Pakistan Navy announces indigenous air defense missile project, selects LY-80N for new frigates

[Zarvan]

lol an Australian expert? My point is how can people asses any info about Harbah missile when the there is no info released so far, the estimate of range is done due to Harbah link with the Babur family but if you look that the video released by Navy there is only booster phase and interception Phase portion of the test is released which means that the inflight mode of Harbah has not been released so that clearly tells that in flight mode of Harbah is different from Babur family. Again when the Harbah intercepts the sea based target the speed of intercept is very higher than what Babur family missiles uses to approach the target. So Harbah is myth for now until more info is available.

The picture of Harbah is enough tell what they did

 

[CriticalThought]

IMO the only way to even begin dealing with the BrahMos is to have a long-range SAM. I think even the HHQ-9 could be a start, but there's no value (for guarding against BrahMos) in the LY80N. The FL-3000N could prevent the sinking of a ship, but BrahMos debris could cause damage. Besides the BrahMos, interdicting possible ship, sub and airborne platforms of that missile is also key. The Hangor (II) SSP is a start towards addressing the ship and sub threat, but for airborne, we need long-range SAM and/or a long-range maritime operations fighter. The JF-17 can cover the littoral waters, but deep in the EEZ, we need more. AAR is an option (for JF-17), but something like the Su-35 or FC-31 would be nice.

What would JF-17 use against a supersonic missile? What will it use to detect, track, target, and engage?

 

[ziaulislam]

IMO the only way to even begin dealing with the BrahMos is to have a long-range SAM. I think even the HHQ-9 could be a start, but there's no value (for guarding against BrahMos) in the LY80N. The FL-3000N could prevent the sinking of a ship, but BrahMos debris could cause damage. Besides the BrahMos, interdicting possible ship, sub and airborne platforms of that missile is also key. The Hangor (II) SSP is a start towards addressing the ship and sub threat, but for airborne, we need long-range SAM and/or a long-range maritime operations fighter. The JF-17 can cover the littoral waters, but deep in the EEZ, we need more. AAR is an option (for JF-17), but something like the Su-35 or FC-31 would be nice.

LY 80 is decent 50Km, why do you think its not enough?
speed of brahmos has nothing to do with range as it would be detected and trajectory calculated and solution fired well before it even 50km from the ship
i am not an expert but FL 3000 was created for the reason to avoid debry hitting that was a problem with CIWS guns. i mean 6-7km is far enough ?

whats the range of current missle system is it 50 or 70km?
i assume much improvement would have been made since the earliest versions in mid 2000s

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

LY 80 is decent 50Km, why do you think its not enough?
speed of brahmos has nothing to do with range as it would be detected and trajectory calculated and solution fired well before it even 50km from the ship
i am not an expert but FL 3000 was created for the reason to avoid debry hitting that was a problem with CIWS guns. i mean 6-7km is far enough ?

whats the range of current missle system is it 50 or 70km?
i assume much improvement would have been made since the earliest versions in mid 2000s

From my understanding, it's not just the issue of how far the BrahMos can be detected. It's also the issue of how well the radar can track - and keep a lock on - a supersonic target. If the radar can't keep a lock on the target, then a semi-active radar-homing (SARH) SAM might not be appropriate. There's also the issue of the SAM's speed. The LY-80N's speed isn't clear, but Army Recognition claims to have it, and the LY-80 is 300 meters/second, i.e. Mach 0.87.

I'm unsure if the LY-80N has a quasi-missile defence system wherein it can determine an optimal intercept point, but I doubt it. The trend with quasi missile defence systems is that the missile has an active terminal seeker (enabling the radar to send the SAM to a specific point, after which the terminal seeker kicks-in). These SAMs are also much faster - e.g. Aster 30 is Mach 4.5, HHQ-9 is Mach 4.2, SM-6 is Mach 3.5, etc. Basically, no one except Pakistan is banking on the use of a SARH sub-sonic medium-range SAM for intercepting a supersonic AShM.

What would JF-17 use against a supersonic missile? What will it use to detect, track, target, and engage?

Not BrahMos, but the thing carrying BrahMos (i.e. Su-30MKI, possibly MiG-29KUB, Rafale/Super Bug later on, etc).

 

[YeBeWarned]

Possibly, but the solution lies in lower cross section on ships and more integrated stand off cover from JF-17s.
Because the way today’s missile such as the Brahmos are.. if there are any more than 2 they will get through and only one is enough to cripple or sink anything the PN has.

