked some people they said these are the ones we got. I think Quwa also mentioned it somewhere on that thread
> http://quwa.org/2016/09/07/china-reveals-70km-version-hq-16-surface-air-missile-system/


Gosh! The obsession , sanghis are every where, go into the comment section and you'll find plenty of em with fake Pakistani names, thanks for the link though

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The SC

Major Sam said:


> In Pakistani Version we have 8 missiles on each launcher.


Better yet!



Ram Mahadev said:


> Really massive deployment. At least with numbers. What about its range. If it's 40 and 10 for Mr and SR Sam


40 km (or 70), it is defensive with an 80% kill rate..look at the altitude too..low ad high..



Major Sam said:


> In Pakistani Version we have 8 missiles on each launcher.


That makes it 1200 missiles in 15 systems, multiply it by two for the next batch and it will be 2400 missiles...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Hallian_Khan

we should thank india too for this lol you know what i mean


----------



## khanasifm

Ly80b or hq16b is just same radar system with modified missile taking missile range to 70km plus so its possible in future they can take range to 70km but may require$$$$

With thrust vectoring it's better the Russian derivatives

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Inception-06

The SC said:


> Better yet!
> 
> 
> 40 km (or 70), it is defensive with an 80% kill rate..look at the altitude too..low ad high..
> 
> 
> That makes it 1200 missiles in 15 systems, multiply it by two for the next batch and it will be 2400 missiles...




2400 ? are you sure ?


----------



## Zarvan

TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> _FM-90 (HQ-7B) SR-SAM_
> 
> 
> Analyst Haris Khan of Pakistan Military Consortium think tank has disclosed that Pakistan has formed a new Integrated Army & Air Force Command to manage air defense operations across the country.
> 
> 15 systems of LY-80 (HQ-16A) MR-SAM were ordered by the PAF in 2013. All were delivered by August 2016.
> Another 15 systems might be ordered by the air force for providing air defense to all of its airfields and other sensitive installations.
> 
> PAF already operates Crotale and MBDA Spada 2000 SR-SAM's and HQ-2B MR-SAM.
> 
> Pakistan is in advanced talks with CPMIEC for purchasing several systems of the HQ-9 LR-SAM. The feasibility of integrating HQ-16 with HQ-9 SAM system has already been completed.
> 
> Pakistan has also completed the feasibility of incorporating FM-90 (HQ-7B) SR-SAM with Chinese CIWS for its Army.
> 
> 
> *HQ-16A Surface-to-air missile (SAM) system:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> _HQ-16 SAM_
> 
> The HQ-16A is a Chinese-made surface-to-air missile defence system which was introduce in the Chinese armed forces in September 2011. This is a land based version of the HQ-16 system used in ships (and fired from VLS (Vertical Launch System) containers. The HQ-16A is based on a joint development of the Russian Buk-M1 (SA-11 'Gadfly') and Ural/Buk-2M (SA-17 'Grizzly') Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) systems, for use from mobile ground vehicles and later from ships. The HQ-16A is able to engage aerial targets at high altitude; the mid-range HQ-16 is also able to intercept very low-flying targets at a distance of up to about 40 kilometers, filling the gap between the HQ-7 short-range SAM and the HQ-9 long-range SAM systems. The HQ-16A missile can hit targets of an altitude from 400 to 10,000 meters.
> 
> *Technical Data*
> 
> _Design_
> The HQ-16A (LY-80) launcher missile system is carried by an 8x8 truck that contains a command and control station behind the cab, and behind those are six firing missile containers in two rows of three. These containers are tilted back so that the missiles can be fired straight up, just as they are from VLS (Vertical launch System) cells. In firing position, the wheels are raised off the ground and the carriage is supported at four points by hydraulic jacks, two at the rear and one on each side.
> 
> _Missile_
> The HQ-16A (LY-80) missile can intercept an aerial flying target from an 15 m to 18 km of altitude, while its maximum interception range for combat aircraft is 40 km, and between 3.5 km and 12 km for cruise missiles flying at an altitude of 50 meters at a speed of 300 meters/second. Single-shot kill probability is a claimed figure of 85 per cent against combat aircraft, and 60 per cent against cruise missiles. The missile guidance system is of the composite type, comprising initial independent inertial guidance and intermittent illumination and semi-active homing terminal guidance.
> 
> _Control and command systems_
> The HQ16A (LY-80) SAM components comprise a searching radar vehicle, command vehicle, radar tracking and guidance vehicle, launcher unit vehicle, and missiles canister. Technical support equipment includes missile transportation and loading vehicle, power supply vehicle, maintenance vehicle, and missile-test equipment. A single radar guidance vehicle controls two to four launcher units with six missiles ready to launch. The command vehicle is responsible to send target information and combat orders.
> The searching radar vehicle is equipped with solid-state S-band 3-D passive phased-array radar mounted on the top of a mast. When the target is detected, the searching radar vehicle performs automatic IFF (Identification Friend-or-Foe), threat judgment, flight path processing and provide target engagement information for the tracking-and-guidance radar. The S-band radar has a range of 140 km and can detect targets flying at an altitude of 20 km.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _IBIS150 3D Target Designation Radar_
> 
> The tracking and guidance radar vehicle performs target acquisition and tracking, and identification of target types. It also controls the missile launching and illuminates the target after the missile is fired. L-band passive phased-array radar is mounted at the rear of the vehicle and has a range of 85 km. The L-band radar can detect up to six targets and track four of them, and provide fire-control/guidance for up to eight missiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Horus @Windjammer @Quwa @Areesh @New Resolve @Oscar


We need to get PANTSIR S2 and also BUK M3





FD-3000 this should be considered also

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gryphon

The SC said:


> 15 systems like in the last picture means 10 launch vehicles with 6 missiles each, that makes it 60 missiles per system, multiplied by 15 makes 900 missiles..add another 15 systems and it is 1800 air-defense missiles.. something I was wishing for Pakistan; a massive integrated air-defense network, which will be completed by the HQ-9 and other systems..This forms a (air-defense) deterrent on its own



PAF has purchased 5 companies (each with 3 systems or batteries). Each system has 4 launcher vehicles. That is 4 x 6 = 24 is the number of missiles (loaded) at a time.


----------



## The SC

Ulla said:


> 2400 ? are you sure ?


Look at the context of things, in my first post it was calculations based on 6 missiles per launcher, than someone said it was 8 missiles per launcher for Pakistan's version, so it is 2400 missiles in 30 systems, 15 are already there and 15 to come..



TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> PAF has purchased 5 companies (each with 3 systems or batteries). Each system has 4 launcher vehicles. That is 4 x 6 = 24 is the number of missiles (loaded) at a time.


I calculated based on the picture of a "system" in post # 1 (last pic), I calculated based on 10 launchers to be a bit conservative , and there are 12 launchers in all.. I am sure if that is a company, a battery, a battalion or a system though..


----------



## Joe Shearer

Starlord said:


> Its cheap to have 2-3 level of Good Air Defense System with Cover from your existing Air force Fleet .. our neighbors are big , Financially strong and have big Budget so we can't always keep up with them when it comes to buying Modern Fighters .. and we have no intentions to Attack India or Israel ( JK ) .. so our main Objective is to maintain minimum deterrence , or in other words , we won't let Indians Gaining Air superiority over Pakistan's Skies ..
> i really have this wish that Pakistan and Israel maintain some Back door diplomatic relationships .. so in future we can see some deals



Very well put.

It is far better, for Pakistan, to have in-depth anti-aircraft defences than to struggle to keep up with buying big, shiny toys that burn up a hundred years of maintenance for thousands of poor and starving families. 

Your point about not having intentions to attack India is also very relevant, in a back-handed kind of way. If you invest in these safeguards, and not in F-16s, your defensive intentions become very clear, and there is bound to be an immediate lessening of the tension in Air Force circles in India. If the trend continues, expect to see a massive shift of resources towards the more powerful menace that India has. 

I only wish the Pakistan Army would do something similar. In terms of policy and strategic interpretation of that policy, I mean.



HttpError said:


> We need bigger and better SAMs we need to buy TOT of HQ-9 and do indigenous development on Air Defence.



Don't even think about it. Save your money to develop the economy. That is a sounder defence.



saiyan0321 said:


> I think this is a positive step and it showcases that pakistan is indeed focusing on air defence systems. Slowly the ranges will increase as well as accuracy. The fact of the matter is that our doctrine is based on defensive capabilities and a great aur defence truly boosts that capability.



I believe that this is not a fact as yet, but this and other such developments will move it gradually but irreversibly into that space. Which will be good all around.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The SC

TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> PAF has purchased 5 companies (each with 3 systems or batteries). Each system has 4 launcher vehicles. That is 4 x 6 = 24 is the number of missiles (loaded) at a time.


There are 15 systems with 4 launchers each, and each launcher carries 6 to 8 missiles.. based on 6 missiles each that makes 360 missiles as total in the configuration you are talking about, but if a system is like the last pic in post #1, that makes a total of 900 missies for 15 systems of that kind multiplied by two, since ther are 15 systems to follow suite..Anyhow the minimum will be 720 missiles for 30 systems in your configuration..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Hallian_Khan said:


> we should thank india too for this lol you know what i mean



Well, why not? 

Put it this way; if you spend your money on defence, nobody minds. It's when you start getting ballsy and buying offensive weaponry and systems that people start getting edgy. 

You do understand, from your knowledge of current technology, that there are simple answers to this coverage, but that answer, to be used, would need a definite desire to cause major damage to Pakistan. A desire that does not yet exist.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Nice idea

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gryphon

The SC said:


> There are 15 systems with 4 launchers each, and each launcher carries 6 to 8 missiles.. based on 6 missiles each that makes 360 missiles as total in the configuration you are talking about, but if a system is like the last pic in post #1, that makes a total of 900 missies for 15 systems of that kind multiplied by two, since ther are 15 systems to follow suite..Anyhow the minimum will be 720 missiles for 30 systems in your configuration..



The first batch of five companies was of the LY-80 (HQ-16A) MR-SAM. 

Contract for the second batch of 5 more companies hasn't been signed yet. I don't think PAF will go for more HQ-16A's when the improved version HQ-16B has already been tested (successfully).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The SC

TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> The first batch of five companies was of the LY-80 (HQ-16A) MR-SAM.
> 
> Contract for the second batch of 5 more companies hasn't been signed yet. I don't think PAF will go for more HQ-16A when the improved version HQ-16B is has already been tested (successfully).


Then it should be the latest version HQ-16B.. for the better..


----------



## Falcon26

This is encouraging but not the end. With 8 formidable AWACS, the modernization of the air defense systems will help push Pakistan towards a better position. But two critical elements are missing: military satellites and long range air defense missiles ideally in the 250km+ range. As long as this two elements are missing, the job is half done. Unfortunately, based on available information, Pakistan is years away from fielding either of this two crucial systems.


----------



## Gryphon

Falcon26 said:


> This is encouraging but not the end. With 8 formidable AWACS, the modernization of the air defense systems will help push Pakistan towards a better position. But two critical elements are missing: military satellites and long range air defense missiles ideally in the 250km+ range. As long as this two elements are missing, the job is half done. Unfortunately, based on available information, Pakistan is years away from fielding either of this two crucial systems.



HQ-9 LR-SAM is being negotiated with China. Pakistan will not get anything like Patriot or S-300/S-400.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Any Chance of getting Aster 30?? We should Also get some of these (East & West Combo)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Muhammad Omar said:


> Any Chance of getting Aster 30?? We should Also get some of these (East & West Combo)


I think recent visit of Italian defence minster and other Armed Forces delegates are related to this

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vizier

That is great news and I hope local indigeneous production capabilitiy will be acquired as well for such systems and for future development.

FM-90 would be the protector component of your medium range mobile sams. It fits this role as it can engage anti radiation missiles and cruise missiles as an active defense component. Pantsyr also covers that role but it has some degree of high altitude air defense capability about 15km other than that advantage HQ16-FM-90 combo would cover more range and altitude and active protection capability.


What I think for the future of short range defense FM-90 type of systems is that the search-acquisition radars would be more stealthy such as fmcw type of low signature radars and engagement radar can be complemented with infrared array sensor and laser rangefinder on the vehicle to engage low observable targets better.

There are can be several steps for you to acquire total local production capability iteratively and agile with vital component production acquired priorly after agreements with China in my opinion such as:

- You can initially start producing the bullets-misssiles themselves. Production of FM-90 command guided missiles would be easier since they are more simplistic. HQ 16 missiles have semiactive or possibly an active monopulse radar on the nose which is more complex but needs to be acquired for local missile production capability. That would relax your hand.
-You can access main system radars software and start customising software yourself like testing eccm algorithms,pulse compression and scan pattern algorithms for improved performance and protection of the systems.
-The most complex part would be the search and engagement radars of those sam systems hardware components,processors etc. But you can again iteratively produce some parts locally and import the more sensitive parts until you can produce them fully on your own.


----------



## nomi007

great to see this
after adding HQ-9 system
we are in better position

aster 30 may be European & USA will not allow its sale to Pakistan


----------



## Major Sam

The SC said:


> Better yet!
> 
> 
> 40 km (or 70), it is defensive with an 80% kill rate..look at the altitude too..low ad high..
> 
> 
> That makes it 1200 missiles in 15 systems, multiply it by two for the next batch and it will be 2400 missiles...



Each (five) Company is equipped with one search radar, two tracking vehicles, one command vehicle and eight launchers; each launcher has eight vehicles and each vehicle has eight missiles. These missiles are part of a new integrated Army and Air Force Command. Pakistan might order another five Companies for the defense Air bases and strong hold installation.

