Italian firms keen on missile defence system deal with Pakistan

[Zarvan]

By the way what is meant by one battery of Aster 30 ?

@Arsalan

 

[Muhammad Omar]

By the way what is meant by one battery of Aster 30 ?

@Arsalan

battery

 

[tarrar]

Italian defence market is a good for Pakistan to be. Hope to hear good news soon.

 

[Arsalan]

By the way what is meant by one battery of Aster 30 ?

@Arsalan

A standard/typical Aster battery consists of command and control vehicle, power generation unit, one Arabel radar vehicle and four to six missile vehicles carrying eight missiles each and extra missiles for reloading on transport platforms (not to be mixed with launch vehicles) . The missile TEL can be dispersed in a wide area (have support for up to 10km away from Arable radar, meaning can be dispersed in an area with radius 10km) to avoid concentrated enemy fire.

 

[Zarvan]

A standard/typical Aster battery consists of command and control vehicle, one Arabel radar vehicle and four to six missile vehicles carrying eight missiles each and extra missiles for reloading. The missile TEL can be dispersed in a wide area (have support for up to 10km away from Arable radar, meaning can be dispersed in an area with radius 10km) to avoid concentrated enemy fire.

Nice also at How much distance those Missile Trucks are usually deployed to each other ? This is General question related to Air Defence

 

[Arsalan]

Nice also at How much distance those Missile Trucks are usually deployed to each other ? This is General question related to Air Defence

Well as i mentioned in the above post:

A standard/typical Aster battery consists of command and control vehicle, power generation unit, one Arabel radar vehicle and four to six missile vehicles carrying eight missiles each and extra missiles for reloading on transport platforms (not to be mixed with launch vehicles) . The missile TEL can be dispersed in a wide area (have support for up to 10km away from Arable radar, meaning can be dispersed in an area with radius 10km) to avoid concentrated enemy fire.

Now there distance from each other will depend on terrain they are operating in, area or base they are protecting. The main point is that they can communicate and operate in a 10km radius area with the radar at center, that is quite large area and will protect the battery from concentrated enemy fire and SEAD missions. Also please note that most of the modern SAM batteries are formed in a similar way and are also deployed in similar fashion.

 

[Zarvan]

Well as i mentioned in the above post:

Now there distance from each other will depend on terrain they are operating in, area or base they are protecting. The main point is that they can communicate and operate in a 10km radius area with the radar at center, that is quite large area and will protect the battery from concentrated enemy fire and SEAD missions. Also please note that most of the modern SAM batteries are formed in a similar way and are also deployed in similar fashion.

Okay by the way MBDA is offering us weapons and along with Air Defence we should also try to get Anti Tank weapons. Even in Air Defence they have massive range

 

[Arsalan]

Okay by the way MBDA is offering us weapons and along with Air Defence we should also try to get Anti Tank weapons. Even in Air Defence they have massive range

Here i was thinking you are getting on the right track but then came the "offer"!!

 

[Zarvan]

Here i was thinking you are getting on the right track but then came the "offer"!!

Well for now they have offered ASTER but we can try to get Anti Tank weapons

 

[Arsalan]

Just to mention, we are already operating the medium level Ly-80 (HQ16s) and they are likely to come on our naval platforms in some years once we opt for more frigates (a bit heavier ones than what we are looking for from Turkey) and thus will make sense if we can at least start making the missiles at home. We can then always increase the number of batteries, make it more net centric (integrating these into our command and control structure supported by the land based radar networks as well as AWACS and AWE&C). The system will give us excellent medium level air defense and can then look for long range systems to cover important zones. Remember that the longer range systems will be required in lesser number compared to medium range systems to cover our air space.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Just to mention, we are already operating the medium level Ly-80 (HQ16s) and they are likely to come on our naval platforms in some years once we opt for more frigates (a bit heavier ones than what we are looking for from Turkey) and thus will make sense if we can at least start making the missiles at home. We can then always increase the number of batteries, make it more net centric (integrating these into our command and control structure supported by the land based radar networks as well as AWACS and AWE&C). The system will give us excellent medium level air defense and can then look for long range systems to cover important zones. Remember that the longer range systems will be required in lesser number compared to medium range systems to cover our air space.

I'd advise against it. It would be better to concentrate funding towards securing a medium-to-long-range SAM platform (60-90 km) that can be quad-packed into VLS cells aboard surface warships. We should aim for having - and locally manufacturing - something similar to the Standard Missile (SM) platform, this will give us the latitude to actually outfit even small ships with credible anti-air warfare (AAW) capabilities. It would be a longer road in that we would need to build domestic competency in dual-pulse rockets and fin-less missiles, but one might as well start sooner than later. The pay-off will span for decades.

