Italian firms keen on missile defence system deal with Pakistan

[Arsalan]

The reason why I caution about standardizing on the LY-80 is that there is a cost to induction at that scale, especially when local manufacturing is involved. This stuff will stick for a very long time. I agree with off-the-shelf LY-80 purchases, even for the Navy, but we need to step back from ToT and move ahead with organic R&D investment instead. The cost we'd incur for the ToT element could be put to developing our STEM base and kick-starting critical technology development. IMHO ToT from China especially is semi-redundant unless it contributes to native R&D (e.g. JF-17 to NGF), otherwise, just buy from China as-is.

Well your off the shelf purchase suggestion do makes sense sir but that is valid if:

1. We need a limited number of batteries, like 6! In truth, we need a lot more than this.
2. The replacement option, the how grown modern SAM systems with the ability to be quad packed for naval platforms can be made available trough RnD in an year or two. That too is an unlikely scenario.

On other hand, i think that ToT of a system, LY-80 or any else that we are to operate in number will give us a valuable insight into the technology and will pave way for a home grown solution. Currently we no real know how of this tech. Even LY80 can give us valuable experience in this regard. If there is an immediate solution available from South Africa or any other country that offers the same or more than what LY80 does that yes, we can go for a ToT for that system and then base our future SAM and even AAM programs on that missile. Currently, the Chinese with there weapon system seems like the most readily available and reliable source.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Well your off the shelf purchase suggestion do makes sense sir but that is valid if:

1. We need a limited number of batteries, like 6! In truth, we need a lot more than this.
2. The replacement option, the how grown modern SAM systems with the ability to be quad packed for naval platforms can be made available trough RnD in an year or two. That too is an unlikely scenario.

On other hand, i think that ToT of a system, LY-80 or any else that we are to operate in number will give us a valuable insight into the technology and will pave way for a home grown solution. Currently we no real know how of this tech. Even LY80 can give us valuable experience in this regard. If there is an immediate solution available from South Africa or any other country that offers the same or more than what LY80 does that yes, we can go for a ToT for that system and then base our future SAM and even AAM programs on that missile. Currently, the Chinese with there weapon system seems like the most readily available and reliable source.

To gain a valuable insight, the ToT would have to be deep, and that will be costly. The PAF paid for it via the JF-17 program, but that is an essential program for the near-term and long-term, I am not so sure if the LY-80 needs to be bought with ToT. It is a SALH-based system that can't be quad-packed, which means it isn't for the future. And ToT investments should not be made for things that do not have future (read: 25+ year) utility. Even if we need dozens of LY-80 systems, it will likely be less costly to just buy them off-the-shelf from China, as opposed to asking for deep ToT.

As for immediate solutions from elsewhere, there is the Umkhonto EIR. This was under development for a few years, and Denel Dynamics has begun showing it at defence exhibitions (starting with IDEX in UAE). It has a terminal IIR seeker and thrust-vectoring nozzles. In fact, the nozzles and rocket technology are drawn from the same pool as the A-Darter, a known HOBS AAM contender for the JF-17. If you want to spend on deep ToT, you spend there IMHO.

Alternatively, we ask for deep ToT for the SD-10 and tailor that into a quad-packed SAM.

 

[Arsalan]

To gain a valuable insight, the ToT would have to be deep, and that will be costly. The PAF paid for it via the JF-17 program, but that is an essential program for the near-term and long-term, I am not so sure if the LY-80 needs to be bought with ToT. It is a SALH-based system that can't be quad-packed, which means it isn't for the future. And ToT investments should not be made for things that do not have future (read: 25+ year) utility. Even if we need dozens of LY-80 systems, it will likely be less costly to just buy them off-the-shelf from China, as opposed to asking for deep ToT.

As for immediate solutions from elsewhere, there is the Umkhonto EIR. This was under development for a few years, and Denel Dynamics has begun showing it at defence exhibitions (starting with IDEX in UAE). It has a terminal IIR seeker and thrust-vectoring nozzles. In fact, the nozzles and rocket technology are drawn from the same pool as the A-Darter, a known HOBS AAM contender for the JF-17. If you want to spend on deep ToT, you spend there IMHO.

Alternatively, we ask for deep ToT for the SD-10 and tailor that into a quad-packed SAM.

Deep ToT is not what i meant, i should have been more clear about it, apologies!

What i meant was at least in-house production of missiles so we can make them in numbers. The point being that it will not only meet our immediate needs in Medium level air defense shield (the long range will surely be bought in very limited numbers and will be an of the shelf product) but will also help us study the mechanism, missile thruster motors, radar seekers and guidance system.

I fully agree that we should think 20-25 years ahead when it comes to military systems since we are not one who will be changing there equipment every few years. That means we should be working on our anti-air missiles (both surface and air launched ones) and for that there are a number of components that we will have to study.

If there are options available, like the ones you mentioned, that can be joined and procured in near future and have added benefit for naval platform (in its ability to be quad packed) then yes, Pakistan should surely join such projects. Standardization across all forces will be a huge asset as well. If there is some program like the one you mentioned that can be meet the needs of army and navy or navy army and air force then yes, we need to join that at the earliest. Even an SD-10 with better range (150-180Km) land based version along with one that can be quad packed for naval platforms will be EXCLLENT. Perhaps we should look into that as well since SD10 is going to be our primary BVRAAM for air force.

