What's new

Long Range SAM System For PAF To Counter Indian MRCA+PAK-FA

The possibility of detection is there as long as there is any kind of emission around. The AESA radars are difficult to detect but the emission is still there and to reduce it, emission cancellation device is needed to effectively counter any threats in the area otherwise its chances of detection and destruction are there.
 
at any price we nees state of the art SAM system which can destroy and detect enemy fighter jets at long range and high altittudes.
 
Taiwans recent purchase of 114 patriot sam missles from USA has cost them $3 billion.

India acquired 6 battries of S300 off Russia (48 missles per battery) for a staggering $1 billion way back in the 1990s

Today that too would cost over $2 billion

Half a dozen batteries of Modern state of the Art SAM systems cost more than 100 JF17 thunder fighters... AS DEMONSTARTED by Taiwan,s order last week
 
Taiwans recent purchase of 114 patriot sam missles from USA has cost them $3 billion.

India acquired 6 battries of S300 off Russia (48 missles per battery) for a staggering $1 billion way back in the 1990s

Today that too would cost over $2 billion

Half a dozen batteries of Modern state of the Art SAM systems cost more than 100 JF17 thunder fighters... AS DEMONSTARTED by Taiwan,s order last week

the question is 48 missiles S-300 system costs around around 1 billion while a HARM missile costs around $250,000!! so all you need is a salvo of HARM missiles & the radar can be taken eliminating the threat the S-300 possesses!
 
I think best way to counter indian acusations of fighter jets every day growing with tejas pakfa and mrca and after that they will buy other 100+ fighter jet to take all jaguars out of IAF we all are talking what fighter jet paf buys to counter it buying fighter jet is a big headache to a country like pakistan and maintaning it is a big ask for pakistani think PAF should not waste its money after getting J 10B and than go for lattest SAM system which is on offer to PAF i know we are getting SPADA 2000 but it is medium range if we need to vounter IAF we need long range sam system of high quality and may be other one to if we have to defend pakistan from sea two sam system will do better low cost it will hit its targets 100 percent sure and twice the speed of fighter jet what paf needs more but with it paf has to look for state of the art jamming system to jam the radars of fighter jets of IAF who want to destroy pakistan's SAM system batteries with anti radiation misssiles and harpy drone and our fighter jets should be in border of pakistan and india looking for air threats if they cant bring them down than sam system will make them grounded so i bellieve that S-300 copy from china is going to be priority for PAF but other sam system has to be from europe of high quality what it should be S-400 willl be out of reach of PAF
Even the best SAM systems in the world can protect your vital assets in limited manner. Well known SAMs like S300 or Patriot only give initial thrust to the misiles i.e the missiles can not manuever as per the command of controlling system after a brief period. So they can be out manuevered by modern fighters. You must need fighters to chase out the enemy fighters out of your sky. There is no substitute of that. If any SAM system is ever developed that can to do the job (taking on enemy aircrafts) better than the fighters, it will be much more expensive than fighters.
 
Hi,

You ought to have a combination of long range short range missiles---the defence is incompletre without long range missiles---it keeps the enemy awacs at bay and gives something for the attacking planes to think of, against a layered security----.
 
the question is 48 missiles S-300 system costs around around 1 billion while a HARM missile costs around $250,000!! so all you need is a salvo of HARM missiles & the radar can be taken eliminating the threat the S-300 possesses!

I tells that 48 x 6 batteries not only 48 missiles,

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 Pakistan's M-11 missiles.

We never try to tell that Indians use the SAM against PAF due to offensive doctrine. ya we use it just to defend, but PAF will first come across the IAF jets and to use the HARM...

