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

[shehbazi2001]

Actually, if you study the first Gulf War in more detail, you will realize that Iraq C&C was intact. Before the commencement of Desert Storm, NATO conducted 30 days of intense bombing sorties. Despite these intense punitive strikes, Iraqi C&C was intact and still able to command and coordinate. It was only the ground operations that delivered the final punch to the Iraqi War Machine. Without an effective ground based operation, air strikes are at best punitive and don't degrade the ability of the enemy to reground and fightback.

In the Gulf war, the ground offensive was launched after the air war had been won by the Allies. Air Force and Navy win or lose earlier than Army. Army's fate in conventional battles usually depends on the outcome of air and naval battles.

In the eastern theater of 1971, PAF and PN lost first and PA felt it enormously difficult to continue the fight. PA then had to fight alone with IAF, IA and IN together.

In WW2, German air force and navy lost ahead of the Army. German AF went on the defensive ahead of Army. Beginning from 1944, Luftwaffe failed in stopping day and night bombing offensive of the Allies over German cities. By end 1944, German army was also on the retreat on the western front.

As the air force wins or loses first among the three services (AF, Navy and Army), it should logically be the strongest of all.

 

[IceCold]

In the Gulf war, the ground offensive was launched after the air war had been won by the Allies. Air Force and Navy win or lose earlier than Army. Army's fate in conventional battles usually depends on the outcome of air and naval battles.

In 1971, PAF and PN lost first and PA felt it enormously difficult to continue the fight. PA then had to fight alone with IAF, IA and IN together.

In WW2, German air force and navy lost ahead of the Army. German AF went on the defensive ahead of Army. Beginning from 1944, Luftwaffe failed in stopping day and night bombing offensive of the Allies over German cities. By end 1944, German army was also on the retreat on the western front.

As the air force wins or loses first among the three services (AF, Navy and Army), it should logically be the strongest of all.

Thumps up. You summed it up beautifully. We need to get out of this mentality of diverting majority of funds to the army while air force and navy is neglected.

 

[shehbazi2001]

In the Gulf war, the ground offensive was launched after the air war had been won by the Allies. Air Force and Navy win or lose earlier than Army. Army's fate in conventional battles usually depends on the outcome of air and naval battles.

In the eastern theater of 1971, PAF and PN lost first and PA felt it enormously difficult to continue the fight. PA then had to fight alone with IAF, IA and IN together.

In WW2, German air force and navy lost ahead of the Army. German AF went on the defensive ahead of Army. Beginning from 1944, Luftwaffe failed in stopping day and night bombing offensive of the Allies over German cities. By end 1944, German army was also on the retreat on the western front.

As the air force wins or loses first among the three services (AF, Navy and Army), it should logically be the strongest of all.

I forgot to add that Iraqi AF also lost ahead of the Iraqi Army. The same is true for Serbian AF which lost ahead of the Serb Army. Another case is of Libyan AF. When Air Force loses a war, the maximum you can do is to start a guerrilla warfare if your country is mountainous (Afghanistan) or has vast jungles (Bush war fought by South Africa).

 

[notorious_eagle]

As the air force wins or loses first among the three services (AF, Navy and Army), it should logically be the strongest of all.

Sir

I completely agree with your entire post except for this part. There is no doubt that a strong Air Force is a necessity to fight a modern day battle. But that being said, an AF alone cannot win the war for you. At best it can help you launch punitive strikes and give cover to your Naval and Ground Assets.

At the end of the Day, it is the Army that will win the war especially in our part of the world. The reason why i referred to First GW is because the point i was trying to raise is that even after intense bombing, the Iraqi C&C and infrastructure was still intact in Kuwait. It was only after the Ground Invasion that NATO was able to evict the Iraqis out of Kuwait and deliver the final punch. The Iraqis were more than contempt with aerial bombardments, but it was the ground invasion that sealed their final fate.

No matter how much a fighter aircraft evolves, it will remain subservient to a tank. A strong AF can no doubt play a very important part in winning the war. But the AF is still a supporting element to the boots on the ground that can drive forward and capture a position. This is why traditionally all Armed Forces around the world especially land based States invest majority of their funds in the Army. An Air Force is a very important tool, but it is a supporting tool.

 

[razgriz19]

fair enough, but the Army has over 1 million soldiers (active and reserve). I heard salaries take over half of the army budget.