 

[Arsalan]

I'd advise against it. It would be better to concentrate funding towards securing a medium-to-long-range SAM platform (60-90 km) that can be quad-packed into VLS cells aboard surface warships. We should aim for having - and locally manufacturing - something similar to the Standard Missile (SM) platform, this will give us the latitude to actually outfit even small ships with credible anti-air warfare (AAW) capabilities. It would be a longer road in that we would need to build domestic competency in dual-pulse rockets and fin-less missiles, but one might as well start sooner than later. The pay-off will span for decades.

Getting the same missiles across naval platforms and land based batteries is the key (as mentioned with LY-80/HQ16)

Just to mention, we are already operating the medium level Ly-80 (HQ16s) and they are likely to come on our naval platforms in some years once we opt for more frigates (a bit heavier ones than what we are looking for from Turkey) and thus will make sense if we can at least start making the missiles at home.

Selecting one that can be quad packed to increase the number carried by our ships is an extra benefit.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Getting the same missiles across naval platforms and land based batteries is the key (as mentioned with LY-80/HQ16)


Selecting one that can be quad packed to increase the number carried by our ships is an extra benefit.

Yeah, but we need to think long-term. The LY-80 is a good system, but with a semi-active radar-homing seeker (i.e. no terminal active-seeker) and inability for quad-packing, it isn't future-leaning. We should let the goal of standardization send us back to 2005.

For missiles to be quad-packed into a single VLS cell, the missile design itself needs to function with strakes instead of fins. This is not an easy feat, but the requisite investment will translate into a missile that can be used for many decades. Start with the Navy and then gradually replace the Air Force and Army's respective systems, albeit 20+ years from now - but that is the benefit of having a future-leaning platform.

Basically, the armed forces should push for a standard missile platform akin to the CAMM and SM. Define active terminal seekers, radar-pairing from land and air (esp. AEW&C), thrust-vectoring and quad-packing from the very beginning. This missile platform would not only give a standardized SAM, but will form the basis of a next-gen BVRAAM too.

 

[Arsalan]

Yeah, but we need to think long-term. The LY-80 is a good system, but with a semi-active radar-homing seeker (i.e. no terminal active-seeker) and inability for quad-packing, it isn't future-leaning. We should let the goal of standardization send us back to 2005.

For missiles to be quad-packed into a single VLS cell, the missile design itself needs to function with strakes instead of fins. This is not an easy feat, but the requisite investment will translate into a missile that can be used for many decades. Start with the Navy and then gradually replace the Air Force and Army's respective systems, albeit 20+ years from now - but that is the benefit of having a future-leaning platform.

Basically, the armed forces should push for a standard missile platform akin to the CAMM and SM. Define active terminal seekers, radar-pairing from land and air (esp. AEW&C), thrust-vectoring and quad-packing from the very beginning. This missile platform would not only give a standardized SAM, but will form the basis of a next-gen BVRAAM too.

Sir you are talking about a system for the future, an home grown solution to all our problems for next 20-30 years. No one in right frame of mind can disagree or argue with what you say here. The only problem is we do need some thing to make it to that time as currently our SAM capability suck (have been given a massive boost in shape of LY-80).

If the military can take up a project for the future, start working on something that will equip all three arms of our forces that what else can one ask for? And yes, in that case, no doubt we should go for something with Medium range (80-100/120 Km), ability to quad pack (to make it much more effective for naval platforms), excellent active and semi-active seekers (a technology that will go a long way in developing a huge range of home grown weapon systems), ability to be guided by third party (other than the missiles own radar or the radar of firing plane/battery, for example, AWACS etc). We should surely pursue any such program whenever possible.

As for Ly-80, till something happens about those NG SAM's LY80 will serve us well. We can also opt for a different seeker at some stage during up gradation i suppose.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Sir you are talking about a system for the future, an home grown solution to all our problems for next 20-30 years. No one in right frame of mind can disagree or argue with what you say here. The only problem is we do need some thing to make it to that time as currently our SAM capability suck (have been given a massive boost in shape of LY-80).

If the military can take up a project for the future, start working on something that will equip all three arms of our forces that what else can one ask for? And yes, in that case, no doubt we should go for something with Medium range (80-100/120 Km), ability to quad pack (to make it much more effective for naval platforms), excellent active and semi-active seekers (a technology that will go a long way in developing a huge range of home grown weapon systems), ability to be guided by third party (other than the missiles own radar or the radar of firing plane/battery, for example, AWACS etc). We should surely pursue any such program whenever possible.

As for Ly-80, till something happens about those NG SAM's LY80 will serve us well. We can also opt for a different seeker at some stage during up gradation i suppose.

The reason why I caution about standardizing on the LY-80 is that there is a cost to induction at that scale, especially when local manufacturing is involved. This stuff will stick for a very long time. I agree with off-the-shelf LY-80 purchases, even for the Navy, but we need to step back from ToT and move ahead with organic R&D investment instead. The cost we'd incur for the ToT element could be put to developing our STEM base and kick-starting critical technology development. IMHO ToT from China especially is semi-redundant unless it contributes to native R&D (e.g. JF-17 to NGF), otherwise, just buy from China as-is.