Courtesy: H. Khan

Seems 64 Missiles in Each System



TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> PAF has purchased 5 companies (each with 3 systems or batteries). Each system has 4 launcher vehicles. That is 4 x 6 = 24 is the number of missiles (loaded) at a time.



Na, You should check H. Khan report. That's more precise and accurate.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The SC

Falcon26 said:


> This is encouraging but not the end. With 8 formidable AWACS, the modernization of the air defense systems will help push Pakistan towards a better position. But two critical elements are missing: military satellites and long range air defense missiles ideally in the 250km+ range. As long as this two elements are missing, the job is half done. Unfortunately, based on available information, Pakistan is years away from fielding either of this two crucial systems.


Both can be easily acquired from China, since CPEC has some of China's vital interest and it covers all of Pakistan..


----------



## I S I

Awesome


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Zarvan said:


> I think recent visit of Italian defence minster and other Armed Forces delegates are related to this



I hope so... There was news of Defence Corporation will be increase between 2 countries..


----------



## Zarvan

Muhammad Omar said:


> I hope so... There was news of Defence Corporation will be increase between 2 countries..


I am also hoping we get French version of FREMM frigates. Because that version not only have VLS for Air Defence but also for land attack


----------



## Gryphon

Major Sam said:


> Each (five) Company is equipped with one search radar, two tracking vehicles, one command vehicle and eight launchers; each launcher has eight vehicles and each vehicle has eight missiles.



I am unable to understand this part. How can one launcher have 8 vehicles ? 




> Pakistan has purchased six more batteries of the China Aerospace Long-March International LY-80 surface-to-air missile system for US $373.23 million in the financial year 2014-15, MoDP reports in its Year Book 2014-15.
> 
> In the financial year 2013-14, three batteries of LY-80 SAM system were purchased for US $225.770 million, with eight units of the IBIS-150 air defense surveillance radar for $40 million, MoDP reported in its Year Book 2013-14.
> 
> Pakistan buys additional medium-range SAMs



This information indicates that each company consists of 3 systems.


I believe each company has one IBIS-150 air defense surveillance radar which provides search info to the C&C vehicle. The info is then forwarded to the tracking and guidance radar vehicle (which has its own radar that is not to be purchased separately but is included with every system). This makes me conclude that Pakistan has already purchased target searching radars for 8 companies of LY-80.


The following picture (edited by me) explains the details given by Haris Khan about each company of LY-80. It does not appear correct to me.






@Horus @Major Sam @Windjammer @The SC @Path-Finder @fatman17 @Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Army research

Now finally if it materializes win hq 9 as well pad can finally not waste money on 4.5 buy wait for 5th get or instead can buy the latest AWACS integrate em with the air defense and there you go and paf can then dedicate it self to an extent to prove air cover and cas to advancing troops


----------



## salarsikander

DavidSling said:


> Air Defense and Cyber capabilities become more important every day.
> Nice development for Pakistan


The latter can render the former useless if carefully executed


----------



## DavidSling

salarsikander said:


> The latter can render the former useless if carefully executed


Not only this, Cyber is a daily war.
Pakistan should form Cyber defense command like Israel did, while conventional war is unlikely, Cyber war is 24/7.
“Israel represents only 0.1 percent of the world’s population but 20 percent of global investments (in cyber security),”
As for air defense command, multi-layer defense systems in form of laser and missile defense systems.
While current missile interception do the work, laser is way more affordable and cost effective, and it's the future.
Israel for example, already have anti missile laser battery prototype by RAFAEL called Iron Beam.
Israel interceptors (from very short range to exo-atmospheric)
Iron Beam - Future
Iron Dome - Current
Patriot - Phasing out
David Sling - Current
Arrow 2 - Current
Arrow 3 - Advance Stages

And navy interceptors also integrate into the national defense
C Dome - Naval Iron Dome
Barak 1 and Barak 8

Pakistan should work to achieve multiple layers like those above in order to defend it's country from current and future threats

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Falcon26

The SC said:


> Both can be easily acquired from China, since CPEC has some of China's vital interest and it covers all of Pakistan..



Very doubtful China will gift Pakistan a military satellite. Would have happened by now.


----------



## Major Sam

TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> I am unable to understand this part. How can one launcher have 8 vehicles ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This information indicates that each company consists of 3 systems.
> 
> 
> I believe each company has one IBIS-150 air defense surveillance radar which provides search info to the C&C vehicle. The info is then forwarded to the tracking and guidance radar vehicle (which has its own radar that is not to be purchased separately but is included with every system). This makes me conclude that Pakistan has already purchased target searching radars for 8 companies of LY-80.
> 
> 
> The following picture (edited by me) explains the details given by Haris Khan about each company of LY-80. It does not appear correct to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Horus @Major Sam @Windjammer @The SC @Path-Finder @fatman17 @Bilal Khan (Quwa)



so yeah one company will have 64 missiles.


----------



## The SC

Falcon26 said:


> Very doubtful China will gift Pakistan a military satellite. Would have happened by now.


Make it in cooperation with Pakistan and sell it to the latter.. where did you see "gifted"



TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> I am unable to understand this part. How can one launcher have 8 vehicles ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This information indicates that each company consists of 3 systems.
> 
> 
> I believe each company has one IBIS-150 air defense surveillance radar which provides search info to the C&C vehicle. The info is then forwarded to the tracking and guidance radar vehicle (which has its own radar that is not to be purchased separately but is included with every system). This makes me conclude that Pakistan has already purchased target searching radars for 8 companies of LY-80.
> 
> 
> The following picture (edited by me) explains the details given by Haris Khan about each company of LY-80. It does not appear correct to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Horus @Major Sam @Windjammer @The SC @Path-Finder @fatman17 @Bilal Khan (Quwa)


\i think that the original icture in post # 1 is correct.. it has 3 systems


----------



## Gryphon

Major Sam said:


> so yeah one company will have 64 missiles.



Each LY-80 company has 3 systems/batteries. Haris Khan's info about each launcher having 8 missile tubes appears to be wrong (Read my previous post). No HQ-16 has been seen with 8 missile tubes till date.

This will make it 12 x 6 = 72 missile tubes in one company.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## volatile

Correct me if im wrong ,I think Naval Surface to Air Missile launches are also part of integrated network with push buttons given to Air Defence Units of PAF


----------



## X-2.

Pakistan has short budget so they invest according to there urgent requirement so good move and they are heading up,
Even Russian air defence is in talks 
Just give Pakistan 5/10 years and you will see Pakistan as hub of Asia 
ASIAN TIGER


----------



## Basel

Muhammad Omar said:


> Any Chance of getting Aster 30?? We should Also get some of these (East & West Combo)



Aster-30 block-1 is what Pakistan need to add now and block-2 after 2020 giving BMD capability to Pakistani air defence.

Edit.

Although block-1 have BDM capability but block-2 will allow to intercept longer range BDM allowing better interception of SLBMs.

http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Ballistic-Missiles/Aster-Block-1_a001130003.aspx

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## notorious_eagle

The SC said:


> 15 systems like in the last picture means 10 launch vehicles with 6 missiles each, that makes it 60 missiles per system, multiplied by 15 makes 900 missiles..add another 15 systems and it is 1800 air-defense missiles.. something I was wishing for Pakistan; a massive integrated air-defense network, *which will be completed by the HQ-9 and other systems..*This forms a (air-defense) deterrent on its own



What happened to the HQ-9 and FT2000 batteries that were acquired by PAF in 2000's? I am talking about the batteries that were deployed Post Mumbai Attacks in Lahore and Kashmir sector. Were they leased? Did we return them back?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

notorious_eagle said:


> What happened to the HQ-9 and FT2000 batteries that were acquired by PAF in 2000's? I am talking about the batteries that were deployed Post Mumbai Attacks in Lahore and Kashmir sector. Were they leased? Did we return them back?


just a rumors nothing else their is no confirmation from ISPR or PAF in the past


----------



## YeBeWarned

Joe Shearer said:


> Very well put.
> 
> It is far better, for Pakistan, to have in-depth anti-aircraft defences than to struggle to keep up with buying big, shiny toys that burn up a hundred years of maintenance for thousands of poor and starving families.
> 
> Your point about not having intentions to attack India is also very relevant, in a back-handed kind of way. If you invest in these safeguards, and not in F-16s, your defensive intentions become very clear, and there is bound to be an immediate lessening of the tension in Air Force circles in India. If the trend continues, expect to see a massive shift of resources towards the more powerful menace that India has.
> 
> I only wish the Pakistan Army would do something similar. In terms of policy and strategic interpretation of that policy, I mean.



my point about not attacking India is that, PAF will not do preemptive strikes against IA or IAF .. so unless they are attacked or feel threatened they will try to avoid escalation .. but what i believe that PAF will be closely monitoring the situation even in the war times to find a Opportunity to launch a Offensive strike , i have mentioned it before and again that every Air Force or Armed forces in General have some Loopholes or weakness where the enemy take advantage of .. with existing fleet and potent LR/MR SAM's coverage they can pregnate into Indian space to launch some strikes .. but lets just keep this as a Hypothetical Scenario .. 

as for F-16's they are mostly used for COIN Operations with Mirages and now joining the JF into WOT .. but JF will take more time to get some Experience points to completely replace F-16's for these Bombing the TTP mission ... i am very impatiently waiting for Targeting Pods from Turkey which PAF bought .. this will take away some load from our F-16's ..and for future buying , i am skeptical about more F-16's .. at least not until the New President takes the office



notorious_eagle said:


> I am talking about the batteries that were deployed Post Mumbai Attacks in Lahore and Kashmir sector. Were they leased? Did we return them back?



really we did bought or lease some HQ-9 after Mumbai Attacks ?


----------



## TOPGUN

This is great news long awaited .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## graphican

TOPGUN said:


> This is great news long awaited .



I think Pakistan is following Chinese model on that.


----------



## TOPGUN

graphican said:


> I think Pakistan is following Chinese model on that.



Perhaps, whatever the case this was much needed so its being handled good move.


----------



## notorious_eagle

Starlord said:


> really we did bought or lease some HQ-9 after Mumbai Attacks ?



We did acquire them for sure but not sure if they were leased or purchased. In fact, the presence of these batteries was disclosed here on PDF which lead to some serious repercussions.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Gryphon

Ram Mahadev said:


> Why don't Pakistan have Sam beyond 40 km range. Or do they have any?



Pakistan has no SAM which can hit targets beyond 40 km range.



Vapnope said:


> The newer ones delivered have 75km range.



HQ-16B was tested last month. No HQ-16B system has been ordered by Pakistan (yet).



Path-Finder said:


> Am I right in saying that a ground based CIWS is in the works as well? of Chinese origin!



Yes



Vapnope said:


> Asked some people they said these are the ones we got. I think Quwa also mentioned it somewhere on that thread
> http://quwa.org/2016/09/07/china-reveals-70km-version-hq-16-surface-air-missile-system/



LY-80 (HQ-16A) systems were ordered, not HQ-16B. It is not available for export yet.



New Resolve said:


> I think if we go the HQ9 path as well then PAF will wait till a 5th gen option becomes available and only rely on more JF17's and old F16's if available.



SAMs are just a stop gap... they are no alternative to 4.5 gen fighter aircraft.



tarrar said:


> The best thing for Pakistan is to strengthen its air defence in every possible way, no air space should be left unchecked. If Pakistan can acquire Tor m1 air defence from Russia, (as it is already offered to Pakistan) this will add a strong punch in our air defence.



Pakistan Army purchased FM-90 (HQ-7B) instead of Tor M2KM and Pantsir S1.

Buk M2 was also offered to PA in 2014. But there is no news since then.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## monitor

TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> I am unable to understand this part. How can one launcher have 8 vehicles ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This information indicates that each company consists of 3 systems.
> 
> 
> I believe each company has one IBIS-150 air defense surveillance radar which provides search info to the C&C vehicle. The info is then forwarded to the tracking and guidance radar vehicle (which has its own radar that is not to be purchased separately but is included with every system). This makes me conclude that Pakistan has already purchased target searching radars for 8 companies of LY-80.
> 
> 
> The following picture (edited by me) explains the details given by Haris Khan about each company of LY-80. It does not appear correct to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Horus @Major Sam @Windjammer @The SC @Path-Finder @fatman17 @Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Falcon26

The SC said:


> Make it in cooperation with Pakistan and sell it to the latter.. where did you see "gifted"
> 
> 
> \i think that the original icture in post # 1 is correct.. it has 3 systems



Beg to differ but carry on.


----------



## The Eagle

Step by step and tier to tier development. Pakistan is developing in the manner where we have limited budget and size.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## YeBeWarned

notorious_eagle said:


> We did acquire them for sure but not sure if they were leased or purchased. In fact, the presence of these batteries was disclosed here on PDF which lead to some serious repercussions.



No wonder it can raise some Eye brows in Defense Establishment , if they want to keep it a secret than its best to let it  
but HQ-9 will eventually be made public , when we will make it Official ..
so if Indians did launch an Attack after Mumbai they might get some Real Nasty surprise 



The Eagle said:


> Step by step and tier to tier development. Pakistan is developing in the manner where we have limited budget and size.



lets just say , making it Official in Due time ...  
SAM's are easy to hide getting international Attention but one can not hide any Air craft Purchase

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Eagle

Starlord said:


> lets just say , making it Official in Due time ...
> SAM's are easy to hide getting international Attention but one can not hide any Air craft Purchase



Well I would say, you are on point here. Also, when it is not easy to get shiny yet hell of maintenance etc birds, would be better to build the defence tier by tier as after all it is about proper counter measures.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gryphon

Joe Shearer said:


> Very well put.
> 
> It is far better, for Pakistan, to have in-depth anti-aircraft defences than to struggle to keep up with buying big, shiny toys that burn up a hundred years of maintenance for thousands of poor and starving families.
> 
> Your point about not having intentions to attack India is also very relevant, in a back-handed kind of way. If you invest in these safeguards, and not in F-16s, your defensive intentions become very clear, and there is bound to be an immediate lessening of the tension in Air Force circles in India. If the trend continues, expect to see a massive shift of resources towards the more powerful menace that India has.
> 
> I only wish the Pakistan Army would do something similar. In terms of policy and strategic interpretation of that policy, I mean.