HARM
Operational range 57 nautical miles (66 mi; 106 km)

S-300PMU-2 Indian Version
Target detection range : 300 km (186mile)
Target tracking/missile guidance : 200 km (124mile)
Simultaneously tracked targets : 72
Simultaneously engaged targets : 36

How a HARM can Hit a Radar...???:what::what::what:
 
A very effective solution in this matter can be the Ukrainian Kolchuga Passive Radar which is considered the most capable passive sensor the world, even better than Chezk Veera and Tamara. More info here.
No such thing as a 'passive radar'.

"The Ukrainian scientific, engineering, and design solutions in the field of passive radiolocation, embodied in the Kolchuga complex, are what is eating U.S. designers and government functionaries, who are responsible for stealth technologies in modern armaments. Such technologies are meant to fulfill every general’s dream: to make his aircraft, ships, tanks, and other hardware invisible to enemies. The geometrical shape may be changed (like in the F-117 or B-2) to disperse a reflected signal from active radars, or there may be various wave-absorbing coatings to transform active signals into heat energy. But no modern military aircraft, tank, or ship can exist without its own radar. Without a radiating aerial it is simply “blind”. That is why every aircraft, ship, and ground-based radar complex has active radiolocation devices. These devices are always on, emitting radio signals. Each specific type of hardware emits signals within different parameters. Consequently, a machine on which an emitting radar is mounted can be identified.
That is funny...:lol:...Because the F-117 does not have a radar...:lol:

The rest of the article is mostly propaganda designed for the gullible.

Silent Sentry | Lockheed Martin
Silent Sentry’s Passive Coherent Location (PCL) technology provides precise, real-time, all-weather detection and tracking ideal for air surveillance, missile tracking and homeland security applications. Silent Sentry’s innovative approach is totally passive, allowing targets to be tracked without generating any RF energy by using existing broadcast signals from FM radio and TV (analog and digital) transmitters across the globe. This virtually undetectable surveillance system has no safety or environmental impact. With no moving parts and a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) approach, Silent Sentry is less expensive to acquire, operate and maintain than traditional radar systems.

Radar detection is a two-part process: Transmission and Reception. Without either part, there is no radar detection. I do not care what the Russians, the Ukrainians or even the Chinese said. They are not so advanced as to defy the laws of physics.

The issue here is whether or not both parts are under the control of a single operator. Silent Sentry and Kolchuga are technically passive sensor systems that must rely upon EM transmissions that are NOT under their control. These EM transmissions can be from ordinary radio and television signals. In other words, we have two distinct properties of this configuration: That the transmission part is not under the control of a single operator. And that the configuration is that of a bi-static radar systems.

Bistatic radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bistatic radar is the name given to a radar system which comprises a transmitter and receiver which are separated by a distance that is comparable to the expected target distance. Conversely, a radar in which the transmitter and receiver are collocated is called a monostatic radar.
In a mono-static radar system, we have one antenna. The transmitter and receiver are distinct entities inside a single container. In a bi-static radar system, we have two antennas: the transmitter antenna and the receiver antenna. Usually, the bi-static operations, transmitter and receiver, are under the control of a single operator. But in the cases of Silent Sentry and Kolchuga, each system is the receiver part of a bi-static operation. As long as they are looking for echoes that are produced by an aircraft and some EM source, we have radar detection. Radio and television EM transmissions are the 'transmitter' part of a bi-static radar system. Silent Sentry and Kolchuga are the 'receiver' part of a bi-static radar system. The whole thing still fall under the heading called 'radar detection'.

29a78733a1e7ec2a35d9483b697a2d53.jpg


The above is essentially how a bi-static operation works. Even though we have two receivers, each transmitter-receiver pairing is a bi-static system with 'Receiver B' in the most advantageous position to detection a low observable aircraft due to the deflection behavior of an EM signal upon a body.

Yes...The greatest threat to low observable aircrafts are bi-static radars due to the deflection behavior of an EM signal upon a body.

Unfortunately for the Kolchuga propagandists eager to make as many sales as possible to gullible Third World ME despots, all we have to do is destroy or severely disable a city's electrical source. No FM and/or television signals, no transmitters. No transmitter in a bi-static configuration, no radar detection. Keep in mind that we did cripple such power sources in Iraq.
 