Isn't there any feasible options to deploy decoys in Ships ? a missile moving at Mach 2 shooting it from a few feet distance will still able to cause a reasonable damage to Ship and its crew to keep that ship out of battle for the rest of WAR .

Launching a Decoy Missiles after tracking 2 or more Barhamos is heading towards the ship , these decoy can alter the course of CM , but i think it depends of the seeker barhamos is carrying right ?

 

[ziaulislam]

From my understanding, it's not just the issue of how far the BrahMos can be detected. It's also the issue of how well the radar can track - and keep a lock on - a supersonic target. If the radar can't keep a lock on the target, then a semi-active radar-homing (SARH) SAM might not be appropriate. There's also the issue of the SAM's speed. The LY-80N's speed isn't clear, but Army Recognition claims to have it, and the LY-80 is 300 meters/second, i.e. Mach 0.87.

I'm unsure if the LY-80N has a quasi-missile defence system wherein it can determine an optimal intercept point, but I doubt it. The trend with quasi missile defence systems is that the missile has an active terminal seeker (enabling the radar to send the SAM to a specific point, after which the terminal seeker kicks-in). These SAMs are also much faster - e.g. Aster 30 is Mach 4.5, HHQ-9 is Mach 4.2, SM-6 is Mach 3.5, etc. Basically, no one except Pakistan is banking on the use of a SARH sub-sonic medium-range SAM for intercepting a supersonic AShM.


Not BrahMos, but the thing carrying BrahMos (i.e. Su-30MKI, possibly MiG-29KUB, Rafale/Super Bug later on, etc).

seem hard to believe that the such a SAM would be subsonic, i definitively will not bet on such sites as a source
i am no expert active vs semi active could be an issue, i guess?

i believe that navy, army, airforce should come together and opt a single medium range system that could be licence produced cheaply or should end up doing a JV may be in turkey or southafrica

historically though due to cost issues, lack of interest/vision, and low expertise means that we would end up buying in small increments

i am worried about offshelf purchases in systems like tanks, rifles etc..for such a huge requirements focus should be self production

 

[CriticalThought]

seem hard to believe that the such a SAM would be subsonic, i definitively will not bet on such sites as a source
i am no expert active vs semi active could be an issue, i guess?

i believe that navy, army, airforce should come together and opt a single medium range system that could be licence produced cheaply or should end up doing a JV may be in turkey or southafrica

historically though due to cost issues, lack of interest/vision, and low expertise means that we would end up buying in small increments

i am worried about offshelf purchases in systems like tanks, rifles etc..for such a huge requirements focus should be self production

The interceptor of a supersonic missile doesn't have to be supersonic.

1. Due to the high speed, manoeuvrability is limited.
2. Due to limited manoeuvrability, the trajectory can be predicted.
3. If the trajectory can be predicted in advance, a sub-sonic interceptor can be sent.
4. If the interception happens at a large distance, then even a minor deflection will lead to a large deviation from target.
5. Due to limited manoeuvrability, there will be only a limited number of alternate paths it can take, thus multiple sub-sonic interceptors can be sent to increate probability of intercept.

Having said that, I would want a multi-level defence consisting of super and sub-sonic missiles, and MLRS as a last resort.

 

[SQ8]

Isn't there any feasible options to deploy decoys in Ships ? a missile moving at Mach 2 shooting it from a few feet distance will still able to cause a reasonable damage to Ship and its crew to keep that ship out of battle for the rest of WAR .

Launching a Decoy Missiles after tracking 2 or more Barhamos is heading towards the ship , these decoy can alter the course of CM , but i think it depends of the seeker barhamos is carrying right ?

Decoy missiles won’t fool a system looking for a huge ship traveling at 18kt.

A better solution would be to focus some funds towards energy weapons (the principles of which are Not inherently difficult but basically required a lot of investment in already to miniaturize) unfortunately this investment was we need 10 years ago which was never done because we are Pakistanis and we tend to believe in foolish self interests are foolish miracles
Even as a personal characters are so corrupt that there is no difference between us and the worst on the other side.

 

[ziaulislam]

Decoy missiles won’t fool a system looking for a huge ship traveling at 18kt.

A better solution would be to focus some funds towards energy weapons (the principles of which are Not inherently difficult but basically required a lot of investment in already to miniaturize) unfortunately this investment was we need 10 years ago which was never done because we are Pakistanis and we tend to believe in foolish self interests are foolish miracles
Even as a personal characters are so corrupt that there is no difference between us and the worst on the other side.

it seems even USA has nt been able to complete its work on railgun and energy weapons yet, do you believe pakistan would able to do it?
i mean as JV with probably china or turkey is doable as both are working on such systems

 

[CriticalThought]

Decoy missiles won’t fool a system looking for a huge ship traveling at 18kt.

