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

[boke]

巴基斯坦需要的中国拥有的装备基本上要引进都不会有什么问题的，至少从所接触到的新闻报道看，这方面的交易从没发现有政治障碍或者技术限制，我们是朋友。这种防御性质的导弹也不违反国际公约，这才叫有利于世界和平！

 

[kaku1]

In order to operate jets that advanced you need some and history some capacity. I am not saying that they cannot have it, all i am saying is, not right now. Yes, India is a big factor, but then get your act together. Even if they have Sukhois and unless IAF opens up a front, Pakistan will not have much problem to force a defeat on them. We have ample firepower to cover Afghanistan.

Why not going for HQ-9 instead of this? Maybe in future India can deploy AAD based SAM or even PDV drived SAMs.

 

[ali_raza]

i think we need a ring of AD batteries mixed systems but thats a good addition.if confirmed

 

[Arsalan]

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.

Point understood and agreed with.

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)

Try explaining that to the Pakistan Army.. which is so utterly convinced that MANPADS and Oerlikons are all the air defence it needs.

Well at least we have been pointing out that it is otherwise for a few years here:

Surface To Air Missiles | Terror in the Sky.

But i guess it is not that Army do not realize this, it is more of "we cannot acquire these" and this time, it is not ONLY FINANCIAL reasons, it is also about availability.

@Donatello and @Oscar
The thing is that you can surely not carry HQ-9 or even HQ-16 batteries in forward offensive formations or armored brigades. These are more of base defense system/area defense systems, at least how we handle our things. The mobility of these goes only as far as driving it from one point to another and keep doing so to avoid enemy mapping out your position. They cannot go in with the strike corps, they are not that fast.

For forward deployments, or for deployment with our offensive formations we need a highly mobile system and we do not have much options that we can acquire in this category. By mobile, i mean a tank or APC chassis fitted with short to medium range SAM, like Crotale system, this is only way these can keep up with fast moving offensive formations of IFV, PAC and Tanks. These are not only fast on move but the reaction time is also better since missiles are in a ready to fire state. The HQ-16 or HQ-9 cannot keep up with that, they are way to big and heavy and the launch truck (an 8x8 truck) is also not a very good option to carry along with the forward formations or fast moving attack brigades or armored strike corps. For that we need some highly mobile SAM system that can keep up with the fast moving strike corps

The HQ-9 and even HQ-16 are more of a base defense oriented platform. We can place a few batteries along the border and form a ground base air defense system. They can protect the border deployment but as soon as the armored formations start moving forward they will be out of range for these SAM batteries and on there own and will depend there MANPADS (as they do now) or high speed tank based short to medium range SAM like Crotale or HQ-7 (cannot figure out many options) and most importantly, on PAF!

 

[SQ8]

Point understood and agreed with.




Well at least we have been pointing out that it is otherwise for a few years here:

Surface To Air Missiles | Terror in the Sky.

But i guess it is not that Army do not realize this, it is more of "we cannot acquire these" and this time, it is not ONLY FINANCIAL reasons, it is also about availability.

@Donatello and @Oscar
The thing is that you can surely not carry HQ-9 or even HQ-16 batteries in forward offensive formations or armored brigades. These are more of base defense system/area defense systems, at least how we handle our things. The mobility of these goes only as far as driving it from one point to another and keep doing so to avoid enemy mapping out your position. They cannot go in with the strike corps, they are not that fast.

For forward deployments, or for deployment with our offensive formations we need a highly mobile system and we do not have much options that we can acquire in this category. By mobile, i mean a tank or APC chassis fitted with short to medium range SAM, like Crotale system, this is only way these can keep up with fast moving offensive formations of IFV, PAC and Tanks. These are not only fast on move but the reaction time is also better since missiles are in a ready to fire state. The HQ-16 or HQ-9 cannot keep up with that, they are way to big and heavy and the launch truck (an 8x8 truck) is also not a very good option to carry along with the forward formations or fast moving attack brigades or armored strike corps. For that we need some highly mobile SAM system that can keep up with the fast moving strike corps

The HQ-9 and even HQ-16 are more of a base defense oriented platform. We can place a few batteries along the border and form a ground base air defense system. They can protect the border deployment but as soon as the armored formations start moving forward they will be out of range for these SAM batteries and on there own and will depend there MANPADS (as they do now) or high speed tank based short to medium range SAM like Crotale or HQ-7 (cannot figure out many options) and most importantly, on PAF!

While the issues facing a battlefield mobile SAM system are there, the attitude of the Army in this matter has also been lax. There are various countries that have been willing to sell us battlefield SAM systems that would provide a good level of performance vis a vis stand off attacks and guided munitions. Chief amongst them in terms of firms was PZA..
The Chinese had their own offerings and even Denel pitched in with its ideas... at IDEAS. But the interest was focused on lower tech artillery and indigenous development of the AAA system(which needs time to set up.. essentially meaning it cannot move with a formation).

So today all that there is to protect a formation on the move from air attacks are a couple of guys out in a Land rover with Anzas.

 

[Donatello]

Why not going for HQ-9 instead of this? Maybe in future India can deploy AAD based SAM or even PDV drived SAMs.