I tells that 48 x 6 batteries not only 48 missiles,

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 Pakistan's M-11 missiles.

We never try to tell that Indians use the SAM against PAF due to offensive doctrine. ya we use it just to defend, but PAF will first come across the IAF jets and to use the HARM...

HARM
Operational range 57 nautical miles (66 mi; 106 km)

S-300PMU-2 Indian Version
Target detection range : 300 km (186mile)
Target tracking/missile guidance : 200 km (124mile)
Simultaneously tracked targets : 72
Simultaneously engaged targets : 36

How a HARM can Hit a Radar...???:what::what::what:

well ok this is my take on it....firstly it will become a game of numbers RAAD cruise missiles launched from our fighters aimed at the active radar guiding the S-300 launchers! ofcourse this will lead to loss of a major number of cruise missiles! most of the would be taken out by your S-300 systems!

however, you will end up firing all your missiles at an incoming threat of cruise missiles! once your canisters are empty we get a 30 minutes window of opportunity (that is the time i think it takes to reload the S-300 missiles system...correct me if i am wrong)!

we basically get 30 minutes time to launch a second salvo of this time MAR-1s that we are currently buying from brazil. we end up taking out the radars so that even when loaded the S-300 missile battery's will have no radars to guide the missiles!

and just for your knowledge my friend HARM is an anti radiation missile it homes in on the radar!

this my friend is my take on a PAF operation to neutralize your S-300 threat....ofcourse there are many more technical details to it....but this is just an outline...this i call "Operation Romeo Must Die":cheesy:


i guess people like gambit & Taimikhan can fix the scenario i have suggested as they might have more technical knowledge as to what i suggest is do able or not. there surely has to be a way to defeat the indian S-300 line of defense!!
 
There is something going on for a long range SAM system and we are interested in Chinese FD-2000/HQ-9. Lets see what unfolds in months to come.
 
@Gambit

Can you explain just why the Americans stopped delivery of Vera Radar to China? What was the concern there?

""The Bush administration blocked the sale of an advanced radar system to China and might purchase at least one of the stealth aircraft-detecting systems to offset the loss, U.S. and European officials said.

China had sought to buy several high-technology Vera radar from a Czech Republic manufacturer in the past five months, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

"This is not something we wanted the Chinese to have," said one Bush administration official who opposed the sale.

At the Pentagon, a defense official would not comment directly on the radar sale, but said: "Any system that would enhance [China's] ability to alter the balance of power in the region is inherently destabilizing."

A European diplomat said the United States several weeks ago pressed the Prague government, a new NATO ally, to block the sale after the government there issued an export license to the export company Omnipol.

"They said this was not a good thing to do because of some U.S. strategic interest in that part of the world," the diplomat said of the Bush administration appeals.

Vera is a second-generation, passive radar-detection system that American officials think has some capability to detect U.S. radar-evading stealth aircraft, a key U.S. military advantage.

The radar is manufactured by a firm called ERA, based in Pardubice.

An earlier version of the radar, known as Tamara, was sought by Iraqi arms buyers in 1997 and by Iran in 1999.

In Prague, Czech Prime Minister Vladimir Spidla told the CTK news agency on Thursday that the radar sale to China was canceled because it was not in the country's interest. A Chinese Embassy spokesman had no immediate comment on the canceled sale.

The Pentagon opposed the sale because of concerns that the radar could be used against U.S. aircraft if a conflict erupted across the Taiwan Strait. The United States has said it would back the Republic of China (Taiwan) in a conflict with China if Beijing's communist government sought to use force to annex the island, which split from the mainland in 1949.

The European diplomat said the U.S. and Czech governments are discussing the sale of at least one Vera radar to the United States.