 

[shehbazi2001]

Coming back to the topic of the thread, guys what do you think, why should Pakistan not use AMRAAM as Surface-to-Air missile as PAF has already selected it as air-to-air BVR missile? Its ground-based SAM version is SL-AMRAAM.
if despite the on-off relationship of Pakistan-US, we get our 500+ order of AMRAAMs, then we have enough stock for using them as SAMs because IAF does not have 500 top of the line fighters and even with 200 loses, IAF would cease to exist as a potent force. To maximise the utility of these missiles, they should be configured for dual-usage, ie, either air to air or surface to air. If PAF loses some F-16s, then how these 500 AMRAAMs are going to be used? We should be able to put them to use as SAMs too.

 

[Donatello]

Coming back to the topic of the thread, guys what do you think, why should Pakistan not use AMRAAM as Surface-to-Air missile as PAF has already selected it as air-to-air BVR missile? Its ground-based SAM version is SL-AMRAAM.
if despite the on-off relationship of Pakistan-US, we get our 500+ order of AMRAAMs, then we have enough stock for using them as SAMs because IAF does not have 500 top of the line fighters and even with 200 loses, IAF would cease to exist as a potent force. To maximise the utility of these missiles, they should be configured for dual-usage, ie, either air to air or surface to air. If PAF loses some F-16s, then how these 500 AMRAAMs are going to be used? We should be able to put them to use as SAMs too.

I don't think it would wise to invest in Ground based SAM systems of AMRAAM.

First, it's not simply just loading the missile and firing it. We need the radars for them too. Where are we going to get the target acquisition and surface search radars from? And how do we integrate them?

Then comes the actual case of the platform that would carry these missiles.


I think PAF should go for the Chinese SD-10 based SAMs, or perhaps, go for a dedicated air-defence like HQ9/18 with dedicated radars and C4I Systems.


We have 500 AMRAAMs, but also 63+ F-16s to carry them. If two are loaded per plane, then that is about 126 missiles gone. Plus if PAF purchases additional MLU-ed f-16s then we really don't have many missiles.

 

[GURU DUTT]

Coming back to the topic of the thread, guys what do you think, why should Pakistan not use AMRAAM as Surface-to-Air missile as PAF has already selected it as air-to-air BVR missile? Its ground-based SAM version is SL-AMRAAM.
if despite the on-off relationship of Pakistan-US, we get our 500+ order of AMRAAMs, then we have enough stock for using them as SAMs because IAF does not have 500 top of the line fighters and even with 200 loses, IAF would cease to exist as a potent force. To maximise the utility of these missiles, they should be configured for dual-usage, ie, either air to air or surface to air. If PAF loses some F-16s, then how these 500 AMRAAMs are going to be used? We should be able to put them to use as SAMs too.

well sir you seem to forget that IAF planes that will come first for the strike and face your devine F16's will be MKI's(whose Radar can track and engage a F 16 before it sees MKI+Its ECM capabilities are unmached as of now) then we have 162 MKI's against 63 F16 where as a MKI can carry thrice the ammount of BVR's as compared to your F16's + we have Radars that track all of your airspace as far as afghanistan as of now and im not even counting Phalcons and other AA batteries we have

for the record we have Spyder , PUM 300 & 400 , Akash , and some russian & french stuff count that too

 

[bigzgvr4]

well sir you seem to forget that IAF planes that will come first for the strike and face your devine F16's will be MKI's(whose Radar can track and engage a F 16 before it sees MKI+Its ECM capabilities are unmached as of now) then we have 162 MKI's against 63 F16 where as a MKI can carry thrice the ammount of BVR's as compared to your F16's + we have Radars that track all of your airspace as far as afghanistan as of now and im not even counting Phalcons and other AA batteries we have

for the record we have Spyder , PUM 300 & 400 , Akash , and some russian & french stuff count that too

The MKI wont SeE f-16 because of awacs and will be engaged Before MKI see f-16 because of the datalink and AWacs directing the engagement with out the F-16 using its radar and Pakistani awacs have longer range then MKi, WHY is IT YOU ARE COMPARING INDIAN SAMs with PAKIstan in this thread this thread is about aquasition of Sam for Pakistan and not India so Dont cook up your War fantasy here about india have this and india have that and pakistan does not Please not ever thread here is about india
Thank you come again

back to topic IN Zuhai air show or dubai air Show the Sd-10 was based as Ly-60(80) or some thing like that as an SAM setup I think pakistan should go for those and hq-9/18 because no one will sell them Patriots

 

[ANPP]

The MKI wont SeE f-16 because of awacs and will be engaged Before MKI see f-16 because of the datalink and AWacs directing the engagement with out the F-16 using its radar and Pakistani awacs have longer range then MKi, WHY is IT YOU ARE COMPARING INDIAN SAMs with PAKIstan in this thread this thread is about aquasition of Sam for Pakistan and not India so Dont cook up your War fantasy here about india have this and india have that and pakistan does not Please not ever thread here is about india
Thank you come again

back to topic IN Zuhai air show or dubai air Show the Sd-10 was based as Ly-60(80) or some thing like that as an SAM setup I think pakistan should go for those and hq-9/18 because no one will sell them Patriots

In this side of border, air force also use AWACS which are much powerfull than west side of border, so again MKI have edge with/without awacs.