These MR-SAMs have been purchased for protecting PAF airfields and other sensitive installations. They are no alternative to a 4.5 gen fighter. Only SAMs cannot prevent air attacks by an aggressor. 

Pakistan doesn't need silly lectures from Indians. The defence planners are competent enough.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## YeBeWarned

The Eagle said:


> Well I would say, you are on point here. Also, when it is not easy to get shiny yet hell of maintenance etc birds, would be better to build the defence tier by tier as after all it is about proper counter measures.



Can't agree more than that


----------



## MastanKhan

Starlord said:


> Its cheap to have 2-3 level of Good Air Defense System with Cover from your existing Air force Fleet .. our neighbors are big , Financially strong and have big Budget so we can't always keep up with them when it comes to buying Modern Fighters .. and we have no intentions to Attack India or Israel ( JK ) .. so our main Objective is to maintain minimum deterrence , or in other words , we won't let Indians Gaining Air superiority over Pakistan's Skies ..
> i really have this wish that Pakistan and Israel maintain some Back door diplomatic relationships .. so in future we can see some deals




Hi,

First of all---why would you even " suggest " " not attacking israel " in the first place---and in the next breath you talk of befriending israel---the word attack and israel should be deleted out of the pakistani vocabulary.

Can you guys simply leave israel out of discussion when talkign about fighting someone.

I guess you are not old enough to understand that CHEAP is bad---it has always been bad and it will always be bad---.

Anything that is good---does not come cheap---you have to pay a price for it.

A superior aircraft will gain air superiority by the default of its DESIGN FUNCTION---.

As a brick laying machine lays rows of bricks---and as a road roller compresses the dirt and as a bull dozer excavates dirt and as a carpenter builds items from wood and as a diesel locomotive pulls a train---an air superiority / air dominance fighter aircraft pulverizes the enemy aircraft and enemy defense installations to gain superiority over enemy air space---.

And again---that is the default function of its design.





Joe Shearer said:


> Very well put.
> 
> It is far better, for Pakistan, to have in-depth anti-aircraft defences than to struggle to keep up with buying big, shiny toys that burn up a hundred years of maintenance for thousands of poor and starving families.
> 
> Your point about not having intentions to attack India is also very relevant, in a back-handed kind of way. If you invest in these safeguards, and not in F-16s, your defensive intentions become very clear, and there is bound to be an immediate lessening of the tension in Air Force circles in India. If the trend continues, expect to see a massive shift of resources towards the more powerful menace that India has.
> 
> I only wish the Pakistan Army would do something similar. In terms of policy and strategic interpretation of that policy, I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't even think about it. Save your money to develop the economy. That is a sounder defence.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that this is not a fact as yet, but this and other such developments will move it gradually but irreversibly into that space. Which will be good all around.




Hi,

The only way to stop india is for pakistan to have aggressive designs---. It needs shiny new toys---not many of them.

Just 2---2 1/2 sqdrns and 4 sqdrns of JH7B's---air launched babur cruise missiles and my indian neighbors would be singing a new tune---which would be much more peaceful.

Paf is run and managed by gutless cowards whose only interest is their children's business ventures.

Without pakistan have a potent strike force---india would never allow pakistan to develop---it will always bring ourt one thing or another and keep pakistan bogged down.

And you guys are lucky---the fools did not listen to my advice or we would have been running circles around the indian dramas---.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> First of all---why would you even " suggest " " not attacking israel " in the first place---and in the next breath you talk of befriending israel---the word attack and israel should be deleted out of the pakistani vocabulary.
> 
> Can you guys simply leave israel out of discussion when talkign about fighting someone.
> 
> I guess you are not old enough to understand that CHEAP is bad---it has always been bad and it will always be bad---.
> 
> Anything that is good---does not come cheap---you have to pay a price for it.
> 
> A superior aircraft will gain air superiority by the default of its DESIGN FUNCTION---.
> 
> As a brick laying machine lays rows of bricks---and as a road roller compresses the dirt and as a bull dozer excavates dirt and as a carpenter builds items from wood and as a diesel locomotive pulls a train---an air superiority / air dominance fighter aircraft pulverizes the enemy aircraft and enemy defense installations to gain superiority over enemy air space---.
> 
> And again---that is the default function of its design.
> 
> Pu-bic hair have never been able to stop a pe-nis from penetrating a va-gina---even thought they may look ominous in shape and form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The only way to stop india is for pakistan to have aggressive designs---. It needs shiny new toys---not many of them.
> 
> Just 2---2 1/2 sqdrns and 4 sqdrns of JH7B's---air launched babur cruise missiles and my indian neighbors would be singing a new tune---which would be much more peaceful.
> 
> Paf is run and managed by gutless cowards whose only interest is their children's business ventures.
> 
> Without pakistan have a potent strike force---india would never allow pakistan to develop---it will always bring ourt one thing or another and keep pakistan bogged down.
> 
> And you guys are lucky---the fools did not listen to my advice or we would have been running circles around the indian dramas---.






Very well, then, let us count our blessings and be thankful that they do not listen to your advice. That works.


----------



## Gryphon

monitor said:


>



Thanks for posting. But is the information mentioned in image 1 detailing a system or a company (three systems) ??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## YeBeWarned

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> First of all---why would you even " suggest " " not attacking israel " in the first place---and in the next breath you talk of befriending israel---the word attack and israel should be deleted out of the pakistani vocabulary.



Why not ? do we have any Direct confrontation with Israel NO ? yeah i heard about kahutta etc but still who else is not involved in Sabotaging the other countries via different means ... have you not heard " the enemy of my enemy is my Friend " ... unless Israel is directly involved in any Attack against Pakistani soil i would keep my opinion to at least start a diplomatic ties with them .. you can disagree Sir but its my opinion ..



MastanKhan said:


> Can you guys simply leave israel out of discussion when talkign about fighting someone.



in case you miss i wrote ( JK ) which surely means Just kidding if that makes you confused ..



MastanKhan said:


> I guess you are not old enough to understand that CHEAP is bad---it has always been bad and it will always be bad---.
> 
> Anything that is good---does not come cheap---you have to pay a price for it.
> 
> A superior aircraft will gain air superiority by the default of its DESIGN FUNCTION---.



I am trying to understand how my age is in focus here ?? either i am 10 years old or a 200 years old Vampire , lets stick with Topic shall we ?

i never claim that cheap is good or it can't be always bad as well ..now SAM's are just a stop gap where you cant keep up with your neighbor who has 5 times bigger defense budget compared to ours ..if we start the Arms race to compare indian bullet by bullet we would be defaulter and destroyed long ago .. our army has maintain minimum deterrence which is working fine for now ..

I wont disagree that a AS Fighter is by design to dominate the skies , but you miss my point there .. PAF will mostly be fighting most of its battle over PA skies , with cover of SAM's, AWACS and MANPAD's in a very good Net centric Environment it wont be easy for India even with Rafale to gain Air Superiority over PA skies ..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MastanKhan

Starlord said:


> Why not ? do we have any Direct confrontation with Israel NO ? yeah i heard about kahutta etc but still who else is not involved in Sabotaging the other countries via different means ... have you not heard " the enemy of my enemy is my Friend " ... unless Israel is directly involved in any Attack against Pakistani soil i would keep my opinion to at least start a diplomatic ties with them .. you can disagree Sir but its my opinion ..
> 
> 
> 
> in case you miss i wrote ( JK ) which surely means Just kidding if that makes you confused ..
> 
> 
> 
> I am trying to understand how my age is in focus here ?? either i am 10 years old or a 200 years old Vampire , lets stick with Topic shall we ?
> 
> i never claim that cheap is good or it can't be always bad as well ..now SAM's are just a stop gap where you cant keep up with your neighbor who has 5 times bigger defense budget compared to ours ..if we start the Arms race to compare indian bullet by bullet we would be defaulter and destroyed long ago .. our army has maintain minimum deterrence which is working fine for now ..
> 
> I wont disagree that a AS Fighter is by design to dominate the skies , but you miss my point there .. PAF will mostly be fighting most of its battle over PA skies , with cover of SAM's, AWACS and MANPAD's in a very good Net centric Environment it wont be easy for India even with Rafale to gain Air Superiority over PA skies ..



Hi,

Just because the neighbor is 5 times bigger does not mean much---.

We are 5 times smaller---that means we can utilize a higher quality equipment in lesser numbers because of our geographical positioning in relation to the enemy's.

The Pak army's minimal deterrence is not working fine---you have been lied to and you do not have the ability to understand the damage it has caused---because since---2002---you have been on the back foot---your country has been sabotaged ruthlessly and brutally by the enemy for the last 14 years and you act clueless to the damage to YOUR PROGRESS---.

With a weak military---where you can only make retaliatory threats of using tactical nucs---you are just a slave to the enemy's propaganda and enemy's sabotage of your facilities and LOC violations---.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## YeBeWarned

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> Just because the neighbor is 5 times bigger does not mean much---.
> 
> We are 5 times smaller---that means we can utilize a higher quality equipment in lesser numbers because of our geographical positioning in relation to the enemy's.
> 
> The Pak army's minima; deterrence is not working fine---you have bneen lied to and you do not have the ability to understand the damage it has cause---because since---2002---you have been on the back foot---your country has been sabotaged ruthlessly and brutally by the enemy for the last 14 years and you act clueless to the damage to YOUR PROGRESS---.
> 
> With a weak military---where you can only make retaliatory threats of using tactical nucs---you are just a slave to the enemy's propaganda and enemy's sabotage of your facilities and LOC violations---.



it does matter if your enemy is 5 times bigger than you in almost every aspect ..
sitting in Air condition bed room and using a fancy laptop to type long post is easy Sir .. ground realities are different , a war will hurt not just Indian but Pakistan, and not just Physically but financially as well .

Let me know which country is in line to sell you High end Equipment ? recently your Country refused to give f-sholay to PAF in subsidized Price , i don't see you protesting against the Congress or white house ? don't you think you should prove where you loyalties lie ?

that Minimum det Policy at least did good enough to keep Indians from Attacking Pakistan in 2002, 2008 and now 2016 ..my Country is on back foot not because of lies we were feed but because of the WOT and corrupt Politicians and general Public who always forget to pay tax ...

Sir there is a Reason Pakistan Tested its Nukes in 99's , everyone knows Pakistan is no position to use a TN because the out come will be devastating .. and not just that , but i won't mind if Enemy is busy doing Propaganda which is what they are good at ..and if you follow the news lately you do realize how Isolate Pakistan has become 



MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> Just because the neighbor is 5 times bigger does not mean much---.
> 
> We are 5 times smaller---that means we can utilize a higher quality equipment in lesser numbers because of our geographical positioning in relation to the enemy's.
> 
> The Pak army's minima; deterrence is not working fine---you have bneen lied to and you do not have the ability to understand the damage it has cause---because since---2002---you have been on the back foot---your country has been sabotaged ruthlessly and brutally by the enemy for the last 14 years and you act clueless to the damage to YOUR PROGRESS---.
> 
> With a weak military---where you can only make retaliatory threats of using tactical nucs---you are just a slave to the enemy's propaganda and enemy's sabotage of your facilities and LOC violations---.



it does matter if your enemy is 5 times bigger than you in almost every aspect ..
sitting in Air condition bed room and using a fancy laptop to type long post is easy Sir .. ground realities are different , a war will hurt not just Indian but Pakistan, and not just Physically but financially as well .

Let me know which country is in line to sell you High end Equipment ? recently your Country refused to give f-sholay to PAF in subsidized Price , i don't see you protesting against the Congress or white house ? don't you think you should prove where you loyalties lie ?

that Minimum det Policy at least did good enough to keep Indians from Attacking Pakistan in 2002, 2008 and now 2016 ..my Country is on back foot not because of lies we were feed but because of the WOT and corrupt Politicians and general Public who always forget to pay tax ...

Sir there is a Reason Pakistan Tested its Nukes in 99's , everyone knows Pakistan is no position to use a TN because the out come will be devastating .. and not just that , but i won't mind if Enemy is busy doing Propaganda which is what they are good at ..and if you follow the news lately you do realize how Isolate Pakistan has become

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## YeBeWarned

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> You happened to be in that position due to your own miserable mistakes---error in judgement---a lack of understanding the level of oncoming future threats---or just out of pure treason by the Paf high command.
> 
> Every country was in line to sell you the weapons in 2002-03-04-05---. It is you who screwed up the opportunities one after the other---.
> 
> God gave you the goose that laid the golden egg and you slaughtered the goose to get the eggs all at one time---.
> 
> You are a pariah nation now---no one cares for you anymore---except for china---and that is also due to the south china seas crisis that it is in---otherwise china also had written you off in 2012---.
> 
> You pakistanis screwed at the start of the war on terror---. As a nation---if you only had brains to understand that a christian army was going to invade a muslim nation and would create major problems for you in the future---you would have done everything possible to go inside afg and take out OBL and his cohorts and given their dead bodies to the U S.
> 
> You pakistanis did not have any brains to comprehend that threat---because the only time your brain works is when someone is in distress and you can squeeze out money from them---steal their property---take bribes---.
> 
> All you pakistanis are ready to pop up an excuse---one after the other---because that is all you can do---why---because it the easiest thing to do---.