On a lighter note sir, frankly speaking, by the way our current SAM capabilities are i will really take anything and everything that can be acquired. We do need to at least get in place a medium level ground base air defense system. Although it will need money but need to keep moving in that direction. Even with advancements in war planes and there EW capabilities, SAM are here to stay for quite some time (specially considering there anti missile role and anti-UAV role).

BTW, do you think that some work can be done even on this system to get it to a dimension where you can fit four in one VLS cell?

Perhaps remove the tail fins and make it a bit slim? I guess it is a bit too fat at 34cm dia.
I am sure the seekers are not a problem, it is the main rocket that we need to get right (any option we choose) and eventually we will get it with a variety of different seekers.

EDIT:
The more i read about UMKHONTO the better it looks. Just need to work on range a bit more. 80-100 Km is what we should be looking at.
Do you think there are any chances we can join this program and go for this system?

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Deep ToT is not what i meant, i should have been more clear about it, apologies!

What i meant was at least in-house production of missiles so we can make them in numbers. The point being that it will not only meet our immediate needs in Medium level air defense shield (the long range will surely be bought in very limited numbers and will be an of the shelf product) but will also help us study the mechanism, missile thruster motors, radar seekers and guidance system.

I fully agree that we should think 20-25 years ahead when it comes to military systems since we are not one who will be changing there equipment every few years. That means we should be working on our anti-air missiles (both surface and air launched ones) and for that there are a number of components that we will have to study.

If there are options available, like the ones you mentioned, that can be joined and procured in near future and have added benefit for naval platform (in its ability to be quad packed) then yes, Pakistan should surely join such projects. Standardization across all forces will be a huge asset as well. If there is some program like the one you mentioned that can be meet the needs of army and navy or navy army and air force then yes, we need to join that at the earliest. Even an SD-10 with better range (150-180Km) land based version along with one that can be quad packed for naval platforms will be EXCLLENT. Perhaps we should look into that as well since SD10 is going to be our primary BVRAAM for air force.

On a lighter note sir, frankly speaking, by the way our current SAM capabilities are i will really take anything and everything that can be acquired. We do need to at least get in place a medium level ground base air defense system. Although it will need money but need to keep moving in that direction. Even with advancements in war planes and there EW capabilities, SAM are here to stay for quite some time (specially considering there anti missile role and anti-UAV role).

BTW, do you think that some work can be done even on this system to get it to a dimension where you can fit four in one VLS cell?
View attachment 390380
Perhaps remove the tail fins and make it a bit slim? I guess it is a bit too fat at 34cm dia.
I am sure the seekers are not a problem, it is the main rocket that we need to get right (any option we choose) and eventually we will get it with a variety of different seekers.

EDIT:
The more i read about UMKHONTO the better it looks. Just need to work on range a bit more. 80-100 Km is what we should be looking at.
Do you think there are any chances we can join this program and go for this system?

To quad-pack a missile - e.g. LY-80 or Umkhonto - we need to invest in the requisite R&D. Basically, one would need to secure thrust-vectoring nozzles and a strake-based airframe that isn't reliant on fins. You're basically re-designing the missile. Both platforms have the TVC, neither one is quad-pack ready though; so if you're going to invest, you're going to invest in one - and with that money, you'll want deep ToT.

From my standpoint, if we're to entertain ToT involving even missile manufacturing, we need to go all-in on that platform and stick with it for a few decades. ToT has a cost that will stick to each missile built, and in the case of the LY-80, I'm not sure what the point of ToT is when we can buy them from China. I don't think high numbers are a valid reason considering the efficiency of the Chinese industry. It needs to be for indigenous support.

For any domestic industry consideration, the conversation should be between deep ToT for the SD-10 or the Denel Dynamics Marlin (the next-phase of the A-Darter and Umkhonto). Nothing less of ToT for the dual-pulse rocket, TVC, terminal seekers, guidance systems, and the underlying R&D for each taking place in Kamra.

 

[ghauri05]

We should not accept anything without Transfer of technology.

Bhai agar kuch mil raha he na to le lo...ye ToT k chakar me par k india wala haal na kro apna
Pak is in dire need of medium and long range SAMs..so first step should be to procure them to have a proper air defense in place..then keep working on ToT etc. in the later stage.

 

[Zarvan]

Well recent news which suggested China giving us TOT of pretty much everything in my opinion only meant for Air Defence systems and I mean full TOT of entire Air Defence systems which we buy from China.

 

[Gryphon]

IDEAS: from armoured vehicles to mule saddles

News Nathan Gain 25th November 2016

Because we at FOB are at the service of our faithful readers, we ignored the à priori, the recommandations of the foreign ministry, put up with the heat and confronted the “gastronomic shock” to attend one of the last defence trade shows of the year: IDEAS (International Defence Exhibition And Seminar), organised every two years in Karachi, the economic powerhouse of Pakistan.