 

[bigzgvr4]

In this side of border, air force also use AWACS which are much powerfull than west side of border, so again MKI have edge with/without awacs.

YUP ITS ALL ABOUT INDIA YA

"Thank you Come again"

I think they should seriously consider that Ly-60(80) its based on sd-10 and its a SAM

 

[GURU DUTT]

The MKI wont SeE f-16 because of awacs and will be engaged Before MKI see f-16 because of the datalink and AWacs directing the engagement with out the F-16 using its radar and Pakistani awacs have longer range then MKi, WHY is IT YOU ARE COMPARING INDIAN SAMs with PAKIstan in this thread this thread is about aquasition of Sam for Pakistan and not India so Dont cook up your War fantasy here about india have this and india have that and pakistan does not Please not ever thread here is about india
Thank you come again


back to topic IN Zuhai air show or dubai air Show the Sd-10 was based as Ly-60(80) or some thing like that as an SAM setup I think pakistan should go for those and hq-9/18 because no one will sell them Patriots

well we have a AWACS too and owrs are twice as powerfull as yours + they are even called one of the Best if not the best in the world as of now and they fly at a higher altitude + we have net centrikk warfare cpapbilities two and all owr Fighter force are intigrated with these systems + an Phalcon flying over amritsar will track and scan all of your airspace withowt even getting into danger zone + MKI's can also be used as mini AWACS and ever heared of novotar missiles

K-100 (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EL/W-2090 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ilyushin Il-76 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/FILES/5/37545.pdf

 

[ejaz007]

The deal is signed and the jets are getting upgraded one by one.

An indian member wrote about upgraded mirages that is why I replied stating that they have not yet been upgraded. What you have said is the same thing only different wording has been selected.

They are undergoing upgrades and have not been upgraded as of this moment. The deal is under scruitny for high costs of upgrades. Lets wait and see what happens.

 

[shehbazi2001]

I don't think it would wise to invest in Ground based SAM systems of AMRAAM.

First, it's not simply just loading the missile and firing it. We need the radars for them too. Where are we going to get the target acquisition and surface search radars from? And how do we integrate them?

Then comes the actual case of the platform that would carry these missiles.


I think PAF should go for the Chinese SD-10 based SAMs, or perhaps, go for a dedicated air-defence like HQ9/18 with dedicated radars and C4I Systems.


We have 500 AMRAAMs, but also 63+ F-16s to carry them. If two are loaded per plane, then that is about 126 missiles gone. Plus if PAF purchases additional MLU-ed f-16s then we really don't have many missiles.

Air Forces have a large stock of arms and ammunition but unfortunately when an air force gets defeated or its aircraft defect or are lost or its runways are put out of usage, then the whole ammo dumps of the air force become suddenly useless. It has happened many times and I don't need to again quote examples.

On a large scale, efforts and studies should be carried out as to how we can put to use all the arms and ammo of air force even when air force is unable to fight itself. Using AMRAAMs as SAM is just part of this whole strategy. Even Sidewinders should be able to be put to other uses in air defence like the US CHAPARRAL air defence system based on Sidewinders. Even the guns of fighter jets like NR-30 of F-6s should be mounted on armored vehicles for usage on ground. We should be able to put the bombs of air force fighter jets to other uses like land mines and sea mines etc. This should be undertaken as a special and separate project (hope for the best but prepare for the worst scenario).

The radars of SL-AMRAAM are obviously sold by the original manufacturer or you can integrate them to french or chinese radars too.

 

[rockstarIN]

An indian member wrote about upgraded mirages that is why I replied stating that they have not yet been upgraded. What you have said is the same thing only different wording has been selected.

They are undergoing upgrades and have not been upgraded as of this moment. The deal is under scruitny for high costs of upgrades. Lets wait and see what happens.

All Defense deals will be under scrutiny all the time, but does not mean it is not getting executed. Specially Mirage deal.

IAF do not want to do it all together, do not want all jets to get unavailable at a time.