Pakistan officially inducts HQ 9 Air Defence system

[The Terminator]

That daddy is on the "same page" as the Pindi boys.

But recently no more. He wants his favorite person to be head of ISI and Army doesn't like it. The throne of Islamabad could be in trouble in near future if they don't sort it out immediately.

 

[The Terminator]

As I know PAC is mostly effective against ballistic targets it is quite lacking in terms of aircraft engagement, PGM, the low spectrum, low signature type munitions. Plus it is not a true shoot and scoot system it also lacks angle of attack Hq9 renders 360 degrees firing capability. Therefore a country like Pakistan which is tough in terms of terrain and its unforgiving nature to systems like PAC 3, just does not cut above systems like Hq9 or s300. Yes we can assert with confidence countries like Saudi Arabia Qatar do favour the system because the environment is just for PAC 3

Saudis needed PAC3 due to the constant threat of low tech Ballistic missiles being fired from Yemen and previous version of patriots weren't suitable to intercept incoming missiles. So PAC3 caters to those particular needs. But previous versions are effective in aircraft engagements.

 

[PakFactor]

He’s known to play advocate for everything American, often going to the extent of sounding biased, but he always explains his point with sources and knows what he’s saying, so I’ve learned not to put him with the usual bunch.

That being said, the usual underestimation of Chinese (or any non-western tech) is getting pretty old. Nobody doubts US’ lead over military tech, and rightfully so, but even after all of what China has made, still too often we see their tech called inferior for basically the sole reason of it being Chinese. Same goes for the S400 and S500 in this case. Too often they use “but it’s not combat proven” as a way of praising US weapons, but by that logic a WW2 plane is better than a Eurofighter. It’s just that US gets into the most wars.

Not to forget the American's have never fought a peer level rival head on (excluding WWII as it involved many nations).
If you look at post-Balakot two peer rivals fought one having the numerical and tech advantage, against a small nation with limit numbers and tech and saw the results --

 

[Aesterix]

The only advantage that the S400 has over the the HQ-9B is the missile range of its longer ranged missile and the ability of the S400 to fire different ranged missles from short, to medium to long range. This means that the missiles operate within the best range of its PK ratio.

The longer range S400 missile can go to 400km whereas the HQ9 maxes out at 250km.

The HQ9B has in my view better electronics, EW, ECCM capabilities than the S400. Do recall that the Chinese copied an early variant of the S300 series in China and both China and Russia built the HQ9 and S400 respectfully from the S300 series, so who do you think did a better job??

China for all things electronic - they have surpassed the Russians in this regard IMHO ... The HQ9 is not a monkey variant .. and the C variant which will come on line soon will suprass the only advantage that the S400 has -

S-400 also has ground attack capability, if interested with a specific module for that capability.
HQ-9BE or any HQ-9 don't have such capability.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

If PAF is looking to elect their own SAM system would be interested to know how they approach their needs

However I find it redundant that PAF needs their own SAM setup , would imagine the Air Defense Unit for Military would be responsible for keeping all high value targets protected

It makes more sense that all of the Air Space is protected from one Command and Control Center, Under Military Control

PAF would be better off to use their part of funding , to setup

• 2 Fill Gap , 4.5 generation Specialty Squadrons
• These Units would be more for Patrols over the Sea / Support for Sea Units or Coastal Defense
• Or Buy some Bombers

Every Department of defense with their own SAM system seems redundant
For Navy since they are at Sea it does makes sense they have their own setup as their defensive weapons are on the ship

 

[The Terminator]

Patriot configurations involved in conflicts up to year 2003 were unable to intercept cruise missiles (true). Friendly fire incidents also occurred in 2003 (true); this was due to IFF errors while the Patriot was operating in autonomous mode (2 friendly incidents which resulted in loss of 2 jet fighters and 3 pilots in total - ouch). Patriot/PAC-3 configuration is very dangerous to jet fighters in fact.

Turkish assessment of the Patriot is in line with what they could observe in conflicts and trials up to year 2003.

Turkey tested HQ-9 as well but decided to wait for relatively better options. Turkey chose S-400 system eventually. Russia was also more receptive to Turkish conditions than USA (limited TOT and co-production factors).

