LY-80 deliveries to Pakistan complete

[Signalian]

Good assets for VP/VA protection under Army. However, the FD-2000 would be more crucial. Btw, we use FM-90 and mix of RBS-70/AAA to protect our mobile formations.

Not sure of FM-90 crossing the border with mobile and armored forces in case of war.

Doesn't apaches missiles have greater range? They can destroy m 113

Its not a video game.

All those who are asking what's next must look at how SAM systems have been inducted by PAF and PA. Starting from short range/low altitude ones to Low-to-medium ones. So, logically speaking, next induction would be medium-to-high altitude/range systems like HQ-9/FD-2000 but that's not going to happen overnight or next year, may be not in next 3-5 years. Systems like these require army to absorb technology, devise strategies to deploy them during any war like situation and then through rigorous war gaming identifying the areas where a more potent system is required. Once army does that, the required system might turned out something very different from what we are hoping (e.g. HQ9 etc.) PA has been working on improving air-defense since quite some time now and new systems have been inducted and there is nothing that tells that this is going to stop happening now. So, please have confidence on your armed forces. Recent events have proved that they know a lot better how to tackle a technically and numerically superior enemy. Pakistan Zindabad.

Good post. HQ-9 should be PAF's consideration more than PA's.

Army's job is to protect the whole country ...not the bloody cantonments only.

Its foremost PAF's job to provide clear skies in Pakistan air space.

While some of you might be right regarding what the military could order, you’re not right regarding what the military should do. You don’t know the finances and the issues with trade and transfer and buying. Or raising units or training men for them. You know nothing of the on ground realties. So stop complaining about what the military does while you sit in in your homes please. The generals planning this aren’t dumb, they’re also rational people like you but with at least 3-4 decades more experience. It’s not as simple as just seeing an issue and fixing it. There’s multiple layers involved. Think rationally. Not ideally. And don’t think or speak at all when you don’t know the cause of the issue and it’s circumstance.
On topic: I believe there will be more additions. Just with different systems. Our military does like to be diverse it seems. Procurement can’t just completely stop. We won’t have 9 batteries forever. So be patient.

Members here want top of the line equipment and in dozens. Yes, there are certain requirements for all types of AD systems but things are falling into place.

If one reads the book "Bear Trap" where Pakistani ISI effectively utilized SAMs against the Soviet Union, we have the cart before the horse. SAMs are not to be employed defensively but offensively to get the best success rates. Unfortunately, this lesson which took us the entire Afghan war to learn, has already been forgotten.

3rd and 4th Air Defense Divisions, and AD Brigade Groups have been raised already.

The Air Defence Divisions were raised shortly after Afghan war, in 1990's

 

[war&peace]

Its foremost PAF's job to provide clear skies in Pakistan air space.

So a S400 or HQ9 system has to be purchased by PAF? That's new matey

 

[Signalian]

So a S400 or HQ9 system has to be purchased by PAF? That's new matey

High altitude Air defense is provided by PAF.

 

[war&peace]

High altitude Air defense is provided by PAF.

Who will buy then LR-SAM (PAF or PA) ? Straight answer please
How is it handled in other countries? I feel there is confusion in our case or do we need a separate arm.

 

[Signalian]

Who will buy then LR-SAM (PAF or PA) ? Straight answer please
How is it handled in other countries? I feel there is confusion in our case or do we need a separate arm.

Is there a LR-SAM on the cards ? if yes which one ? There are rumors about HQ-9 and have been for years.
If a LR-SAM has to be bought, it comes under PAF's domain, not PA's. Why would PA need a LR-SAM for ? to defend its armored divisions ? PA needs a mobile SAM system to accompany its Armored Divisions which can protect armored vehicles from Low flying UCAV's, UAV's, Gunships, CAS aircrafts. Even IAF Strike aircraft have to come down to a certain altitude to deliver CBU-105.

I don't know how LR-SAM is handled in other countries. PAF has its own AD system and Radars. PA has its own Radars and SAM systems.

You can read about them here:
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/pakistans-air-defence-capabilities.612990/#post-11362164

and here:
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/current-combat-radars-of-pakistan-air-force.596684/page-6
You will see that PAF has long range Radar systems that could possibly support LR-SAM, unless the system comes with its own Radar.

and here:
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/paf-revamped-air-defense-alert-system.451267/

 

[Armchair]

Who will buy then LR-SAM (PAF or PA) ? Straight answer please
How is it handled in other countries? I feel there is confusion in our case or do we need a separate arm.

Man in charge of clearing this confusion spent 3 years researching the answer to how AD should be organized, and he was dismissed by Musharraf in 3 minutes, stating AD should remain the purview of PA for political reasons (more power to the Army)

 

[CriticalThought]

Who will buy then LR-SAM (PAF or PA) ? Straight answer please
How is it handled in other countries? I feel there is confusion in our case or do we need a separate arm.

