Air Defence of Pakistan Army?

[InsightDubai]

What is the capability of the PAK ARMED FORCE, What kind of SAM's are available for Pak.

I have heard in various documentaries on Discovery military channel that Hawk or patriot are the best available in the Air Defence Market the Indian have the Russian S300 sam's, which i think are very good. I seriously doubt that the short range shoulder fired missiles are any kind of threat to the 4-5th generation fighters, by the neighbours?

Pictures of the current air defence capalities are needed?

 

[Sid]

Pakistan has vintage Crotales, Hq-1 and Hq-2 currently and in addition the shoulder fired Anzas. It is said that they are on the hunt of more sophisticated SAMs. FT-2000A being one of them (Chinese).

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 24 2006, 02:13 AM
Pakistan has vintage Crotales, Hq-1 and Hq-2 currently and in addition the shoulder fired Anzas. It is said that they are on the hunt of more sophisticated SAMs. FT-2000A being one of them (Chinese).

[post=7666]Quoted post[/post]​

Sid,

How many types of UAV's are we operation and do you have exact numbers.
Are the part of PA or under PAF command?

 

[sigatoka]

Originally posted by InsightDubai@Mar 23 2006, 08:56 PM

I seriously doubt that the short range shoulder fired missiles are any kind of threat to the 4-5th generation fighters, by the neighbours?

Pictures of the current air defence capalities are needed?

[post=7654]Quoted post[/post]​

Don't look just at the capability of shoulder launched missiles to destroy their targets. Surface to Air missiles primary role is to protect. Therefore even if these missiles "fail" to destroy planes, they may still be effective if they are able to prevent these planes from fulfilling their missions.

Secondly against modern militaries such as the U.S. Large stationary Airdefence systems are sitting ducks for cruise missiles. Even mobile vehicle launched SAM's are vulnerable to Apache Helicopters due to their radar and heat signatures. Humans while being much more fragile, are much harder to target. Therefore at their most vulnerable out in the open, a two man missile team is safer than they would be in a Shilka anti-aircraft vehicle. This is the irony in facing technologically superior forces.

 

[InsightDubai]

seriously i dont doubt the sholder launched missiles capabilities as i have seen mujahideen fighting off the savagery of the russian invaders in chechnya. good footage of their hits are available to prove it... but effective for helicopters only, shot down 50 or so. what about night missions by 4-5 generation fighters. arieal attacks are for night time only in the 21 century as proven in the 2 gulf invasions. humans also leave a signature and are slow to run also, easily spotable i have seen the video also.... any comments

 

[sigatoka]

Originally posted by InsightDubai@Mar 27 2006, 08:51 PM
seriously i dont doubt the sholder launched missiles capabilities as i have seen mujahideen fighting off the savagery of the russian invaders in chechnya. good footage of their hits are available to prove it... but effective for helicopters only, shot down 50 or so. what about night missions by 4-5 generation fighters. arieal attacks are for night time only in the 21 century as proven in the 2 gulf invasions. humans also leave a signature and are slow to run also, easily spotable i have seen the video also.... any comments

[post=7928]Quoted post[/post]​

4-5 generation fighters can only be effectively brought down by S-300 missile systems that Russia sells or Patriot or something of that ilk. Smaller surface to airmissile missile vehicles are more capable than the shoulder launched variety but are much easier to spot due to their larger size and greater heat signature than humans. Secondly vehicles are much more expensive than the shoulder laucnhed ones and thus if one does a cost benefit analysis they may not be as good as shoulder launched missiles.

"seen the video" ok, but did you know that Shilka vehicles were so vulnerable to airstrikes that many crew just ran away? Hundreds of anti aircraft vehicles were destroyed, how many human shoulder launched missile teams were killed? Maybe only a few.

 

[Sid]

The thing to understand here is that while shoulder-launched SAMs are more mobile, they can only be used against low-fying AC. Proper, stationed SAM sites integrated with an effective radar network are needed if you want to bring that bird down from 30000-50000 ceiling!

 

[sigatoka]

The thing to understand here is that while shoulder-launched SAMs are more mobile, they can only be used against low-fying AC. Proper, stationed SAM sites integrated with an effective radar network are needed if you want to bring that bird down from 30000-50000 ceiling!

There are two levels of effectivness, one is to bring down the bird, the other is to prevent the bird from annhilating ground forces. Smaller systems benefits are skewed in the latters direction, this should be included in cost benefit analsyis.

Ok tell me what proper stationed system are you talking about??

 

[MOO]

Basically, if India lauched an armed nuclear weapon into Pakistan than theres nothing we can do to stop it. I doubt an HQ or crotale would have any luck shooting an ICBM.:buck:

 

[sigatoka]

Basically, if India lauched an armed nuclear weapon into Pakistan than theres nothing we can do to stop it. I doubt an HQ or crotale would have any luck shooting an ICBM.:buck:

Neither does U.S. and there is no need for it because the "invisible" shield that Pakistan weilds is its second strike capability which is very effective in protecting the state.

 

[Bull]

Don't look just at the capability of shoulder launched missiles to destroy their targets. Surface to Air missiles primary role is to protect. Therefore even if these missiles "fail" to destroy planes, they may still be effective if they are able to prevent these planes from fulfilling their missions.

Im no expert but what i believe is that ACs no more conduct low flying run over target for a hit.They can hit the target fom way up with guided bombs,right?

 

[sigatoka]

Im no expert but what i believe is that ACs no more conduct low flying run over target for a hit.They can hit the target fom way up with guided bombs,right?

Yes, thats right. But ground based Anti-Aircraft vehicles are much larger and visible than a two man missile team.

 

[Bull]

Yes, thats right. But ground based Anti-Aircraft vehicles are much larger and visible than a two man missile team.

Agree, but then a shoulder fired missile has limited range and cant bring down any planes on a high altitude bombing missions right?

 

[miroslav]

Agree, but then a shoulder fired missile has limited range and cant bring down any planes on a high altitude bombing missions right?

Yes even if an aircraft like Jag, Mirage-2000 or Flanker is making a low pass but high speed it is difficult for the manpad to lock the aircraft.

Same applies to F-16/18 and other sophisticated A/C.

Planes on high altitude bombing missions are always escorted so there are 2 scenario's.

1) From ground you cannot judge who is attacker and who is escort.
2) Even if you fire a missile towards the attacker the escort comes in pic where the attacker bug out on a higher altitude or speed.

Manpads are effective to protect your moving armour or convoys.

Aircrafts need to come on a low altitude and decrease the speed in order to lock and attack the mobile armour or convoy's.


Miro

 

[Bull]

Manpads are effective to protect your moving armour or convoys.

Aircrafts need to come on a low altitude and decrease the speed in order to lock and attack the mobile armour or convoy's.
Miro

Just to clear by doubt a shoulder fired missile are also designated as surface to air and surface to surface right?

Or there is nothing like that for shoulder fired missiles???

Canthe same shoulder fired missile be used for firing at the planes and at land targes?