My point is that Americans continued to develop Patriot further in passing years.

The latest Patriot/PAC-3 configuration provides larger BMDS envelope than its predecessors and is capable of intercepting maneuverable airborne targets such as miniaturized TBMs, cruise missiles and UAVs. This configuration is offered with different types of interceptors in the present (same is true for the S-400 system).

The latest Patriot/PAC-3 configuration is also offered with 3 types of launch systems which can be equipped with 4, 8 and 16 missiles respectively. Russian and Chinese counterparts fall short in this case.

The latest Patriot/PAC-3 configuration is offered with an AESA radar system as well although its FOV is limited to 120 degree, but the battery can be configured with 2 or more radar systems for excellent situational awareness. Americans have tested Patriot/PAC-3 configuration in multi-radar format in fact.

Also, when it comes to intercepting cruise missiles in combat situations, the less WE talk about this the better. Both S-300 and S-400 variants and derivatives have nothing to show in this matter either.

I am FINE with Pakistan Army for inducting HQ-9; I would have done the same if I was in the shoes of COAS. I believe in 'something better than nothing' philosophy. Pakistan Army have limited choices in international markets in any case.

But I do not get the hype honestly.

The member whom I called out in this thread was due to his kindergarten level post which I removed and another gem which he posted. Come on now.

Let us appreciate what WE have but be humble as well.

All the SAM systems have a very patchy coverage when it comes to intercepting cruise missiles or maneuvering supersonic warheads and no system is can claim to be 100% effective, as they have not been tested in a real world scenario. Patriot sometimes failed to effectively intercept even the rudimentary low tech Yemeni ballistic missiles in Saudi Arabia, but overall they did a good job.

As for Pakistan, acquisition of long range High altitude SAM system is a welcome addition doesn't matter how we got it and from where we got it. The point is now we have the capability to engage enemies from far away by just a push of button.

HQ-9 is a mature and decent system comparable to any other SAM system. Even Turkish trials validated their effectiveness (patriots are deployed in Turkey by NATO and Turks know their capabilities too). But it's also understandable why Turkey opted for S400 system eventually. Different specs longer range missiles, NATO would scream aloud if Turkey establishes close relations with Russia and may be political reasons too. Turkey isn't aligned with China on various geopolitical issues like Uyighurs are Turkish descendants, and current Turk regime is very sensitive when it comes to their cousins (like recently in case of Azerbaijan).

S-400 also has ground attack capability, if interested with a specific module for that capability.
HQ-9BE or any HQ-9 don't have such capability.

S400 for ground attack! Weird. Wouldn't it be a waste of resources! An expensive SAM system being used as MLRS. A very expensive MLRS emitting strong Radar waves to hundreds of kilometers away screaming to the enemies come here and get me

 

[The Terminator]

even this became lahore vs karachi? for God sake .... pura infrastructure tu banwa diya ab kia bachay ki jaan lu gai ... khandar bach gaye hain woh tu bachanay du

Ab Karachi ka mass transit transport system bhi banvana he

I hope Karachi gets its modern metro/circular railway etc. under CPEC. It used to be a globally renowned city before gang wars. It also deserves to regain its previous glory.

 

[iLION12345_1]

FM-90 for army came out from PLA stocks as a sort of gift. Maybe 2 or 3 regiments only. It wasn't adopted as a large asset over a long term basis. Army is still on the lookout for a SHORADS.

I believe there’s a couple more regiments than that, and they were payed for, but yes, they’d weren’t adopted for that role because they aren’t that good in it.
They’re not the most capable (a bit dated) or mobile system and not well suited to advancing with and covering large Armored pushes. PA was always going to purchase a separate system for that role, hence the interest in pantsir and now FK2000 and LD-35.