A better solution would be to focus some funds towards energy weapons (the principles of which are Not inherently difficult but basically required a lot of investment in already to miniaturize) unfortunately this investment was we need 10 years ago which was never done because we are Pakistanis and we tend to believe in foolish self interests are foolish miracles
Even as a personal characters are so corrupt that there is no difference between us and the worst on the other side.

The entire base of ground roots R&D is missing, along with educated people who would lead and execute such projects.

it seems even USA has nt been able to complete its work on railgun and energy weapons yet, do you believe pakistan would able to do it?
i mean as JV with probably china or turkey is doable as both are working on such systems

With such an attitude, we won't get anywhere, ever. At some point you need to put your foot down, and engage in the hard learning curve. It takes time, but it is what truly makes you independent.

 

[SQ8]

it seems even USA has nt been able to complete its work on railgun and energy weapons yet, do you believe pakistan would able to do it?
i mean as JV with probably china or turkey is doable as both are working on such systems

What seems in the US and what they have done are two different things.

And FYi, a Apache is now firing Lasers.

 

[Hell hound]

From my understanding, it's not just the issue of how far the BrahMos can be detected. It's also the issue of how well the radar can track - and keep a lock on - a supersonic target. If the radar can't keep a lock on the target, then a semi-active radar-homing (SARH) SAM might not be appropriate.

i share your concern about inducting SARH missile but there exist an active version(hq 16 B) hope PN (and PA for that matter)are going for that.

There's also the issue of the SAM's speed. The LY-80N's speed isn't clear, but Army Recognition claims to have it, and the LY-80 is 300 meters/second, i.e. Mach 0.87.

they were talking about the speed of the target not that of missile :

while its maximum interception range for combat aircraft is 40km, and between 3.5 km and 12 km for cruise missiles flying at an altitude of 50 meters at a speed of 300 meters/second. Single-shot kill probability is a claimed figure of 85 per cent against combat aircraft, and 60 per cent against cruise missiles.

 

[Gryphon]

From my understanding, it's not just the issue of how far the BrahMos can be detected. It's also the issue of how well the radar can track - and keep a lock on - a supersonic target. If the radar can't keep a lock on the target, then a semi-active radar-homing (SARH) SAM might not be appropriate. There's also the issue of the SAM's speed. The LY-80N's speed isn't clear, but Army Recognition claims to have it, and the LY-80 is 300 meters/second, i.e. Mach 0.87.

I'm unsure if the LY-80N has a quasi-missile defence system wherein it can determine an optimal intercept point, but I doubt it. The trend with quasi missile defence systems is that the missile has an active terminal seeker (enabling the radar to send the SAM to a specific point, after which the terminal seeker kicks-in). These SAMs are also much faster - e.g. Aster 30 is Mach 4.5, HHQ-9 is Mach 4.2, SM-6 is Mach 3.5, etc. Basically, no one except Pakistan is banking on the use of a SARH sub-sonic medium-range SAM for intercepting a supersonic AShM.


Not BrahMos, but the thing carrying BrahMos (i.e. Su-30MKI, possibly MiG-29KUB, Rafale/Super Bug later on, etc).

The source you provided mentions max. speed of Mach 3.

If ESSM can intercept supersonic anti-ship missiles, why not HQ-16? With the PLAN, its deployment is increasing (with more Type 054A, Shenzhen destroyer, etc)

 

[Basel]

seeing that f22p has a main gun and other 12.7mm guns, it will be very odd to opt for CIWS gun rather than a RAM like fl 3000, if the performance, cost is not an issue of such system

PN official said that FL-3000N had some issue in engaging close in fast moving targets and AK-630 was better and had more munitions available then FL-3000N, also PN was not willing to put 2 SRSAMs on one ship, they wanted reliable CIWS if SAM fails to do the job.

 

[ziaulislam]

PN official said that FL-3000N had some issue in engaging close in fast moving targets and AK-630 was better and had more munitions available then FL-3000N, also PN was not willing to put 2 SRSAMs on one ship, they wanted reliable CIWS if SAM fails to do the job.

reliability and kill ratio of CIWS SAM is far better than CIWS gun
now i am not sure how good was fl 3000 at that time