What's new

Pakistan Army Aviation Corps - Updated

Desert Fox 1

FULL MEMBER
Aug 11, 2020
931
2
1,974
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
The Indian combo of Hellfire R & L can decapitate armored columns given the airspace is generally sanitized for them. If they purchase the spike nlos for their AH-64 then it will be misery for any targeted PA division.
They have procured both. Spike was originally cancelled but after swift retort and its preceding and succeeding skirmishes IA decided to procure it. 250+ launchers have been procured.
However I suppose the biggest threat comes from the Nag/Helina missile since it is indigenous. It would prove lethal if India equips its BMP2s, which india has plenty of, with them. Also if India is able to mass produce LCH equipped with them,we will be facing serious difficulties.
Btw I feel we are lagging behind in terms of atgms. I'd suggest procuring aft-10
wtih HJ-10 from China or equipping them on our M113s, if not any indigenous NLOS.
I think that the best option for us is to procure the AFT-10 anti tank systems which fires hj10. It can completely decimate tank concentrations ( it has 8 ready to fire missiles and takes only eights minutes to reload). What's more it also has a surface to air version called AKD-10.
The missile has an optical/imaging guidance system. It is a non-line of sight missile. It can lock on the target within the line of sight. Alternatively the operator locks on the target after the launch, using a real time image from the missile. Coupled with UAVs it can be very potent .
View attachment 716357
 
Last edited:

Tipu7

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Aug 8, 2014
5,096
94
13,625
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
They have procured both. Spike was originally cancelled but after swift retort and its preceding and succeeding skirmishes IA decided to procure it. 250+ launchers have been procured.
However I suppose the biggest threat comes from the Nag/Helina missile since it is indigenous. It would prove lethal if India equips its BMP2s, which india has plenty of, with them. Also if India is able to mass produce LCH equipped with them,we will be facing serious difficulties.
Btw I feel we are lagging behind in terms of atgms. I'd suggest procuring aft-10
wtih HJ-10 from China or equipping them on our M113s, if not any indigenous NLOS.
Has India procured Spike ATGMs?

The approval for emergency purchase was given, but AFAIK, no order was placed.
 

SQ8

ADVISORS
Mar 28, 2009
35,521
413
74,990
Country
United States
Location
United States
They have procured both. Spike was originally cancelled but after swift retort and its preceding and succeeding skirmishes IA decided to procure it. 250+ launchers have been procured.
However I suppose the biggest threat comes from the Nag/Helina missile since it is indigenous. It would prove lethal if India equips its BMP2s, which india has plenty of, with them. Also if India is able to mass produce LCH equipped with them,we will be facing serious difficulties.
Btw I feel we are lagging behind in terms of atgms. I'd suggest procuring aft-10
wtih HJ-10 from China or equipping them on our M113s, if not any indigenous NLOS.
Add to this that we has less armor comparatively - from the limited 20000ft view it seems our armored offensives are likely to face a similar mauling in terms of effectiveness as with Longewala. Defensive maneuvers may fare better only if the PAF can guarantee top cover to keep CBU armed IAF assets at bay and AD is capable of keeping any helis from operating effectively.

So far it seems the priorities of the brass on the surface definitely don’t seem to involve rapid closing of the gaps.
 

Desert Fox 1

FULL MEMBER
Aug 11, 2020
931
2
1,974
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
We
Add to this that we has less armor comparative
have qualitative edge, plus I have figured out that our official numbers are far less than those calculated by their deployment.

AD is capable
Embedded MANPADs (FN, Anza, RBS), FM-90s are integral part of all armoured formations. Also in a recent exercise LY80 was also seen with the mech elements.t
PAF can guarantee top cover to keep CBU
The only way to achieve that is by suppression of enemy air bases. In fact both sides want to do it.
Defensive maneuvers may fare bette
Dear, mechanised warfare is more about the way and place where you deploy your forces than just numbers or even technology. At Assal Uttar we had both technical as well as numerical superiority. We had M48s, THE best tank of that time, a whole armoured div of them along with an infantry Division yet we gained nothing and lost our offensive capability. The Indians were a single Mountain division with an enforcedCenturion regiment and some AMX light tanks.
On the other hand In 1971 India had 11 and 12 Divisions, an independent infantry brigade, and some extra tank regiments in the Naya Chor region threatening the famous North-south link of Pakistan. The attack of 11 div was thwarted as the commander of Pakistani bde decided to fall back to a more defendable place i.e Naya Chor itself while that of 12 inf div was pre-empted by Pakistan army with a single bde of 33 inf div and A SINGLE ARMOURED REGT. You can draw the conclusions yourself...
An armoured division bashing itself against enemy defences will never be able to do as much damage as a single armoured regt that has found a gap and has exploited it with mechanised infantry following...
rapid closing of the gaps.
The price of NLOS is too high to be much beneficial. It is better to have atgms woth range of 7-12 km which are relatively cheaper than to have those of 20km+ range but due the cost the commander will think twice before committing them. Also won't it better to raise more armoured regiments than yo buy super expensive atgms that can never be fielded in sufficient numbers.