Sorry but this post is nothing but a Desperate attempt from you Sir ... i guess You people are not your people and our country is not yours, so i guess you Live happy in USA where you can shout U S A , U S A after every AQ leader killed by US strike

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MastanKhan

Starlord said:


> Sorry but this post is nothing but a Desperate attempt from you Sir ... i guess You people are not your people and our country is not yours, so i guess you Live happy in USA where you can shout U S A , U S A after every AQ leader killed by US strike




Hi,

Neither do you have the intellect---and nor the ability to understand what I stated---and why would you---because you are a pakistani---. 

You have destroyed your country at a time when Allah gave you the opportunity to build it---it gave you the means placed on a platter---MUNN O SALVA---and just like the them---you rejected it---.

Every AQ leader should have been killed by the pak army and their dead bodies sent to the U S even before the invasion---so that christian armies would not invade on a muslim land----.

It because of you thoughtless people like you---christian armies entered muslim lands some 14 years ago---and their blood lust has not ended even with over 4 million dead muslims and 20 million + homeless.



Starlord said:


> Sorry but this post is nothing but a Desperate attempt from you Sir ... i guess You people are not your people and our country is not yours, so i guess you Live happy in USA where you can shout U S A , U S A after every AQ leader killed by US strike



Hi,

I am responding to you---because you are from my motherland---you might learn something---.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## YeBeWarned

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> Neither do you have the intellect---and nor the ability to understand what I stated---and why would you---because you are a pakistani---.
> 
> You have destroyed your country at a time when Allah gave you the opportunity to build it---it gave you the means placed on a platter---MUNN O SALVA---and just like the them---you rejected it---.
> 
> Every AQ leader should have been killed by the pak army and their dead bodies sent to the U S even before the invasion---so that christian armies would not invade on a muslim land----.
> 
> It because of you thoughtless people like you---christian armies entered muslim lands some 14 years ago---and their blood lust has not ended even with over 4 million dead muslims and 20 million + homeless.



Sir this is not the Desired thread to reply everything you write .. this Thread is about Air Defense of Pakistan .
now as far as my intellect is concern it may be less but i am here to learn , which our conversation really teach me nothing except for one thing that you don't know the norms of having a Conversation by NOT going off topic .

as far as this Christian/Muslim army is concern , again its off topic .... create another thread and than we can Talk about it anytime you want 

No one take this Country as MANO salva from Allah, I know what my Grandparents has left behind to come to this country .. my distant relatives in India are still enjoying the huge and expensive Properties left by my Grandparents to come to this Country ... lost few in the process so please don't tell me that we rejected . 
i respect all countries , Religion , Human being and their Opinions .. That's what i did with you .

regards



MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am responding to you---because you are from my motherland---you might learn something---.



So far i learn nothing except that you really don't know how to stick to the Topic , With respect sire

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## MastanKhan

Starlord said:


> So far i learn nothing except that you really don't know how to stick to the Topic , With respect sire



Hi,

It is for the reason that you have yet to be broken down and then built up ( but only if you chose to )---once that happens---you will begin to understand---.

There are many on this board who were apprehensive at first but are believers now---and my tune has not changed in the last 11 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Inception-06

TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> @mods @Oscar @WebMaster @waz @Horus
> 
> Please clean-up this thread.



Why so ? Such politcal exchanges are a natural part of any military discussion, so come down and enjoy the showdown, try to find the points of both posters in their arguments related to the defence of the Country, which naturally means the air defence ! OBL Raid, Salala post attack, drone attacks : "War is the continuation of politics by other means."

@MastanKhan may be you did hurt and attack to much the "Pakistan", I would recommend to get more in a rational, detail argumentation rather than throw all of us in the fire ! I know, I am a nobody in your eyes to give you any advice, but I am reading your posts since 2006.....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PakShaheen79

Ok. Can anyone give me an idea about how this new command will be structured in a hierarchy? I mean who will report to who? Who will head this command? Under which force this new command will work, PAF or PA?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## YeBeWarned

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> It is for the reason that you have yet to be broken down and then built up ( but only if you chose to )---once that happens---you will begin to understand---.
> 
> There are many on this board who were apprehensive at first but are believers now---and my tune has not changed in the last 11 years.



i have been a silent reader here from past 3-4 years .. i just Avoid Posting because i wanted to learn more and speak less ... just because Defense Establishment does not follow your suite make then liars . your reasons are all well refuted by Bilal777 and Oscar on many occasions .. and if they are failed to convince you this than i am sure that i cant

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShaheen79

Listen from 6:14 to 6:28 .... it seems the entire AD command is now with PAF. PAF takes control of all air defense assets including sensors, radars and missiles etc.


----------



## SQ8

*Current estimated EW coverage - I change certain values out of the known database of this sim based on my knowledge*
White is ranges of Individual Radars, such as Bold for AEW and TPS-77
Total radar coverage shown as well.
Red are known SAM batteries and hypothetical deployment locations for LY-80.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Gryphon



Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## mrrehan

TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> _FM-90 (HQ-7B) SR-SAM_
> 
> 
> Analyst Haris Khan of Pakistan Military Consortium think tank has disclosed that Pakistan has formed a new Integrated Army & Air Force Command to manage air defense operations across the country.
> 
> 15 systems of LY-80 (HQ-16A) MR-SAM were ordered by the PAF in 2013. All were delivered by August 2016.
> Another 15 systems might be ordered by the air force for providing air defense to all of its airfields and other sensitive installations.
> 
> PAF already operates Crotale and MBDA Spada 2000 SR-SAM's and HQ-2B MR-SAM.
> 
> Pakistan is in advanced talks with CPMIEC for purchasing several systems of the HQ-9 LR-SAM. The feasibility of integrating HQ-16 with HQ-9 SAM system has already been completed.
> 
> Pakistan has also completed the feasibility of incorporating FM-90 (HQ-7B) SR-SAM with Chinese CIWS for its Army.
> 
> 
> *HQ-16A Surface-to-air missile (SAM) system:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> _HQ-16 SAM_
> 
> The HQ-16A is a Chinese-made surface-to-air missile defence system which was introduce in the Chinese armed forces in September 2011. This is a land based version of the HQ-16 system used in ships (and fired from VLS (Vertical Launch System) containers. The HQ-16A is based on a joint development of the Russian Buk-M1 (SA-11 'Gadfly') and Ural/Buk-2M (SA-17 'Grizzly') Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) systems, for use from mobile ground vehicles and later from ships. The HQ-16A is able to engage aerial targets at high altitude; the mid-range HQ-16 is also able to intercept very low-flying targets at a distance of up to about 40 kilometers, filling the gap between the HQ-7 short-range SAM and the HQ-9 long-range SAM systems. The HQ-16A missile can hit targets of an altitude from 400 to 10,000 meters.
> 
> *Technical Data*
> 
> _Design_
> The HQ-16A (LY-80) launcher missile system is carried by an 8x8 truck that contains a command and control station behind the cab, and behind those are six firing missile containers in two rows of three. These containers are tilted back so that the missiles can be fired straight up, just as they are from VLS (Vertical launch System) cells. In firing position, the wheels are raised off the ground and the carriage is supported at four points by hydraulic jacks, two at the rear and one on each side.
> 
> _Missile_
> The HQ-16A (LY-80) missile can intercept an aerial flying target from an 15 m to 18 km of altitude, while its maximum interception range for combat aircraft is 40 km, and between 3.5 km and 12 km for cruise missiles flying at an altitude of 50 meters at a speed of 300 meters/second. Single-shot kill probability is a claimed figure of 85 per cent against combat aircraft, and 60 per cent against cruise missiles. The missile guidance system is of the composite type, comprising initial independent inertial guidance and intermittent illumination and semi-active homing terminal guidance.
> 
> _Control and command systems_
> The HQ16A (LY-80) SAM components comprise a searching radar vehicle, command vehicle, radar tracking and guidance vehicle, launcher unit vehicle, and missiles canister. Technical support equipment includes missile transportation and loading vehicle, power supply vehicle, maintenance vehicle, and missile-test equipment. A single radar guidance vehicle controls two to four launcher units with six missiles ready to launch. The command vehicle is responsible to send target information and combat orders.
> The searching radar vehicle is equipped with solid-state S-band 3-D passive phased-array radar mounted on the top of a mast. When the target is detected, the searching radar vehicle performs automatic IFF (Identification Friend-or-Foe), threat judgment, flight path processing and provide target engagement information for the tracking-and-guidance radar. The S-band radar has a range of 140 km and can detect targets flying at an altitude of 20 km.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _IBIS150 3D Target Designation Radar_
> 
> The tracking and guidance radar vehicle performs target acquisition and tracking, and identification of target types. It also controls the missile launching and illuminates the target after the missile is fired. L-band passive phased-array radar is mounted at the rear of the vehicle and has a range of 85 km. The L-band radar can detect up to six targets and track four of them, and provide fire-control/guidance for up to eight missiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Horus @Windjammer @Quwa @Areesh @New Resolve @Oscar



Nice news



Oscar said:


> *Current estimated EW coverage - I change certain values out of the known database of this sim based on my knowledge*
> White is ranges of Individual Radars, such as Bold for AEW and TPS-77
> Total radar coverage shown as well.
> Red are known SAM batteries and hypothetical deployment locations for LY-80.
> View attachment 345667
> 
> View attachment 345668
> 
> View attachment 345666
> 
> View attachment 345670
> 
> View attachment 345669



Good Information Thanks


----------



## Khafee

TheOccupiedKashmir said:


>


Did you make this?


----------



## Gryphon

Khafee said:


> Did you make this?



It shows a HQ-16 battery (without support vehicles). Created the image in Paint.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## khanasifm

According to the prime contractor, the solid propellant missile *can engage targets at a range of 3.5 to 50km, with interception altitude up to a maximum of 20km. The missiles are cold launched and a single shot kill probability of between 0.9 and 0.95 is being claimed.
*
A complete LY-80 system can be deployed in 12 minutes and out of action time is about six minutes.

The naval version is designated the LY-80N, has similar capabilities and is also launched vertically, with each cell having eight missiles in the ready-to-launch position.

http://www.janes.com/article/63784/long-march-fast-aad16d2


----------



## mrrehan

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> Just because the neighbor is 5 times bigger does not mean much---.
> 
> We are 5 times smaller---that means we can utilize a higher quality equipment in lesser numbers because of our geographical positioning in relation to the enemy's.
> 
> The Pak army's minimal deterrence is not working fine---you have been lied to and you do not have the ability to understand the damage it has caused---because since---2002---you have been on the back foot---your country has been sabotaged ruthlessly and brutally by the enemy for the last 14 years and you act clueless to the damage to YOUR PROGRESS---.
> 
> With a weak military---where you can only make retaliatory threats of using tactical nucs---you are just a slave to the enemy's propaganda and enemy's sabotage of your facilities and LOC violations---.



At least this time we can block Indian economic activity by sea or at least make it hard for them.



PakShaheen79 said:


> Listen from 6:14 to 6:28 .... it seems the entire AD command is now with PAF. PAF takes control of all air defense assets including sensors, radars and missiles etc.



Quite good and informative



TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> _FM-90 (HQ-7B) SR-SAM_
> 
> 
> Analyst Haris Khan of Pakistan Military Consortium think tank has disclosed that Pakistan has formed a new Integrated Army & Air Force Command to manage air defense operations across the country.
> 
> 15 systems of LY-80 (HQ-16A) MR-SAM were ordered by the PAF in 2013. All were delivered by August 2016.
> Another 15 systems might be ordered by the air force for providing air defense to all of its airfields and other sensitive installations.
> 
> PAF already operates Crotale and MBDA Spada 2000 SR-SAM's and HQ-2B MR-SAM.
> 
> Pakistan is in advanced talks with CPMIEC for purchasing several systems of the HQ-9 LR-SAM. The feasibility of integrating HQ-16 with HQ-9 SAM system has already been completed.
> 
> Pakistan has also completed the feasibility of incorporating FM-90 (HQ-7B) SR-SAM with Chinese CIWS for its Army.
> 
> 
> *HQ-16A Surface-to-air missile (SAM) system:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> _HQ-16 SAM_
> 
> The HQ-16A is a Chinese-made surface-to-air missile defence system which was introduce in the Chinese armed forces in September 2011. This is a land based version of the HQ-16 system used in ships (and fired from VLS (Vertical Launch System) containers. The HQ-16A is based on a joint development of the Russian Buk-M1 (SA-11 'Gadfly') and Ural/Buk-2M (SA-17 'Grizzly') Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) systems, for use from mobile ground vehicles and later from ships. The HQ-16A is able to engage aerial targets at high altitude; the mid-range HQ-16 is also able to intercept very low-flying targets at a distance of up to about 40 kilometers, filling the gap between the HQ-7 short-range SAM and the HQ-9 long-range SAM systems. The HQ-16A missile can hit targets of an altitude from 400 to 10,000 meters.
> 
> *Technical Data*
> 
> _Design_
> The HQ-16A (LY-80) launcher missile system is carried by an 8x8 truck that contains a command and control station behind the cab, and behind those are six firing missile containers in two rows of three. These containers are tilted back so that the missiles can be fired straight up, just as they are from VLS (Vertical launch System) cells. In firing position, the wheels are raised off the ground and the carriage is supported at four points by hydraulic jacks, two at the rear and one on each side.
> 
> _Missile_
> The HQ-16A (LY-80) missile can intercept an aerial flying target from an 15 m to 18 km of altitude, while its maximum interception range for combat aircraft is 40 km, and between 3.5 km and 12 km for cruise missiles flying at an altitude of 50 meters at a speed of 300 meters/second. Single-shot kill probability is a claimed figure of 85 per cent against combat aircraft, and 60 per cent against cruise missiles. The missile guidance system is of the composite type, comprising initial independent inertial guidance and intermittent illumination and semi-active homing terminal guidance.
> 
> _Control and command systems_
> The HQ16A (LY-80) SAM components comprise a searching radar vehicle, command vehicle, radar tracking and guidance vehicle, launcher unit vehicle, and missiles canister. Technical support equipment includes missile transportation and loading vehicle, power supply vehicle, maintenance vehicle, and missile-test equipment. A single radar guidance vehicle controls two to four launcher units with six missiles ready to launch. The command vehicle is responsible to send target information and combat orders.
> The searching radar vehicle is equipped with solid-state S-band 3-D passive phased-array radar mounted on the top of a mast. When the target is detected, the searching radar vehicle performs automatic IFF (Identification Friend-or-Foe), threat judgment, flight path processing and provide target engagement information for the tracking-and-guidance radar. The S-band radar has a range of 140 km and can detect targets flying at an altitude of 20 km.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _IBIS150 3D Target Designation Radar_
> 
> The tracking and guidance radar vehicle performs target acquisition and tracking, and identification of target types. It also controls the missile launching and illuminates the target after the missile is fired. L-band passive phased-array radar is mounted at the rear of the vehicle and has a range of 85 km. The L-band radar can detect up to six targets and track four of them, and provide fire-control/guidance for up to eight missiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Horus @Windjammer @Quwa @Areesh @New Resolve @Oscar




We need serious efforts to make institutions composed of experience international and local Pakistanis brain to develop this technology at home. This is what Quaid-e-Azam said about a strong Air Force stronger Air Defense.