"And if there is a market, possibly more," the diplomat said. "It will either go to the United States or to a NATO country. But it is not going to China."

The talks involve discussions between Pentagon officials and the Czech arms company Thomas CZ.

The proposed sale highlights China's effort to use European weapons and arms technology to build up its military forces. In recent years, China has purchased Russian-made warplanes, submarines and warships. Beijing also has acquired dual-use commercial items that it is using for its military buildup, U.S. officials said.

The behind-the-scenes effort to block the radar sale also indicates that the United States, despite its current focus on terrorism, regards China as a future strategic rival.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld traveled to Asia in November and said he is reviewing U.S. force deployments there. Mr. Rumsfeld has said that China's future is uncertain and that it could develop as either a friendly or hostile power.

Last month, the European Union temporarily held off lifting its embargo on arms sales to China. The sanctions were imposed after China's 1989 military crackdown on the Tiananmen Square protests.

Radar sale to China stopped - Washington Times
 
well ok this is my take on it....firstly it will become a game of numbers RAAD cruise missiles launched from our fighters aimed at the active radar guiding the S-300 launchers! ofcourse this will lead to loss of a major number of cruise missiles! most of the would be taken out by your S-300 systems!

however, you will end up firing all your missiles at an incoming threat of cruise missiles! once your canisters are empty we get a 30 minutes window of opportunity (that is the time i think it takes to reload the S-300 missiles system...correct me if i am wrong)!

we basically get 30 minutes time to launch a second salvo of this time MAR-1s that we are currently buying from brazil. we end up taking out the radars so that even when loaded the S-300 missile battery's will have no radars to guide the missiles!

and just for your knowledge my friend HARM is an anti radiation missile it homes in on the radar!

this my friend is my take on a PAF operation to neutralize your S-300 threat....ofcourse there are many more technical details to it....but this is just an outline...this i call "Operation Romeo Must Die":cheesy:


i guess people like gambit & Taimikhan can fix the scenario i have suggested as they might have more technical knowledge as to what i suggest is do able or not. there surely has to be a way to defeat the indian S-300 line of defense!!

There are 2 flaws in this scenario that i can see.
1. You are assuming that all the radars that India has controlling the S300 will be emitting at the word go and will be taken out by your salvo after which there will be no more radars that can go online
2. That IAF will be sitting idle while your planes fire salvo after salvo of cruise missiles...:azn:
Also how big an attack fleet will PAF need to exhaust all the canisters of the guarding S300s?? I am not sure how many cruise missiles can you arm on a single fighter
 
No such thing as a 'passive radar'.

Radar detection is a two-part process: Transmission and Reception.

Suppose I remove the transmission part. Depending upon emission of the target only, not even TV/FM signals. Would not passive sensors detect the emission of old/non Aesa radars?
 
Sams Are never an Option to control Air threats to more than 20-30%..... Aircrafts Need to Be Engaged In Air by another Aircraft if It has To Defend its country.... So With the growing Aircrafts In The Indian Arsenal, Pakistan Must Also Head Its Way into procuring More and More Aircrafts and That too Aircrafts With High caliber
 
There are 2 flaws in this scenario that i can see.
1. You are assuming that all the radars that India has controlling the S300 will be emitting at the word go and will be taken out by your salvo after which there will be no more radars that can go online
2. That IAF will be sitting idle while your planes fire salvo after salvo of cruise missiles...:azn:
Also how big an attack fleet will PAF need to exhaust all the canisters of the guarding S300s?? I am not sure how many cruise missiles can you arm on a single fighter

Some things to be added alongwith your post.

The added presence of India's ABM system (under development), Akash SAM's (Medium Range) and SPYDER (Quick Reaction SAM's) are there as well to complement the S300 batteries.

One aircraft can carry only one cruise missile. I'm not sure how many planes in the PAF are capable of launching the RAAD. The success rate of the S-300 is amongst the best in the world ~95%.
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom