Pakistan Considering HQ-9B to Enhance Air Defence Capability

[skyshadow]

I also think that the LY-80 purchase was not a good decision. With a 40km range and only 6x missiles per TEL, it neither has enough missiles for saturation. Pakistan should instead have gone for a combination of the FM-3000 QRSAM that has a 30km range and 8x missiles per TEL and the FK-1000 CIWS which has 12x 22km range Point defense SAMs and 2x 27mm cannons.

For medium range air defence, the best option available is the Russian S-350 Vityaz system. Each TEL carries 12x 120km range 9M96 missiles and can also carry the 40km range 9M96E both of which are highly maneuvrable missiles. It is as capable as the PAC3 and can shoot down ballistic missiles (9M96) and PGMs (9M96E).

If the Russians aren't willing to sell the S-350, which is unlikely, then Pakistan can procure the Turkish under-development Siper. Problem with the Siper is that it will probably not be available before 2025. If the Chinese come up with a SAM system similar to the S-350 in range and missile load, then it could be a good choice too.

what do you guys think of Bavar 373 than?

 

[rcrmj]

Only few S-400 used by China most HQ-10 clone (S-300) HQ-9 various versions @Nefarious

HQ has nothing to do with S-300 or S-400, stop these amature face looking nonsenses

engine, inside architect, homing system, warhead system, radar system and operation system are all different from S-300 or S-400````it is more close to patriot than S series to be more frankly`````

However Pakistan did initically looked for HQ-9, but due to political reasons, China can only offer HQ-16````

HQ-9 is a overkill`````if Pakistan acquired, its radar and effective range will cover a big chunk of India's territory, quite sensitive in fact```because even though there will always be tensions between Pakistan and India, but neither government would like to drag both countries into a total war````they all want to seek for subtle balance to maintain the situation```

PA has HQ-16A version, with 40km range ... there were rumors of HQ-9 but never confirmed or displayed .

its not a rumor, Pakistan indeed expressed interests in acquiring HQ-9````but we went to HQ-16 eventually```btw, the maximum egagement range for HQ-16A is more than 40KM, it is around 70KM``````

 

[Ultima Thule]

engine, inside architect, homing system, warhead system, radar system and operation system are all different from S-300 or S-400````it is more close to patriot than S series to be more frankly`````

it Share on Both tech, Patriot and S-300, launchers and missiles based on S-300 rather than Patriot @rcrmj

 

[Ultima Thule]

@rcrmj is correct. HQ9 is part of Chinese THAAD and more capable than S300. If HQ9 were deployed in Pakistan, India would lose its mind.

And i am also correct its based on Both tech Patriot/S-300, HQ-9 launcher and Missiles based on S-300 if you are not blind @rollingrock

 

[Ultima Thule]

I'm not blind, but you're blinded. Believe whatever you want.

than you're completely blind not seeing common in both S-300/HQ-9 @rollingrock

 

[Ultima Thule]

You sound like a fucking Indian. I'm done with you.

I am real Pakistani guy which lives in USA May too much ultra national Sh!t to avoid the reality that HQ-9 have both influences Patriot/S-300 @rollingrock

 

[Tank131]

Pakistan has long suffered from the notion that fighters and only swarms of fighters can protect its airspace. It is a lock-on bias that PAF only thinks about one solution to its air defense issues. Some problems are solved using a number of strategies, and the more complex the issue, the more multi-directional approach you need. Something as complex as defense of your airspace requires you to work on multiple fronts.

1. Fighters: Not going to discuss this more because we all kind of understand this, better quality and higher number of fighters with capable pilots improves successful mission rates.

2. SAMs: These are important on a number of levels. The notion that it is changing 70yrs of doctrine means nothing. The doctrine is old and useless, especially in the age of modern strike/stand off weaponry. If anything, the last 2 weeks should show PAF the importance of having SAMs. In the defense against aircraft, they are a support/buffer for your aircraft. They plug holes where no fighters are and protect your fighters in the air (acting as sort of a wingman from the ground. Case in point of plugging holes, the nearest airbase to Balakot is Kamra, which is over 160km away. A jet would need 10min plus to respond to any attack in that sector, let alone over AzK which has no airbase near or in it officially. SAMs scattered throughout AzK or closer to the Indian Border could have turned back the IAF fighters before they even approached Pakistan Proper. It would buy time for PAF fighters to mobilize.

Pakistan needs a multitude of SAMs scattered throughout the country so that they entire nation should be under the veil of a SAM of some type and these should be of various types including high altitude long range SAMs like Hq-9B which will attack at much further distances and force the IAF fighters towards the deck which would essentially (as @Bilal Khan (Quwa) state), decrease the effective range of IAF stand off weaponry, buying further time to get PAF fighters on station. These need to be backed by a LOMADS like HQ-16 and Spada 2000. Furthermore it needs point defense SAMs (like Hq-10 or even C-RAM from south africa based on Cheetah/Mongoose3) around high value targets like government facilities, power stations, Dams, airports and military bases. The LOMADs and point defense SAMs will enable engagement of fighters closer to the deck so that you have multiple layers and altitudes of defense.

The other benefit that these systems have which fighters cannot provide, is the ability to intercept ballistic and cruise missiles as well as stand off weapons like glide bombs and missiles. Pakistan already has LOMAD HQ-16 and SPADA 2000, but needs to add the long range/high altitude component, ideally with HQ-9B. Additionally i think a system like the C-RAM system based on Cheetah and Mongoose 3 would be especially helpful along the LOC where Rockets, Artillery and Mortars are falling on a near daily basis. Pakistan desperately needs this system to defend its people and really take a bite out of Indian capabilities in that regard.

3. Strike: Yes, offensive strike is an important part of air defense. With PAF having minimal strike capability against India beyond ballistic missiles, it gives IAF carte blanch to dictate the pace of any conflict. For PAF, the ability to push back IAF forces depends on PAF being able to carry out more sorties per aircraft. The IAF can field more fighters, but it needs to have turnover. Given PAF will be the defensive force it should naturally have a shorter turn over. This is by virtue of having to fly a shorter distance. If PAF was able to launch attacks on IAF FOBs, then those aircraft would have to fly further to get home and refuel/reload. That is less sorties that they can fly. That would enable PAF to dicatate the pace of the conflict. The problem is when India takes control of S-400, it will be able to reach deep into Pakistan and knock down PAF fighters from well inside India. So how do you take out both S-400 and FOBs of IAF to ensure that they have a very difficult time establishing air superiority? Cruise missile strikes. But you need to be at a safe distance so IAF stand off weapons cant reach you. Enter the H-6K which can carry 6 cruise missiles. An air launched version of Babur could have a range in excess of 1000km which would enable H-6Ks to sit deep inside Pakistan, where they are protected by AWACs, Fighters, and SAMs, and launch saturation strikes against S-400 positions and FOBs of IAF where 2 H-6K could likely overwhelm a FOB. This would push IAF fighter back further preventing them from having rapid turnover and preventing them from carrying as much weaponry (need more fuel to get into the fray because they fly further so you sacrifice weapons for fuel).

 

[rcrmj]

it Share on Both tech, Patriot and S-300, launchers and missiles based on S-300 rather than Patriot @rcrmj

again, forget it, it has nothing in common in professional perspective, but to amatures, your only benchmark is the "apperance"```how can an active homing missile "share" same technologies with a TVM or passive missile system? it is like an orange to an apple```

than you're completely blind not seeing common in both S-300/HQ-9 @rollingrock

tell me which core tech and system that HQ-9 and S-300 shares```dont tell me the lauching tube and its shape```its amature's talk

I am real Pakistani guy which lives in USA May too much ultra national Sh!t to avoid the reality that HQ-9 have both influences Patriot/S-300 @rollingrock

now the nathional pride $hit comes in``lol, J-5 is a copy, J-6 is a copy, J-7 is a copy, type-59 is a copy, HQ-17 is a copy, HQ-2 is a copy````but HQ-9? lol```again, sheer ignorance``

@rcrmj is correct. HQ9 is part of Chinese THAAD and more capable than S300. If HQ9 were deployed in Pakistan, India would lose its mind.

regarding the capability, you cant say S300 is less capable than HQ-9`````in fact S-300's position in air-defense field is very significant. its mobility, efficiency under intensive tasks and reilabilty is more advanced than Patriot and early version of HQ-9``````

 

[Ultima Thule]

again, forget it, it has nothing in common in professional perspective, but to amatures, your only benchmark is the "apperance"```how can an active homing missile "share" same technologies with a TVM or passive missile system? it is like an orange to an apple```

