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

[Donatello]

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]

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 while the missle is particularly out of date as a derivative of sparrow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.

 

[SQ8]

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]

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?

 

[Arsalan]

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]

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.

 

[Arsalan]

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.

 

[SQ8]

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.

 

[SQ8]

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.

 

[Ray_of_Hope]

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

 

[Donatello]

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)

 

[Donatello]

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.

 

[Viper0011.]

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.]

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]

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.