Here I calculated the number of tanks by deployment. You can reduce upto200 tanks to remain on the safe side but even then the numbers are too high.
P.S tge numbers are very rough and approximated for easier calculations.
-PA armd divs plus indp armd bdes of 1 and 2 corps= 2×450=900 tanks.
-2× mech divs(25 and 26)= 2×250=250 tanks.
- Armd bdes with inf divs (15, 10, 17, 16, 18, 14, 8, 11, 23, 40, 8, 37and 35)=13×88= 1144 tanks.
- Indp Armd bdes with IV, V, 30, 31=4×88= 352 tanks.
- IABGs= 4( I'm writing 4 as not all have thw regts) ×88= 352 tanks.
- Atleast 1× armd regt in Balochistan=44 tanks.
plus there might be one indp armd bde/regt either with 19div or 10corps.
Thus, total number of tanks (theoretically)= 900 + 500 + 1144 + 352 + 616 = 3512 tanks (atleast)
But according to most sources there are more then 60 regts = 64 (estimated)×44 = 2816 tanks.
That means a defecit of 696 tanks atleast!
And our published tank numbers are:
Alkhalids/ AK1s= 500
T80UD= 320
AlZarrars=800
Type-85s=300
Type-69s= 176
( Not including VT4s as these numbers are before its induction)
Also these numbers may not be accurate but I've increased them in order to match most sources especially that of AKs.
Thus total tanks according to type≈2200 tanks.
Such a great defecit!

@PanzerKiel @Dazzler
@Ark_Angel @Tipu7 @Signalian @HRK
 
Last edited:

Cookie Monster

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 31, 2016
3,748
6
5,784
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Add to this that we has less armor comparatively - from the limited 20000ft view it seems our armored offensives are likely to face a similar mauling in terms of effectiveness as with Longewala. Defensive maneuvers may fare better only if the PAF can guarantee top cover to keep CBU armed IAF assets at bay and AD is capable of keeping any helis from operating effectively.

So far it seems the priorities of the brass on the surface definitely don’t seem to involve rapid closing of the gaps.
Can Pak acquire something akin to CBU for Indian armor? PAF equipped with a CBU like equivalent would be far more effective against advancing Indian armor...as opposed to only serving the role of air cover and keeping IAF's CBU equipped aircraft at bay.
 

Huffal

FULL MEMBER
Dec 27, 2020
1,321
0
1,369
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Add to this that we has less armor comparatively - from the limited 20000ft view it seems our armored offensives are likely to face a similar mauling in terms of effectiveness as with Longewala. Defensive maneuvers may fare better only if the PAF can guarantee top cover to keep CBU armed IAF assets at bay and AD is capable of keeping any helis from operating effectively.

So far it seems the priorities of the brass on the surface definitely don’t seem to involve rapid closing of the gaps.
Ly80/HQ16A are apart of army AD. They can intercept enemy aircraft at ranges of 40km and heights of 18km (59k ft). That's can counter the IAF jaguars with the CBU
Can Pak acquire something akin to CBU for Indian armor? PAF equipped with a CBU like equivalent would be far more effective against advancing Indian armor...as opposed to only serving the role of air cover and keeping IAF's CBU equipped aircraft at bay.
I would love to see a derivative of that in service with our airforce.
 

SQ8

ADVISORS
Mar 28, 2009
35,521
413
74,990
Country
United States
Location
United States
We
have qualitative edge, plus I have figured out that our official numbers are far less than those calculated by their deployment.


Embedded MANPADs (FN, Anza, RBS), FM-90s are integral part of all armoured formations. Also in a recent exercise LY80 was also seen with the mech elements.t
The only way to achieve that is by suppression of enemy air bases. In fact both sides want to do it.