----------



## monitor

IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
*Poland buys six Pilica air defence batteries*
*Remigiusz Wilk, Warsaw* - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
30 November 2016
Poland's Armament Inspectorate has signed a PLN746 million (USD180 million) contract for the delivery of six batteries of the PSR-A Pilica very short-range air defence (VSHORAD) missile-and-gun system from Zaklady Mechaniczne Tarnow (ZMT).




Battery chart for the Pilica VSHORAD system. (ZMT)

Pilica has been developed to meet a Polish Air Force requirement for an air transportable air defence system. A single PSR-A Pilica battery includes six ZUR-23-2SP Jodek-SP missile-and-gun systems, a command vehicle, six towing trucks, two ammunition trucks, and two transport trucks (all based on Jelcz 442.32), and (currently) a ZDPSR Sola mobile radar station.

Speaking to _IHS Jane's_ the operational director of ZMT, Tomasz Berezowski, said, "The first interim Pilica battery is to be finished in October 2019, because the system is to be adapted for three different mobile radar stations.

"Under the contract the first two PSR-A systems in serial configuration are to be delivered in 2020; another two in 2021; the last one and the initial Pilica, updated to serial configuration, in October 2022", Berezowski added.

Each ZUR-23-2SP Jodek-SP fire unit is armed with two Grom or Piorun 5,000 m range man portable air defence systems (MANPADS) as their primary effector and two 23 mm 2A14 cannons for 1,000-2,000 m short-range air defence.* A single Pilica battery is capable of defending a 350 sq km area.* The ZUR-23-2SP and ammunition can be transported on board Poland's Airbus C295M cargo aircraft, while the Sola needs to be lifted by Poland's C-130E Hercules transport aircraft.

The PSR-A Pilica system has been developed by a consortium led by ZMT, along with CRW Telesystem-Mesko, Jelcz, PCO, PIT-RADWAR, Prexer, and WZL nr.2.

After evaluation of the Pilica in the early 2020s the Polish Armed Forces are planning to purchase an additional 6-12 batteries, _IHS Jane's_ was told.

*Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options　**ihs.com/contact*



To read the full article, Client Login
(311 of 481 words)


----------



## Muhammad Omar

monitor said:


> IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
> *Poland buys six Pilica air defence batteries*
> *Remigiusz Wilk, Warsaw* - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
> 30 November 2016
> Poland's Armament Inspectorate has signed a PLN746 million (USD180 million) contract for the delivery of six batteries of the PSR-A Pilica very short-range air defence (VSHORAD) missile-and-gun system from Zaklady Mechaniczne Tarnow (ZMT).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Battery chart for the Pilica VSHORAD system. (ZMT)
> 
> Pilica has been developed to meet a Polish Air Force requirement for an air transportable air defence system. A single PSR-A Pilica battery includes six ZUR-23-2SP Jodek-SP missile-and-gun systems, a command vehicle, six towing trucks, two ammunition trucks, and two transport trucks (all based on Jelcz 442.32), and (currently) a ZDPSR Sola mobile radar station.
> 
> Speaking to _IHS Jane's_ the operational director of ZMT, Tomasz Berezowski, said, "The first interim Pilica battery is to be finished in October 2019, because the system is to be adapted for three different mobile radar stations.
> 
> "Under the contract the first two PSR-A systems in serial configuration are to be delivered in 2020; another two in 2021; the last one and the initial Pilica, updated to serial configuration, in October 2022", Berezowski added.
> 
> Each ZUR-23-2SP Jodek-SP fire unit is armed with two Grom or Piorun 5,000 m range man portable air defence systems (MANPADS) as their primary effector and two 23 mm 2A14 cannons for 1,000-2,000 m short-range air defence.* A single Pilica battery is capable of defending a 350 sq km area.* The ZUR-23-2SP and ammunition can be transported on board Poland's Airbus C295M cargo aircraft, while the Sola needs to be lifted by Poland's C-130E Hercules transport aircraft.
> 
> The PSR-A Pilica system has been developed by a consortium led by ZMT, along with CRW Telesystem-Mesko, Jelcz, PCO, PIT-RADWAR, Prexer, and WZL nr.2.
> 
> After evaluation of the Pilica in the early 2020s the Polish Armed Forces are planning to purchase an additional 6-12 batteries, _IHS Jane's_ was told.
> 
> *Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options　**ihs.com/contact*
> 
> 
> 
> To read the full article, Client Login
> (311 of 481 words)



What this news has to do with Pakistan??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Inception-06

khanasifm said:


> According to the prime contractor, the solid propellant missile *can engage targets at a range of 3.5 to 50km, with interception altitude up to a maximum of 20km. The missiles are cold launched and a single shot kill probability of between 0.9 and 0.95 is being claimed.
> *
> A complete LY-80 system can be deployed in 12 minutes and out of action time is about six minutes.
> 
> The naval version is designated the LY-80N, has similar capabilities and is also launched vertically, with each cell having eight missiles in the ready-to-launch position.
> 
> http://www.janes.com/article/63784/long-march-fast-aad16d2



@MastanKhan @Sarge @fatman17 @war&peace @DESERT FIGHTER

Why our air defence network did fail during the 2011 NATO ATTACK/*Salala attack ?

"attack continued for two hours, even after Pakistani officials alerted coalition forces to stop",120 minutes air violation and massacring our Soldiers through air attacks and no sign of air defence ? 
*
Pakistani troops stationed at the nearby post named "Boulder" engaged the NATO helicopters with anti-aircraft guns. The helicopters soon withdrew.

(That picture is just a example)




Pakistani authorities tried to contact their NATO counterparts in an effort to inform them of the situation but the Pakistani request reportedly failed to reach the attacking force. The helicopters returned a second time engaging Boulder border post again. A short while later communication with the NATO commanders was established and the attack was called off. All casualties were from the initial attack on the Volcano border post. Later, Major General Abbas expressed that it was beyond comprehension why the NATO forces *returned to attack the second time. And still no sign of PAF in the air !*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bratva

Ulla said:


> @MastanKhan @Sarge @fatman17 @war&peace @DESERT FIGHTER
> 
> Why our air defence network did fail during the 2011 NATO ATTACK/*Salala attack ?
> 
> "attack continued for two hours, even after Pakistani officials alerted coalition forces to stop",120 minutes air violation and massacring our Soldiers through air attacks and no sign of air defence ?
> *
> Pakistani troops stationed at the nearby post named "Boulder" engaged the NATO helicopters with anti-aircraft guns. The helicopters soon withdrew.
> 
> Pakistani authorities tried to contact their NATO counterparts in an effort to inform them of the situation but the Pakistani request reportedly failed to reach the attacking force. The helicopters returned a second time engaging Boulder border post again. A short while later communication with the NATO commanders was established and the attack was called off. All casualties were from the initial attack on the Volcano border post. Later, Major General Abbas expressed that it was beyond comprehension why the NATO forces *returned to attack the second time. And still no sign of PAF in the air !*




.The most logical reason could be during NATO attack, they were actively jamming communication of volcano border post. By the time Boulder post got the gist of whats happening, they conveyed back to Command post and communication reaching there from the TOP i.e. GHQ and then to make contact with NATO through Pakistan Liaison (A brig rank IIRC) there In NATO command center . It seems a matter of minutes, but during active jamming situation and relaying corroborating facts and then asking NATO to stop the attack, while PAF is being kept out of loop because matter is being handled by GHQ and NATO forces directly is how we reach the 2 hour mark and no sign of PAF. 

About why our Radars couldnt detect NATO activities on the night of attack, Remember all this aerial action occurred below 500 meter and you can not plug low level Radar blindness along the more than 1000 KM border with afghanistan within 5-6 months of OBL fiasco.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## DJ_Viper

khanasifm said:


> According to the prime contractor, the solid propellant missile *can engage targets at a range of 3.5 to 50km, with interception altitude up to a maximum of 20km. The missiles are old launched and a single shot kill probability of between 0.9 and 0.95 is being claimed.*



Sir, this is older generation. Any 4th and 4.5th gen jets can hit targets from beyond 50 KM. You need over 100KM SAMs at the minimum to start to intercept when inbound aircraft are 40-50 KM inside India. That way, you'd force them for evasive maneuvers and if multiple missiles are chasing them and they manage to survive, they range would've become much less as they would've burnt a lot of fuel on afterburners trying to break the missile lock and through maneuvers. Essentially, this means the mission may have to be aborted as once close to the border, they would then face the PAF and other SAM systems, which would burn out remainder of the fuel.



Ulla said:


> @MastanKhan @Sarge @fatman17 @war&peace @DESERT FIGHTER
> *"attack continued for two hours, even after Pakistani officials alerted coalition forces to stop",120 minutes air violation and massacring our Soldiers through air attacks and no sign of air defence ?*



Sir, sad reality of that incident was that no PAF was called for. Your Army General was busy in getting through different levels of CENTCOM I believe to get to the chief. This area doesn't have any long-range or medium range AD, this area has mountains so a few hundred feet don't count. The action was happening a few hundred feet off the ground with Apache's right on the border of Afghanistan. So if you shot down anything (not that there were proper weapons there to begin with), you would've asked for a USAF retaliation as the assets were technically in Afghan airspace, a KM or so inside.

Before this incident took place, a few minutes before the Apache's showed up, two F-15's flew above this area a few times at 500 feet and strafed the entire area. So at this altitude, there wouldn't have been any radar and SAMS that can even see the threat at this low of an altitude, to really intercept, knowing the hilly terrain and it being right on the border. Last, a few days after this, there was a mid-range SPADA put in there and the American command was told that next time there will be a response. Plus, the little I know, is that each post had a hidden and separate few men contingent with shoulder mounted SAMs put onto every major check post to deal with the helicopters.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MastanKhan

Ulla said:


> @MastanKhan @Sarge @fatman17 @war&peace @DESERT FIGHTER
> 
> Why our air defence network did fail during the 2011 NATO ATTACK/*Salala attack ?
> 
> "attack continued for two hours, even after Pakistani officials alerted coalition forces to stop",120 minutes air violation and massacring our Soldiers through air attacks and no sign of air defence ?
> *
> Pakistani troops stationed at the nearby post named "Boulder" engaged the NATO helicopters with anti-aircraft guns. The helicopters soon withdrew.
> 
> (That picture is just a example)
> View attachment 357639
> 
> Pakistani authorities tried to contact their NATO counterparts in an effort to inform them of the situation but the Pakistani request reportedly failed to reach the attacking force. The helicopters returned a second time engaging Boulder border post again. A short while later communication with the NATO commanders was established and the attack was called off. All casualties were from the initial attack on the Volcano border post. Later, Major General Abbas expressed that it was beyond comprehension why the NATO forces *returned to attack the second time. And still no sign of PAF in the air !*



Hi,

Kiyani / Qamar were both cowards---they had no backbone.

When the U S air craft returned the second time---it was INTENTIONAL MURDER of pakistani troops---.

The first strike could be considered an error---but the second strike was purely murder.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Signalian

Ulla said:


> @MastanKhan @Sarge @fatman17 @war&peace @DESERT FIGHTER
> 
> Why our air defence network did fail during the 2011 NATO ATTACK/*Salala attack ?
> 
> "attack continued for two hours, even after Pakistani officials alerted coalition forces to stop",120 minutes air violation and massacring our Soldiers through air attacks and no sign of air defence ?
> *
> Pakistani troops stationed at the nearby post named "Boulder" engaged the NATO helicopters with anti-aircraft guns. The helicopters soon withdrew.
> 
> (That picture is just a example)
> View attachment 357639
> 
> Pakistani authorities tried to contact their NATO counterparts in an effort to inform them of the situation but the Pakistani request reportedly failed to reach the attacking force. The helicopters returned a second time engaging Boulder border post again. A short while later communication with the NATO commanders was established and the attack was called off. All casualties were from the initial attack on the Volcano border post. Later, Major General Abbas expressed that it was beyond comprehension why the NATO forces *returned to attack the second time. And still no sign of PAF in the air !*


This is the Statement from PAF ACM regarding OBL raid on May 2, 2011:

Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman has accepted the responsibility of air surveillance failure but informed the government that the entry of American helicopters into the Pakistani air space was not detected because the *radars deployed on the western borders were not active* on May 2. He dispelled the impression that the Pakistani radars were jammed.
This means PAF Radars on western border are present.