 

[Readerdefence]

Hi there as always PA or PAF or even PN they never reveal something until unless to be told by their supplier to reveal and put pressure on the adversary to shop around or stick to the plan( not to abandon S400)
as we can see immense pressure from USA towards India not to go for S400
so along with the lines drawn once Indian start getting Rafale and inducting them though Pakistan knows it not today or the day reveal their SAM system to the world what they holding but as know Indian airforce is maintaining a SQD of rafale it’s time for PA & PAF to some extent to show their muscles around so these muscles can be feel by the adversary east or west or to some extent south ( in case any drone or missile cross flying path of Pakistan) without the acknowledgment of the crossing country and landing into Afghanistan
and there is no point of getting this system without the specific Pakistani need or upgrades to fight or to be utilised properly in a war
we all should remember one and the only thing
it is not only the pride of all three services of Pakistan
BUT also the pride at stake for China the gadgets the supplying to Pakistan
thank you

 

[Gripen9]

S-400 also has ground attack capability, if interested with a specific module for that capability.
HQ-9BE or any HQ-9 don't have such capability.

What would you attack on the land with it that you cannot target with a BM or a cruise missile?

 

[Akh1112]

I do see the hype but I prefer it to be put in its proper/logical context in view of regional threat dynamics.

I absolutely agree with your view that the HQ-9 have created a new dimension of headache for India in the region. It definitely plugs a capability gap in our defenses.

It is rather good to see that WE outpaced India by fielding HQ-9 before they could field S-400 systems in the region.

WE can taunt Indians for a while.

I expect these systems to deliver in our environment in fact. Pakistan and India are not like NATO to each other in conventional warfare. Both Pakistan and India have qualitative advantages in different areas. Pakistan is attempting to bridge the gap in all areas nevertheless.

I am satisfied with this decision. I have always been a proponent of BMDS capability even if entry-level. Ballistic Missile threat in our environment is real and significant.

I simply caution against ill-advised comparisons of hardware on global stage. WE have limited funds and options to choose from. WE cannot have the best of hardware out there even from the same supplier. WE can have 'what is good enough' for our needs. This is not good enough?

Why do WE have to draw parallels with American hardware in every thread?

No, PESA and AESA radar systems are not similar in performance and fidelity. A massive hybrid of PESA and AESA concepts is another thing which is only witnessed in American destroyers but these will be replaced with next-gen AESA as well.

Patriot/PAC-3 is also multi-radar system compatible now. For perspective:

IBCS Test Intercepts Target With Patriot At Longer Range - Defense Daily

The Army successfully intercepted a cruise missile in a long-range flight test today using the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 interceptor with IBCS

www.defensedaily.com

This live-fire intercept was shaped by a level of sophistication and integration which WE do not see very often and not in many countries around the world.

IAMD IBCS = check

3 x radar systems involved and interlinked (1 was the original MPQ-54 and the other 2 were latest MPQ-64 AESA with GaN TRMs)

The target adopted a terrain-hugging flight approach and path in which it was operating outside the FOV of the original MPQ-54 radar system of the Patriot/PAC-3 battery. The 2 x MPQ-64 were able to detect and distinguish the target from surface clutter and provide cues to the battery and the target was intercepted with 'engage-on-net' method.

If this demonstration is not sufficient, there is another even more technologically sophisticated demonstration to consider.

Let me tell you this. Americans are involved in an arms race with both Russia and China now. They cannot afford to have capability gaps anymore. Americans have also ditched INF treaty with Russia.

So let us drop USA from this discussion and come back to our reality.

the radar types being used on our system aren’t public yet is what I’ll leave it at

 

[DJ_Viper]

As I know PAC is mostly effective against ballistic targets it is quite lacking in terms of aircraft engagement, PGM, the low spectrum, low signature type munitions. Plus it is not a true shoot and scoot system it also lacks angle of attack Hq9 renders 360 degrees firing capability. Therefore a country like Pakistan which is tough in terms of terrain and its unforgiving nature to systems like PAC 3, just does not cut above systems like Hq9 or s300. Yes we can assert with confidence countries like Saudi Arabia Qatar do favour the system because the environment is just for PAC 3

Your knowledge of PAC-3 is very limited it seems, or, you are on purpose crapping over Patriots. First off, PAC-3 blocks produced since 2015 have full 360 coverage and there is a brand new technology being used in it called Gallium nitride technology. Secondly, the operational and maintenance cost of the system has been cut down to half. Third, the Patriot was actually famous for defense against BM's (remember 1990's Iraq war and later). Patriot's design principles include distributed processing. So instead of having one unit in one place, you could deploy multiple units covering multiple directions and using the AESA engagement radars, all of these batteries can provide 360 degrees and before they were bi-directional with coverage across a much larger area.