“Pakistan is a State inside an army,” a local journalist joked. An active army of 682,000 men and women who form the 7th military power in the world and who need to be equipped to fight the Taliban, counter the territorial ambitions of China and India and deal with internal instability.

This peculiar context has encouraged the creation and development of an ambivalent national industry which has produced both the first MRAP (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicle and the latest mule saddle, and where one can find side by side the latest jamming system and a licenced, gold-plated copy of the venerable, 50-year old MP5 submachine-gun.

When an 8×8 MRAP sits side by side with…

…a “modernised” mule saddle

Nevertheless, despite its substantial capacity to innovate, Pakistan still imports most of its equipment. Hence a large foreign contingent at the 9th IDEAS show, dominated by the presence of China, Turkey and… France. Because, yes, the Made in France, is quite popular in Pakistan. And to take advantage of this there were at least a dozen exhibitors, including MBDA, Thales, Safran, CNIM and ECA Group.

MBDA, represented here by its Italian branch, finalised in 2010 deliveries of the SPADA ground-based air defence system which is now in service with the Pakistan Air Force (PAF). The missile-house is now considering not only supplying more SPADA 2000s to the PAF, but also “plans to supply a few batteries to the ground forces,” MBDA told us. As the latter are looking for a more mobile system, MBDA last year proposed a technical solution with a view to opening negotiations with the Pakistani ground forces.

MBDA’s SPADA 2000 ground-based air defence system

The two defence electronics giants, Safran, via its Swiss subsidiary Vectronix, and Thales centred their stands on optronics. Pakistan is an historical client for Thales’ optronics division which has delivered almost 1,500 Catherine FC thermal cameras to the Pakistani security forces since 2005. In the wake of this success, the group is now seeking to have the Sophie-XF laser designator, released in 2014, evaluated by the Pakistani military.

As for Vectronix, it was showing the PLRF 25C pocket laser sight, the Moskito TI multipurpose target locator and the STERNA non-magnetic target acquisition system.

Thales is aiming for Pakistan with the Sophie XF

Because there are no countries without waterways that need to be crossed, it was not surprising to find CNIM here. Since 2014, this bridging specialist is in competition to supply 26 motorised floating bridges to the Pakistani army. Following a test phase, CNIM and its Chinese and Pakistani competitors are now negotiating. Apart from the qualities of a battle-proven system “CNIM guarantees a minimum 30-year life-span and will supply complete logistical support,” a local representative of the company told us.

For its first participation at the show, the ECA Group, apart from promoting its fleet of ground robots, chose to centre its offer on the renovation of the Pakistan Navy’s Agosta submarines.

IDEAS: from armoured vehicles to mule saddles | Forces Operations Blog

@Penguin @Path-Finder @Arsalan @Bilal Khan (Quwa)

 

[Hassan Guy]

Im not sure Italy will manufacture frigates with Pakistan, Turkey is more likely to do that.

I predicted the future again. (sort of)

 

[Zarvan]

I predicted the future again. (sort of)

Italy is offering Frigates and so in France and with TOT. We also got Midget subs from Italy with TOT previously

 

[Gryphon]

@Horus

Have you heard anything about Army's new SR-SAM requirement ?

Above report indicates this is a separate tender (from FM-90).

 

[YeBeWarned]

@TheOccupiedKashmir any information of Blitzkrige APC ? the design is finalized or not ? i have seen it at Ideas 2016, even sit inside it and have a little tour of it, that is one hell of a beast and perfect for Tribal Areas , the only disadvantage i think was its too bulky ..

maybe this can be our SR-SAM

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

@TheOccupiedKashmir any information of Blitzkrige APC ? the design is finalized or not ? i have seen it at Ideas 2016, even sit inside it and have a little tour of it, that is one hell of a beast and perfect for Tribal Areas , the only disadvantage i think was its too bulky ..

maybe this can be our SR-SAM

Didnt you ask urself?

P.S: Where did u get the pic from?

PA isnt buyin more defenders.

 

[YeBeWarned]

Didnt you ask urself?

P.S: Where did u get the pic from?

PA isnt buyin more defenders.

About Hamza ? well i wanted to know if its finalize ..

and i took that pic at ideas 2016 , if i am not wrong at MBDA stall ..

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

@Horus

Have you heard anything about Army's new SR-SAM requirement ?

Above report indicates this is a separate tender (from FM-90).

@balixd sir I'm not sure if it's you or someone else - but wasn't there an Army SAM tender in which the Umkhonto participated?

 

[Gryphon]

@TheOccupiedKashmir any information of Blitzkrige APC ? the design is finalized or not ? i have seen it at Ideas 2016, even sit inside it and have a little tour of it, that is one hell of a beast and perfect for Tribal Areas , the only disadvantage i think was its too bulky ..

maybe this can be our SR-SAM

Spada mobile version.

@balixd sir I'm not sure if it's you or someone else - but wasn't there an Army SAM tender in which the Umkhonto participated?

It appears PA wants a mobile SR-SAM to deal with PGMs. I can't think of any other role for a system like Spada or Umkhonto GBAD when FM-90 and LY-80 are in service.