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

[Viper0011.]

are these ADA's useful in the 21st ceuntry given BVRs,modern radar & avionic suits? or are they outdated since the 80s and early 90s?

The US still uses them in certain bases and installations. I think these are used throughout the Middle East based US bases too. They have many benefits against low flying objects. And a capable Aerostat radar can be placed high up there covering a wider area.

Doctrine? Which one? Seems something is wrong here. Thinking of air defense from MANPADS and going for Spada 2000 and China for high altitude SAM's.

Thank God that planners at PAF are not sniffing glue and fully know the consequences of going against a superpower unlike the rest of the 180 million believers in this land of pure.

Lack of resources is the reason for going slow on this and not a matter of Doctrine or design.

What Pakistan really needs is a capable SAM system that they can pretty much mass produce locally. And put that in large numbers in multiple tiers. The Outer and the middle tiers should be all high altitude and long range. The inner should be mid range and still high altitude, supplemented by area defense like Cortale, Spada, etc. But the border areas should be all protected with OVERLAPPING protection. Today's technology pretty much ensures area denial capability. If 20 jets come inbound, at least 10 to 12 will be taken out. That's a HUGE blow if you go to 200 jets inbound.

 

[Rafi]

Suffice to say, many developments and procurement's and capabilities will be kept on the down-low until, if and when it is decided to cry havok! and release the dogs of war.

 

[Dazzler]

HQ-16A a.k.a LY-80...


http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...e-hq-16-ly-80-air-defence-missile-system.html

 

[Dazzler]

two systems under evaluation.........

Pakistan consider purchase Chinese HQ-16 and HQ-9 air defense missile　

　[World Wide Web Roundup] the latest edition of the Han and Defense Review magazine (February 2013) published an article in 2012, the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC), the test is completed the latest improved HQ-16B (Red Flag-16B) type surface-to-air missiles, HQ-16B is expected to equip the next batch production 054B frigate. Pakistan consider purchasing HQ-16 and HQ-9, but that the price of your side.

　　Han and said that the Chinese Army's 38th, 39th Group Army air defense brigade equipped with a launch battalions HQ-16A, each camp has six launch vehicles. Navy Type 054A missile frigate equipped with HQ-16A. HQ-16A deal with the aircraft's range 3500-40000 meters against cruise missiles with a range of 3500-12000 meters, shot 15-15000 meters high vertical launch INS + semi-active radar-inducing way, the reaction time of 12 seconds, simultaneous attacks 4 targets. Improved HQ-16B against the maximum range of the aircraft was increased to 75 km, is mainly achieved through an improved charge, the charge of the engine compartment lengthened to 0.17 meters, which charge more flight trajectory control software has also been improved .

　　Han and said that the September re Northwest Range test the implementation of the anti-cruise missile engaged the subject, developed by the General Staff 60 S200/300 series drone was shot down. There are rumors, HQ-16B is expected to equip the next batch 054B frigate.

　　Han also said, HQ-16A has obtained the right to export, export-HQ-16A called LY-80. Pakistan Army sources said: negotiations with China have been a number of rounds, the Pakistan Army wants to buy a battalion HQ-16A test and, if necessary, transfer the production license. Pakistan requested the HQ-16A, B-type bomb has just completed the experimental results have also been communicated to the other party. This means that the B-type bomb the right to export to "friendly countries" will soon be approved. Pakistan news sources said, the price of your side of this missile.

　　Han and mentioned that Pakistan want FD-2000 (the export version of the HQ-9), the anti-aircraft missiles with a range of 125 km, has now entered the technical evaluation stage, FD-2000 is the product of the China Aerospace Science and Industry Group, Pakistan also think this The missile is too expensive. Pakistan hopes to FD-2000, SY-80 high school empty modern air defense systems

http://mil.huanqiu.com/observation/2013-02/3627273.html

 

[Zarbe Momin]

The Hatf IX, Nasr, is a solid fuelled battlefield multi tube ballistic missile (BRBM) system developed by NESCOM. I think it is possible with a little bit effort to convert it into surface to air defence missle and then can be integrated with chinas manufactured radar system.

 

[Tehmasib]

IAF losing edge over PAF...........................

 

[Gandalf]

IAF losing edge over PAF...........................

Pakistan still uses Chinese version of SA-2 aka HQ-2.

IAF losing edge over PAF...........................

Pakistan still uses Chinese version of SA-2 aka HQ-2.

 

[ANPP]

IAF losing edge over PAF...........................

HOW

 

[Gentelman]

HOW

he was dreaming about that last night..
or maybe it was a trap to chk out Indian guyz who troll a lot...

 

[junaid1]

sounds good to me

 

[shehbazi2001]

The problem with ground-based air defence is that how a SAM radar or any other radar going to distinguish between a jet-powered drone and a fighter (manned) or even an unmanned full-sized fighter jet?
In the 1982 Bekaa valley conflict, Syrian SAM batteries wasted their missiles on the Israeli drones and thus became exposed to air attack themselves. That is why ground-based defences alone can't be relied upon and preference should be given to air power itself and the related command, control and communication systems. C3 is usually the first target in war and therefore it should be robust and redundant.
Still there are indispensable situations like mobile battlefield air defence that accompany army units, naval air defence etc where you must have these assets.

 

[ANPP]

The problem with ground-based air defence is that how a SAM radar or any other radar going to distinguish between a jet-powered drone and a fighter (manned) or even an unmanned full-sized fighter jet?
In the 1982 Bekaa valley conflict, Syrian SAM batteries wasted their missiles on the Israeli drones and thus became exposed to air attack themselves. That is why ground-based defences alone can't be relied upon and preference should be given to air power itself and the related command, control and communication systems. C3 is usually the first target in war and therefore it should be robust and redundant.
Still there are indispensable situations like mobile battlefield air defence that accompany army units, naval air defence etc where you must have these assets.

Just change software of system. Improve/change the tactics and better men training.

For long tern, just change the hole system with new one.

 

[Chrome9]

The problem with ground-based air defence is that how a SAM radar or any other radar going to distinguish between a jet-powered drone and a fighter (manned) or even an unmanned full-sized fighter jet?
In the 1982 Bekaa valley conflict, Syrian SAM batteries wasted their missiles on the Israeli drones and thus became exposed to air attack themselves. That is why ground-based defences alone can't be relied upon and preference should be given to air power itself and the related command, control and communication systems. C3 is usually the first target in war and therefore it should be robust and redundant.
Still there are indispensable situations like mobile battlefield air defence that accompany army units, naval air defence etc where you must have these assets.

All true, however I believe the PAF have still been neglectful in aquisition of SAM's. As of now neither high altitude SAM's which can potentially double up as ABM's or capable mobile SAM's been aquired in meaningful numbers. For a "defensive" forcesuch as the PAF where air denial is the main objective SAM's could be your best friend. Static sites of strategic importance need SAM's period. Also a defensive force creates "SAM Corridors" whereby you force your opposition into SAM traps which they might not have prior knowledge of.

Imagine an Indian strike package consisting of say mirages with SU-30 cover. They should be picked up by PAF ground radar and AWACS, but the question is how to engage? especially in lieu of the Sukhoi's impressive ability to punch from distance given it's powerful BAR's and associated BVR's. Incoming PAF aircraft will be detected by the Indians however, approach must be done in order to force IAF aircraft into these SAM zones. This way Indian's will either engage directly - which no Strike Package wants to do -be forced into SAM zone - which ultimately causes abortion of mission - wastage of fuel/countermeasures and leaves fleeing aircraft vulnerable - or abortion of mission which effectively is victory for the PAF.

It's not as if SAM's arn't part of the PAF's agenda - we've been hearing from Musharraf's time Pakistan being keen on acquiring high altitude SAM's. Though finance and "politics has become a hurdle"

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Electronic systems are very smart nowadays----what a room full of computers could do in the early 80 your hand held device can do more now---.

The sams hooked up to the air surveillance would do pretty good. Syrians have been pitiful operators of weapons systems.

 

[Chrome9]

Hi,

Electronic systems are very smart nowadays----what a room full of computers could do in the early 80 your hand held device can do more now---.

The sams hooked up to the air surveillance would do pretty good. Syrians have been pitiful operators of weapons systems.

Very true, I just recently had the pleasure to visit the John F Kennedy Space center in Florida. One interesting fact that emerged was that there is more computing power in a modern smart phone than there was in the mission control room of the 60's in JFK center.
Imagine that! at the touch of your finger tips you have more computing juice than what launched, commanded and sustained the Apollo and Jupiter programmes and their behemoth rockets.

However, newer doesn't mean more effective - its a cat and mouse game- whenever a new technology is introduced its counter is either then produced or new strategics formulated to nullify the threat - kinda like anti-viruses and viruses on modern day home computers.