Lastly, with PAC, the world knows about many BM and aircraft attacks that were destroyed midcourse. Can you show me where S-300 were ever successful? For crying out loud, the S-400 was in place in Syria when the US attacked the same airbase it was operating out of. Yet, no advance warning was given outside of the US telling the Russians it would attack the base as a protocol.

 

[KaiserX]

Your knowledge of PAC-3 is very limited it seems, or, you are on purpose crapping over Patriots. First off, PAC-3 blocks produced since 2015 have full 360 coverage and there is a brand new technology being used in it called Gallium nitride technology. Secondly, the operational and maintenance cost of the system has been cut down to half. Third, the Patriot was actually famous for defense against BM's (remember 1990's Iraq war and later). Patriot's design principles include distributed processing. So instead of having one unit in one place, you could deploy multiple units covering multiple directions and using the AESA engagement radars, all of these batteries can provide 360 degrees and before they were bi-directional with coverage across a much larger area.

Lastly, with PAC, the world knows about many BM and aircraft attacks that were destroyed midcourse. Can you show me where S-300 were ever successful? For crying out loud, the S-400 was in place in Syria when the US attacked the same airbase it was operating out of. Yet, no advance warning was given outside of the US telling the Russians it would attack the base as a protocol.

Agreed there is literally no comparisons between Patriot vs S300/400. The records clearly speak for themselves. Patriot missiles have had a almost 95% success rate in shooting down houthi drones/BM/CMs in the last year or so. Before that people would claim the system had flaws when it was clear the Saudis were not trained upto standards, but that has changed in the last year. KSA now has one of the worlds highest rates of BM interception.

Compared to the S300/S400 whose record is almost laughable in the Syrian conflict or even the most recent Armenian conflict where they were blown to bits by 30,000 USD israeli drones

If i had to pick between the patriot vs S400 id pick the patriot hands down any day of the week esp if funds were not an issue.

When it comes to HQ9BE vs S400 id pick the HQ9BE hands down, due to Chinese advancement in electronics. They are simply 2 decades ahead of russia when it comes to semiconductors, electronics, chips, etc... all which shows in hardware/software.

 

[DJ_Viper]

Agreed there is literally no comparisons between Patriot vs S300/400. The records clearly speak for themselves. Patriot missiles have had a almost 95% success rate in shooting down houthi drones/BM/CMs in the last year or so. Before that people would claim the system had flaws when it was clear the Saudis were not trained upto standards, but that has changed in the last year. KSA now has one of the worlds highest rates of BM interception.

Compared to the S300/S400 whose record is almost laughable in the Syrian conflict or even the most recent Armenian conflict where they were blown to bits by 30,000 USD israeli drones

If i had to pick between the patriot vs S400 id pick the patriot hands down any day of the week esp if funds were not an issue.

When it comes to HQ9BE vs S400 id pick the HQ9BE hands down, due to Chinese advancement in electronics. They are simply 2 decades ahead of russia when it comes to semiconductors, electronics, chips, etc... all which shows in hardware/software.

That's a very sensible post. I agree, I think the Chinese are ahead of the Russians in tech and the HQ series was initially derived from an Israeli sold Patriot unit the Chinese studied, just like the SD-10 tech was initially derived from Aspide. I'd be concerned about HQ-9B, C, D versions (not A) if I was flying anything but -35's or -22's. There is a saying about the S-300 and S-400 that you can fly in front of it all day in a decent jet and it won't detect you. You better drop some leaflets for visual identification by the operators as that would be faster.

KSA after Israel has become the second nation with probably the most robust AD/ABM system in place with many dozens of actual intercepts. This data then gets fed back to the manufacturer for next blocks to have more capability.

 

[Rafi]

All three services have classified programmes, like the HQ9P, when ever "the powers that be" are willing to declare them, will always prove the point that General Ghafoor made after OP Swift Retort, "we will always surprise you, you will never surprise us".