Coming to Nov 2011 Salala raid by NATO on Pakistan Army posts, the NATO attack force had following contingent:
2 x AH-64 D
1 x AC-130
2 x F-15E
1 x MC-12W for SIGINT 

None is a stealth aircraft. Radars should have been working after May 2, 2011 atleast.

The strafing range of AH-64D 30mm is around 500m whereas 12.7mm AAG range is more than that, around 1000m. This AAG was deployed at one of the two posts which were attacked. The causalities were reported from other post. 

The PA post stood any chance if it was equipped with RBS-70. They were later equipped with Anza SAM.

The reason PAF didnt engage NATO is a command failure of Pakistani COAS and ACM unfortunately. They should have known that trusting NATO command after OBL raid was not on the cards anymore and should have taken proactive measures in this regard. 

There are different versions to this incident even in Pakistan circles about why NATO command was being contacted instead of an action by PAF. In Pakistan, both Air chief and Naval Chief report or discuss with COAS before taking any decisions of this nature. The authority of COAS is above every uniformed officer of Pakistan no matter what branch or arm. ACM would have consulted COAS to take action, COAS would have told him to wait and that he is trying to talk to NATO command etc, something like this could have happened.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## DJ_Viper

Sarge said:


> This means PAF Radars on western border are present.
> 
> Coming to Nov 2011 Salala raid by NATO on Pakistan Army posts, the NATO attack force had following contingent:
> 2 x AH-64 D
> 1 x AC-130
> 2 x F-15E
> 1 x MC-12W for SIGINT
> 
> None is a stealth aircraft. Radars should have been working after May 2, 2011 atleast..



Sir, I wrote it before. The radars were working but the -15's flew overhead the post for strafing at 500 feet. In a mountainous region, or even on the plains, 500 feet is very low to observe enemy aircraft. It is almost nap of the earth type of flyovers. In a mountainous region, it is much more difficult to detect, due to constant elevations, etc.

The Apache's and the rest were on the edge of the Afghan airspace like a mile away from the check post, and also, a few hundred feet above air. No radar would detect them, unless you had one at or around that post. But the post didn't even have MANPADS from what I've read on multiple place. They now do and that small AD unit is kept separate from the rest of the post (even in a hidden physical location not directly inside major posts). That would deter helicopters I guess.

There was no PAF activity and if there was any detection of any PAF's assets moving, the ELINT/SIGNIT would've jammed the radars. Plus this wasn't a war so its not like it was a constant operation. These things happen very fast and are over soon. Thanks

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MastanKhan

Sarge said:


> This is the Statement from PAF ACM regarding OBL raid on May 2, 2011:
> 
> Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman has accepted the responsibility of air surveillance failure but informed the government that the entry of American helicopters into the Pakistani air space was not detected because the *radars deployed on the western borders were not active* on May 2. He dispelled the impression that the Pakistani radars were jammed.
> This means PAF Radars on western border are present.
> 
> Coming to Nov 2011 Salala raid by NATO on Pakistan Army posts, the NATO attack force had following contingent:
> 2 x AH-64 D
> 1 x AC-130
> 2 x F-15E
> 1 x MC-12W for SIGINT
> 
> None is a stealth aircraft. Radars should have been working after May 2, 2011 atleast.
> 
> The strafing range of AH-64D 30mm is around 500m whereas 12.7mm AAG range is more than that, around 1000m. This AAG was deployed at one of the two posts which were attacked. The causalities were reported from other post.
> 
> The PA post stood any chance if it was equipped with RBS-70. They were later equipped with Anza SAM.
> 
> The reason PAF didnt engage NATO is a command failure of Pakistani COAS and ACM unfortunately. They should have known that trusting NATO command after OBL raid was not on the cards anymore and should have taken proactive measures in this regard.
> 
> There are different versions to this incident even in Pakistan circles about why NATO command was being contacted instead of an action by PAF. In Pakistan, both Air chief and Naval Chief report or discuss with COAS before taking any decisions of this nature. The authority of COAS is above every uniformed officer of Pakistan no matter what branch or arm. ACM would have consulted COAS to take action, COAS would have told him to wait and that he is trying to talk to NATO command etc, something like this could have happened.




Hi,

What is missing from the quandry is----there was a Chinook rescue helicopter that came to pickup the " stranded " U S special forces at OBL's residence---after 1 chopper crashed.

When you look at the anomalies in this action---the U S / OBL drama just falls apart.

It took the chinook 30 minutes to fly in and 45 minutes to fly out---. Neither you can hide the noise of this chopper---nor was this chopper a stealth aircraft. It is heavy---it moves slowly---it makes noise---it came---it landed---it took off---and it took its sweet time to fly across the border---.

ACM Qamar lied---he was the weakest link of the Troika---of Kiyani & Pasha---.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Inception-06

Sarge said:


> This is the Statement from PAF ACM regarding OBL raid on May 2, 2011:
> 
> Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman has accepted the responsibility of air surveillance failure but informed the government that the entry of American helicopters into the Pakistani air space was not detected because the *radars deployed on the western borders were not active* on May 2. He dispelled the impression that the Pakistani radars were jammed.
> This means PAF Radars on western border are present.
> 
> Coming to Nov 2011 Salala raid by NATO on Pakistan Army posts, the NATO attack force had following contingent:
> 2 x AH-64 D
> 1 x AC-130
> 2 x F-15E
> 1 x MC-12W for SIGINT
> 
> None is a stealth aircraft. Radars should have been working after May 2, 2011 atleast.
> 
> The strafing range of AH-64D 30mm is around 500m whereas 12.7mm AAG range is more than that, around 1000m. This AAG was deployed at one of the two posts which were attacked. The causalities were reported from other post.
> 
> The PA post stood any chance if it was equipped with RBS-70. They were later equipped with Anza SAM.
> 
> The reason PAF didnt engage NATO is a command failure of Pakistani COAS and ACM unfortunately. They should have known that trusting NATO command after OBL raid was not on the cards anymore and should have taken proactive measures in this regard.
> 
> There are different versions to this incident even in Pakistan circles about why NATO command was being contacted instead of an action by PAF. In Pakistan, both Air chief and Naval Chief report or discuss with COAS before taking any decisions of this nature. The authority of COAS is above every uniformed officer of Pakistan no matter what branch or arm. ACM would have consulted COAS to take action, COAS would have told him to wait and that he is trying to talk to NATO command etc, something like this could have happened.





MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> What is missing from the quandry is----there was a Chinook rescue helicopter that came to pickup the " stranded " U S special forces at OBL's residence---after 1 chopper crashed.
> 
> When you look at the anomalies in this action---the U S / OBL drama just falls apart.
> 
> It took the chinook 30 minutes to fly in and 45 minutes to fly out---. Neither you can hide the noise of this chopper---nor was this chopper a stealth aircraft. It is heavy---it moves slowly---it makes noise---it came---it landed---it took off---and it took its sweet time to fly across the border---.
> 
> ACM Qamar lied---he was the weakest link of the Troika---of Kiyani & Pasha---.




Related to the decisions and handling during the Salala attack by ACM Qamar, Kiyani und Pasha I am wondering how such characters get the seat to lead a whole perfect working military machine. I guess the moral and pride which this Gentlemen represented during the Salala incident was totally against the feelings and opinion of people of Pakistan and the lower Ranks in the Military.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## CHI RULES

It is better to focus at present instead of past or future. The ground reality is PA lacks integrated air defense layers . Modern anti stealth radars still to be inducted though we may have got few with LY80 and from other sources. We do n't have high altitude SAMs as claimed by few. Even medium range SAMs are in limited number.

We should at least have few batteries of HQ9 and deploy them around Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi along with Gawadar. Meanwhile number of LY80SAMs should be increased and deployed around our main cantonments power sources.

We should talk about anti stealth radars and other SAM options rather then crying over Salala.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Inception-06

CHI said:


> It is better to focus at present instead of past or future. The ground reality is PA lacks integrated air defense layers . Modern anti stealth radars still to be inducted though we may have got few with LY80 and from other sources. We do n't have high altitude SAMs as claimed by few. Even medium range SAMs are in limited number.
> 
> We should at least have few batteries of HQ9 and deploy them around Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi along with Gawadar. Meanwhile number of LY80SAMs should be increased and deployed around our main cantonments power sources.
> 
> We should talk about anti stealth radars and other SAM options rather then crying over Salala.



Ki baat karta he stealth here stealth there bla bla bla 

You have no sense of Pride, Moral and Military History ! We have the right to cry, what does help high tech, when you can't use that because our leadership lacks in courage, we must discuss the past in detail and should never forget it, to have greater and better future !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MastanKhan

CHI RULES said:


> It is better to focus at present instead of past or future. The ground reality is PA lacks integrated air defense layers . Modern anti stealth radars still to be inducted though we may have got few with LY80 and from other sources. We do n't have high altitude SAMs as claimed by few. Even medium range SAMs are in limited number.
> 
> We should at least have few batteries of HQ9 and deploy them around Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi along with Gawadar. Meanwhile number of LY80SAMs should be increased and deployed around our main cantonments power sources.
> 
> We should talk about anti stealth radars and other SAM options rather then crying over Salala.




Hi,

A lot of us use this term " forget the past " freely without understanding the concept behind it.

When it is about the issues of your personal live---the bitterness of the past---the grudges---the hardships that one goes thru---in that case---it is better to forget the past and move ahead with life.

But when it comes to COWARDICE---a lack of a backbone in the top brass---deceit---deception & connivance---you don't want to forget about those things.

These are the foundations that the building sits upon---.

So---if you have not taken the cowardice out of the generals---whatever LEEPA POCHI / whitewash that you may recommend---ain't gonna cure the core problem.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Awan68

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> First of all---why would you even " suggest " " not attacking israel " in the first place---and in the next breath you talk of befriending israel---the word attack and israel should be deleted out of the pakistani vocabulary.
> 
> Can you guys simply leave israel out of discussion when talkign about fighting someone.
> 
> I guess you are not old enough to understand that CHEAP is bad---it has always been bad and it will always be bad---.
> 
> Anything that is good---does not come cheap---you have to pay a price for it.
> 
> A superior aircraft will gain air superiority by the default of its DESIGN FUNCTION---.
> 
> As a brick laying machine lays rows of bricks---and as a road roller compresses the dirt and as a bull dozer excavates dirt and as a carpenter builds items from wood and as a diesel locomotive pulls a train---an air superiority / air dominance fighter aircraft pulverizes the enemy aircraft and enemy defense installations to gain superiority over enemy air space---.
> 
> And again---that is the default function of its design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The only way to stop india is for pakistan to have aggressive designs---. It needs shiny new toys---not many of them.
> 
> Just 2---2 1/2 sqdrns and 4 sqdrns of JH7B's---air launched babur cruise missiles and my indian neighbors would be singing a new tune---which would be much more peaceful.
> 
> Paf is run and managed by gutless cowards whose only interest is their children's business ventures.
> 
> Without pakistan have a potent strike force---india would never allow pakistan to develop---it will always bring ourt one thing or another and keep pakistan bogged down.
> 
> And you guys are lucky---the fools did not listen to my advice or we would have been running circles around the indian dramas---.


Whats with u n ur affair with israel??, israel is a sworn enemy and someday we will have a confrontation, no one cares about the stupid opinions of a fake id or a sissy israel loving liberal, the establishment know this already and after india their main focus is always israel and no Paf is notrun by gutless cowards, paf is recognized as one if the most potent airforces around in way of professionalism, tactics and skill, we dont have shiny toys cause we dont have a gleaming economy, even with crippling economic constraints they have managed pretty well uptil now, when the economy improves which is a matter of time by the way we will go for big ticket items...


----------



## mrrehan

eagle20054 said:


> *In an interview with the Global Times newspaper, Rao Qamar Suleman, air chief marshal of the Pakistan Air Force has confirmed the rumors that Pakistan Air Force will purchase up to four Chinese Surface-to-Air Missiles to meet its airdefence needs.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Air Chief Marshal Rao Suleman has said that Pakistan air force is evaluating, different Chinese surface-to-air missiles for the purchase of 3 to 4 SAM systems. One of the systems under evaluation is "HQ-18"surface-to-air missile system.
> *
> As per Jane's Defence weekly Hong Qi-18 (HQ-18) surface to air missile system is Chinese version based on the S-300 that is also known as SA-12A "Gladiator". HQ-18 system has a rand of 100 km and it can be used against short-range ballistic and cruise missiles as well as against aircraft.
> 
> Another surface to air missile that may be under consideration is China's indigenously developed HQ-12 / KS-1A SAM. These surface-to-air missiles are available with two engagement radars H-200 phased array radar and SJ-231 phased array radar.
> 
> The SJ-231 radar system for the KS-1A/HQ-12 SAM system is based on the on the HT-233 PESA engagement radar which is associated with the advance Chinese surface-to-air missile system HQ-9 / FD-2000. SJ-231 is a self propelled radar.
> China's indigenously developed HQ-12 / KS-1A missile is a single stage missile that uses the solid propellant. It has very short span delta wing design that is very much like that of the US Hawk SAM. KS-1A Missiles uses the rail launchers. Depending upon the target&#8217;s speed maximum range of KS-1A varies from 38-50km. It can be used against targets flying as high as 27000m and as low as 300m.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan Military Review: Pakistan Air Force to Purchase 4 Chinese SAM Systems
> 
> ---------- Post added at 03:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:05 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *KS-1A*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HQ-18*




This is because there was no reliable delivery system for Indian nuclear weapon still mature enough and Indian purchase of Rafale is some what capable of the job. In order to counter threat, Pakistan have to have stronger air defence system.