It depends on what you intend to do with it, and what you are capable of.

Ground based radars are notorious for susceptibility to NoE tactics. As the distance increases away from the radar, the target must be on a greater height in order for the radar to detect it. This actually limits the use of long range radars. Contrary to what the Indians will have us believe, you can't target planes taking off from runways.

This changes if you are able to to integrate your LR-SAM with other sensors such as AEWACS AND your SAM missile has the capability to follow a long range parabolic trajectory and dive down to kill its target. Apparently the S-400 has this, given all the talk about the maneuverability of its long range missile, but I don't know about HQ-9.

In the absence of a maneuverable missile, you are better off using it as anti-ballistic or anti-satellite missile, or as back up for you shorter range SAMs. It depends on Pakistan Army doctrine if they find such a capability useful.

Now consider that Pakistan just signed a no first use of space weapons pact with Russia. What does that tell you?

 

[Armchair]

Still defensive role as you have also pointed out not, "active defence" you said but not offensive weapons.

Yes they may be deployed closer to border to serve as first line of defense but that is not practical really and you don't see many countries doing that, there must be a good reason! If we have some local system and we produce them in number we may be able to allocate some mobile systems to forward bases and border areas but cannot risk HIGH VALUE expensive limited number of imported SAMs by putting them near border and within enemy hit range. A land launched rocket may hit them, a few hundred thousand shell destroying a multi-million dollar system, not very wise. For that to be remotely sensible you need a cheap multi-layered home grown solution. LRSAM protected by medium range protected by point defence and QR systems. A very complex setup.

So ideally the surface to air missiles will continue to be deployed in defensive roles to protect key strategic assets.

Imagine you have an indigenous LRSAM that is 50 km away from the border... in constantly shifting positions. Imagine it can take potshots of slow, high value targets like refuelers, AWACS, EW aircraft at 200 km range. And IAF fighters at 100. You suddenly have an offensive system. Imagine these LRSAMs are layered with further sams, including more LRSAMs behind them.

India now has the problem of trying to figure out when and where what LRSAMs are deployed and failing which, they just don't know when an active or a passive missile is going to come up their tailpipes to give them a good morning...

 

[Signalian]

Imagine you have an indigenous LRSAM that is 50 km away from the border... in constantly shifting positions. Imagine it can take potshots of slow, high value targets like refuelers, AWACS, EW aircraft at 200 km range. And IAF fighters at 100. You suddenly have an offensive system. Imagine these LRSAMs are layered with further sams, including more LRSAMs behind them.

India now has the problem of trying to figure out when and where what LRSAMs are deployed and failing which, they just don't know when an active or a passive missile is going to come up their tailpipes to give them a good morning...

can you induct more fighter squadrons in PAF with all that money ?

Man in charge of clearing this confusion spent 3 years researching the answer to how AD should be organized, and he was dismissed by Musharraf in 3 minutes, stating AD should remain the purview of PA for political reasons (more power to the Army)

Musharraf is long gone and PAF has got what it wanted.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/paf-revamped-air-defense-alert-system.451267/

 

[Armchair]

can you induct more fighter squadrons in PAF with all that money ?

I think the right balance would have LRSAMs in the Pak inventory. Look at it this way - if we can cheaply produce a basic LRSAM that costs 2x of a ballistic missile, it would be worth it. It would give diversity to the air defense ecosystem and remember, while you need to spend money and train pilots to keep a squadron combat ready, an LRSAM just needs to nap in a safe place until needed.

Remember, we won't need a lot of radars - we can simply use the targeting information from other assets of the IADS PAF has already invested in. If a mobile battery of 3x trucks cost, for argument's sake, 10 million, for 50 million you could have a wild card element that distracts the IAF and makes their job complicated.

 

[Signalian]

I think the right balance would have LRSAMs in the Pak inventory. Look at it this way - if we can cheaply produce a basic LRSAM that costs 2x of a ballistic missile, it would be worth it. It would give diversity to the air defense ecosystem and remember, while you need to spend money and train pilots to keep a squadron combat ready, an LRSAM just needs to nap in a safe place until needed.

Remember, we won't need a lot of radars - we can simply use the targeting information from other assets of the IADS PAF has already invested in. If a mobile battery of 3x trucks cost, for argument's sake, 10 million, for 50 million you could have a wild card element that distracts the IAF and makes their job complicated.

PAF will still need to put CAP's in the air. PA will still need to cross the border with Strike Corps and operate inside enemy territory. This shows that modern warfare is about mobility, not static warfare. You are trying to convert a defensive sort of weapon into offensive when you have the options to buy more offensive weapons like aircrafts.