Bro you're too much ultra national sh!t earlier for both patriat and S-300 use TVM or semi active homing but later when TVM system was complete both using Active radar homing seeker both patriot/S-300 read the history for both system then come here to talk @rcrmj

now the nathional pride $hit comes in``lol, J-5 is a copy, J-6 is a copy, J-7 is a copy, type-59 is a copy, HQ-17 is a copy, HQ-2 is a copy````but HQ-9? lol```again, sheer ignorance``

You're arrogant man not me for accepting the facts that HQ-9 has elements from both patriot and S-300 @rcrmj

 

[rcrmj]

Bro you're too much ultra national sh!t earlier for both patriat and S-300 use TVM or semi active homing but later when TVM system was complete both using Active radar homing seeker both patriot/S-300 read the history for both system then come here to talk @rcrmj


You're arrogant man not me for accepting the facts that HQ-9 has elements from both patriot and S-300 @rcrmj

FYI when HQ-9 was under development S-300 was still using TVM````and active homing is to S-400 system and few none mess produced S-300 in later times``you are not only ignorant regarding what you are talking about, yet have no concept of time-line as well.... my question is still pending, as what core technologies that HQ-9 and S-300 is "sharing"? please show me you funny knowledge``

arrogance is for clueless and ignorant people that they think they know the stuff they are talking about```but in fact, its not even close to the reality

 

[Ultima Thule]

FYI when HQ-9 was under development S-300 was still using TVM````and active homing is to S-400 system and few none mess produced S-300 in later times``you are not only ignorant regarding what you are talking about, yet have no concept of time-line as well.... my question is still pending, as what core technologies that HQ-9 and S-300 is "sharing"? please show me you funny knowledge``

arrogance is for clueless and ignorant people that they think they know the stuff they are talking about```but in fact, its not even close to the reality

Get a life you konw nothing what is you talking about earlier version of HQ-9 had have TVM tech from both system its radar arrangements is quite similar to S-300 and first Chinese want for its HQ-9 a launcher similar to patriot box slanted launcher but adopted vertical launcher similar to S-300 because Chinese rocket technology at the time of its development not par on patriot rocket technology,you're just blind ultra national sh!t that's believing that's HQ-9 have not a single elements from both but facts are different you troll @rcrmj

 

[rcrmj]

S-300 as a air defense system has very significent position in its field```the key part lies on its holistic system design and the philosophy behind that``` it is consist of missile system, control and command system and radar systems.... not only patroit's upgrades and HQ-9, even European's new missile defense system draw many lessons from S-300's experience`````so if saying HQ-9 is a copy, then it is also safe to say that Patroit upgrades and Asters are also S-300 copy````

 

[LKJ86]

Get a life you konw nothing what is you talking about earlier version of HQ-9 had have TVM tech from both system its radar arrangements is quite similar to S-300 and first Chinese want for its HQ-9 a launcher similar to patriot box slanted launcher but adopted vertical launcher similar to S-300 because Chinese rocket technology at the time of its development not par on patriot rocket technology,you're just blind ultra national sh!t that's believing that's HQ-9 have not a single elements from both but facts are different you troll @rcrmj

The missiles of HQ-9, HQ-12, and S-300

 

[rcrmj]

Get a life you konw nothing what is you talking about earlier version of HQ-9 had have TVM tech from both system its radar arrangements is quite similar to S-300 and first Chinese want for its HQ-9 a launcher similar to patriot box slanted launcher but adopted vertical launcher similar to S-300 because Chinese rocket technology at the time of its development not par on patriot rocket technology,you're just blind ultra national sh!t that's believing that's HQ-9 have not a single elements from both but facts are different you troll @rcrmj

so the lauching tube```lol, you really want to make fun out of yourself```
early HQ-9 has TVM? man now you rise your ignorance to a new level````
how can an active homing missile has "similar" radar arrangement to a TVM? do you even have ths slightest idea of what guiding system is at all? or what does "radar arrangement" mean? ``men```````speechless

it is always amuse to watch those people speek with sheer ignorance, yet they think they know the stuff

 

[CriticalThought]

so the lauching tube```lol, you really want to make fun out of yourself```
early HQ-9 has TVM? man now you rise your ignorance to a new level````
how can an active homing missile has "similar" radar arrangement to a TVM? do you even have ths slightest idea of what guiding system is at all? or what does "radar arrangement" mean? ``men```````speechless

it is always amuse to watch those people speek with sheer ignorance, yet they think they know the stuff

@pakistanipower

Both of you gentlemen should quote reputable sources for the claims you are presenting. Otherwise, so far, the discussion is based on opinions.