----------



## MastanKhan

Awan68 said:


> Whats with u n ur affair with israel??, israel is a sworn enemy and someday we will have a confrontation, no one cares about the stupid opinions of a fake id or a sissy israel loving liberal, the establishment know this already and after india their main focus is always israel and no Paf is notrun by gutless cowards, paf is recognized as one if the most potent airforces around in way of professionalism, tactics and skill, we dont have shiny toys cause we dont have a gleaming economy, even with crippling economic constraints they have managed pretty well uptil now, when the economy improves which is a matter of time by the way we will go for big ticket items...



Hi,

Keep on thumping your chest---ain't gonna work---.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Awan68

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> Keep on thumping your chest---ain't gonna work---.


Rarely does on people with coconuts for heads.


----------



## Gryphon

According to analyst Haris Khan of Pakistan Military Consortium think tank, Pakistan will soon integrate recently inducted FM-90 SR-SAM with a Chinese ground-based 30mm CIWS.

The 30mm AD system Haris is referring to is likely the LD2000 Ground-Based CIWS offered by Norinco.





_LD2000 Ground-Based CIWS._

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## truthseeker2010

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> A lot of us use this term " forget the past " freely without understanding the concept behind it.
> 
> When it is about the issues of your personal live---the bitterness of the past---the grudges---the hardships that one goes thru---in that case---it is better to forget the past and move ahead with life.
> 
> But when it comes to COWARDICE---a lack of a backbone in the top brass---deceit---deception & connivance---you don't want to forget about those things.
> 
> These are the foundations that the building sits upon---.
> 
> So---if you have not taken the cowardice out of the generals---whatever LEEPA POCHI / whitewash that you may recommend---ain't gonna cure the core problem.



Sir, what do you think will be the reaction of current hierarchy of CAS & COAS, if anything like salala happens in the future? 
I am pretty sure about Raheel, he would not have hesitated in going after NATO, but what about qamar bajwa, how do you interpret him?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## MastanKhan

truthseeker2010 said:


> Sir, what do you think will be the reaction of current hierarchy of CAS & COAS, if anything like salala happens in the future?
> I am pretty sure about Raheel, he would not have hesitated in going after NATO, but what about qamar bajwa, how do you interpret him?



Hi,

The guy is strong----.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## truthseeker2010

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> The guy us strong----.



Lets see how do they cope with terrorists after recent attacks...........


----------



## Rain

truthseeker2010 said:


> Sir, what do you think will be the reaction of current hierarchy of CAS & COAS, if anything like salala happens in the future?
> I am pretty sure about Raheel, he would not have hesitated in going after NATO, but what about qamar bajwa, how do you interpret him?


Salala or OBL or any other incident; primary failure lies, imho, with the power center that is COAS/GHQ. Kargil PAF was ignored. in 71 PN and PAF was not informed before hand. same here. If PAF had been informed mare presence of PAF assts would have changed the situation/slaughter. its unfortunate that COAS has to make all decisions in Pakistan which is not a wise thing in itself.



TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> According to analyst Haris Khan of Pakistan Military Consortium think tank, Pakistan will soon integrate recently inducted FM-90 SR-SAM with a Chinese ground-based 30mm CIWS.
> 
> The 30mm AD system Haris is referring to is likely the LD2000 Ground-Based CIWS offered by Norinco.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _LD2000 Ground-Based CIWS._


Such toys will not deter a drunk bully.better to avoid conflict with a big fella like u did in ur school days. Otherwise you will be forced to tell lies to your children that we fought and won against USA as well as we won against India or Chinese were not trustworthy!


----------



## truthseeker2010

Rain said:


> Salala or OBL or any other incident; primary failure lies, imho, with the power center that is COAS/GHQ. Kargil PAF was ignored. in 71 PN and PAF was not informed before hand. same here. If PAF had been informed mare presence of PAF assts would have changed the situation/slaughter. its unfortunate that COAS has to make all decisions in Pakistan which is not a wise thing in itself.



very true, personally i have found paf & pn more professional as compared to PA, and yes COAS is larger than life person in pak, and the irony is there is no checks and balances and you can't even object, let alone accountability, and the result, country suffers............

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MastanKhan

Rain said:


> Salala or OBL or any other incident; primary failure lies, imho, with the power center that is COAS/GHQ. Kargil PAF was ignored. in 71 PN and PAF was not informed before hand. same here. If PAF had been informed mare presence of PAF assts would have changed the situation/slaughter. its unfortunate that COAS has to make all decisions in Pakistan which is not a wise thing in itself.
> 
> Such toys will not deter a drunk bully.better to avoid conflict with a big fella like u did in ur school days. Otherwise you will be forced to tell lies to your children that we fought and won against USA as well as we won against India or Chinese were not trustworthy!



Hi,

Paf has acted like a traitor to pakistan---in '71'---at Kargil---with the ' Atlantique '---till now---.

I have written on it quite a bit---.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

Pakistan expresses interest in S-400. Sputniknews.com reports.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## The Eagle

Horus said:


> Pakistan expresses interest in S-400. Sputniknews.com reports.



Good catch.. and
Please allow me to quote the relevant paragraph. 

"Pakistan may consider purchase of different types of Russia's military equipment including its advanced S-400 air defense systems, a high-ranking military official in Pakistan said."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Army research

The Eagle said:


> Good catch.. and
> Please allow me to quote the relevant paragraph.
> 
> "Pakistan may consider purchase of different types of Russia's military equipment including its advanced S-400 air defense systems, a high-ranking military official in Pakistan said."





Horus said:


> Pakistan expresses interest in S-400. Sputniknews.com reports.


Is this real or the same bs as su-35 ? I mean this is a defensive platform so Russia can justify its sale still ...


----------



## MastanKhan

Awan68 said:


> Rarely does on people with coconuts for heads.



Hi,

Post intelligent---please.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Eagle

Army research said:


> Is this real or the same bs as su-35 ? I mean this is a defensive platform so Russia can justify its sale still ...



For the moment, things are revolving around "Interest" only and furthermore, the same article discloses about SU-35 news as NO. check the link in quoted paragraph.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Muhammad Omar

The Eagle said:


> Good catch.. and
> Please allow me to quote the relevant paragraph.
> 
> "Pakistan may consider purchase of different types of Russia's military equipment including its advanced S-400 air defense systems, a high-ranking military official in Pakistan said."



S-400 will be huge achievement if we get them

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mingle

Additional Mi 35 for sure other electronics yes S 400 is big ticket item maybe if Pak offers cash what Russians looking .


----------



## The Accountant

Muhammad Omar said:


> S-400 will be huge achievement if we get them


I doubt pakistan is procring s400 .. from past decade pakistan is taking interest in every chinese and europeon system ... and in russian system since last 1 year but only success story is of thunder and submarines ... whereas cobras are for free ...

It appears that there is lack of long term strategy


----------



## Readerdefence

Muhammad Omar said:


> S-400 will be huge achievement if we get them


I think no s400 as recently been sold to India


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Readerdefence said:


> I think no s400 as recently been sold to India



The agreement of sale of S-400 to India will be singed this year as per news



The Accountant said:


> I doubt pakistan is procring s400 .. from past decade pakistan is taking interest in every chinese and europeon system ... and in russian system since last 1 year but only success story is of thunder and submarines ... whereas cobras are for free ...
> 
> It appears that there is lack of long term strategy



You can't just order anything by just seeing it Pakistan is testing various systems 
also we are procuring HQ-16's too


----------



## The Accountant

Muhammad Omar said:


> The agreement of sale of S-400 to India will be singed this year as per news
> 
> 
> You can't just order anything by just seeing it Pakistan is testing various systems
> also we are procuring HQ-16's too


Yes but we are having news of medium to long range sam since 8 years or so with almost nothing on the ground ... we need to understand that an air superiroity fighter and an advance SAM are necessity ... as of now we dont have anything substantial other than nukes ... so in a limited convential war we are gone ... if india decides to play with us with engaging in a limited scale war we will loose our air space quickly ... not more than 10 days ...


----------



## Basel

Horus said:


> Pakistan expresses interest in S-400. Sputniknews.com reports.



Pakistan have expressed interest in many systems till now, how many purchased? It seems to push India more to buy from Russia. We should charge Russia commission for new system sale due to our interest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan




----------



## Muhammad Omar

The Accountant said:


> Yes but we are having news of medium to long range sam since 8 years or so with almost nothing on the ground ... we need to understand that an air superiroity fighter and an advance SAM are necessity ... as of now we dont have anything substantial other than nukes ... so in a limited convential war we are gone ... if india decides to play with us with engaging in a limited scale war we will loose our air space quickly ... not more than 10 days ...



But this time it's on Ground we Procured FM-90 a small range sam we Also Procured HQ-16 Mid range sam in limited numbers but will be increased gradually 
next target is Long range


----------



## The Accountant

Muhammad Omar said:


> But this time it's on Ground we Procured FM-90 a small range sam we Also Procured HQ-16 Mid range sam in limited numbers but will be increased gradually
> next target is Long range


FM90 is too small to be a threat ... 40km max range is nothing ... today's stand-off weapons are of more than 100 km which are cheap in comparison to air to air missile ... an easy solution against such a small range SAM is to get a close location and get a staurated attack of stand-off weapons ... We need a layer of defence ... Long range SAMs is necessity of the day atleast on eastern border supported by Medium range and point defence system on all the critical installations ...

I accept funds is the issue but this is a must without this capability we cannot withstand 1 week war ...


----------



## khanasifm

Spada 2000 , hq16 and other short range , they can intercept stand off weapons as well so even if a stand off weapons are launched they can be intercepted plus stand off weapon laugh paltofrm can also be inceptercepred before launch from air bottom line donot try to match capabilities of world powers pak is poor nations and can deploy more capable many weapons system in large number like 9 batteries of hq16 and 7-9 of spada, 1 or 2 batteries of strategic sam like hq9 or other will come in future for capital and Karachi area

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Accountant

khanasifm said:


> Spada 2000 , hq16 and other short range , they can intercept stand off weapons as well so even if a stand off weapons are launched they can be intercepted plus stand off weapon laugh paltofrm can also be inceptercepred before launch from air bottom line donot try to match capabilities of world powers pak is poor nations and can deploy more capable many weapons system in large number like 9 batteries of hq16 and 7-9 of spada, 1 or 2 batteries of strategic sam like hq9 or other will come in future for capital and Karachi area


Ofz they can engage but war is about economics ... What do you think more expensive a glide bomb or an anti air missile ... India will be happy if they loose 100 of glide bombs from 75 km away without getting into harms way ... Whereas we will have no option butto take them with expensive missiles ... We need a layer of defences ... Without cover from long range SAM like HQ 9 ... Fm90 will be target pratice ... Hq 16 also requires cover from advance in long range platforn


----------



## khanasifm

It's not a cake walk first intercepters are launched and Sam are next step and then short range defenses so it's multi layered


----------



## Hayreddin

Does paf going for HQ 9 ?


----------



## Super Falcon

Most of our air defence is either medium and short ranged air defence nothing we have any kind of long range air defence system why our armed forces keep making blunders most countries atleast have one very good long range air defence system our pilirs are best but f 16 factor is now vanished we need to fill the gaps india will hit us where we are valunerable yes faith is most impoetant to fight a war but with common sense u can destroy enemy with faith ALLAH help those who help themselves so do the job first than what was in your hands u dud vest than leave it to ALLAH we have done nothing yet

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Inception-06



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Inception-06

Inception-06 said:


> View attachment 573196
> View attachment 573197




@Signalian check the above Systems, just for you !


----------



## Amigator

The Accountant said:


> Ofz they can engage but war is about economics ... What do you think more expensive a glide bomb or an anti air missile ... India will be happy if they loose 100 of glide bombs from 75 km away without getting into harms way ... Whereas we will have no option butto take them with expensive missiles ... We need a layer of defences ... Without cover from long range SAM like HQ 9 ... Fm90 will be target pratice ... Hq 16 also requires cover from advance in long range platforn


Every glide bomb isn't to be taken by missile. First Priority will be to take down launch platform. This is the job of interceptors. i.e. F-16, JF-17 Thunders. 

Missiles duty will be to destroy incoming missiles and intruded planes or drones 

Is oerlikon GDF for Shabrat? Can't they destroy Glide Bomb in air?


----------



## The Accountant

Amigator said:


> Every glide bomb isn't to be taken by missile. First Priority will be to take down launch platform. This is the job of interceptors. i.e. F-16, JF-17 Thunders.
> 
> Missiles duty will be to destroy incoming missiles and intruded planes or drones
> 
> Is oerlikon GDF for Shabrat? Can't they destroy Glide Bomb in air?


Even with a reaction time of 2 minutes stopping a strike from a distance of 70 km by aircraft is really difficult and we witnessed the same on 26th and 27th Feb .. Thats why we want long range SAM cover to take down launch platform


----------



## Amigator

The Accountant said:


> Even with a reaction time of 2 minutes stopping a strike from a distance of 70 km by aircraft is really difficult and we witnessed the same on 26th and 27th Feb .. Thats why we want long range SAM cover to take down launch platform


This make sense. We should have at least 100 km SAM missile coverage.

Some people in previous post were establishing arguments for destroying Glide Bombs using LRSAM which isn't a right argument that's why I put my argument in previous post.


----------



## The Accountant

Amigator said:


> This make sense. We should have at least 100 km SAM missile coverage.
> 
> Some people in previous post were establishing arguments for destroying Glide Bombs using LRSAM which isn't a right argument that's why I put my argument in previous post.