Dear, mechanised warfare is more about the way and place where you deploy your forces than just numbers or even technology. At Assal Uttar we had both technical as well as numerical superiority. We had M48s, THE best tank of that time, a whole armoured div of them along with an infantry Division yet we gained nothing and lost our offensive capability. The Indians were a single Mountain division with an enforcedCenturion regiment and some AMX light tanks.
On the other hand In 1971 India had 11 and 12 Divisions, an independent infantry brigade, and some extra tank regiments in the Naya Chor region threatening the famous North-south link of Pakistan. The attack of 11 div was thwarted as the commander of Pakistani bde decided to fall back to a more defendable place i.e Naya Chor itself while that of 12 inf div was pre-empted by Pakistan army with a single bde of 33 inf div and A SINGLE ARMOURED REGT. You can draw the conclusions yourself...
An armoured division bashing itself against enemy defences will never be able to do as much damage as a single armoured regt that has found a gap and has exploited it with mechanised infantry following...

The price of NLOS is too high to be much beneficial. It is better to have atgms woth range of 7-12 km which are relatively cheaper than to have those of 20km+ range but due the cost the commander will think twice before committing them. Also won't it better to raise more armoured regiments than yo buy super expensive atgms that can never be fielded in sufficient numbers.


Here I calculated the number of tanks by deployment. You can reduce upto200 tanks to remain on the safe side but even then the numbers are too high.
P.S tge numbers are very rough and approximated for easier calculations.
I presume MANPADs are to deter 10-15km radius at best? The LY-80 cannot fire on the move, it is likely to be used for brigade(or battalion at best) level much like the Egyptians did to some extent with their Sa-6s in the 73 conflict but would not be able to move with a company - the HQ-7 comes into that calculus. All SHORADs that accompany a company or troop have to consider the following when going into an area.

1. Sufficient area for dispersion.
2. Alternate exit and entrance routes.
3. Easily defended against ground attack.
4. Easily recognizable and known to all friendly forces in area.
5. Good communications with higher, lower, and supported units.
6.Good observation.
7. Reconnaissance prior to occupation.
8. Coordination with adjacent unit prior to occupation.
9.Area secured prior to occupation; listening post and observation post established at main entrance.

I am sure they are capable of rapid redeployments but a true moving assets is the SPAAG like a
Pantsir(scuttled deal) or other SPAAG equipped with Short range systems. The Tor-M1 is another one that is expected to move 6-10km behind the FLOT.

Either way, the Indians have leapfrogged that aspect of forcing aircraft into dense low level AAA through the CBU-105 procurement. How effective their assets are in deployment of this system is unknown but if they are proficient then it is a very powerful tool to negate any qualitative superiority over Indian armor since they’ll decimate tank numbers enough to make their quantity worthwhile.

Again, a lot of factors apply such as asset mobility, dispersion, cover and so on. But each of those has tools available to negate it and counters to those tools. From that 20000ft level it doesn’t look like the equation is that “balanced” as is being proposed here
Ly80/HQ16A are apart of army AD. They can intercept enemy aircraft at ranges of 40km and heights of 18km (59k ft). That's can counter the IAF jaguars with the CBU

I would love to see a derivative of that in service with our airforce.
Is the assumption those aircraft will not be accompanied by EW and battlefield SEAD assets?
Can Pak acquire something akin to CBU for Indian armor? PAF equipped with a CBU like equivalent would be far more effective against advancing Indian armor...as opposed to only serving the role of air cover and keeping IAF's CBU equipped aircraft at bay.
The Chinese have a LS-6 derivative with Anti-Personnel/ Anti-Material payload but no sensor fuzed skeets like the CBU-105x
 
Last edited:

Bilal.

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 9, 2013
4,907
9
6,724
The Chinese have a LS-6 derivative with Anti-Personnel/ Anti-Material payload but no sensor fuzed skeets like the CBU-105x
They have sensor-fuzed skeets for artillery rockets. Never understood why they never mated it with aerial bomb to make their own CBU105 equivalent.
 