Because that is a long range system, more like a static system which needs time to be integrated into the C4I network of the PAF. Medium range systems can be quickly delivered and integrated, plus are cheaper to procure.

 

[kaku1]

Because that is a long range system, more like a static system which needs time to be integrated into the C4I network of the PAF. Medium range systems can be quickly delivered and integrated, plus are cheaper to procure.

But HQ-9 also can be integrated in C4I, and even 200 Km range has its own advantage, plus it gives the protection from ballistic missile somehow.

 

[Arsalan]

While the issues facing a battlefield mobile SAM system are there, the attitude of the Army in this matter has also been lax. There are various countries that have been willing to sell us battlefield SAM systems that would provide a good level of performance vis a vis stand off attacks and guided munitions. Chief amongst them in terms of firms was PZA..
The Chinese had their own offerings and even Denel pitched in with its ideas... at IDEAS. But the interest was focused on lower tech artillery and indigenous development of the AAA system(which needs time to set up.. essentially meaning it cannot move with a formation).

So today all that there is to protect a formation on the move from air attacks are a couple of guys out in a Land rover with Anzas.

No debate on whether Army was interested in acquiring battlefield SAM, surely they were not very aggressive in this matter and also i agree that this leaves the attack corps quite vulnerable to stand-off attacks (i wont even consider the anza as they will be effective mostly against attack helicopters, idea of Anza shooting down a fourth generation fighter that is engaging you in stand-off attack is not really reliable). As a matter of fact, it is not only battle field missiles, we lack seriously in land based anti-air systems. Pakistani SAM capabilities are something is need of maximum attention and probably among the weakest link.

I was not aware of the options we had in battlefield SAM, you have mentioned PZA, can you clarify that or quote a link where i can look for it. cannot find it on internet by this name.

Regarding anti-aircraft guns, while they also form a last layer of ground based air defense system, unfortunately, practically that is all we have. Will also like to take this opportunity that we do have good anti-aircraft guns however, indigenous as well as imports, radar controlled etc, but again, these are as good as they can get! cant argue the need so medium and long range SAM.

 

[SQ8]

I was not aware of the options we had in battlefield SAM, you have mentioned PZA, can you clarify that or quote a link where i can look for it. cannot find it on internet by this name.

Regarding anti-aircraft guns, while they also form a last layer of ground based air defense system, unfortunately, practically that is all we have. Will also like to take this opportunity that we do have good anti-aircraft guns however, indigenous as well as imports, radar controlled etc, but again, these are as good as they can get! cant argue the need so medium and long range SAM.

PZA is a polish firm. They had an offering for a guided AAA system on a tank chassis(easily could be the Type 55 or 85) that would provide at least on the move protection for formation. There was also the provision for adding quadruple Strela or ANZA launchers if asked for.. this is IDEAS 2004.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

@Oscar any info what might be on IDEAS 2014

 

[Donatello]

But HQ-9 also can be integrated in C4I, and even 200 Km range has its own advantage, plus it gives the protection from ballistic missile somehow.

That is what i said, but integrated a complicated system takes time and money. PAF has its hand full at the moment. That's like pushing for more JF-17s while waiting and thinking about the next gen medium weight combat aircraft.

 

[kaku1]

That is what i said, but integrated a complicated system takes time and money. PAF has its hand full at the moment. That's like pushing for more JF-17s while waiting and thinking about the next gen medium weight combat aircraft.

There is no requirement of SAM in PA? Amazing?

 

[Donatello]

There is no requirement of SAM in PA? Amazing?

That is what me and Oscar were debating. PA believes manpads and Oerlikons would suffice. Army needs to have it's own MR SAM.

 

[Donatello]

No debate on whether Army was interested in acquiring battlefield SAM, surely they were not very aggressive in this matter and also i agree that this leaves the attack corps quite vulnerable to stand-off attacks (i wont even consider the anza as they will be effective mostly against attack helicopters, idea of Anza shooting down a fourth generation fighter that is engaging you in stand-off attack is not really reliable). As a matter of fact, it is not only battle field missiles, we lack seriously in land based anti-air systems. Pakistani SAM capabilities are something is need of maximum attention and probably among the weakest link.

I was not aware of the options we had in battlefield SAM, you have mentioned PZA, can you clarify that or quote a link where i can look for it. cannot find it on internet by this name.

Regarding anti-aircraft guns, while they also form a last layer of ground based air defense system, unfortunately, practically that is all we have. Will also like to take this opportunity that we do have good anti-aircraft guns however, indigenous as well as imports, radar controlled etc, but again, these are as good as they can get! cant argue the need so medium and long range SAM.

Sir just like you have support units for Army forces, SAMs can be too. Army should have it's own umbrella, so they can deploy with a decent air cover wherever they are. Considering, the front line is not far from many cantonments on our eastern side, having a potent mobile SAMs would only help. No need to travel long distances. 200km mobile range is enough.

 

[kaku1]

That is what me and Oscar were debating. PA believes manpads and Oerlikons would suffice. Army needs to have it's own MR SAM.

It is my personal belief that, a LR-SAM is much more important in army, rather then airforce. An airforce already have enough assets for anti-air role.

And Man-Pads are good, but only against helicopter.