I think you miss read ... the idea of long range was SAM was to take down the platform releasing the gliding bombs ... current gliding bombs are around 100 kms of range so LRSAM should have an engagement range of 150 kms for a fighter size target to cover a big area ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Amigator

Does anybody know that how much units of FM-90 Pakistan Army has? I tried to find from online sources but found nothing on it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ali_Baba

Amigator said:


> Does anybody know that how much units of FM-90 Pakistan Army has? I tried to find from online sources but found nothing on it.



anyone who knows, will not tell you. it is a military secret .....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Eagle

@Haris Ali2140 please avoid posting irrelevant & non-credible sources.


----------



## Haris Ali2140

The Eagle said:


> @Haris Ali2140 please avoid posting irrelevant & non-credible sources.


OK.


----------



## NA71

Alert: Whats going on Amritsar Air Base? some info circulating regarding non IAF personnel have been identified there. possible air incursion is being reported....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TsAr

NA71 said:


> Alert: Whats going on Amritsar Air Base? some info circulating regarding non IAF personnel have been identified there. possible air incursion is being reported....


https://www.opindia.com/2019/10/sec...ing-inputs-of-terror-attack-times-now-report/

According to an exclusive report by Times Now, Indian Army has taken over the Indian Air Force base at Amritsar including the ATC tower. Army took over the security of the airbase from CISF following specific inputs that Pakistan based terrorists are planning to attack it using drones or other aircraft including hijacked planes, the report claims.

SUPER #EXCLUSIVE| Amritsar Air Force station has been fortified.
Army takes over ATC towers.
TIMES NOW’s Nikunj Garg has accessed a SENSATIONAL intelligence report.
More details on @thenewshour with Navika Kumar. | #AirHijackAlert pic.twitter.com/NTXWMdQMiu

— TIMES NOW (@TimesNow) October 1, 2019

The report also says that in an unprecedented move, the army has placed snipers at the airbase. Nikunj Garg of Times Now said that the request to deploy army at the airbase came from the Indian Air Force itself. He said that snippers are posted on the top of ATC tower as well as fire safety towers.


----------



## The Accountant

TsAr said:


> https://www.opindia.com/2019/10/sec...ing-inputs-of-terror-attack-times-now-report/
> 
> According to an exclusive report by Times Now, Indian Army has taken over the Indian Air Force base at Amritsar including the ATC tower. Army took over the security of the airbase from CISF following specific inputs that Pakistan based terrorists are planning to attack it using drones or other aircraft including hijacked planes, the report claims.
> 
> SUPER #EXCLUSIVE| Amritsar Air Force station has been fortified.
> Army takes over ATC towers.
> TIMES NOW’s Nikunj Garg has accessed a SENSATIONAL intelligence report.
> More details on @thenewshour with Navika Kumar. | #AirHijackAlert pic.twitter.com/NTXWMdQMiu
> 
> — TIMES NOW (@TimesNow) October 1, 2019
> 
> The report also says that in an unprecedented move, the army has placed snipers at the airbase. Nikunj Garg of Times Now said that the request to deploy army at the airbase came from the Indian Air Force itself. He said that snippers are posted on the top of ATC tower as well as fire safety towers.


The war mnogring going in india will charge indian population so much that they will have no option but to fight us ...


----------



## Ghessan

i am amazed at their media, how they toe the line the govt narrates, very impressive. and look the way they bring out the news and how they get the inside intelligence, just make it real. public is a fool puppet, time to move the strings. 
i hope they won't leave any loop holes this time in self plotted terror act except the killing of the people who seems least important.


----------



## Ibn Batouta

A general question, what are the anti-aircraft systems of Chinese origin in service within the Pakistani army please?
I would like to know the opinion of Pakistani experts on the quality of these systems and their effectiveness, in particular against Russian-type aircraft in Indian aviation. The Pakistani feedback is very interesting because it is an army with experience.

As a Moroccan I am curious to know, because we have integrated medium and short range systems from China (AF902 FCS 35 MM SHORAD System & SKY DRAGON 50 GAS 2 Medium Range System) and perhaps we will acquire the HQ-9B. We have no idea on chinese air defence because it is the first time that we use chinese SAM. 

Thank you brothers. It will be nice to see videos of these systems in service in Pak Army.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Ibn Batouta said:


> A general question, what are the anti-aircraft systems of Chinese origin in service within the Pakistani army please?
> I would like to know the opinion of Pakistani experts on the quality of these systems and their effectiveness, in particular against Russian-type aircraft in Indian aviation. The Pakistani feedback is very interesting because it is an army with experience.
> 
> As a Moroccan I am curious to know, because we have integrated medium and short range systems from China (AF902 FCS 35 MM SHORAD System & SKY DRAGON 50 GAS 2 Medium Range System) and perhaps we will acquire the HQ-9B. We have no idea on chinese air defence because it is the first time that we use chinese SAM.
> 
> Thank you brothers. It will be nice to see videos of these systems in service in Pak Army.


LY-80/HQ-16, HQ-7 may be Chinese AAA guns

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ibn Batouta

seven0seven said:


> LY-80/HQ-16, HQ-7 may be Chinese AAA guns



Any videos please ? What is your experience feedback dealing with these systems ? 

We also have the NORINCO version of HQ16, the SD50 GAS 2, and also AF902 FCS 35 mm which can be compared to your FM-90 SHORAD. 
Nice, so i will check informations and update of pakistani SAM's systems to get informations.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Ibn Batouta said:


> Any videos please ? What is your experience feedback dealing with these systems ?
> 
> We also have the NORINCO version of HQ16, the SD50 GAS 2, and also AF902 FCS 35 mm which can be compared to your FM-90 SHORAD.
> Nice, so i will check informations and update of pakistani SAM's systems to get informations.


Actually HQ-16 are based on Soviet/Russian BUK SAMs, and HQ-7 and its naval version FM-90 based on French Crotale SAM, we and we will have HQ-16B/FL-3000N on our upcoming Type-54A Frigates and Turkish MEGLEM corvettes and we not quite satisfied with low altitude performance of our LY-80/HQ16

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ibn Batouta

Really ? You are not satisfied of your chinese SAM's ? Reasons ?


----------



## Ultima Thule

Ibn Batouta said:


> Really ? You are not satisfied of your chinese SAM's ? Reasons ?


i said LOW ALTITUDE PERFORMANCE, Because this our prime interceptor to engage Indian Brahmos Missiles

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ibn Batouta

seven0seven said:


> i said LOW ALTITUDE PERFORMANCE, Because this our prime interceptor to engage Indian Brahmos Missiles



Ok, and for fighters interception, you are satisfied ? Especially SU-30 MKI, it will be effective in your opinion againt such russian fighters ? 
The problem is if it is not effective in low altitude, it will be worst in medium altitude.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Ibn Batouta said:


> Ok, and for fighters interception, you are satisfied ? Especially SU-30 MKI, it will be effective in your opinion againt such russian fighters ?
> The problem is if it is not effective in low altitude, it will be worst in medium altitude.


No high altitude performance is fine because there is no ground clutter to be found and Su-30MKI has a very large RCS

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ibn Batouta

seven0seven said:


> No high altitude performance is fine because there is no ground clutter to be found and Su-30MKI has a very large RCS



Nice. I think we conclude the same feedback in Morocco on low altitude effectiveness, months ago we command 4 bataillon of French MICA VL Air Defence Systems, probably much more effective to counter Low altitude threats ( cruise missile ...) 
Chinese SAM will be probably reserved for medium and hight altitude targets such as fighters.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Ibn Batouta said:


> Nice. I think we conclude the same feedback in Morocco on low altitude effectiveness, months ago we command 4 bataillon of French MICA VL Air Defence Systems, probably much more effective to counter Low altitude threats ( cruise missile ...)
> Chinese SAM will be probably reserved for medium and hight altitude targets such as fighters.


Basically Chinese SAMs using 1 AESA/PESA to do all functions (detecting/Tracking/Engaging) all threats unlike most of Russian/EU SAMs that uses multiple radars ( one dedicated radar) to detect/track engage LOW ALTITUDE THREATS

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ibn Batouta

seven0seven said:


> Basically Chinese SAMs using 1 AESA/PESA to do all functions (detecting/Tracking/Engaging) all threats unlike most of Russian/EU SAMs that uses multiple radars ( one dedicated radar) to detect/track engage LOW ALTITUDE THREATS



Yes 1 radar to do all this missions, but in Morocco for example, we have the COBRA Air Defense Center, for example western radar systems can work together with chinese radar system. We have US/French/Chinese/Russian SAM's, and they work together in a common AD System covering all Morocco. It is more effective and faster to deal with aerial threaths..


----------



## Ultima Thule

Ibn Batouta said:


> Yes 1 radar to do all this missions, but in Morocco for example, we have the COBRA Air Defense Center, for example western radar systems can work together with chinese radar system. We have US/French/Chinese/Russian SAM's, and they work together in a common AD System covering all Morocco. It is more effective and faster to deal with aerial threaths..


AD or early warning radars can't guides interceptor/SAMs bro its a Job of dedicated SAMs FIRE CONTROL RADAR, and we have similar net centric center for managing our airspace

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ibn Batouta

seven0seven said:


> AD or early warning radars can't guides interceptor/SAMs bro its a Job of dedicated SAMs FIRE CONTROL RADAR, and we have similar net centric center for managing our airspace



Its not a problem, even western systems like MICA VL use only one radar for detection/tracking/engaging. The most important is that your territory is covered with radar effectively, and your AD teams are in good training condition with experience, and an effective central AD system that include all your data (radar, ships, fighters...)


----------



## Ultima Thule

Ibn Batouta said:


> Its not a problem, even western systems like MICA VL use only one radar for detection/tracking/engaging. The most important is that your territory is covered with radar effectively, and your AD teams are in good training condition with experience, and an effective central AD system that include all your data (radar, ships, fighters...)


Main things is guiding the interceptors, if you 2-3 SAMs (HQ-16) so their is a Chance, and AD/AWACS/SHIPS Fighters can only detect and track and may be gives the information to SAMs (HQ-16) but guiding a SAMs/interceptor is a main job of SAMs's FIRE CONTROL RADAR, if SAM (HQ-16) AESA/PESA will not able to detect/tack LOW ALTITUDE THREATS so how can you assume it able to intercept LOW ALTITUDE THREATS without DEDICATED RADAR for detecting LOW ALTITUDE TARGETS


----------



## Ibn Batouta

seven0seven said:


> Main things is guiding the interceptors, if you 2-3 SAMs (HQ-16) so their is a Chance, and AD/AWACS/SHIPS Fighters can only detect and track and may be gives the information to SAMs (HQ-16) but guiding a SAMs/interceptor is a main job of SAMs's FIRE CONTROL RADAR, if SAM (HQ-16) AESA/PESA will not able to detect/tack LOW ALTITUDE THREATS so how can you assume it able to intercept LOW ALTITUDE THREATS without DEDICATED RADAR for detecting LOW ALTITUDE TARGETS



Along with the IBIS 150 3D radar we also have the IBIS 80 Low Altitude Radar , working with SD50 SAM and also AF902. 
In Pakistan you have the IBIS 150 , and also the IBIS 80 ?


----------



## Zarvan

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1280817316213796866

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Zarvan said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1280817316213796866


Is he @Tipu7 ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zarvan

Pakistani Fighter said:


> Is he @Tipu7 ?


Yes he is

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mingle

Zarvan said:


> Yes he is


Which panstir PA procured and how many copies??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

mingle said:


> Which panstir PA procured and how many copies??


Which version is it that is still not known.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## skyshadow

*could Pakistan get a Air defense system more powerful then S-500 ? yes it can new the new version of Iran Bavar-373 ( Baver-474 ) will be more powerful then S-500 it self.






*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Accountant

skyshadow said:


> *could Pakistan get a Air defense system more powerful then S-500 ? yes it can new the new version of Iran Bavar-373 ( Baver-474 ) will be more powerful then S-500 it self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


BS

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nomi007

Zarvan said:


> Yes he is


Also man who gives news about Cobras delivery.


----------



## Akh1112

skyshadow said:


> *could Pakistan get a Air defense system more powerful then S-500 ? yes it can new the new version of Iran Bavar-373 ( Baver-474 ) will be more powerful then S-500 it self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *




mmm yes totally 100% unbiased factual


----------



## Akh1112

mingle said:


> Which panstir PA procured and how many copies??




None, they also never will unless they are stupid.

Pantsir is designed to be operated as part of a whole IADS system. It is so ineffective without it, look at Libya or Syria, Pantsir's standalone have no chance. They also cannot work alongside our western or eastern systems, they cant be integrated.


----------



## skyshadow

Akh1112 said:


> mmm yes totally 100% unbiased factual


at the end of the video the head of the national AD said the next version is going to be more powerful then S-500


----------



## jupiter2007

skyshadow said:


> at the end of the video the head of the national AD said the next version is going to be more powerful then S-500



Just compare the R&D budget of Iran, Russia and China. Iranian does have the technology to build anything even closer to Russian defence system. Iranian system (Babar-373) is crap compare to Russian S-300, S-350 and S-400.


----------



## Philosopher

jupiter2007 said:


> Just compare the R&D budget of Iran, Russia and China. Iranian does have the technology to build anything even closer to Russian defence system. Iranian system (Babar-373) is crap compare to Russian S-300, S-350 and S-400.



Stay on topic. I have replied to your comment in the relevant Iranian thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Awan68

One thing that is consistently common between the Indians and the Iranians, both are dangerously dellusional.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TsAr

AsianLion said:


> Pakistan strictly needs S-400 atleast 20 batteries from Punjab to Gawadar.


Seriously.....


----------