Desert Fox 1

FULL MEMBER
Aug 11, 2020
931
2
1,974
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
I presume MANPADs are to deter 10-15km radius
10km at best.
I wonder why we are not looking into neither HQ-17 nor any CBU-105 type munition.
Either way, the Indians have leapfrogged that aspect of forcing aircraft into dense low level AAA through the CBU-105 procurement. How effective their assets are in deployment of this system is unknown but if they are proficient then it is a very powerful tool to negate any qualitative superiority over Indian armor since they’ll decimate tank numbers enough to make their quantity worthwhile.
Due to these reasons as well as the numerical superiority of IAF, PAF will be facing serious strain in a battle of attrition. Thus we HAVE to suppress the enemy bases within 150-200km of the border at all costs. If we are able to do that we can move our armoured formations with relative ease just like the Israelis did in 67. We have to do the pre-emptive on IAF bases other wise their numbers along with decent quality will be difficult to handle and as you have pointed out our Short ranged SAMs will be useless. The bases within this range can be suppressed by A100s or Fatah which can be equipped with cluster munitions as well as the GBU-6A having a range of 120+ km, if not by PAF itself due to strong enemy AD concentration. However even that(S400 etc) can be neutralised because I bet our intel knows the locations of their AD assets which canbe then engaged by various munitions. Indians knew this aim of PA and hence one of the reasons IAF opted SU-30s( and later its integration Brahmos) was its ability to operate from air bases deeper in India,out of reach of PAF... If we are able to do this we can pretty much stop worrying about the CBU-105 problem as well. After suppressing these bases we can monitor those bases far away with ground(tps, jy27) as well as airbased radars (this point also justifies why we have more AEWACS then our commonly thought of requirements) so any package taking off from deeper enemy territory can be intercepted by PAF before reaching our armoured spearheads. I believe the current procurement of J10C (if), is not as a bomb truck or a replacement for mirages as is commonly believed, but because PAF lacks a strong capability to perform long range interception (and interdiction), deep strike missions. In short, preventing IAF from using its numbers is the key to Pakistani success both on land as well as the air.

Tbh I'm enjoying this discussion because it involves operational level discussion keeping in view the tactical level complications.
 
Last edited:

Inception-06

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 17, 2007
3,558
17
4,680
Country
Pakistan
Location
Germany
We
have qualitative edge, plus I have figured out that our official numbers are far less than those calculated by their deployment.


Embedded MANPADs (FN, Anza, RBS), FM-90s are integral part of all armoured formations. Also in a recent exercise LY80 was also seen with the mech elements.t
The only way to achieve that is by suppression of enemy air bases. In fact both sides want to do it.

Dear, mechanised warfare is more about the way and place where you deploy your forces than just numbers or even technology. At Assal Uttar we had both technical as well as numerical superiority. We had M48s, THE best tank of that time, a whole armoured div of them along with an infantry Division yet we gained nothing and lost our offensive capability. The Indians were a single Mountain division with an enforcedCenturion regiment and some AMX light tanks.
On the other hand In 1971 India had 11 and 12 Divisions, an independent infantry brigade, and some extra tank regiments in the Naya Chor region threatening the famous North-south link of Pakistan. The attack of 11 div was thwarted as the commander of Pakistani bde decided to fall back to a more defendable place i.e Naya Chor itself while that of 12 inf div was pre-empted by Pakistan army with a single bde of 33 inf div and A SINGLE ARMOURED REGT. You can draw the conclusions yourself...
An armoured division bashing itself against enemy defences will never be able to do as much damage as a single armoured regt that has found a gap and has exploited it with mechanised infantry following...

The price of NLOS is too high to be much beneficial. It is better to have atgms woth range of 7-12 km which are relatively cheaper than to have those of 20km+ range but due the cost the commander will think twice before committing them. Also won't it better to raise more armoured regiments than yo buy super expensive atgms that can never be fielded in sufficient numbers.


Here I calculated the number of tanks by deployment. You can reduce upto200 tanks to remain on the safe side but even then the numbers are too high.
P.S tge numbers are very rough and approximated for easier calculations.
Good reply, but regarding mobile air defenses, your ignoring the shortcomings. No effective offensive maneuvers will be possible, with the actual equipment and doctrines, without repeating a longewala disaster.
 

Desert Fox 1

FULL MEMBER
Aug 11, 2020
931
2
1,974
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
your ignoring the shortcomings.
Sir please elaborate bit further. Thanks.
Btw I believe that only some short to medium range Mobile air defence would be useful, without them, the current short range ones are of little use against IAF packages especially when thay are using SOWs and REKs.
 
Last edited:

Great Janjua

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 13, 2016
2,390
-3
2,442
Country
United Kingdom
Location
Pakistan
For shoot whilst on move AAD the Turks have the korkut SPAAD a very lethal piece of equipment if used properly with armoured thrusts.I heard the Army AAD was evaluating the system last year but like always the army has a mind of its own,Don't know what panned out next after the evaluations.
 

Attachments

farooqbhai007

FULL MEMBER
Feb 18, 2019
275
4
669
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
For shoot whilst on move AAD the Turks have the korkut SPAAD a very lethal piece of equipment if used properly with armoured thrusts.I heard the Army AAD was evaluating the system last year but like always the army has a mind of its own,Don't know what panned out next after the evaluations.
If I remember correctly based on some sources the Korkut was trialed by PA on a M113 derivative chassis.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Top Bottom