What about BM threat, should Pakistan get an ABM or LR-SAM ?

 

[R Wing]

what are you on and about ? which strategic error ?


so ?

1.) Waiting for MQM, TTP, TLP, PTM to morph into large movements that then required an order of magnitude greater resources (both in blood and treasure) to counter VS. nipping them in the bud

2.) Insistence on sacrificing the brave sons of our soil in the fight against paid/brainwashed militants (used as cannon fodder by foreign intelligence)
VS.
hitting the handlers (R&AW officers)
This resulted in a situation where many in the spec ops/CT/intel community were patting themselves on the back for risky (and often highly impressive) tactical and operational successes but without any strategic meaning

3.) Utterly failing to raise the cost for foreign intel, especially R&AW, for supporting anti-Pak terror; no negative incentives and no fear of consequences if I'm a R&AW officer = an invitation to cause trouble

4.) Giving into more US demands than even the US leadership expected --- says volumes; we did try to outsmart them on some things but the overall desperation for cooperation meant compromising nuclear and intel network security (candidly admitted by those involved)

5.) Only being harsh against 'militant' terrorists --- not against economic terrorists (corrupt politicians) and anti-State journalists like Cyril = again inviting more trouble

6.) Failing to develop any credible narrative on Indian state sponsorship of Baloch / TTP terrorism; no threats of war/surgical strikes/revenge after any attack in Balochistan = only Pakistan sponsors terrorists

 

[Armchair]

PAF will still need to put CAP's in the air. PA will still need to cross the border with Strike Corps and operate inside enemy territory. This shows that modern warfare is about mobility, not static warfare. You are trying to convert a defensive sort of weapon into offensive when you have the options to buy more offensive weapons like aircrafts.

What about BM threat, should Pakistan get an ABM or LR-SAM ?

I'm trying to build a balanced IADS which has LRSAMs and fighters. As opposed to a fighter heavy PAF that has neglected LRSAMs. Maybe @Oscar can give us an insight on why PAF purchased the Spada-2000, a weapon that I felt was already outdated when purchased.

This is what happens when there are too many fighter jockeys in top management.

Our experience in Afghanistan suggests magical returns when SAMs are used with an offensive doctrine.

 

[Signalian]

1.) Waiting for MQM, TTP, TLP, PTM to morph into large movements that then required an order of magnitude greater resources (both in blood and treasure) to counter VS. nipping them in the bud

2.) Insistence on sacrificing the brave sons of our soil in the fight against paid/brainwashed militants (used as cannon fodder by foreign intelligence)
VS.
hitting the handlers (R&AW officers)
This resulted in a situation where many in the spec ops/CT/intel community were patting themselves on the back for risky (and often highly impressive) tactical and operational successes but without any strategic meaning

3.) Utterly failing to raise the cost for foreign intel, especially R&AW, for supporting anti-Pak terror; no negative incentives and no fear of consequences if I'm a R&AW officer = an invitation to cause trouble

4.) Giving into more US demands than even the US leadership expected --- says volumes; we did try to outsmart them on some things but the overall desperation for cooperation meant compromising nuclear and intel network security (candidly admitted by those involved)

5.) Only being harsh against 'militant' terrorists --- not against economic terrorists (corrupt politicians) and anti-State journalists like Cyril = again inviting more trouble

6.) Failing to develop any credible narrative on Indian state sponsorship of Baloch / TTP terrorism; no threats of war/surgical strikes/revenge after any attack in Balochistan = only Pakistan sponsors terrorists

can't find SAM related part.
post this stuff in a related post/thread, not here.

I'm trying to build a balanced IADS which has LRSAMs and fighters. As opposed to a fighter heavy PAF that has neglected LRSAMs. Maybe @Oscar can give us an insight on why PAF purchased the Spada-2000, a weapon that I felt was already outdated when purchased.

This is what happens when there are too many fighter jockeys in top management.

Our experience in Afghanistan suggests magical returns when SAMs are used with an offensive doctrine.

You still cleanly went past by the ABM system.
Current PAF AD system is also Fighter + SAM combo along with AWACS support.
Afghan war was guerilla war against a conventional army and in 1980's, this is 2019 and will be between conventional militaries.

 

[Armchair]

can't find SAM related part.
post this stuff in a related post/thread, not here.


You still cleanly went past by the ABM system.
Current PAF AD system is also Fighter + SAM combo along with AWACS support.
Afghan war was guerilla war against a conventional army and in 1980's, this is 2019 and will be between conventional militaries.

But, I would argue, the lesson is still relevant. I don't really see much of a SAM combo, the Spada-2000s are next to useless. Ly-80s are part of defending the army's formations / headquarters / high value points / etc. There is no meaningful SAM strategy and doctrine. A local LR-SAM could really change the equation.